EPA-820-S-14-001
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT NATIONAL BEACH GUIDANCE
AND REQUIRED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
FOR GRANTS
RUNOFF/STORMDRAIN WATER MAY CAUSE ILLNESS
AVOID CONTACT WITH RUNOFF AND AREA OF DISCHARGE
ESPECIALLY FOR 72 HOURS FOLLOWING RAiHFALL
CORRIEWE DE AGUA/AGUA DEL ORENAJE "
TORMENTA PUEDE CAUSAR ENFERMEOAOE
EVITE CONTACTO CON AGUA DE OESAGUE Y EL
OONDE OESEMBOCA ESPECIALMENTF DLRANTI
SIGUIENTES 72 HORAS ?ESPUFS Of LA LLI'
,W '!,
JUNE 2014
-------
Comments from
Maryland Department of the Environment
-------
EPA-820-D-13-001
Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants
Chapter 1
Page 3 (lines 1-30), Page 4 (lines 1-43) Page 5 (lines 1- 6)
Regarding "new" program tools:
CURRENT CRITERIA AS PROTECTIVE AS 2012 CRITERIA AS IT IS
APPLIED IN MARYLAND
Maryland has used sanitary surveys and required beach managers to use sanitary
surveys since 2000 and at most beaches since prior to adoption of 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.
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.
Maryland has already improved notifications. This summer, MDE is launching a
Beach Application for smart phone users.
In Maryland there is no case to be made for rapid, real time data since our 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.
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.
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 untreated sewage from reaching our beaches and
waterways in the first place (i.e.; 24-hour holding, back-up power, system
redundancy at sewage treatment plants and sewage pumping stations).
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.
Page 7 lines 32-33
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!
Page 10 lines 39-43 Page 11 lines 1-8
This section suggests that the 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 MGD have enhanced treatment, which include sand filters and UV
disinfection greatly reducing the risk of viral survival in the effluent.
Page 12 lines 8-17
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.
lines 24-37
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.
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 16-24). Maryland's use of the current criteria is already
precautionary, conservative, and provides a do-not-exceed value that the public
understands.
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.
Having a consistent trigger implies that the United States has consistent water conditions.
This is not truesome 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.
Page 13 lines 1-3
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.
Lines 11-21
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.
Chapter 2 Grants and Required Performance Criteria
Maryland already meets the 10 performance criterion in Table 2-1 on page 18.
Chapter 3 Risk Based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process
Page 24 lines 10-18
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.
Chapter 4 Beach Monitoring
Page 38 lines 18-23 & 31-37
Maryland has been doing this at all beaches since the 1986 criteria were adopted.
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.
Page 38, lines 38-39 - Please expand on how requirements will depend on status and content of
a state's or tribe's new or revised RWQS.
Table 4-1 page 39 - Maryland already meets the specific requirements of these Performance
Criteria
Page 40 lines 12-18
Maryland not only meets these criteria at Beach Act beaches, we also perform these
criteria across the state at all Maryland beaches.
Page 40 Table 4-2 - 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
Page 44 lines 14-32
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.
Page 45
Lines 11-27
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.
Page 46 Table 4-3 and lines 2-31
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.
Page 50, line 121
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.
Page 62, lines 14-16
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.
Page 68 lines 1-7 and 8-22
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 throughout 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.
Page 69 lines 5-16
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).
Pages 70 and 71 - Use of BAV required rather than optional
Section 3.6.4 under "Beach Notification Programs" of the criteria document states the
following: "WQC in state WQS are the applicable targets for EPA grant funded state
beach notification programs under §406 of the CWA. The BAV is not a component of
EPA's recommended criteria, but a tool that states may choose to use, without adopting it
into their WQS as a "do not exceed value" for beach notification purposes (i.e.,
advisories). While the geometric mean and STV would be the applicable WQS, a BAV
-------
could be used at the state's discretion as a more conservative, precautionary tool for
beach management decisions. Similarly, states could also choose to use the STV as a
"do not exceed value" for the purposes of their beach notification program, without
adopting it as a "do not exceed value" in their WQS." This clearly states that the use
of the BAV is optional and should, in no way, be made a grant requirement as it is
inconsistent with the draft guidance document.
In Maryland, use of the BAV would not provide additional public health protection since
the current 1986 criteria already is precautionary, conservative and provides a not-to-
exceed value that is coupled with knowledge of the actual and potential sources of FIB at
every beach.
The only explanation EPA has given states to justify its use is for consistency and an
assumed additional public health protection. This does not apply in Maryland and is
impossible to explain to the public. It may apply in some states where beach goers are
exposed to storm drain outfalls from combined sewers. Its use may get some increased
public health protection in those cases. However, when the measurement of FIB does not
provide any information on the source of the bacteria how can "more stringent" be
justified in situations where there would be no additional public health protection? It
should remain optional. 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.
-------
Comments from
Connecticut Department of Energy
& Environmental Protection
-------
Connecticut Department of
ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127
www.ct.gov/deep
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employ
May 23, 2014
Ann Rodney
Beach Program Coordinator
US EPA Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Mail Code: OEP06-1
Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear Ms. Rodney:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants, EPA-820-D-13-001.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP) has conducted beach
monitoring at 23 State Park designated swimming areas for over 20 years. As such, the
Department has extensive experience conducting beach monitoring and implementing a
notification program to the public. We find that the document is well written and contains useful
information to beach programs. We also find that there are some requirements that will prove
challenging to beach programs who select to receive funding under the Beach Act if these draft
guidelines become final as published.
We offer the following comments for your consideration and see these as technical challenges to
implementing these requirements of the National Beach Guidance.
Page 12
"Beginning with FY2014 beach grants that are awarded after this document is final, these states
and tribes must me the Beach Action Value (BA V) in EPA 's 2012 RWQC that corresponds to the
32 NEEAR gastrointestinal illness (NGI) per 1,000 recreators to trigger their notification
actions. The BAY is a precautionary, conservative, do-not-exceed value that states and tribes
receiving BEACH Act grants must use as their beach notification threshold. EPA is establishing
this new grant performance criterion as an interim measure while states and tribes are
developing new or revised RWQS. It is important to have a nationally consistent trigger for
BEACH Act beach notification actions based on the same illness rate (i.e., 32 NGI per 1,000
recreators) until a state or tribe adopts and EPA approves new or revised water quality
standards based on the 2012 RWQC. After a state or tribe receiving a grant under CWA section
406 adopts and EPA approves new or revised RWQS, requirements will be based on the content
of the approved RWQS. "
-------
Page 70
"Consistent with the goals of the BEACH Act, EPA also wants to promote use of a similar metric
nationally while retaining a relationship between the BA V used and the applicable state or tribal
water quality standard. Accordingly, EPA is requiring a new grant condition for FY 2014 grants
awarded after this document is final and beyond, that states and tribes use the BAY as a
precautionary, conservative measure to protect public health. "
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 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.
A comparison of required Beach Action Value and State Guidelines from Monitoring Bathing
Water and State of Connecticut Water Quality Criterion.
Indicator
E. coll
enterococci
Water Type
Freshwater
Saltwater
Recreational Water
Quality BAY
190cfu
60cfu
Single sample maximum
criterion in
Connecticut Water Quality
Standards and
State Guidelines for
Monitoring Bathing Water
235 cfu
104cfu
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.
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.
Requiring beach grant recipients to implement these BAVs 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 'Wo
Child Left Inside" (www.ct.gov/deep/ncli).
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
2
-------
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.
Finally, we concur with the comments provided to you by the Connecticut Department of Public
Health (dated 5/23/2014-from Suzanne Blancaflor to Ann Rodney). It is especially important to
emphasize Summary Point #7, page 5 of their very thorough analysis of the implications of the
draft National Beach Guidance. 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.
We hope that you strongly consider revising the draft National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants.
Sincerely,
Robert Hust
Assistant Director
Planning and Standards Division
Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse
-------
Comments from
State of Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
LANSING
RiCK SNYOER DAN WYANT
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
May 22, 2014
VIA E-MAIL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1101A)
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised, draft National Beach Guidance and
Performance Criteria for Grants (Guidance).
The Guidance does well to explain and encourage the use of new tools such as rapid methods
(i.e.. Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction), sanitary surveys, predictive toois, and electronic
media, including Web sites and Smarfphone applications (e.g., BeachGuard and BeachCast,
respectively) to improve public health protection at beaches. The Michigan Department of
Environmentai Quality (MDEQ) was fortunate to receive funds from the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (GLRI) to develop and implement these tools at 224 Great Lakes beaches. Together,
these tools helped local beach managers identify and mitigate sources of pollution at beaches
and led to the development and implementation of remediation plans for more than ten Michigan
beaches.
We strongly support the use of these toois. There are many successful projects in the
Great Lakes region that provide evidence of their effectiveness. These projects required
significant financial support from the GLRI. For example, the collection of data for sanitary
surveys, development and implementation of predictive models, deployment of rapid methods,
and implementation of best management practices for remediation efforts cost $10, $1.5, $1,
and $12 million, respectively.
The $24.5 million investment for Great Lakes beaches was tremendous and the results are
impressive not just in water quality improvements but also revenue. The Michigan Economic
Center finds that the impact of environmental restoration is from 3:1 to 6:1 (e.g., the return of $1
invested in water quality improvement brings at least $3 to $6 in return).
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) is intended to
protect public health, but support for BEACH Act funding has been lacking. Since 2000,
Congress has authorized $30 million but only appropriated $10 million, and for the past three
years, President Barack Obama proposed no funding for the BEACH Act. Furthermore, the
General Accounting Office reported that Michigan received less than an equitable share of the
funds.
CONSTITUTION HALL 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET P.O. BOX 30473 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973
www.michigan.gov/deq * (800) 662-9278
-------
Beach Guidance Comments 2 May 22,2014
The new tools have proven to be effective and successful in the Great Lakes states. However,
with limited funding, it is overly ambitious for the Guidance to build up expectations to
incorporate the tools into their already struggling monitoring programs. Furthermore, the
Guidance is perceived to be coercive since it requires states to immediately adopt the most
restrictive Beach Action Value of 190 E coli per 100 milliliters (ml) until they can promulgate
new water quality standards (WQS) based on the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria
(RWQC). Currently, the WQS for most states is 235 E. coli per 100 ml and 300 E coli per
100 ml for Michigan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region V,
recently (2014) reviewed Michigan's existing WQS and determined that they are consistent with
the 2012 RWQC, which recommends a geometric mean and a statistical threshold value, yet
Michigan would not be able to obtain BEACH Act funds without changing our already consistent
WQS.
The MDEQ supports efforts to improve beach water quality and protect public health using
effective and successfully proven tools and strategies. However, requiring states to adopt a
Beach Action Vaiue 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, 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,
Clearly, it would be impossible for Michigan to implement the required changes to state law and
rules in the time available for a grant award. 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 co//per 100 ml, respectively.
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 per 100 ml would have resulted in an increase in swimming
advisories of only 3.4 percent, which amounts to an extra 500 beach-days of advisories over
that nine-year period.
We have evidence showing that the GLRI provided significant advances in protecting public
health at beaches by supporting the implementation of successful methods and toois.
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.
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
-------
Beach Guidance Comments 3 May 22,2014
that includes the Water Quality Initiative, which will support the statewide implementation of
real-time beach testing methods.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Guidance. Should you require further
information, please contact Dr. Shannon Briggs, Beach Coordinator, Surface Water Assessment
Section, Water Resources Division, at 517-284-5526; briggss4@michigan.gov; or MDEQ,
P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958; or you may contact me.
Sincerely,
William Creal, Chief
Water Resources Division
517-284-5470
cc: Mr. Dan Wyant, Director, MDEQ
Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ
Ms. Maggie Datema, Director of Legislative Affairs, MDEQ
Ms. Dina Klemans, MDEQ
Mr. Dennis Bush, MDEQ
Dr, Shannon Briggs, MDEQ
Ms. Sylvia Heaton, MDEQ
-------
Comments from
Lake County, Ohio
General Health District
-------
Lake County ,, Mi]] o. .
General Health District v _ 1_ J^ J__
Painesville, Ohio 44077
Painesville: (440) 350-2543
Cleveland: (440) 918-2543
Madison: (440) 428-434S x2543
Fax: (440) 350-2548
www.lcghd.org
Prevent. Promote. Protect. Fwjfc KeUogg> R_S^ M.P.H., Health Commissioner
May 23, 2014
Lake County General Health District
Comments concerning the Draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants - April 18, 2014
The Lake County General Health District (LCGHD) would like to take this opportunity to comment on the
above referenced document and the impacts that it will have on the Ohio Bathing Beach Water Quality
Monitoring Program and Lake County. The Ohio Department of Health delegates beach monitoring
responsibilities to our organization and others via a RFP response and contractual agreement and partially
funds the contract programs from USEPA beach funding. The LCGHD has been conducting a beach
monitoring program in Lake County since 1999 and in our neighboring county of Ashtabula since 2009.
In reviewing this document, we have several concerns regarding the draft criteria as follows:
1. 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.
Ohio's current water quality standards are very similar to the recommended 2012 RWQC as
currently we have a seasonal geometric mean of 126 and a 235 single sample maximum /100 ml
that cannot be exceeded in more than 10% of the samples within a 30 day period. 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.
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.
2. 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. The beach grant funding that is passed from the ODH to the local beach programs
provides approximately 75% of the financial support needed to run effective programs. 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 cfu standard was
proposed.
3. The draft document allows a minimum sampling frequency of once per week for a Tier I beach
however most of Ohio's Tier I beaches are sampled much more frequently. 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.
Every year the NRDC produces a national beach report where they continue to criticize Ohio's
beaches because of the frequency of advisories, when they historically do not compare apples to
apples when rating beaches. The draft acknowledges in several locations that the FIB densities in
water are highly variable across time and location at a beach and that the water quality can
change dramatically from one day to the next. 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 cfu 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 to 23% over the last three years depending on the beach.
The public health difference between 190 and 235 is the potential of four additional bathers in
1000 could potentially become ill. The draft acknowledges that people who acquire an illness
from swimming in contaminated water do not always associate their illness to swimming.
Conversely, someone swimming at the beach during the day may go out to dinner in the evening
and become ill with gastrointestinal symptoms in the next day or two and it could have actually
been from the dinner they ate. The point here is that the 32/1000 or 36/1000 is just an
estimate and could be a statistical anomaly. It is irresponsible to possibly increase the
number of potential exceedances based on an estimate that could dramatically affect the tourism
dollars in Lake County and not necessarily realize an increase in the protection of the public
health.
In closing, 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. Should you have any questions regarding these comments please
feel free to contact Laura Kramer Kuns at 440-350-2543.
-------
Comments from
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
-------
LANCE R. LEFLEUR
DIRECTOR
ADEN
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
3dem.alabama.gov
1400 Coliseum Blvd. 36110-2400 Post Office Box 301463
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463
[334)271-7700 FAX (334) 271-7950
ROBERT J. BENTLEY
GOVERNOR
May 27, 2014
Ms. Denise Hawkins, Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach, and Outreach Branch
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave,, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Comments to EPA Draft National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Dear Ms, Hawkins
Provided herein is relevant commentary regarding the draft update on the National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. These comments were compiled by Field Operations Division
and the Water Division, the key Divisions within The Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, ADEM, to be affected by these proposed program modifications.
General Comments:
1. Using the BEACH program as a means to mandate criteria without proper rulemaking is
unacceptable and undermines the program's primary objectives. Promulgation of water quality
standards should be made through existing mechanisms in the Clean Water Act, not through the
BEACH program.
2. Making grant availability contingent upon accepting numeric pseudo-criteria is questionable at best
and not the proper legal avenue for instituting numeric criteria. If implementation of the Beach Action
Value is required to continue receiving grant money, removal or reduction of grant money will
negatively affect future beach monitoring programs.
3. It seems as though the Beach Action Value (BAV) (as well as its required inclusion as a grant
prerequisite) was added in the 11th hour as to limit public participation and states' ability to contest
the mandate.
4. Allowing States' to develop site specific criteria could/will be considered a wish list item for States
since the cost of epidemiological studies is prohibitive.
5, The following is an excerpt from the draft 2012 Criteria. I find no reference in my re-reading of the
document of a BAV nor do I see GM defined as the value of one sample. In fact it recommends a
longer period and greater number of samples in order to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
Birmingham Branch
110 Vulcan Road
Birmingham. AL 35209-4702
(205) 942-6168
(205) 941-1603 (FAX)
Decatur Branch
2715 Sandlin Road, S.W.
Decalur.AL 35603-1333
(256)353-1713
(256) 340-9359 (FAX)
Mobile Branch
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile. AL 36615-1131
(251) 450-3400
(251) 479-2593 (FAX)
Mobile-Coastal
3664 Dauphin Street. Suite B
Mobile, AL 36608
(251) 3044176
(251) 304-1189 (FAX)
-------
Ms. Denise Hawkins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
EPA recommendations no longer include a recommendation to calculate the GM criterion over a
period of 30 days..." "EPA recommends States select a duration for both the GM and the STV
between 30 days and 90 days."
6. Additionally the criteria provided below are reflective of Alabama's Current Water Quality
Standards for swimming designated waters. This is taken directly from the 2012 Draft:
Marine criteria
Magnitude: Culturable enterococci at a GM of 35 cfu per 100 ml and an STV of 104 cfu per 100
ml measured using EPA Method 1600, or any other equivalent method that measures culturable
enterococci. EPA believes that in order to be consistent with EPA's recommended criteria, the
State Water Quality Standards need to include both the GM and STV.
Duration: For calculating the GM and associated STV, EPA recommends duration between 30
days and 90 days. The duration for calculating the GM and the associated STV should not exceed
90 days. The duration is a component of a water quality criterion, and as such, would need to be
explicitly included in the State's Water Quality Standards. Sampling of waterbodies should be
representative of meteorological conditions (e.g., wet and dry weather). If a State is not sampling
during or immediately after a rain event, the State should advise the public to the risks of primary
contact recreation.
Frequency: EPA recommends a frequency of zero exceedances of the GM and <, 25 percent
exceedance of the STV, over the duration specified for calculating the GM and STV. The
frequency of exceedance is a component of a water quality criterion, and as such, would need to
be explicitly included in State's WQS.
7. The inclusion of the BAV in the 2012 final RWQC as a mandatory trigger for posting beaches
appears to be a statistical shell game as States' were unable to comment on it during the draft
comment period. Such is the same for the change in the GM definition. This insertion of the BAV
mandate after the comment period leads one to believe that the other tools provided and
described in the guidance as optional will also become requirements in order to receive grant
funds, creating increased overhead for an already stressed resource.
Bach Action Value Comments:
1. The data on which the BAV is based is fundamentally biased and not representative of
nationwide beach monitoring stations. The BAV is based on statistical analyses performed on
a relatively small dataset from three POTW-impacted beach monitoring stations located in
Alabama, Mississippi, and Rhode Island. It is highly unlikely that these results are representative
of every beach monitoring station nationwide and using only POTW-impacted sites introduces
significant bias in statistical models. Furthermore, using a pooled dataset from locations that differ
greatly in geographic location, climate, hydrology, and many other environmental factors is
untenable.
2. A BAV is confusing and sends mixed messages to the public as well as state
environmental agencies. Since the BAV is lower than the 2012 USEPA-recommended water
quality criteria for bacteria that many states have already adopted, it is contradictory to state
-------
Ms. Denise Hawkins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page3
water quality standards. The latest guidance document is unclear in stating if the BAV is still
necessary for states that have already adopted the 2012 RWQC criteria and fails to elaborate on
how to determine if the BAV will apply. Some USEPA documentation, including page 12 of the
2014 document), seem to indicate the BAV will only apply if state water quality criteria do not
meet/exceed the 2012 RWQC. However, later in the document, it is stated explicitly that the BAV
will apply regardless. Discussions with USEPA staff have also resulted in ambiguity.
3. The BAV will cause policy issues with regard to water quality assessment and listing of
impairments. Since the BAV is significantly lower than Alabama's promulgated water quality
criteria for bacteria, there will be instances where single-sample measurements that are below
Alabama's bacteria criteria but exceed the BAV will result in advisories/closures issued by the
Alabama Department of Public Health. This may result in a segment being listed as impaired
when it is meeting applicable water quality criteria and fully supporting its designated use
classification(s). This would be based on USEPA-mandated guidance, not duly promulgated state
water quality standards and numeric criteria. Furthermore, this potential listing would be based on
a statistical model that has not been proven to be representative of a particular sampling location
and by definition has a lower level of confidence that it is accurate to begin with.
Rapid Testing Techniques (qPCR):
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The required cost and resources required for rapid testing may not be feasible given current
budget constraints
4. 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
I trust that EPA will take these comments into consideration moving forward with this process. Should
you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Mark Omelas at 251-450-3419.
Sincerely
Steven OnJsnWm, Chief
Field Operations Division
-------
Comments from
The State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
-------
THE STATE Department of Environmental
0/ALASKA Conservation
DIVISION OF WATER
Water Quality Standards, Assessment
and Restoration Program
610 University Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Main: 907.451.2726
Fax: 907.451.2187
May 28,2014
Denisc Hawkins
Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4305T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Attention: Draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants EPA-820-D-13-001
Dear Ms. Hawkins:
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants (dated April 18, 2014). ADEC appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this
important matter and offers the following comments on diis guidance.
ADEC appreciates the detailed information on sanitary surveys, predictive modeling and rapid
analytical methods diat are included in the draft guidance, as well as suggestions on improved public
communication choices. We will be updating our grant workplans accordingly to meet die
performance criteria and incorporate this beneficial aspects of the draft guidance.
However, ADEC is very concerned about using the proposed Beach Action Value (BAV) of 60
enterococci per 100 mL based on 2012 EPA recreational water quality criteria (RWQC). 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.
ADEC advisories are based on bacteria criteria of 200 fecal coliform per 100 mL in Alaska Water
Quality Standards (WQS) and 276 enterococci per 100 mL (single sample maximum for lighdy used
beaches) promulgated by EPA in the 2004 Bacteria Rule (69 FR 67217) to protect contact recreation
use for marine waters in Alaska. DEC has no authority to use the proposed, more stringent BAV to
issue warnings to die public. Moreover, the large increase in resulting beach advisories widi no
standards to support them would send a confusing message to our communities. 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 (see enclosed).
ADEC strongly urges EPA to revise die draft guidance to allow use of alternative BAVs based on
current state criteria and the 2004 Bacteria Rule until such time as states adopt die new RWQC
bacteria criteria or EPA promulgates such criteria for states. As noted in the draft guidance, beach
monitoring grants awarded after the guidance is final requires states and tribes to meet die guidance
-------
Draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants 2 May 28, 2014
performance criteria in order to receive a grant under section 406(b). ADEC is in the process of
reviewing EPA's nationally recommended 2012 RWQC including implementation issues such as
beach monitoring and advisories. Consequently, DEC does not yet have the authority to implement
the BAV until Alaska WQS are revised and approved by EPA. 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, which is the only current source of funding for
beach monitoring in Alaska.
Based on the 2004 Bacteria Rule and EPA National 'Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants (dated June 2002), the WQS for pathogen and pathogen indicator population density vary
depending on the level of use at recreational beaches. A single sample standard for "high-use"
beaches may not exceed 104 enterococci per 100 mL. For "moderately" or "lightly" used beaches,
the single-sample standards are 158 and 276 enterococci per 100 mL, respectively. ADEC
determined that Alaska's beaches are mainly in the "lightly used" category; therefore, the ADEC
implements the single-sample standard of 276 enterococci per 100 mL for die BEACH program. In
addition, the DEC also implements the criterion stating diat a geometric mean for a 30-day period
may not exceed 35 enterococci per 1 00 mL.
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. Alaska has colder water
temperatures and less dermal exposure than states in warmer climates, as well as much lower
population density on Alaska beaches than other states. The lower 2012 bacteria criteria and
associated BAV in the draft guidance would treat all U.S. beaches die same without regard to
geographic location, water temperature, type of recreational water use, and length and extent of
exposure. Alaska's recreational use mainly consists of fishing, boating, and beach combing, with
only limited swimming areas. The tiered structure gave the state the ability to implement the Beach
program with state^specific circumstances in mind.
In order to effectively protect public healdi, EPA and DEC should be focused on defining and
limiting pathogen sources in areas where diere is significant potential for human exposure. 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.
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 currendy available funding.
ADEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft guidance. If you have any questions
regarding ADEC's comments, please feel free to contact me or Gretchen Pikul at (907) 465-5023 or
grctchen.pikul@alaska.gov.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sonafrank
Program Manager
-------
Draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants 3 May 28,2014
Enclosure
cc Paula VanHaagen, EPA Region 10
Rob Pedersen, EPA Region 10
Janette Knittel, EPA Region 10
-------
Differences in Exceedances of Recreational Water Quality Criteria (60 and 276 BAV)1
Year
20132
20123
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
# Beaches
8
8
11
11
5
17
7
3
2
# Samples
117
192
71
301
85
142
25
44
34
# Exceed 60
29
13
30
63
6
5
2
7
5
# Exceed 276
8
2
10
8
2
0
0
2
2
# Difference
21
11
20
55
4
5
2
5
3
% Exceed 60
25
7
42
21
7
4
8
16
15
% Exceed 276
7
1
14
3
2
0
0
5
6
% Increase in
Exceedances
262
550
200
687
200
-
-
250
150
1 BAV = Beach Action Value of 60 and 276 enterococci per 100 mLfor marine waters
2 8 advisories (2013); 18 advisories with BAV of 60
3 1 advisory (2012); 9 advisories with BAV of 60
Total additional exceedances: 126
Average additional exceedances per year: 14
Overall percent increase in exceedances if BAV 60 vs 276: 370%
-------
Comments from
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality
-------
CNMI Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality's Comment... - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 1
CNMI Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality's Comments to the Draft National Beach
Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Clarissa Tanaka Bearden
Tue 5/27/2014 11:03 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: frankrabauliman@deq.gov.mp ; Goldstein, Carl
; Nimbus Environmental ; Fran Castro
; Kate Fuller ; Kathy Yuknavage
; Roser, Sara ;
§1 attachment
AS-EPA response to Draft Beach Guidance Criteria 2014 O525.docx;
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing in response to your request that we adopt Beach Action Values ("BAV") as the Beach Notification
Threshold as part of our Water Quality Standards ("WQS"). The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI) Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality (BECQ) has recently completed our Tri-ennial review of the
CNMI WQS. Our review resulted in the CNMI's decision to update the BECQ single sample Statistical Threshold
Value ("STV") to match EPA's recommended STV from EPA's most recent triennial review conducted just this
year. The CNMI adopted the new STV for beach notifications as the threshold because it is supported by new
scientific data. We believe that it would be impudent to adopt a more stringent criterion that has not been given
the same rigorous scientific validation.
The CNMI strongly concurs with comments provided by American Samoa's Environmental Protection
Agency that are attached herein.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Clarissa Tanaka-Bearden
BEACH Grant Manager, and
Water Quality and Surveillance/Non-Point Source Branch Manager
Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality
Phone:670-664-8531
Fax: 670-664-8540
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments
on
"2014 National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants-Draft"
by
American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency
With regard to Section 4.7.2, the American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (AS-EPA) strongly
disagrees with the requirement that BEACH Act grant recipients must use Beach Action Values (BAV) as
the Beach Notification Threshold.
EPA states in the draft beach guidance criteria that the BAV is not a component of EPA's recommended
criteria for adoption into state or tribal water quality standards (WQS), but is rather a tool that states
and tribes may use as a "do not exceed value". EPA further states that because the BAV is more
stringent than the WQS, states and tribes using this threshold continue to satisfy the statutory
requirement for a notification action on an exceedance or likely exceedance of the WQS.
AS-EPA has recently adopted EPA's recommended Statistical Threshold Value (STV) in the most recent
triennial review (2014) WQS partly based on the following statements in the recommended criteria:
"a BAV could be used at the state's discretion as a more conservative, precautionary tool for
beach management decisions issues".
"For states that do not use a BAV, EPA suggests using the criteria STV value as do not exceed
values for beach notification or retaining their current beach notification values in their WQS".
AS-EPA has chosen to use the STV value as the "do not exceed value" for beach advisories.
AS-EPA considers it contradictory to require BEACH Act grant recipients to use BAV when the
recommended 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.
AS-EPA considers that use of the BAV is overly conservative and will lead to overly cautious beach
advisories.
AS-EPA considers that use of a BAV criteria for notifications that is different from the WQS without any
scientific or public health basis other than an additional and marginal measure of precaution, will cause
confusion for the public and will erode public confidence in state/territory environmental agencies.
Page 1 of 2
-------
AS-EPA considers that implementation of the BAV will lead to negative economic impacts. An increase
in beach advisories is expected as a result of the BAV implementation. Tourists may develop a negative
perception from increased beach advisories, which will impact the tourism component of local
economies. This is especially important for the small developing economies of the Pacific Islands. An
increase in beach advisories may also lead to a negative perception by artisanal fishers and gatherers,
which could lead to a loss of socio-economic benefits of wild harvest and seafood consumption. The
potential socio-economic impacts from implementation of the BAV are not justified by the marginal
increase in public health protection that the BAV may provide.
AS-EPA considers that the imposition of the BAV requirement on BEACH Act grant eligibility will lead to a
reduction of beach monitoring programs nation-wide. Many state/territory agencies will not be able to
implement the BAV because of local conditions and/or public perception and acceptance. Agencies that
rely on BEACH Act grants to support beach monitoring programs, but cannot implement the BAV
requirement, will be required to discontinue an important program for protection of public health. The
arbitrary selection of the 75th percentile (BAV) as opposed to the statutory based 90th percentile (STV)
and the Geometric Mean, for a possible marginal increase in recreation protection does not warrant the
risk of loss of beach monitoring programs.
Lastly, AS-EPA questions the wisdom of imposing the "action values" when statutory based standards
have been developed and implemented based on sound science and regulatory due process. All EPA
programs for the protection of public and environmental health are standards based, e.g., drinking
water, pesticides, hazmat/hazwaste. Is it the intention of EPA to establish a precedent that standards
are not sufficient and thus action values must be super-imposed on science based values? Such a
precedent will surely erode public confidence in EPA's scientific process and undermine EPA's credibility
as an objective and due process driven regulatory body.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Comments from
Grand Traverse County
Health Department
-------
GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
2600 LaFranier Rd Ste A 2650 LaFranier Road 2600 LaFranier Road 2600 LaFranier Rd Ste A
Traverse City, Ml 49686 Traverse City, Ml 49686 Traverse City, Ml 49686 Traverse City, Ml 49686
231-995-6111 231-995-6051 231-995-6059 231-995-6107
www.gtchd.org
May 27,2014
Environmental Protection Agency
Beach Program Grants
RE: 2014 Draft Guidance for Beach Grants
Dear EPA Beach Partners,
I am writing this correspondence to express my concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA's) 2014
"Draft Guidance for Beach Grant" document. As Director of Environmental Health for Grand Traverse County, I wanted to
let you know how much the Northwest region of Michigan depends upon continued funding for monitoring surface
waters at our public beaches. As I understand, the "Guidance" would require states to immediately adopt the new
"Beach Action Value" (BAV) as a trigger to post beach advisories or closures for Great Lakes beaches. I also understand
the states may have to decline their grant allocation of the FY14 fund since most states (like Michigan) are not in a
position to quickly use this new criteria and would not be able to meet the new grant conditions.
The "Guidance" would require states to immediately use the most restrictive Beach Action Value of 190 E. coli for fresh
water or 60 enterococci for marine water. In my mind, I do not see where splitting hairs on fecal indicator bacteria will
significantly improve the public's health at our beaches. 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. I
would also remind you that 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.
The proposed "Guidance" is, in my mind, a major step backwards in our efforts to gain the public's confidence and
support for making improvements to our beaches through public education, improvements in our sanitary sewers and
storm drain discharges, and the enactment of new ordinances regarding the feeding of waterfowl, etc. These
collaborative efforts are the result of the hard work by many local, state, federal, and private partners including the Grand
Traverse County Health Department, Benzie Leelanau District Health Department, Watershed Center (Grand Traverse
Bay), the City of Traverse City, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the National Parks Service (Sleeping Bear
Dunes), Michigan State University, USGS, and SOS Analytical Laboratory.
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. It is also my hope that
the EPA considers pausing the proposed changes to 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.
If you haye any questions, please feel free to let me know. Thank you.
Thomas A. Buss, R.S.
Director of Environmental Health
K:\EH\BEACH MONITORINGMDraft 2014 Beach Grant Guidance 05272014.doc
-------
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (ECDH)-PENNSYLVANIA
COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL BEACH GUIDANCE & REQUIRED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
FOR GRANTS
SOCIAL MEDIA
ECDH strongly supports the use of social media for beach notification and recognizes the importance of
keeping the public informed of current beach conditions. ECDH and the Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and National Resources (DCNR) post beach results on our websites. DCNR also uses Facebook
and ECDH will have a Facebook page within a month. We are also researching an App for smart phone users to
access beach results.
PREDICTIVE MODELING
Predictive modeling is an important tool currently used in our decision-making process for issuing
precautionary advisories and protecting public health. Although we are using E. coli analysis (regulatory) for
determining advisories and restrictions, we also routinely use predictive modeling. Data from three buoys is
included in the predictive model we developed. Our model uses weather and beach data obtained since 2006;
annual data is added to improve the model.
Starting in 2013 the USGS Now Cast predictive model was also implemented for our beaches. The two models
are compared annually to streamline and improve both models. Our goal would be to develop the models to the
point of accuracy that they could eventually replace the E. coli testing to provide more timely results.
A lot of resources have been invested in developing the models. They also play a key role in the decision-
making process on days that regulatory beach water samples are not collected. The models will be critical in the
future, especially if Beach Grant funds are reduced or eliminated.
qPCR analysis is the rapid analytical method also run on a daily basis and is an additional tool currently being
used in the decision-making process.
TIERED MONITORING PLAN
Beach use, historical water quality data, proximity to stream discharges, rainfall impact, and possible pollution
sources were all taken into account when we established our current tiered monitoring plan. We agree that
sanitary surveys should play a key role in determining frequency of sampling.
BEACH ACTION VALUE-BAV
It is extremely confusing right now as to whether or not we 'may' or 'must' use the 32/1,000 or the 36/1,000
illness rate-based BAV. 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. 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 BAV should not be a grant requirement.
Our combined use of predictive modeling with precautionary advisories offers much more human health
protection and is already very precautionary and conservative.
-------
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.
GM -Geometric Mean
We use the same argument as above. 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.
We are also concerned that we would lose our credibility with our citizens. Closing beaches too often, without
basing it on human health justification, may lead people to question our actions and we may lose their respect as
the local health agencies.
NOTE:
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.
Pennsylvania definitely would not be able to implement any required changes to state law and regulations in the
time available for a grant award.
Submitted by:
Karen M. Tobin
Director, Environmental Health Services
Erie County Department of Health
606 West Second Street
Erie, PA 16507
814-451-6754
ktobin@eriecountygov.org
-------
Comments from
Ohio Department of Health
-------
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
246 North High Street 614/466-3543
Columbus, Ohio 43215 www.odh.ohio.gov
John R. Kasich / Governor
Denise F. Hawkins, Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach Branch
Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
202-566-1384
hawkins.denisc(g),cpa.gov
May 28, 2014
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from the Ohio Department of Health regarding the
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. The Ohio Department of Health
has received a BEACH Act grant annually since its inception and has been successful in our monitoring and
notification efforts since that time. The changes to the required performance criteria for this grant have
brought questions and concerns to our program staff as follows.
1. Ohio's recreational water quality standards are established by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency and codified in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1-07. Ohio's existing E. coti
recreational criterion applicable to bathing waters is 235 cfu/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. We also note that revision of 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.
2. The revised guidance briefly discusses the use of predictive modeling but does not specifically
allow for their use as another determinant for posting advisories. Ohio has been using
predictive models for nearly 10 years. The predictive models outperform the culture based
sample methods and allow for same day notification of beach water quality to the public. The
use of predictive models has expanded to approximately 10% of the beaches in Ohio.
Establishing the models at individual beaches takes time and are reevaluated annually for optimal
performance of the model. 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.
HEA 6413 2/11 An Equal Opportunity Employer/Provider
-------
As a public health agency it is out desire to protect and promote the health of all in Ohio. The Ohio
Department of Health does this by contracting with local health districts, University of Toledo and the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District to provide frequent sampling at the beaches along Lake Erie. We
encourage our monitoring partners to collaborate with the USGS to establish predictive models for the
beaches in their areas. 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the revised BEACH Act guidance.
Sincerely,
Mary J. Clifton, RS, MA
Recreation Programs Administrator
Bureau of Environmental Health
Ohio Department of Health
HEA 6413 2/11 An Equal Opportunity Employer/Provider
-------
Comments from
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
-------
Global Headquarters
P.O. Box 6010
San Clemente, CA
USA 92674-6010
Phone:(949)4928170 SURFRIDER
Fax: (949) 492 8142 FOUNDATION
May 28, 2014
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Washington DC 20460
Comments on National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants
Draft released April 18, 2014
EPA-820-D-13-001
The Surfrider Foundation is a grass roots organization whose mission is the
protection and enjoyment of oceans, waves and beaches through a powerful activist
network. We operate through a network of over 80 Chapters located across the
United States and internationally. Our members are often at the beach and in the
water on a daily basis, so we have a real vested interest in making sure that our
beaches are clean and that water quality information is readily available to warn the
public when water conditions could pose a health risk.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft National Beach Guidance
and Performance Criteria for Grants, released by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA] on April 18, 2014. The biggest change from Surfrider's perspective
that this new draft guidance proposes is the mandatory use of a Beach Action Value
(BAY] to trigger state public notification procedures at beaches. When the revised
water quality criteria recommendations for recreational waters were released in
November 2012, we were disappointed that the single sample maximum (now
referred to as a statistical threshold value, or STV} for indicator bacteria increased
from 104 cfu Enterococcus per 100 ml seawater to 110 or 130 cfu Enterococcus per
100 ml seawater. This change would essentially allow more pollution to be present
at the beach before the public is even aware of any potential problems or health risk.
We recognize and appreciate that providing warning of elevated bacteria levels at
60 or 70 cfu Enterococcus would serve to compensate for the increase in STV and
would allow members of the public who might be more susceptible to water-borne
illnesses to make better informed decisions on whether they should go into the
water or not. Although Surfrider supports the option of using BAVs for public
notification purposes, we are concerned that the language in the draft guidance that
requires states to use a BAY for public notification purposes in order to remain
-------
eligible for their EPA Beach Grant may have unintended adverse consequences.
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.
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.
We also suspect that some states might find these new requirements more onerous
than others. For instance, 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 BAV
of 60 cfu, it would result in a cumulative decrease of 62% in their notification limits.
The states and coastal counties that issue beach closures rather than swimming
advisories when bacteria standards are exceeded would also likely experience more
of an economic impact from loss of beneficial beach use.
For these reasons, Surfrider does not believe that mandatory use of BAVs as a
condition of receiving BEACH Act grants is warranted and appropriate at this time.
We suggest that EPA encourage the use of BAVs and perhaps work with interested
states to implement pilot programs to evaluate the effectiveness and cost impacts of
BAV use. 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.
The Surfrider Foundation would also like to comment on one additional aspect of
this new draft guidance. 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.
In conclusion, the Surfrider Foundation is generally supportive of the draft National
Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants, but we are also acutely aware
-------
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
of the need to keep the EPA Beach Grants Program funded, as the annual beach
grants are the only tool that EPA has to enforce state compliance with the 2012
recreational water quality criteria and this guidance document.
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 the opportunity to share these comments.
Sincerely,
Mara Bias
Water Quality Manager
Surfrider Foundation
-------
Comments from
State of Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PAUL R. LEPAGE PATRICIA W. AHO
GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER
May 28, 2014
To Whom It May Concern
BEACH_GUIDANCE@epa.gov
RE: Comments to the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants. The Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) program objects to the imposition of the
proposed new Beach Action Value of 60 colony-forming units (CPU). We do not think this is supported
by adequate studies, or sound science. Our experience with Maine's beaches tells us that this new
criteria would result in many additional postings based on natural sources of bacteria unrelated to any
human health threat. Experience has also shown that with the 24 hour processing time for water
samples, more than ninety percent of these may prove to be false postings. This would undermine the
credibility of the program without providing any additional protection for public health.
After reviewing the document located at:
http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/beachgrants/guidance index.cfm the Maine Healthy Beaches
program has the following specific comments:
L_ Background levels and naturalized fecal indicator bacteria- The 60 CPU level is very conservative
and is typical of "background levels/' either from non-human sources or naturalized fecal
indicator bacteria (FIB), for most of Maine's beaches and coastal watersheds. Overall, Maine's
beaches and associated watersheds are low-density developed. Numerous wildlife and
waterfowl are integral to the health of these ecosystems. Beaches with historically good water
quality and low-risk of pollution routinely demonstrate levels at or above 60 CPU. Many of these
areas have neighboring mudflats and tidal wetlands. On page 9, line 16, EPA recognizes that FIB
are not exclusively of fecal origin, they be naturalized in the system, persist and regrow. FIB
from non-fecal sources have not been demonstrated to cause human illness. This conservative
number may be appropriate for high-risk beaches with known human impacts, but it will likely
illustrate that clean beaches are dirty and unsafe when this may not be the case. Maine doesn't
have Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations within our coastal watersheds that could
increase the risk of human illness from non-human sources. Maine also does not have the
capacity or resources to conduct in-depth research and epidemiological studies to determine an
appropriate, site-specific BAV for each of our 60 monitored beaches. This reduction in the
Beach Action Value number will essentially double the amount of exceedances and advisories
posted annually, and will likely have a negative impact on local economies largely based on
tourism as well as the public's perception of these valued resources.
AUGUSTA BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE
17 STATE HOUSE STATION 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769
J207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143
web site: www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Z Limitations of FIB
It is well recognized by the research community and EPA 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. On page 10, line 14, EPA acknowledges FIB differ from viruses, and that
human illness caused by pathogens documented in epidemiological studies are likely viral in
nature.
3._ Retention and participation in Maine Healthy Beaches- Participation in the MHB program is
voluntary; monitoring and notification of water quality conditions is the responsibility of local
jurisdictions and is not mandated by state law. EPA describes the Beach Action Value of 60 as a
"conservative, precautionary tool." Due to the limitations of FIB, there is considerable distrust in
the data received. 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.
4._ Epidemiological Studies and Supportive Data
What epidemiological studies and data from the northeast were used to justify the need for a 60
BAV? We're interested in these details to help us communicate this proposal to our
constituents.
5.. qPCR and Predictive Models
The document places tremendous emphasis on using both of these tools to address the
limitations of FIB, better manage beaches, notify the public in a timely manner, etc. 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. Laboratories that may have the
capacity to build these capabilities are not located in close proximity to coastal beaches. Will
EPA provide support or assist states in obtaining support from to other entities to build our
capacity?
Maintaining healthy beaches in the State of Maine is of utmost importance to this program. 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 taking the time to consider our comments.
Sincerely,
Colin A. Clark
Maine Healthy Beaches Program
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
-------
Comments from
American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
LOLO M. MOLICA AMERICAN SAMOA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AMEKO PATO
Gmtraor p.O. Box PPA Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Dirtetor
LEMANUP.MAUCA Phone: 684.6332304 I Fax: 684.633.5801 I www.ascpa.gov FA'AMAO o. ASALELE JR.
U. Governor Deputy Director
Comments
on
"2014 National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants-
Draft"
by
American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency
With regard to Section 4.7.2, the American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (AS-EPA) strongly
disagrees with the requirement that BEACH Act grant recipients must use Beach Action Values (BAY) as
the Beach Notification Threshold.
EPA states in the draft beach guidance criteria that the BAY is not a component of EPA's recommended
criteria for adoption into state or tribal water quality standards (WQS), but is rather a tool that states and
tribes may use as a "do not exceed value". EPA further states that because the BAY is more stringent
than the WQS, states and tribes using this threshold continue to satisfy the statutory requirement for a
notification action on an exceedance or likely exceedance of the WQS.
AS-EPA has recently adopted EPA's recommended Statistical Threshold Value (STV) in the most recent
triennial review (2014) WQS partly based on the following statements in the recommended criteria:
"a BAV could be used at the state's discretion as a more conservative, precautionary tool for
beach management decisions issues".
"For states that do not use a BAV, EPA suggests using the criteria STV value as do not exceed
values for beach notification or retaining their current beach notification values in their WQS".
AS-EPA has chosen to use the STV value as the "do not exceed value" for beach advisories.
AS-EPA considers it contradictory to require BEACH Act grant recipients to use BAV when the
recommended 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.-
AS-EPA considers that use of the BAV is overly conservative and will lead to overly cautious beach
advisories.
Page 1 of 2
-------
AS-EPA considers that use of a BAY criteria for notifications that is different from the WQS without any
scientific or public health basis other than an additional and marginal measure of precaution, will cause
confusion for the public and will erode public confidence in state/territory environmental agencies.
AS-EPA considers that implementation of the BAY will lead to negative economic impacts. An increase
in beach advisories is expected as a result of the BAY implementation. Tourists may develop a negative
perception from increased beach advisories, which will impact the tourism component of local
economies. This is especially important for the small developing economies of the Pacific Islands. An
increase in beach advisories may also lead to a negative perception by artisanal fishers and gatherers,
which could lead to a loss of socio-economic benefits of wild harvest and seafood consumption. The
potential socio-economic impacts from implementation of the BAY are not justified by the marginal
increase in public health protection that the BAY may provide.
AS-EPA considers that the imposition of the BAY requirement on BEACH Act grant eligibility will lead
to a reduction of beach monitoring programs nation-wide. Many state/territory agencies will not be able
to implement the BAY because of local conditions and/or public perception and acceptance. Agencies
that rely on BEACH Act grants to support beach monitoring programs, but cannot implement the BAY
requirement, will be required to discontinue an important program for protection of public health. The
arbitrary selection of the 75lh percentile (BAY) as opposed to the statutory based 90ih percentile (STY)
and the Geometric Mean, for a possible marginal increase in recreation protection does not warrant the
risk of loss of beach monitoring programs.
Lastly, AS-EPA questions the wisdom of imposing the "action values" when statutory based standards
have been developed and implemented based on sound science and regulatory due process. All EPA
programs for the protection of public and environmental health are standards based, e.g., drinking water,
pesticides, hazmat/hazwaste. Is it the intention of EPA to establish a precedent that standards are not
sufficient and thus action values must be super-imposed on science based values? Such a precedent will
surely erode public confidence in EPA's scientific process and undermine EPA's credibility as an
objective and due process driven regulatory body.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Comments from
The Watershed Center
Grand Traverse Bay
-------
The Watershed Center
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY
13272 S. West Bay Shore Drive
Traverse City, Ml 49684
T231.935.1514
F 231.935.3829
www.gtbay.org
May 28, 2014
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (1400T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
RE: New grant conditions of the BEACH Act
To Whom it May Concern:
On behalf of The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay (TWC) and the Grand Traverse
Regional Beach Monitoring Stakeholder's Taskforce, we urge the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to work with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) when
considering the new requirements in the 2014 draft revision to the National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants (Beach Guidance).
As written, the Beach Guidance document requires states to immediately adopt a temporary
water quality standard - a Beach Action Value (BAV) - until the states adopt a new standard
consistent with the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. The BAV sets forth criteria that
conflict with Michigan's State Water Quality Standards, as well as Michigan's Public Health
Code.
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
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.
As such, the MDEQ could not accept any funding from the BEACH Act and distribute to
agencies throughout the state to conduct E. coli bacteria monitoring at local beaches. We were
informed if the MDEQ cannot accept BEACH Act funding from the EPA, local entities could
receive direct funding from the EPA with the same grant stipulations. However, local Health
Departments are still bound to follow the Water Quality Standards as stated in the Public Health
Code, leaving no entities able to monitor beaches until Michigan adopts the 2012 Recreational
Water Quality Criteria.
Over the past 13 years, essential funding from the BEACH Act allowed us to identify high
priority beaches by monitoring for E. coli levels, as well as conduct sanitary surveys to detect
sources of bacterial contamination. This led to TWC applying for and receiving more than $2
million in EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to reduce bacterial contamination at
three local beaches - Bryant and East Bay Parks in Traverse City and the Village of Suttons Bay.
-------
The majority of that funding (-95%) went back into the community as those projects were
designed and constructed.
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.
We advise the EPA to consider the impact the BAV would have by decreasing beach monitoring
in states unable to immediately meet the new conditions, and urge you to work with the MDEQ
to find a viable solution that would not result in the loss of funding to agencies throughout
Michigan.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Crissman Sarah U'Ren
Executive Director Program Director
CC: Senator Carl Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Representative Benishek
-------
Comments from
Florida Department of Health
-------
Mission:
To protect, promote & improve the health
of all people in Florida through integrated
state, county & community efforts.
Florida
HEALTH
Rick Scott
Governor
John H. Armstrong, MD, FACS
State Surgeon General & Secretary
Vision: To be the Healthiest State in the Nation
May 28, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants - Draft version. I have completed my review and have provided the enclosed
comments. Please recognize that if adopted as written, the guidance proposals for new and modified sanitary
surveys, qPCR testing and predictive modeling will reduce the Florida DOH's ability to conduct the monitoring
program as it exists, thereby deleting more than nearly two thirds of the 240 monitored beaches. This reduction
will not be readily accepted by the swimming public, nor the tourism industry. Should the EPA be interested in
providing additional funding for pilot projects of new laboratory methods or modeling, the Florida DOH would be
eager to participate.
If you require any further information regarding my response feel free to contact me. My email address is
david.polk@flhealth.gov and I am available by phone at 850-245-4444 Ext. *2459.
Sincerely,
W. David Polk
Environmental Specialist I
State Healthy Beaches Coordinator
WDP/wdp
Enclosure
Florida Department of Health
Division of Disease Control & Health Protection Bureau of Environmental Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1710
PHONE: 850/245-4250 FAX: 850/487-0864
www.FloridasHealth.com
TWITTER:HealthyFLA
FACEBOOKRDepartmentofHealth
YOUTUBE: fldoh
-------
Chapter 3: Risk Based Beach Evaluation and Classification
3.3 - Request clarification. Is there a limit to beach length? If we sample at 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.
3.4.1 - Request clarification. What is the meaning of the word "potential"? Based upon recently available news
reports, elephants1 could be a potential source of pollution in some Florida waters. Could you provide a definition
of what level of potential should be considered when determining potential 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.
3.4.1.1.1 -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.
3.5.2 - 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.
3.6 - 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?
Chapter 4: Beach Monitoring
4.2.2 -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 to
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. .
4.3.2.1.3 - EPA should realize that states are not taking a single sample to the lab as soon as it is taken. A
sample taken at 8:00 AM will be batched with eight to ten other samples taken on the same sample run and then
analyzed later 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.
4.3.2.1.4 - 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?
4.3.2.3 - Again, line 5, page 52 proposes an unachievable turnaround time for qPCR, since real world sampling
and logistics will not allow for same day 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 QA/QC 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.
4.3.2.3.2 - 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.
4.4.2.2. 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.
4.5 - 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/100mL numbers on the website?
4.5.1.1 - 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 manager 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?
4.6- 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.
4.7.2.1 - 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?
4.7.2.4 - 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.
1" http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/mystery-beach-elephant-was-likely-there-for-a-birthday-
party/2180426
-------
Comments from
Clean Ocean Action
Hackensack Riverkeeper
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
NJ/NY Baykeeper
Riverkeeper
Waterkeeper Alliance
-------
...,,..r,7 Heal the Bay *!
< >
RIVERKEEPER " WATIRKSEPEII
May 28, 2014
By email (beach_guidance@epa.gov)
Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4305T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Docket ID No. EPA-820-D-13-001
Dear Administrator McCarthy:
Thank you for accepting these comments on the Draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants (Draft Criteria), submitted on behalf of Clean Ocean
Action, Hackensack Riverkeeper, Heal the Bay, Natural Resources Defense Council, NY/NJ
Baykeeper, Riverkeeper, and Waterkeeper Alliance. Each of our organizations is keenly
interested in protecting coastal waters and recreational users of those waters. EPA has a
statutory duty to protect public health in recreational waters, a duty that is essential to the 180
million people that visit coastal and Great Lakes beaches every year.
Exposure to pathogens in coastal recreational waters continues to be a significant threat
to public health. Dangerously high human pathogen levels, associated with the presence of
human or animal waste, are present in coastal waters too often, particularly after heavy rainfall.
The underlying culprits are generally raw and improperly treated sewage, raw animal manure,
and contaminated stormwater runoff, which are highly deleterious to water quality. Pathogens
-------
in contaminated waters can cause a wide range of diseases including gastroenteritis, dysentery,
hepatitis, and respiratory illnesses and are a major threat to all whom they contact.
Public health is best protected through a two-track process: states must give the public
timely notice when recreational waters contain unsafe levels of human pathogens, and they
must constantly improve water quality so that such occurrences are rare. We recognize that the
Draft Criteria seek to make progress on the first track.
After carefully reviewing the Draft Criteria, we suggest the following to better protect
public health:
1. EPA must require grantees to notify the public when a conservative pathogen
threshold is exceeded;
2. EPA must encourage or require more frequent and better testing that ensures
accurate data to inform timely beach closure decisions;
3. Where feasible, EPA must encourage or require modeling or other forecasting
techniques that alert the public to water quality threats before the public enters
the water;
4. EPA must maximize the number of beaches where these rules apply;
5. EPA must require notification protocols that are calculated to reach the
maximum number of recreators; and
6. EPA must require grantees to preserve data and make all data, current and
historic, easily available to the public.
EPA has made important advancements toward meeting these six principles in the Draft
Criteria. In particular, we support EPA's decision to require grantees to adopt the Beach Action
Values (BAVs) from EPA's 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) as the threshold for
beach notification decisions. We also support the Draft Criteria's effort towards requiring
grantees to share historical pathogen data. However, EPA can still take easily identifiable steps
to better protect public health.
EPA APPROPRIATELY REQUIRES STATES RECEIVING GRANT MONEY TO USE THE BEACH
ACTION VALUE AS A BEACH NOTIFICATION THRESHOLD.
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. 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.
However, 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).
This language is concerning, as it could suggest that the BAV notification thresholds are
a prerequisite for federal funding only until states adopt the new/revised EPA criteria.
Meanwhile, 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. 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.
EPA MUST CONTINUE TO MAKE STRIDES TOWARD TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF PATHOGENIC
RISKS.
It does no good to inform the public of existing water quality problems after they've
already been to the beach. Even with the welcome requirement that BAV violations trigger
beach notifications, EPA must guard against using the BAV as a "you shouldn't have swam
yesterday" tool.
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.
-------
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.
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.
Culture-based testing methods have an inherent time lag that greatly reduces its
effectiveness as a tool for protecting the public health. The Draft Criteria state that 70% of
exceedances of water quality standards have already ended within 24 hours. Consequently, a
culture that returns data a day or two after the sample has been gathered not only is too late to
warn a swimmer of real time risks, it also could lead to a beach notification when the water
quality is no longer dangerous.
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.
We believe that EPA should require grantees to move toward rapid testing and further
require predictive modeling and/or preemptive advisories (as on page 80) that warn the public
before potential exposure.
-------
EPA MUST INCLUDE ALL BEACHES WITHIN THE PROGRAM
In our experience, the welcome changes in the Draft Criteria will apply to too few
beaches. In developing ranking and monitoring plans, many if not all states list beaches that are
commonly used by the public as outside of the program because of funding deficiencies. 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".
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.
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.
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 all 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.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this critical draft document. If
you have questions about our comments please feel free to contact Christopher Len at 201-
968-0808.
Sincerely,
Christopher Len
Staff Attorney
Hackensack Riverkeeper &
NY/NJ Baykeeper
Steve Fleischli
Director & Senior Attorney, Water Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
Kirsten James
Science and Policy Director, Water Quality
Heal the Bay
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Hudson River Program Director
Riverkeeper, Inc.
Cindy Zipf
Executive Director
Clean Ocean Action (COA)
Kelly Hunter Foster
Senior Attorney
Waterkeeper Alliance
-------
Comments from
Rhode Island
Department of Health
-------
~ £ (5. Department of Health
4'
O Three Capitol Hill
Providence, Rl 02908-5097
W
www.health.ri.gov
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants:
Public Comment Period
Rhode Island Department of Health Comments
Chapter 3: Risk-based Evaluation and Classification Process (p. 23)
Lines 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.
Chapter 3: Risk-based Evaluation and Classification Process, Section 3.6.1: Initial Submission
to EPA, (p. 35)
Lines 12-15: 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.
Chapter 4: Beach Monitoring, Section 4.7.2.1: Use Beach Action Value (BAV) as the Beach
Notification Threshold, (p. 69)
Lines 33-35: "It is important to note that the BAV is not a component of EPA's
recommended criteria from adoption into state and tribal standards, but rather a tool
that states and tribes may use as a "do not exceed value ".
Lines 9-11 (p. 70): "Accordingly, EPA is requiring a new grant condition for FY14
grants awarded after this document is final and beyond, that states and tribes use the
BAV as a precautionary, conservative measure to protect public health".
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?
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
-------
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 the states' interpretation, that needs to be stated.
The Effects of a BAY for Rhode Island:
1. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were only two
reported cases of illness from 2007 through 2010 in ocean waters. Both cases concerned
skin with no noted gastrointestinal symptoms1'2. Correlating a beach action of 60
cfu/lOOml to an illness rate of 32 illnesses per 1000 bathers is inaccurate given the most
recent public health data available for Rhode Island coastal waters. Our current risk-
based monitoring plan has prevented any substantial illness outbreaks from occurring at
our saltwater beaches.
2. 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 104cfu/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 104cfu/100ml may be more protective than posting an
advisory at 60cfu/100ml
3. 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.
4. The quality of life for our struggling j ob 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.
Example: Bristol Town Beach has 39 employees who lost an estimated 2808 days of work
from beach closures spanning 2000-2012.
5. 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.
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevetion. 2009-2010 Recreational Water-associated Outbreak Surveillance Report Supplemental Tables.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/recreational/tables.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevetion. Descriptions of Select Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6012a3.htm
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
-------
In 2013, Rhode Island experienced a 10% exceedance rate using the current value of
104cfu/100ml. If we had applied the proposed criteria of 60 cfu/lOOml 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.
In 2013, Rhode Island experienced 111 saltwater beach closure days. Using the draft BAV
there may have been as many as 200 or more closure days. While Rhode Island has been
very protective of public health, we feel the BAV would create a severe economic impact
with no demonstrated improvement in protection.
For more information, please contact:
Amie Parris, Rhode Island Beach Program Coordinator amie.parris@health.ri.gov
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
-------
Comments from
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
-------
Comments on EPA's Draft Beach Guidance Page 1 of 1
Comments on EPA's Draft Beach Guidance
X DELETE 4- REPLY ^-REPLY ALL -> FORWARD
Cheney, Elizabeth
Wed 5/28/2014 3:57 PM
To: DBeach_Guidance;
You forwarded this message on 5/29/2014 1:22 PM.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Beach Program - Comments on National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria for Grants - Draft
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.
Section 4.5 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?
Section 4.7.1 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 sense.
Section 4.7.2.1 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.
Elizabeth Cheney
Beach Water Quality
GA DNR Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way, Brunswick GA 31520
(912)-262-3057
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
-------
Comments on National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants
North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality
The Beach Action Value (BAV) was first introduced when the final
2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria was released. When
stakeholders were asked to comment on the draft Recreational Water
Quality Criteria there was no mention of the BAV so there was never
an opportunity for comment. The information regarding the BAV in the
2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria was introduced as being an
optional tool that states could consider. The Draft Beach Guidance
released in April 2014 indicates that the BAV is a requirement for
states to be grant eligible. 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.
The EPA is aware (page 6) that viruses make up the majority of the
recreational waterborne illnesses so it is 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.
It is not clear in the document if a BAV exceedance requires an actual
sign posting on the beach. From page 87, it appears that a press
release and website posting would be a functional equivalent to a
sign posting.
Page 69 Iine18 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.
-------
Comments from
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
-------
Comments: Draft National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants
(EPA-820-D-13-01)
Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 3 (lines 1-30), Page 4 (lines 1-43), Page 5 (lines 1-06)
Issue with "new" program tools:
o Delaware's implementation of current criteria is as protective as 2012
Criteria:
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.
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.
Predictive models have been unsuccessful at our beaches because
our waters are too "clean".
Delaware beach monitoring program has emphasized mitigating
pollution sources impacting beach water quality as the best tool we
have for protecting public health.
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.
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.
Page 7 (lines 31-33)
Question- 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.
Page 10 (lines 39-43) and Page 11 (lines 1-8)
The Health Concerns section suggest that the 2012 criteria was influenced 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 .5 MOD have enhanced treatment, using sand filtration and UV disinfection,
greatly reducing the risk of viral survival in the effluent.
Page 12 (lines 8-17)
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).
Page 12 (lines 24-37)
The beach action value (BAV) is based on statistics and not scientific evidence.
BAV should not be a grant requirement.
Delaware conducts beach sanitary survey weekly at all our guarded beaches,
using our resources and coordination with the beach towns to eliminate pollution
sources.
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.
No data was provided to show how much additional protection BAV provides.
-------
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.
Page 13 (lines 1-3)
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.
Page 13 (lines 11-21)
The B AV requirement will decrease the use of alternative fecal indicators or
methods, including development of site specific thresholds utilizing quantitative
microbial risk assessment (QMRA).
Chapter 2: Grants and Required Performance Criteria
Page 18
Delaware's Recreational Water Program meets the 10 performance criterion in
Table 2-1.
Chapter 3: Risk Based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process
Page 24 (lines 7-18)
Delaware already meets the requirements in Table 3-1.
Delaware's Recreational Water Program uses the beach sanitary survey tool and
has achieved this process at all beaches including those not funded 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.
Chapter 4: Beach Monitoring
Page 38 (lines 18-23 and 31-37)
Delaware has been monitoring beaches since 1979.
Delaware has used predictive modeling in the case of rainfall events.
Page 38 (lines 38-39)
Expand on requirements.
Page 39 (Table 4-1)
Delaware meets these criteria at BEACH Act beaches; we also implement criteria
across the state at all freshwater and inland bay beaches.
-------
Page 40 Table 4-2
Delaware does not fit the risk /use categories
Page 44 (lines 14-32)
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.
Page 45 (lines 11-27)
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.
Page 46 (Table 4-3)
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, exceedences missed is not relevance if there are no human
sources.
Page 50
You only reference California - you need to reference other states.
Page 62: Monitoring Report Submission
Delaware is in compliance but we need to place more weight on the beach
sanitary survey.
Page 68 (lines 1-22)
Using the geometric mean only over the entire beach season.
Delaware does not agree with using the statistical threshold value (STV) for
assessment purposes.
Page 69 (lines 5-16)
Using the tiered monitoring approach should enable us to better understand our
beaches and enable us to monitor more beaches with fewer resources.
Page 69: BAY
Use B AV as a tool without adopting it into the Water Quality Standards as a "do
not exceed value" for beach notification purposes.
-------
The BAV 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"?
BAV should be an optional tool.
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 promoting poor science.
Chapter 5: Public Notification and Risk Communication
No comment
-------
Rouse, Debbie L. (DNREC)
Comments from Delaware's Recreational Water Program
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants
Impacts to Delaware from National Resource Defense Committee (NRDC) Using the
EPA Mandated Beach Action Values to Assess Primary Contact Recreation Risk
In 2013, Delaware had a total of four recreational water advisories, one at each of the
following beaches: Rehoboth Beach at Rehoboth Avenue, Rehoboth Beach at Virginia
Avenue, Atlantic Ocean at Gordon's Pond, and Delaware Bay at Slaughter Beach. These
advisories were in response to water samples which exceeded the State and Federal
Water quality criteria of 104 colony forming units (cfu/100 ml). The NRDC application
of the EPA-mandated Beach Action Values (BAV's) to these same data; this will result in
Delaware being reported as having 14 water quality advisories. The discrepancy between
advisories issued by DNREC and these theoretical advisories will cause confusion and
unnecessary concerns among beach users with no actual increase in risk to primary
contact recreational users (swimmers). The changes will also increase the percent of
exceedence and may result in beaches being downgraded in the year 2014 "Testing the
Waters" report.
During a conference call, the EPA announced that it was requiring States to use
the Beach Action Value (BAV for the 2015 grant year (October 1, 2014 through
September 30, 2015) in order to receive Federal funding. One day following the
EPA announcement, the NRDC announced it would use the BAV for the 2014
"Testing the Water" report even though no states have adopted the proposed
criteria. The BAV was a controversial action value which used the 75th percentile
data to assess risk rather that the 90th percentile which have been used for
previous epidemiological studies. Throughout three years of discussion, EPA
never mentions the BAV. Upon the release of draft guidance, EPA had stressed
that this was an OPTIONAL value given the differing technical opinions
regarding the efficacy of the proposed criteria in providing enhanced primary
contact recreation protection.
During the three year development process for the new regulations, the BAV was
never discussed with the State's and was developed during the final EPA review
process in response to concerns from NRDC and other environmental advocacy
groups that the proposed regulations were not protective enough.
Both the new and old criteria do not accurately represent the risk to neither
Delaware swimmers nor do they accurately represent the risk to swimmers in the
entire Mid-Atlantic region. This is because epidemiological studies conducted to
develop the standards focused on sewage impacted beaches. These beaches are
impacted by poorly operating waste water treatment plants and storm water runoff
mixed with raw sewage discharged by combined sewer overflow (CSO)
structures, mostly in the Great Lake's states, California, and some southern states.
-------
Rouse, Debbie L. (DNREC)
Page 2 - Comments to EPA
Delaware has worked hard to prevent these anthropogenic sources of
pollution from impacting our beaches. Much of the bacterial contamination in
Delaware originates from wildlife sources (including birds, marine mammals and
other coastal wildlife). This is important because the tests conducted for water
quality analysis use indicator bacteria which grow in the intestinal tracts of warm-
blooded animals. During discussions with EPA, Delaware and other Mid-Atlantic
states voiced concern about standards which over estimated risk in our region, but
the goal of the EPA was to develop a national standard which would be protective
in states with high levels of risk sewage-impacted beaches).
Delaware has rarely reported illnesses due to recreational water use with the old
standard (104 cfu/100 ml). Applying the BAY (60 cfu/100 ml) to DNREC's
2013 data increased advisory frequency by 350% with no demonstrated increase
in public health protection. Many states feel that the previous water quality
standards did not reflect risk within their state and was only applicable to states
with poor water quality due to human impacts. Some states are considering not
accepting BEACH Act grant funding from the EPA due to potential negative
impacts to tourism and the economy.
Bacterial levels which exceed 60 cfu/100 ml but remain below the current
geometric mean standard of 35 cfu/100 ml do occur periodically and use of the
BAV's could result in significantly more advisories. Bacterial values greater than
60 cfu/100 ml but less than the current standard of 104 cfu/100 ml can be seen
sporadically along the coast on a weekly basis not identified pollution sources or
heavy rains. These exceedences are most likely due to transient wildlife sources,
which are part of a healthy ecosystem including dolphins, whales and shore birds)
but less than the current standard of 104 cfu/100 ml can be seen sporadically
along the coast on a weekly basis.
-------
Comments from
The State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
-------
The State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
NHDES
Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner
May 28,2014
Denise F. Hawkins, Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach Branch
Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
RE: DRAFT National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
To Ms. Hawkins,
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) offers the following comments
on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposed DRAFT National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (EPA-820-D-13-001).
EPA is proposing revised requirements for states to receive future grant funding. In proposing the
revised grant requirements, EPA explained that its goals include supporting states by facilitating the
sharing and transfer of information between stakeholders, and to reflect updated science by
incorporating key aspects of the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. NHDES has already
implemented many of the proposed changes in order to protect public health at swimming beaches. One
such change has been the increased use of social media to communicate beach notifications. In fact,
NHDES just launched a mobile app for smart phones with beach advisory information. 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. In addition, 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. The
rule change would have a detrimental impact on the New Hampshire Beach Program.
A great deal of research has been conducted by EPA and other researchers about water bacteria related
illnesses of recreational swimmers. Generally, this research demonstrates that as bacteria levels
increase, the risk to swimmers also increase. However, no clear research presented to date shows any
improved health outcomes at bacteria levels lower than the current standards. According to 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. Additionally, at an urban impacted
marine beach, "consistent health relationships between fecal indicator organisms and swimming-
associated illness were also not established." No evidence has been presented in the DRAFT National
Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants supporting a lowered notification
threshold.
DBS Web Site: www.des.nh.gov
P.O. Box 95,29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095
Telephone: (603)271-3503 Fax: (603)271-2867 TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
-------
Page 2 of 2
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 CPU
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. According to the most recently released
reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 2006 and 2008, 38 disease
outbreaks of illness related to swimming were reported. Of those 38, only 4 were related to ocean water.
The vast majority of outbreaks and associated illnesses were linked to swimming in freshwater systems.
A reduction in the coastal notification criteria does not appear to be warranted to protect health and
comes at a huge potential cost.
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.
Without any demonstrated increase in public health protection, a required reduction in the BAV used for
issuing advisories will have a major impact 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. This is a plausible and predictable direct result of the recommended change in the BAV.
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 the opportunity to comment on this rule and we are open to further discussion about it. I
can be reached at (603) 271-0698, or sonya.carlson@des.nh.gov.
Sincerely,
Sonya Carlson
Beach Program Coordinator
-------
Comments from
Virginia Department of Health
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria ... - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 3
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants: Virginia Department of
Health Comments
Skiljo III, Matthew (VDH)
Wed 5/28/2014 4:16 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft 2014 National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) is very grateful to EPA for the long-
standing support that has been offered to develop and implement Virginia's Beach Monitoring Program.
Additionally, VDH is pleased to see the thorough guidance that is provided in this document for all the resources,
tools, and emerging methods that can be used to further develop beach monitoring programs.
VDH comments for EPA's draft 2014 National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants are
provided below:
1. EPA requirement for states to use BAVs as the threshold value for issuing beach notifications until
updating State Water Quality Standards (WQS):
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.
2. EPA requirement for states to use BAVs after updating State WQS:
It is not necessary to require states to use BAVs as a threshold value to issue beach notifications after
adopting new state WQS. 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.
Section 3.6.4, pg 42 of EPA's 2012 RWQC:
Beach Notification Programs
"WQC (Water Quality Criteria) in state WQS are the applicable targets for EPA grant
funded state beach notification programs under §406 of the CWA. The BAV is not a
component of EPA's recommended criteria, but a tool that states may choose to use,
without adopting it into their WQS as a "do not exceed value" for beach notification
purposes (i.e., advisories). While the GM (Geometric Mean) and STV (Statistical
Threshold Value) would be the applicable WQS, a BAV could be used at the state's
discretion as a more conservative, precautionary tool for beach management
decisions. Similarly, states could also choose to use the STV as a "do not exceed
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria ... - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 3
value" for the purposes of their beach notification program, without adopting it as a
"do not exceed value" in their WQS."
Section 5.1, pg. 44 of EPA's 2012 RWQC:
"For states that do not use a BAV, EPA suggests using the criteria STV values
(provided in Table 4) as "do not exceed" values for beach notification or retaining
their current beach notification values in their WQS."
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.
3. EPA's Rationale for Requiring States to Use BAVs:
The Performance Criteria explains that EPA's rationale for this requirement is to ensure that states use a
threshold value that is applicable to each sampling event, and to ensure consistency among all coastal
states. 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.
4. Virginia Impacts & Health Benefit of BAVs:
Virginia would require additional and significant resources if BAVs 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/lOOml, Virginia would have issued at least 450 advisories, and likely more due to
resampling. 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. Additionally, EPA's
2012 RWQC explains that the criteria values of 110 cfu/lOOml and 130 cfu/lOOml 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 considering our comments. I would be happy to discuss if provided the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Matt Skiljo
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria ... - Beach_Guidance Page 3 of 3
Matt Skiljo
Waterborne Hazards Control Program Coordinator
VDH, Office of Epidemiology
109 Governor Street, 417
Richmond, VA 23219
Office: 804-864-8128
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
-------
State of Wisconsin
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
101 S. Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison Wl 53707-7921
Scott Walker, Governor
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
Telephone 608-266-2621
Toll Free 1-888-936-7463
TTY Access via relay - 711
WISCONSIN
DEFT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
May 27, 2014
To: BEACH_GUIDANCE@epa.gov
From: Donalea Dinsmore, Beach Program Coordinator, Wisconsin DNR
Subject: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Comments on
Draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants dated April 18, 2014. WDNR supports
the strategy of using a tiered monitoring program based on assessment of risks as well as the need to establish a
program that builds public trust using modern communication tools that are targeted to the community needs.
Wisconsin's beach program enthusiastically supports the inclusion of sanitary survey activities and procedures
and incorporation of more real-time techniques (e.g. modeling and qPCR) for monitoring beach water quality as
grant-eligible activities.
Our local cooperators have experienced significant budget cuts over the last several years which have emphasized
both the need for sustained funding through BEACH Act grants and the importance of targeting the limited
resources available to high pay-off program operations. Through a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant, Adam
Mednick at WDNR has worked on a technology transfer project that reduces the time and effort necessary to
develop Nowcast models as well as reducing barriers to implementation on a local level. By collaborating with
EPA and USGS (http://cida.usgs.gov/enddat/) to automate functions available through Virtual Beach and
Wisconsin's Beach Health website and working with local public health partners, more beach managers are
willing to explore this tool as a primary driver in their decision-making process. We have concerns that elements
of the guidance and draft criteria interfere with our ability to move forward with those goals in a manner that is
both appropriately protective of public health and cost-effective.
1. 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 tiered program.
Historically, Wisconsin's beach health partners have monitored more frequently than the minimums and secured
grant funding to implement sanitary surveys, nowcasting, develop qPCR, and begin beach restorations. Our
experience is that implementing each of these activities takes resources and following a beach restoration,
additional data is needed to re-establish a valid nowcast. Without the supplemental funding available through the
GLRI, the beach program would not have been able to make as much progress as it has. For many locations,
beaches-specific sanitary survey data collection is necessary to develop, test, and maintain nowcast models. In the
Great Lakes, E. coll is the FIB of choice and beach-specific data are necessary to determine whether qPCR is an
appropriate monitoring tool and if so, the appropriate action level. 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.
dnr.wi.gov
wisconsin.gov
Naturally WISCONSIN
-------
Page 2
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. Smaller communities in Wisconsin are already considering discontinuing monitoring at beaches
identified as having awater quality impairment, even those with a relatively large tourist industry. This may lead
to even greater economic justice issues associated with pollution. Section 3.6 seems to encourage this action by
declaring the beaches to be non-program beaches. Wisconsin's beach health partners have invested significant
effort in assessing the sources of contamination and the risks associated with each setting. 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.
2. 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.
Although Chapter 1 of the Beach guidance outlines the case for using FIB as a surrogate for pathogens, it does not
present evidence to support the need to use a lower risk BAV in advance of state rulemaking. This chapter
identifies the difficulty in attributing illness incidents with swimming and lines 16 - 20 on page 9 recognizes that
not all FIB have a demonstrated potential for illness. Mandating the lower BAV in advance of a state rule change
complicates public messaging about potentially temporary increases in number of advisories, the risk associated
with changing the threshold and how it applies to our diverse beach settings. 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.
3. 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.
Table 4-3 and the text in 4.3.1.1.2 indicate 70% or more missed exceedances with a once per week frequency.
This mirrors the experience of beach managers in the Great Lakes who have seen more water quality advisories
associated with more frequent monitoring. While the text acknowledges limited resources available, 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. 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.
In addition to the concerns enumerated above, please consider the following comments and suggestions on
specific sections of the guidance:
EPA's guidance in 4.2.2.seems to contain a bias toward monitoring over predictive modeling, suggesting that
exceedances need to be confirmed with sampling rather than using an unbiased sampling plan to maintain the
predictive capacity of the model. The guidance does not recognize the potential to use nowcast models to increase
"monitoring" of beach water quality on 5 - 7 days per week. WDNR encourages providing more detailed support
document for implementing predictive models using Virtual Beach 3.0 (similar to the details for qPCR). This
supplement could take advantage of material in the following Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grant
reports:
Mednick, A. C. and D. Watermolen (2009). Beach pathogen forecasting tools: Pilot testing, outreach, and
technical assistance. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Demonstrated that local
-------
PageS
health departments could successfully operate predictive models and the importance of providing a
linkage between the users and developers of Virtual Beach.)
Mednick, A. C. (2012). Building operational "nowcast" models for predicting water quality at five Lake
Michigan beaches. Madison, WI: : Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (Demonstrated through
case studies that local health departments vary in their capacity to develop predictive models, and that
centralized technical support and data systems are necessary to ensure widespread adoption.)
Wisconsin's project to reduce barriers to implementing nowcasts at local levels took advantage of the more
intensive monitoring schedule and associated beach-specific physical data collected during sanitary surveys to
optimize the predictive capability of the nowcasting available through Virtual Beach even at beaches with
relatively few water quality exceedances. Beginning with a rich data set that is representative of the range of
conditions experienced at a beach enabled beach managers for several Wisconsin beaches to implement two tiered
nowcast systems, using beach-specific physical data on days when the beach is monitored and using automated
data imported from USGS's Environmental Data Discovery and Transformation (EnDDAT) system into Virtual
Beach 3.0. This combination of tools enables beach managers to predict water quality exceedances within as little
as 10 minutes on days when sampling is not done at the beach. At those beaches where the transition has been
made from traditional (i.e. culture-based) monitoring to predictive models, the core objective of the water-quality
sampling shifts from providing direct support for advisory or closure decisions to the validation and long-term
maintenance of the models as effective decision-support tools. Sampling design must in turn be geared towards
meeting this objective by ensuring adequate sample frequency with an unbiased design. Additional sampling
beyond the routine may be indicated to build trust with decision-makers (confirming the necessity of advisories
on expected high use days), to confirm that a beach can be re-opened following a closure, or to assure continued
model validity following implementation of a BMP. This suggests that investing in maintaining the automated
data systems has a great potential for protecting public health while controlling costs.
Tier 1 beaches with a high priority for public health protection may have the ability to use the multiple lines of
evidence approach described in 28 - 38 where other locations with more modest means and abilities may have a
more limited ability to implement this approach. Section 4.3.2.1.2, page 48, lines 37 and 38 should incorporate
the concept of monitoring representative conditions. 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.
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. For example, municipal discharges under NPDES permits may not require chlorinate
during winter months when there is little or no recreational body contact. Small and medium size agricultural
operations are spreading manure in the winter and monitoring by our field staff is showing very high FIB
densities associated with winter rains and thaws. In addition, extreme weather conditions beyond rainfall may
trigger extended periods of elevated FIB.
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. In 2012 and 2013, the Alliance forthe Great Lakes obtained a Wisconsin Coastal Management
grant to pilot a volunteer monitoring project to support nowcasting in southeast Wisconsin. Extensive
collaboration and planning went into developing the project plan and quality objectives. The report for that grant
may provide insights into the performance and outcomes of that volunteer activity.
Thank you for considering these comments and suggestions. If you have questions or would like additional
information, please contact me at donalea.dinsmore@wisconsin.gov or 608-266-1926.
-------
Comments from
Oregon Health Authority
Public Health Division
-------
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Perf... - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 3
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Cude Curtis G
Wed 5/28/2014 5:01 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: BORISENKO Aaron ; Cude Curtis G
; Farrer David G ;
jae.p.douglas@state.or.us ; Knittel, Janette
; larry.caton@state.or.us ; Pedersen, Rob
< Pedersen.Rob@epa.gov>;
§2 attachments
Difference in exceedences RWQC 158 and GO.xIsx; OBMP.Feeback NEW EPA Criteria.doc;
To Whom It May Concern:
EPA is soliciting comments on a plan to reduce the Beach Action Value (BAV) to 60 cfu/100 ml. Oregon's current
BAV is 158 cfu/100 ml. Oregon Health Authority's Oregon Beach Monitoring Program (OBMP) compiled
quantitative and qualitative data (attached) to determine how the program would be affected if EPA adopts the
new criteria.
There would be a two-fold increase in OBMP advisories. In 2013, OBMP monitored 16 beaches
(Memorial Day - Labor Day). There was a total of 406 samples collected and 29 exceeded Oregon's
current beach action value (BAV) of 158 cfu/lOOmL, resulting in 12 beach advisories. When the draft
criteria standard of 60 BAV is applied to 2013 sampling results, 56 samples exceed the standard and
would result in an estimated 25 beach advisories. When OBMP applies 60 BAV to all monitoring season
data (2002-2013), there are an additional 555 exceedances (average of 46 per year). OBMP has
resources to employ just one FTE staff to sample the entire Oregon coastline. OBMP would need twice
the resources (equipment, staff, etc.) to maintain current beach monitoring efforts under the draft
criteria standards. These additional resources would be necessary to conduct re-sampling following the
exceedance sample. If additional resources are not available from EPA, a reduction in the number of
beaches monitored would be necessary defeating the objective of the draft criteria to prevent less
beach water quality related illnesses.
Advisories do not necessarily reduce exposures. Ocean surf temperatures in Oregon are cold,
meaning hardier individuals are recreating in the surf. Children are more likely to be found recreating in
the warmer, safer streams crossing the beach. There streams are most often the source of bacterial
contamination; the beach program under EPA guidance does not issue advisories based on bacteria
levels in these streams. An increase in the number of beach advisories will not necessarily keep people
out of the water, especially in those freshwater streams that tend to be warmer and are safer for kids to
play in. The new standard may not be effective in reducing illnesses at the beach, or at any rate it will be
difficult to justify based on illness reduction because no program or organization in Oregon has
collected enough illness data to be of statistical significance.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Perf... - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 3
Advisories alone do not reduce illnesses.We should place greater emphasis on finding and fixing
sources of contamination. The new criteria would strain OBMP's already limited sampling budget. OBMP
could be forced to decrease the number of beaches and sites sampled and/or reduce the number of
freshwater samples. OBMP would likely cease off-season and investigational sampling to identify
potential sources of contamination, which, if remediated, would reduce the bacteria getting to the
beach and therefore the number of illnesses.
Risk communication to the public will be difficult. 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 defunded the following year. How would the public respond? Would
they know there 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?
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to share how the new criteria would effect OBMP. Please let me know if you have
any questions or request additional information.
Sincerely,
Curtis Cude
Interim Environmental Public Health Section Manager
Center for Prevention & Health Promotion
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
| Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
| Totals
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Beach ID
OR178544
OR244981
OR899292
OR884773
OR277842
OR624395
OR673620
OR270205
OR769241
OR953303
OR271317
OR578688
OR478882
OR314514
OR742120
OR556489
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR627686
OR550486
OR110179
OR461207
OR598473
OR1 78544
OR468472
OR775236
OR244981
OR225794
OR641971
OR899292
OR884773
OR368023
OR277842
OR345069
OR624395
OR543359
OR673620
OR750407
OR600095
OR548324
OR588191
OR2 70205
OR298050
OR676750
OR601061
OR506189
OR531432
OR769241
OR186822
OR748927
OR642423
OR953303
OR475512
OR276898
OR271317
OR378443
OR578688
OR478882
OR314514
OR196983
OR742120
OR556489
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
Beach Name
Agate Beach
Bastendorff Beach
Beverly Beach
Bob Straub State Park
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Fogarty Creek Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Nelscott Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Ona Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Roads End Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sporthaven Beach
Sunset Bay
Yachats Wayside Beach
Yaquina Bay
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Barview County Park
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Beachside Waldport
Beverly Beach
Bob Straub State Park
Billiards Beach
Cannon Beach
Cape Lookout State Park
D River Beach
Florence South Jetty
Fogarty Creek Beach
Fort Stevens State Park
Gleneden Beach
Gold Beach
Gov Patterson State Park
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Hunter Cr Wayside
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Manhattan Beach
Manzanita
Meyers Beach
Mill Beach
Moolack Beach
Nehalem Bay
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Ona Beach
Ophir Creek
Otter Rock Beach
Roads End Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Year
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
# Samples
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
75
37
12
9
54
8
12
44
13
8
67
10
51
7
40
10
31
11
8
37
8
8
8
8
7
24
10
8
10
40
11
8
37
13
36
34
54
7
35
37
36
68
64
# Exceed 60
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
1
0
2
1
1
0
7
0
1
0
0
4
0
% Exceed 60
0
0
0
0
25
33
0
33
0
33
33
0
0
25
33
33
33
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
14
0
0
7
0
12
0
3
0
0
0
25
5
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
9
0
5
8
3
0
13
0
3
0
0
6
0
# Exceed 158
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
% Exceed 158
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
33
0
0
33
0
0
25
33
33
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
11
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
# Difference
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
0
% Difference |
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
25
5
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
0
5
8
3
0
4
0
3
0
0
4
0
-------
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
| Totals
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
| Totals
131
132
133
OR400253
OR627686
OR550486
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR937019
OR311057
OR461207
OR598473
OR178544
OR468472
OR775236
OR244981
OR225794
OR641971
OR899292
OR884773
OR368023
OR277842
OR345069
OR624395
OR268676
OR543359
OR673620
OR750407
OR600095
OR548324
OR588191
OR270205
OR298050
OR676750
OR601061
OR506189
OR531432
OR769241
OR186822
OR748927
OR642423
OR953303
OR475512
OR276898
OR271317
OR3 78443
OR578688
OR478882
OR314514
OR196983
OR742120
OR556489
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR627686
OR550486
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR937019
OR311057
OR461207
OR598473
OR178544
OR775236
OR244981
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sporthaven Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Whiskey Run Beach
Yachats Wayside Beach
Yaquina Bay
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Barview County Park
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Beachside Waldport
Beverly Beach
Bob Straub State Park
Billiards Beach
Cannon Beach
Cape Lookout State Park
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Florence South Jetty
Fogarty Creek Beach
Fort Stevens State Park
Gleneden Beach
Gold Beach
Gov Patterson State Park
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Hunter Cr Wayside
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Manhattan Beach
Manzanita
Meyers Beach
Mill Beach
Moolack Beach
Nehalem Bay
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Ona Beach
Ophir Creek
Otter Rock Beach
Roads End Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sporthaven Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Whiskey Run Beach
Yachats Wayside Beach
Yaquina Bay
Agate Beach
Barview County Park
Bastendorff Beach
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
37
35
37
43
9
14
13
7
12
40
1287
57
8
46
131
7
7
83
7
6
201
9
66
36
7
18
11
18
8
8
69
7
7
7
7
7
50
21
7
7
58
7
7
102
7
69
63
69
7
70
65
63
165
162
66
57
23
129
7
21
44
7
8
21
2220
39
42
91
2
1
0
7
0
1
0
1
0
1
68
4
0
2
9
0
1
10
0
0
9
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
5
0
6
0
0
0
32
0
3
2
0
0
0
114
3
1
5
5
3
0
16
0
7
0
14
0
3
7
0
4
7
0
14
12
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
2
8
0
4
0
0
0
25
0
14
5
0
0
0
8
2
5
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
1
37
2
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
20
0
1
0
0
0
0
54
2
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
7
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
16
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
31
2
0
2
9
0
1
2
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
2
2
0
0
0
60
1
1
5
5
3
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
0
1
4
0
4
7
0
14
2
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
2
8
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
10
5
0
0
0
|
3
2
5
-------
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
| Totals
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
| Totals
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
OR899292
OR277842
OR624395
OR268676
OR270205
OR676750
OR601061
OR769241
OR953303
OR271317
OR378443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR627686
OR110179
OR603376
OR937019
OR178544
OR775236
OR244981
OR899292
OR277842
OR624395
OR268676
OR2 70205
OR676750
OR601061
OR769241
OR953303
OR271317
OR3 78443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR627686
OR110179
OR603376
OR937019
OR178544
OR775236
OR244981
OR225794
OR899292
OR277842
OR624395
OR268676
OR2 70205
OR676750
OR601061
OR531432
OR769241
OR953303
OR271317
OR378443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
Beverly Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Harris Beach State Park
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sunset Bay
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Agate Beach
Barview County Park
Bastendorff Beach
Beverly Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Harris Beach State Park
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sunset Bay
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Agate Beach
Barview County Park
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Beverly Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Harris Beach State Park
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
30
140
33
39
35
19
65
69
29
70
27
61
30
33
35
109
143
31
39
99
12
41
1361
46
46
99
42
112
31
45
67
17
59
75
43
75
30
56
30
50
33
105
140
32
45
104
15
67
1464
46
27
93
4
34
112
53
41
84
31
55
7
75
83
57
36
93
34
47
2
9
8
1
2
6
1
2
7
4
3
5
1
0
5
4
14
4
0
30
2
0
119
6
6
4
0
12
5
4
4
1
0
4
5
3
0
4
1
1
3
3
6
1
2
29
6
2
112
7
0
4
0
3
3
13
2
9
3
1
0
2
24
1
2
22
2
1
7
6
24
3
6
32
2
3
24
6
11
8
3
0
14
4
10
13
0
30
17
0
13
13
4
0
11
16
9
6
6
0
5
12
4
0
7
3
2
9
3
4
3
4
28
40
3
15
0
4
0
9
3
25
5
11
10
2
0
3
29
2
6
24
6
2
0
5
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
0
2
1
0
11
1
0
36
3
0
3
0
3
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
8
3
1
37
4
0
1
0
1
1
8
0
5
1
1
0
2
14
0
2
17
2
0
0
4
6
0
0
16
0
0
3
3
7
2
0
0
9
0
1
3
0
11
8
0
7
0
3
0
3
3
4
1
6
0
1
5
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
1
3
0
8
20
1
9
0
1
0
3
1
15
0
6
3
2
0
3
17
0
6
18
6
0
2
4
6
1
2
3
1
2
6
2
1
4
1
0
2
4
12
3
0
19
1
0
83
3
6
1
0
9
4
2
3
0
0
3
3
3
0
1
1
1
1
3
4
0
2
21
3
1
75
3
0
3
0
2
2
5
2
4
2
0
0
0
10
1
0
5
0
1
7
3
18
3
6
16
2
3
21
3
4
7
3
0
6
4
8
10
0
19
8
0
1
7
13
1
0
8
13
4
4
0
0
4
7
4
0
2
3
2
3
3
3
0
4
20
20
1
|
7
0
3
0
6
2
9
5
5
6
0
0
0
12
2
0
5
0
2
-------
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
| Totals
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
| Totals
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR627686
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR937019
OR461207
OR178544
OR468472
OR244981
OR225794
OR899292
OR277842
OR624395
OR268676
OR543359
OR548324
OR270205
OR676750
OR601061
OR506189
OR531432
OR769241
OR953303
OR3 78443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
OR110179
OR603376
OR937019
OR311057
OR461207
OR178544
OR468472
OR244981
OR225794
OR277842
OR624395
OR268676
OR543359
OR548324
OR270205
OR298050
OR676750
OR601061
OR506189
OR531432
OR769241
OR953303
OR271317
OR3 78443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR400253
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
South Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Yachats Wayside Beach
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Beverly Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Florence South Jetty
Gold Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Hunter Cr Wayside
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
Sunset Bay
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Whiskey Run Beach
Yachats Wayside Beach
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Florence South Jetty
Gold Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Hunter Cr Wayside
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Mill Beach
Nelscott Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Siletz Bay
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
43
100
133
46
30
95
1
10
41
5
1516
88
38
83
31
30
136
65
33
9
20
97
95
58
19
68
63
78
27
115
27
42
56
105
140
29
83
9
24
1
7
1676
76
14
68
17
81
63
36
1
7
29
1
52
39
7
50
54
31
3
21
76
21
38
21
79
100
5
3
1
2
9
0
16
0
0
4
0
134
8
2
5
3
0
15
6
0
0
1
32
5
0
1
1
0
14
0
22
0
1
6
0
1
0
9
1
0
1
0
134
2
0
5
1
4
9
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
2
1
5
0
0
10
0
1
1
2
0
0
7
1
2
20
0
17
0
0
10
0
9
5
6
10
0
11
9
0
0
5
33
5
0
5
1
0
18
0
19
0
2
11
0
1
0
11
11
0
100
0
3
0
7
6
5
14
0
0
0
7
0
6
3
0
4
2
16
0
0
13
0
3
5
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
7
0
0
1
0
71
3
2
2
1
0
7
2
0
0
1
19
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
0
1
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
7
0
0
2
0
3
5
2
3
0
5
3
0
0
5
20
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
9
0
2
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
6
0
9
0
0
3
0
63
5
0
3
2
0
8
4
0
0
0
13
3
0
1
1
0
11
0
12
0
0
3
0
1
0
5
1
0
1
0
74
2
0
4
1
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
1
2
0
0
3
0
1
1
2
0
0
7
1
1
13
0
9
0
0
7
0
6
0
4
6
0
6
6
0
0
0
13
3
0
5
1
0
14
0
10
0
0
5
0
1
0
6
11
0
100
0
3
0
6
6
4
11
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
4
2
6
0
0
4
0
3
5
3
0
0
1
1
-------
266
267
268
| Totals
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
Til
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
| Totals
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
| Totals
324
325
326
327
328
329
OR627686
OR110179
OR603376
OR178544
OR468472
OR244981
OR225794
OR884773
OR277842
OR635747
OR624395
OR268676
OR548324
OR270205
OR298050
OR676750
OR601061
OR531432
OR769241
OR3 78443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR550486
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR937019
OR178544
OR468472
OR244981
OR225794
OR277842
OR635747
OR624395
OR268676
OR548324
OR270205
OR298050
OR676750
OR601061
OR531432
OR769241
OR378443
OR578688
OR478882
OR742120
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR550486
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR937019
OR178544
OR515788
OR244981
OR277842
OR624395
OR270205
South Beach
Sunset Bay
Twin Rocks Beach
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Bob Straub State Park
Cannon Beach
Crissey State Park
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Gold Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Sporthaven Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Agate Beach
Bandon Face Rock
Bastendorff Beach
Battle Rock Wayside
Cannon Beach
Crissey State Park
D River Beach
Florence North Jetty
Gold Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Hug Point Beach
Indian Beach
Kiwanda Beach
Neskowin Beach
Nye Beach
Oceanside Beach
Otter Rock Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Sporthaven Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Umpqua Beach
Agate Beach
Alsea Bay
Bastendorff Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Harris Beach State Park
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
3
75
7
1075
51
14
74
18
1
55
28
67
33
10
28
21
55
40
52
54
21
72
21
36
21
80
104
21
76
45
7
21
1126
29
10
44
11
41
19
43
18
12
22
23
33
33
38
38
18
53
9
24
18
59
74
15
43
39
6
18
790
9
15
24
30
18
24
0
23
0
72
2
0
3
1
0
3
0
12
0
0
6
0
5
2
2
1
0
3
0
0
2
4
1
1
21
3
1
0
73
0
0
0
0
6
0
4
0
0
5
4
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
1
4
3
0
9
2
0
0
44
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
31
0
4
0
4
6
0
5
0
18
0
0
21
0
9
5
4
2
0
4
0
0
10
5
1
5
28
7
14
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
9
0
0
23
17
0
0
3
3
0
8
0
0
6
7
4
0
21
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
13
0
11
0
27
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
1
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
4
6
0
4
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
17
0
0
3
3
0
4
0
0
0
3
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
12
0
45
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
5
0
5
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
2
3
1
1
15
2
1
0
52
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
7
2
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
16
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
0
18
0
9
3
4
2
0
4
0
0
10
4
1
5
20
4
14
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
9
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
6
3
3
0
16
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
13
1
|
I
-------
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
| Totals
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
| Totals
OR298050
OR676750
OR953303
OR578688
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
OR461207
OR178544
OR515788
OR244981
OR277842
OR624395
OR270205
OR298050
OR676750
OR953303
OR578688
OR425623
OR329442
OR770138
OR110179
OR488730
OR603376
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Mill Beach
Nye Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
Yachats Wayside Beach
Agate Beach
Alsea Bay
Bastendorff Beach
Cannon Beach
D River Beach
Harris Beach State Park
Heceta Beach Florence
Hubbard Creek Beach
Mill Beach
Nye Beach
Rockaway Beach
Seaside Beach
Short Sand Beach
Sunset Bay
Tolovana State Park Beach
Twin Rocks Beach
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
18
18
20
24
14
42
56
24
42
6
5
389
7
19
24
26
21
41
19
19
19
27
20
39
56
23
39
7
406
1
0
2
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
14
0
1
2
3
0
14
1
3
2
3
5
2
10
8
1
1
56
6
0
10
13
7
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
5
8
12
0
34
5
16
11
11
25
5
18
35
3
14
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
7
0
1
1
0
2
2
7
3
1
0
27
0
0
5
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
17
0
5
5
0
10
5
13
13
3
0
Total additional exceedences
Average additional exceedences per year
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
11
0
0
2
1
0
7
1
2
1
3
3
0
3
5
0
1
29
555
46
6
0
5
13
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
8
4
0
17
5
11
5
11
15
0
5
22
0
14
1
I
-------
Difference in Exceedances (158 and 60 BAV)
Year
2013*
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
# Samples
406
389
790
1126
1075
1676
1516
1464
1361
2220
1287
75
# Exceed 60
56
14
44
73
72
134
134
112
119
114
68
10
# Exceed 158
27
3
15
21
27
60
71
37
36
54
37
7
# Difference
29
11
29
52
45
74
63
75
83
60
31
3
*12 advisories (2013); ~25 advisories with BAV of 60
Total additional exceedances: 555
Average additional exceedances per year: 46
-------
Comments from
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
-------
Massachusetts Department of Public Health comments - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 2
Massachusetts Department of Public Health comments
Celona, Mike (DPH)
Wed 5/28/2014 5:01 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: Nascarella, Marc (DPH) ; Curran, Vanessa (DPH)
;
This email is to provide comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) "Draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (EPA-820
-D-13-001)". Specifically, in April 2014, EPA announced that states receiving funding from
EPA to support implementation of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act would have a new requirement in order to receive future funding. This new
requirement stipulates that future grantees must perform public notification, such as issuing an
advisory, for any water quality test result from a bathing beach that exceeds the appropriate
Beach Action Value (BAV). For marine beaches, the BAV is either 60 or 70 cfu/100 ml
depending on illness rates derived by EPA.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health
(MDPH/BEH), has been receiving EPA funding under the BEACH Act since 2001. MDPH/BEH
and local health officials in Massachusetts are also responsible for enforcement of state
beaches regulations. Massachusetts water quality standards for marine bathing beaches (for
which we receive EPA BEACH Act funding) is the most conservative standard (104 cfu/100 ml
enterrococci) of the potential water quality standards that EPA has stipulated to date.
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.
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
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Massachusetts Department of Public Health comments - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 2
flexibility of using BAV as EPA originally intended, i.e., as an optional informational tool. Thank
you for your consideration of these comments.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
-------
PR Comments - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 2
PR Comments
Melendez Aguilar, Angel
Wed 5/28/2014 5:14 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: Grebe, Helen ;
@jl attachment
removed.txt;
In 2002, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB)began theplanning phase of the Beach Monitoring and
PublicNotification Program, which was established in the Qualityof Water Area. Inthe planning phase,
EQBevaluated 43 beachesclassified as areas swimmers by thePR Planning Board. EQBestablished an
order of priority (ranking), considering the following: werepublic beaches, number of visitors per year,
number of tourist per year, potential sources of contaminationand percent of violationsfor
bacteriological parameters (if had sampling station).Finally, 23 beaches were selectedin accordance
with the ranking and the federal fundsawarded theFederal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).In
March 2003, the monitoring of theirbeaches andbegan public notice ofwater quality on the beaches.
EQB continue the implementation of the Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Program until 2012.
During fiscal year 2013, this Program was discontinued due to the fact that EPA did not awarded
funds. In October, 2013 thefunds were allocated for the Beaches Program, so we initiated again with
thework plan established in previous years, this time for 36beaches.
The NationalBeach Guidanceand Required Performance Criteria for Grants (Draft April 2014) in page
17, section 2.2 Performance Criteria states the following: "FY2014 beach grants awarded before this
document is final must be consistent with the performance criteria in the 2002 National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Beach grants for FY 2014 and beyond that are awarded after
this document is final must be consistent with the performance criteria in this document". On page 35,
Section 3.6.1 Initial Submission to EPA states the following: "The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to award
implementation grants only if the public is provided an opportunity to review the grant-funded monitoring
and notification program through a process that provides for public notice and the opportunity to comment
on the program, which would include ranking of beaches. (See performance criterion 10, section 2.2.10.) A
state or tribe should review and address any comments before submitting its List of Beaches to EPA."
EQB already submitted in May 22, 2014 itsgrant application for FY 2014 funds. Our proposal
contemplates sampling the same 36 beaches approved by EPA on October, 2013. It should be pointed
out that, the beaches participating in our Beach Program were selected based on Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources bathing zones inventory, which consists of coastal areas of
Puerto Rico suitable for bathing and passive recreation that are classified as public beaches by the
Puerto Rico Planning Board. In addition, selection of the beaches was based on frequency of use by
local bathers and tourists, number of users, public sanitation facilities, and location of pollution sources
(point and non-point), as well as its accessibility and appropriateness for bathing activities. The
evaluation and selection of the beaches included in the Program was presented to EPA through a draft
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
PR Comments - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 2
of a Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA accepted the list of beaches selected and included in the EQB
Beach Program.
Nevertheless, wehave a concern regarding fulfillment of all requirements of the National Beach
Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (Draft April 2014) before EPA approves FY
2014 grant. We understand that it is a bit restrictiveat this time to meet the requirement forpublic
participation before October, 2014. 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.
If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact us.
Thanks,
Division de Planes y Proyectos Especiales
Plans and Special Project Division
" Area de Evaluation y Planificacion Estrategica
Evaluation and Strategic Planning Area
Tel. /Phone: (787) 767-8181 ext. 3543
Fax: (787) 767-2592
Por favor considere el ambiente antes de imprimir este mensaje. /Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
GOBIERNO DE PUERTO RICO - INFORMACION CONFIDENCIAL Y PRIVILEGIADA
El contenido de este envfo es confidencial y esta protegido por la Regla 31 de Evidencia, 32 LPRA ap. IV Regla 31. La information es exclusivamente para la
persona a quien se dirige y se le advierte que el uso, distribution o el curso de cualquier accion relacionada con el contenido de la informacion transmitida
esta estrictamente prohibido. Si ha recibido este envfo por error, borre esta y todas las copias del mismo documento y comunfquese de inmediato por
telefono con el remitente.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO-CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGE INFORMATION
The content of this transmission is confidential and is protected by Puerto Rico's Rule 31 of Evidence, 32 LPRAap. IV Rule 31. The content is exclusively for
the person o whom it is addressed and any use, distribution, or other course of action regarding the transmitted information is strictly prohibited. If you
received this transmission by error, promptly delete it and immediately contact the sender by phone.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality
-------
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Perf... - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 2
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
BORISENKO Aaron
Wed 5/28/2014 5:19 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: CUDE CURTIS G ; FARRER DAVID G
; jae.p.douglas@state.or.us ;
Knittel, Janette ; larry.caton@state.or.us ;
Pedersen, Rob ; HILLWIG Rebecca ;
To Whom It May Concern;
The goals of the beach guidance criteria are admirable. Greater protection for waders and swimmers at our
nations beaches continues the important mission of the Clean Water Act goals in making our nations waters
safer for contact recreation. Yet resources for natural resource protection are dwindling. Both federal and state
natural resource agencies are being asked to do more with less. To be the most effective with the resources
available, we need to prioritize our environmental efforts on issues that pose the greatest risks to human health
and sensitive aquatic life. Oregon has some of the nations cleanest beaches as demonstrated by the data we
have collected over the last decade. Hot spots have been identified in a few areas and progress has been made
in correcting some of those problems using the data provided through the beach program. However, the data
also demonstrates that wading and swimming along Oregon's beaches is one of the lowest risk recreational
contact activities a visitor could do in Oregon (other than hypothermia and strong currents) . So here are some
of the potential consequences of the new criteria in Oregon:
1. We estimate there will be approximately 40 % more advisories.
2. The new criteria will create the perception, real or not, that our beaches are degrading (the opposite is
probably true).
3. 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 season.
4. There will be less monitoring resourcesfor investigative sampling.
5. 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.
6. Inconsistency with water quality standards for fresh water creates confusing messaging to Oregonians.
7. More advisories may adversely impact local tourism which is important to the coastal communities.
I realize that many of these consequences are outside of the scope and objectives of the Nation Beach Guidance
document. However, 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
consideration of these comments.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Public Comments: National Beach Guidance and Required Perf... - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 2
Aaron Borisenko
Water Quality Monitoring Manager
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Laboratory Environmental Assessment Division
3150 NW 229th Suite 150
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Office: (503) 693-5723
Fax: (503)693-4999
[bor\senko.aaron@deq.state.or.us]borisenko.aaron@deq.state.or.us
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created /t."-Albert Einstein
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
Huron-Clinton Metroparks
-------
National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 1
National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants
Paul Muelle
Wed 5/28/2014 6:00 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised, draft National Beach Guidance and Performance
Criteria for Grants (Guidance).
The Huron-Clinton Metroparks supports the use of new tools such as rapid methods (i.e., Quantitative
Polymerase Chain Reaction), predictive tools, and electronic media, to improve public health protection at
beaches as outlined in the Guidance documents. The Metroparks have been fortunate to receive funds from the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to improve stormwater systems and to develop and implement some of
the new tools outlined in the Document, which have and will help us better manage our beaches. In order for
our park system to complete the implementation of these projects, significant financial support from the GLRI
was required, for which we are grateful.
However, with limited funding from both Federal, State and Local sources, we are concerned with the
expectations to incorporate additional requirements into an already struggling beach monitoring and
maintenance program. We are concerned that Michigan must adopt a new Beach Action Value of 190 E. coli per
100 milliliters (ml) until they can promulgate new water quality standards (WQS) based on the 2012
Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC). It is our understanding that the EPA recently reviewed Michigan's
existing WQS and determined that they are consistent with the 2012 RWQC, which recommends a geometric
mean and a statistical threshold value, yet Michigan would not be able to obtain BEACH Act funds without
changing their WQS. 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.
The GLRI has provided the Metroparks significant funding in our quest to protect public health at our beaches by
supporting the implementation of successful methods and tools and we support the expansion and refinement
of the use of sanitary surveys, rapid methods, and forecast models to identify, correct, and eliminate sources of
pollution. However, we urge the EPA to re-consider any changes in the Performance Criteria that would place
undue financial burden on an organization through program implementation or negatively impact an
organization due to newly imposed WQS.
Sincerely,
| Natural Resources and Environmental Compliance Manager
Huron-Clinton Metroparks
High Drive, Brighton, Ml | 810-494-6052
[www.metroparks.comlwww.metroparks.com
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments from
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. 80x19276, SPRINGFIELD, 11x^01562794-9276 (217)782-2829
PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR LISA BONNETT, DIRECTOR
217/558-2012
May 28, 2014
Denise Hawkins, Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach Branch
Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Sent via e-mail
RE: Comment on the draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Dear Ms. Hawkins:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) provides the following comment on the subject
draft document. Illinois EPA is the agency responsiblefthrough 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. We will be converting
state-wide bacteria water quality standards from fecal coliform to E. coli. Illinois' existing beach criteria
are 235 cfu/ 100 ml E. coli.
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 cfu/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. 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 trienial 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the revised BEACH Act guidance.
Sincerely,
Sanjay
Divisio
Bureau of Water
Division of Water Pollution Control
-------
Comments from
Chicago Park District
-------
Chicago park district
Administration Office
541 North Fairbanks
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312)742-PLAY(7529)
(312)747-2001 TTY
www.chicagoparkdistrict.com
Board of Commissioners
Bryan Traubert
President
Avis LaVelle
Vice President
Erika R. Allen
Donald J. Edwards
Tim King
M. Laird Koldyke
Juan Salgado
General Superintendent
&CEO
Michael P. Kelly
City of Chicago
Rahm Emanuel
Mayor
May 28, 2014
Comments concerning the Draft National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Beach
Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants (Guidance).
The Chicago.Park.District (CPD) owns and manages 27 public beaches on
Lake Michigan within the City of Chicago. CPD is responsible for beach
monitoring and public notification programs at Chicago's public beaches.
CPD is currently in compliance with the 1986 recreational water quality
criteria as promulgated by USEPA in 2004 for all coastal waters where states
had not yet adopted the 1986 criteria. Advisories are issued when E. coll
levels are detected or predicted to be above 235 cfu /100 ml. CPD has
received Beach Act funding, administered by the Illinois Department of
Public Health, to support a portion of our monitoring and notification
programs for several years.
CPD personnel have reviewed the Guidance. We commend EPA for
encouraging the use of tools such as sanitary surveys, predictive modeling,
rapid testing and electronic media for public notification of health risk.
Thanks in part to funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, use
of these tools has already expanded throughout the Great Lakes and has
improved the protection of public health at many beaches.
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 (BAY) of 190 cfu /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. We strongly encourage EPA to strive for
consistency between the Guidance and the 2012 Criteria. 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.
Beach water quality is a complex issue to explain to the general public, and
CPD has completed extensive work to educate the public about beach water
quality, public health risks, and how the public can help to protect water
quality. 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.
-------
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. This work was
supported by EPA funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and extensive technical
support from the US Geological Survey. 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
criteria.
Breitenbach
Director of Cultural and Natural Resources
Chicago Park District
-------
Comments from
Hawaii Department of Health
-------
Comments for the draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants
General Comments
It seems beach related research done the last several years are being
ignored. The work done by the Great Lakes people, info and research done by
them and others does not show in this document. A lot more is being asked but
will more funds be coming also? Enterococci does not work as a FIB in Hawaii. In
coordination with Clostridium perfringens it does. Any rain event in Hawaii
increases Enterococci levels in our coastal waters as well as any high surf event.
Research in Hawaii has shown that enterococci replicates in the soil, sand, biofilm,
and decaying matter and that is why we use Clostridium as a secondary tracer.
Without it, we would be putting out false alarms. This document does not
address secondary FIB tracers or other options at all. Will we be allowed to use
Clostridium in the future?
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 all this? Then there is the question of whether what is found is viable.
There seems to be some re-inventing of the wheel in this document, is it really
needed?
Section 3.4.1.1.1
-------
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.
Section 3.6
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.
Section 3.6.1 and .2
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.
-------
Section 4.1
qPCR
For many states, qPCR is still an unreachable goal. The up-front costs of the
equipment and associated costs for building the genetic library is still prohibitive.
Additionally, although qPCR is termed as "same-day" results, the reality is that
when sample collection times are considered along with travel time to the
laboratory, same-day results that will be useful for beachgoers are still not
possible. If samples are run in a special qPCR only room, lab person is highly
skilled, and samples arrive early in the morning(6 am), then possibly results could
be available by noon. But most labs do not have a dedicated room and therefore
there is required prep time for lab, sampler would need to start sampling run at 4
am or 5 am depending on the number of stations, which pushes the time back
another two to three hours. Until a truly effective rapid test is developed that is
implementable for the above described situations, qPCR is still not really a viable
tool.
Section 4.3.1.1.1 Event-scale Variability
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.
4.3.2.3
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.
Section 4.3.2.3.3 After a Heavy Rainfall Event
If there is a heavy rainfall event and/or the National Weather Service Issues
a Flash Flood Warning, and stormwater discharge verified, a Brown Water
Advisory is issued for the affected waters (coastline).
Section 4.6.2 Rainfall-based Beach Notification Threshold
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.
Section 4.7.2.1 Beach Action Value
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 lower 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.
Conclusions
I applaud EPAs 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. Although much
of the needed time will be up-front, maintaining the reviews will still require
diverting employee (samplers) away from sample 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.
-------
Comments from
Washington State
Department of Ecology & Health
-------
May 28,2014
To: EPA Office of Water
From: Debby Sargeant, Washington State Beach Program Manager
Subject: Comments on April 18,2014 draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants (EPA-820-D-13-001)
Chapter 2 Section 2.2.2: 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?
Chapter 3 Section 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?
Chapter 4 Section 4.7.2.1: 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.
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.
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.
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.
-------
Comments from
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
-------
GUAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDDIE BAZAI
GOVERNOR OF GUAM
RAYTENORIO
LT. GOVERNOR OF GUAM
ERIC M. I'AIACIOS
ADMINISTRATOR
P.O. Box 22439 BARRIGADA, Gu 9692!
YVETTE CRUZ
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
EPA.GUAM.GOV
May 28th, 2014
Hafa Adai,
The Environmental Monitoring and Analytical Services [EMAS) Division of Guam
EPA, which is responsible for administrating and implementing the USEPA BEACH Act,
submits the following comments for the DRAFT National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants.
Performance Criterion 3 - Requirement to use Beach Action Value
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?
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 of the BAV be labeled an "alert"?
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.
Performance Criterion 4 - Requirement to post data on website
Guam meets this by posting our list of beaches under advisory every week (our sampling
frequency at 44 beaches is weekly). Clarification is need on whether this requirement
includes posting the raw data to the website as well or does our submission to STORET and
BEACON suffice?
Dangkolo Na Si Yu'os Ma'ase
Jesse T. Cruz
EMAS Division Administrator
Todo Y Nilala Y Tano Man Uno - All Living Things Of the Earth Are One
-------
Comments from
State of Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals
-------
Bobby Jindal V^B^/ Kathy H. Kliebert
GOVERNOR ^SzSSnl^ SECRETARY
State of Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals
Beach Monitoring Program
May 28, 2014
EPA
Transmitted via email to BEACH_GUIDANCE@epa.gov
Re: Louisiana Beach Program's comments on the draft National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants, EPA-820-D-13-001, dated April 18, 2014.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for the opportunity comment on the draft National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants (Draft Guidance). We have thoroughly reviewed the Draft
Guidance and identified four areas of concern. Our concerns relate to the proposed Beach
Action Value (BAV), use of rapid methods and predictive tools, and the timeline for states to
implement the proposed changes. Each of these issues is addressed below.
BAV
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 BAV criteria of
60 CFU/lOOmL 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. The draft
guidance does a good job of explaining the need for both GM and STV 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 BAV as proposed and
drop the GM criterion from its advisory decision process. Although we believe that adoption of
the BAV 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. 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.
Bienville Building 628 N. 4th Street P.O. Box 3234 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3234
Phone #: 225/342-1532 Fax #: 225/342-3738 WWW.DHH.LA.GOV
"An Equal Opportunity Employer"
-------
Use of Rapid Methods
The Draft Guidance requires states to consider the use of rapid methods. LA does not plan to
adopt rapid methods at this time for the following reasons:
LA's beaches are relatively low use and do not warrant more than once per week
sampling, negating any benefit of applying rapid methods.
LA's beaches are remote from the lab, with samples collected in the morning being
delivered to the lab in the afternoon, further negating any benefit of using rapid methods.
All Beach samples are processed by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital's
(LDHH) certified lab, which does not have, and does not plan to acquire, the equipment
and personnel to perform qPCR.
Predictive Tools
LA completed a thorough examination of the potential to use predictive models to issue
preemptive advisories in 20091 and determined that models with acceptable sensitivity and
specificity could not be developed with the environmental data collected by LA's Beach
Program. More recent analysis2 has documented the considerable annual variation in the
association between the observed environmental variables and enterococci density, further
reducing the likelihood of developing acceptable predictive tools. Accordingly, LA does not
plan to use predictive tools until better environmental data become available.
Implementation
LA will not be able to implement the Draft Guidance, once finalized, until federal FY16.
Adoption of the Draft Guidance would require LA to revise its Beach Program Plan, QAPP,
program database, and website. Revision of the Beach Program Plan will require LDHH
approval to ensure compliance with the state's Sanitary Code, issuance of a public notice that the
plan is available for review, a public comment period, and preparation of the a final document
that address any comments received. These additional requirements were not anticipated under
the current grant, and the available funds have been fully committed to implementing current
program requirements. LA will be able to implement the Draft Guidance using FY14 grant
proceeds to develop the new program requirements in FY15 and implement the revised plan in
FY16. LA is prepared to amend its FY14 grant proposal to include a work plan describing the
development of the revised Beach Program Plan, QAPP, program database, and website during
FY15.
Thank you for considering LA's comments on the Draft Guidance.
Sincerely,
L
t
^.
Caitlin L. Pinsonat
Beach Monitoring Program Coordinator
1 Wagner, R.O., M. Schaub, and J. Freedman. 2009. Predictive Modeling of Remote Beaches -
Louisiana's Experience. National Beach Conference, April 20-22 2009, Huntington Beach, CA
2LDHH. 2012. Louisiana BEACH Grant Report; 2011 Swimming Season.
-------
Comments from
California Environmental Protection Agency
State Water Resources Control Board
-------
Comments on US EPA Beach Guidance and Required Performance... - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 3
Comments on US EPA Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Gjerde, Michael@Waterboards
Wed 5/28/2014 7:44 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Cc: Fleming, Terrence ; Crader, Phillip@Waterboards
; Hann, Paul@Waterboards
; Whitney, Vicky@Waterboards
;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the US EPA National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants dated April 18, 2014 (US EPA Beach Guidance). These guidelines will be very helpful in ensuring that the California
Beach Monitoring program successfully meets the goals of protecting California Beach visitors from pathogen borne
illnesses.
California has the most robust beach monitoring program in the nation. The State provides $1.8 million annually for
sampling, analysis and notification in coordination with the approximate $500,000 annual US EPA provides through the
Beach grant program. In addition, counties spend an additional one million dollars each year to do monitoring beyond what
is required by state and federal law. Each year California conducts weekly monitoring at 509 sites at 255 beaches. Through
the Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI), California has funded sanitary surveys and associated system repairs of over $100 million
to date.
California is also on the cutting edge of science related to pathogen monitoring and detection. California has invested more
than $100 million in significant research and specific beach projects to address identified beach problems. Several
examples of this cutting edge research, conducted by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project and funded
largely with state CBI funds are referenced in the Grant guidelines.
Finally, California has invested heavily in addressing those beaches that do show regular exceedences of recreational
standards. Through the Clean Beaches Initiative, California funds sanitary surveys and associated system repairs. California
has adopted, where necessary, total maximum daily loads (TMDL) that identify the sources of bacteria and include
enforceable implementation measures designed to protect public health and beach water quality.
With this cumulative experience as a background, we have reviewed the changes in this year's guidelines. Many of the
changes we support, and have in many cases already implemented. California is testing the use of rapid indicators at three
different county jurisdictions. However, we have concerns about the proposal to require the use of Beach Action Values
for beach posting. We believe that the requirement to use the Beach Action Values may be problematic for the following
reasons that are discussed more fully below. 1) Imposition of the beach action values is effectively a standards action being
implemented through a grant program without the benefit of a public process. 2) The requirement to use the beach action
values creates legal inconsistencies with state laws. 3) 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. 4) The use of beach action
values may cause public confusion and uncertainty over Beach Safety. 5) Imposition of the beach action values may have an
adverse economic impact to the state. 6) Imposition of the beach action values may result in a reduction in overall beach
monitoring.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments on US EPA Beach Guidance and Required Performance... - Beach_Guidance Page 2 of 3
Imposition of the Beach Action value (beach action values) is effectively a standards action being implemented
through a grant program without the benefit of a public process
The new EPA 2012 recreational criteria is clear that "beach action values is not a component of EPA's recommended
criteria, but a tool that states may choose to use, without adopting it into their WQS as a "do not exceed" value for beach
notification purposes." California already has a beach notification standard that meets or exceeds the protection levels
proposed in the EPA criteria document, and is not currently proposing to adopt the Beach Action Values. The State Water
Board is concerned that the requirement to use beach action values has the same effect and could be considered a
standards action being implemented through a grant program without the opportunity for public comment or the process
requirements of Clean Water Act Section 301.
The requirement to use the beach action values creates legal inconsistencies with state laws
California already has a set of protective bacteria standards (known as AB411 beach standards) that have been approved
through a public process. The AB411 standards are already as or more stringent than the new EPA 2012 Recreational
Criteria. AB411 requires weekly beach monitoring and posting for any exceedences of seven related FIB standards for total
and fecal coliforms and enterococcus. These standards include the three Geomean and single sample maximum values as
well as a fecal/ total coliform ratio.
The California posting requirements based on these standards trigger additional actions including resampling, notification
to the agencies responsible for the operation of the beach and referral to the district attorney. Compelling the use of the
beach action value sets up regulatory inconsistency between state and federal programs where counties will be required to
post beaches using beach action values, but water quality evaluation for 303(d) listing will be tied to standards
implemented as part of the USEPA2012 water quality criteria which does not require the use of beach action values.
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.
Requiring that beaches be posted at a level of 60 cfu would greatly increase the number of postings at California beaches
compared to the Enterococcus standard single sample maximum (SSM) of 104 cfu currently in place or the proposed
Statistical Threshold Value (STV) of 110 cfu that corresponds to the 32 NEEAR gastrointestinal illness (NGI) per 1,000
recreators. When using the beach action values of 60 during the period from 2009 through 2013, the number of postings
would have increased by 48.4% compared to the 104 SSM and 50.1% with 110 STV. Especially disconcerting would be that
during the very dry year of 2013 when beach water quality was measurably better than historically, actual postings using
the beach action values would have increased by 61.9% over the 104 SSM or 63.4% over the 110 STV thresholds if applied in
2013.
The State Water Board does not foresee the increase in postings as an improvement in public health outcomes, particularly
since most postings are still based on current cultural methods requiring at least 24 hours for analysis. A more appropriate
response would be to promote the use of beach predictive modelling and rapid indicator testing to improve the timeliness
of beach public health notifications.
The use of beach action values may cause public confusion and uncertainty over Beach Safety
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Comments on US EPA Beach Guidance and Required Performance... - Beach_Guidance Page 3 of 3
Current state law requires the posting of signs at California beaches when bacteria levels exceed health standards set by the
California Department of Public Health. Creating grant requirement to post beaches using the beach action values
threshold separates this process from the standards proposed by the 2012 US EPA criteria already deemed protective of
public health. It would likely also create a situation where beaches are regularly posted, but do not qualify as impaired
beaches under the 303(d) listing policy. Thus the use of beach action values to post beaches would create confusion for the
public as the postings would create mixed messages about the safety of recreational waters.
Imposition of the beach action values may result in a reduction in overall beach monitoring.
Some counties in California have over 50 years of beach water quality sampling experience. Counties often use their own
resources, beyond those provided by the state and federal grant programs to sample at more locations and a higher
frequency than required by California state law. If the counties are required to post sampled sites much more frequently
based on the beach action values, many counties may choose to reduce their overall sample program to only those levels
explicitly required by state and federal law. This could result is reduced county sampling and a consequent decrease in
public health protection which is contrary to the stated intention to increase precautionary warning to the swimming
public.
conclusion
The State Water Board supports the US EPA efforts to improve public health protection and notification at our nation's
beaches. We have reviewed the changes to the US EPA Beach Guidance and support many of the changes. However, we do
not believe that imposition of the beach action values as thresholds for beach notification through the National Beach
Guidance Criteria for Grants is the most appropriate approach. 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.
California looks forward to working with US EPA toward improving public notification about beach bathing hazards. 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. California will continue to support and participate
with US EPA in any review process.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/6/2014
-------
Late Comments
The following comments were received after the May 28, 2014 comment deadline.
-------
Comments from
City of Long Beach
Department of Health and Human Services
-------
Comments on EPA Rec - 1 Guidelines - Beach_Guidance Page 1 of 2
Comments on EPA Rec - 1 Guidelines
Nelson Kerr
Fri 5/30/2014 7:56 PM
To: Beach_Guidance ;
Categories: Red category
Comments from City of Long Beach, DHHS, Environmental Health, Long Beach CA.
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
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.
Economic impacts to local programs and beneficial uses issues need additional analysis.
Lab impacts will need to be evaluated.
Having multiple risk levels and multiple criteria will create confusion among the monitoring agencies and
the general public.
Recommend meeting with local monitoring program reps, state waterboards and EPA prior to
implementation or approval
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.
Nelson Kerr, MPA, REHS
Bureau Manager, Environmental Health
City of Long Beach, Dept. of Health and Human Services
2525 Grand Ave. Long Beach, CA 90815
Ph: (562) 570-4170 Fax: (562) 570-4038
Please note my new email address is
nelson.kerr@longbeach.gov
IMPORTANT WARNING: This e-mail (and any attachment) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is privileged and confidential. All recipients, including employees, are obligated and directed to maintain it in a safe, secure and
confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality is strictly prohibited and may subject you to disciplinary action
and/or be a violation of state and/or federal law(s) and carry criminal and/or civil penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately
notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer without making a copy or distribution.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/Beach Guidance@epa.gov/ 6/10/2014
-------
Comments from
South Carolina Department of
Environmental Health and Control
-------
D
PROMOTI FBOfTBCT FSOSFS*
Catherine B. Tcinptctoo. Director
fifcf
South Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Control
Comments on "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Page 38 Section 4.1 Performance Criteria line 31 - 37 The Potential use of predictive tools.
Response:
The South Carolina standard for enterococci listed in state regulation 61-68 WATER
CLASSIFICATIONS & STANDARDS states that: "Additionally, for beach monitoring and notification
activities for CWA Section 406 only, samples shall not exceed a single sample maximum of 104/100 ml."
For states with recreational water quality standards, the use of predictive models may not be
specifically supported in regulation.
Page 69 - 70 Section 4.7.2 Threshold Values for Beach Notification Actions (Performance
Criterion 3) pg 69 line 1-40 and pg 70 line 1-16
Response:
The state standard for enterococci listed in state regulation 61-68 WATER CLASSIFICATIONS &
STANDARDS states that: "Additionally, for beach monitoring and notification activities for CWA Section
406 only, samples shall not exceed a single sample maximum of 104/100 ml."
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 STV is considered the reasonable
quantification value to represent that risk.
\ ' i ' . ' M ' \ ' , ' ' ' { v ' I ' ^ ' ' ' . v .'>!<
LWOBullSncei Columlna.SCL'UL'Ol Phone:(80L>) WtS-H i:-1..! \uv\\ .\
-------
Comments from
New York City
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
-------
Health
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
Mary T. Bassett, MD, MPH
Commissioner
Christopher Boyd
Assistant Commissioner
Bureau of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
42-09 28th Street
14th Floor, CN #56
Queens, NY 11101
347-396-6001 (tel)
347-396-6089 (fax)
BEACH GUIDANCE@epa.gov
Re: National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
To Whom it May Concern:
The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (the
"Department"), submits the following comments providing recommendations
concerning the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants document:
Clarification Regarding Beach Notification Actions
As detailed in Section 4.7.2.1 (page 69, line 21) and mentioned in other location
throughout the document, EPA requires that the 2012 RWQC Beach Action
Values to be used as the Beach Notification Threshold. DOHMH 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." Section 4.3.2.3 details how and
when single samples are considered valid or representative.
Clarification of Single Sample Requirements
DOHMH 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?
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?
Clarification of BAV Notification Actions
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 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.
-------
Public Evaluation of Program:
EPA does not sufficiently define what qualifies as a "program change" that would trigger evaluation in
section 2.2.10. Additionally, DOHMH 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.
5.4.1 Beach Signs:
To improve the communication of risk to the public when water quality 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 quality
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.
WARNING
Swimming and wading are
not recommended.
Water Is contaminated with sewage or storm runoff, which may cause
vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory illness or infections. Children, pregnant
women, the elderly and the chronically ill are at higher risk.
For beach status updates:
Text BEACH to 877-877 or call 311
BEACH
CLOSED
For beach status updates
Tcxl BEACH to 877-877 or call 311
5.4.4.2 Text Messages:
DOHMH developed a new texting service for the 2014 bathing season that other jurisdictions may wish to
consider incorporating into their public communication strategies. Beach patrons by texting "beach" to
877-877 are enrolled in texting service that allows for both on demand updates on the status of a beach by
texting the name of the beach to the service and the ability for DOHMH to "push" a text message to a
subscriber. Provided below is the simple, direct message received regarding status of a beach. As the EPA
guidance suggests, this texting service was accompanied by a media and advertising strategy to promote
the texting service. Attached is copy of the advertisement used. The EPA should consider including
examples of successful messaging and promotion efforts to assist the dissemination of best practices.
-------
OPEN:
*BEACH NAME* is OPEN. To learn more about water quality sampling and the DOH Beach
Program go to: maps.nyc.gov/beach
ADVISORY:
WARNING. Swimming and wading at *BEACH NAME* is NOT recommended at this time.
Water is contaminated w/ sewage or storm runoff. For more info text WHY
"WHY" -> Sewage and runoff may cause illnesses. Children, pregnant women, the elderly & the
chronically ill are at higher risk. For more info, visitmaps.nyc.gov/beach
CLOSED:
*BEACH NAME* is CLOSED. By Order of the Health Department, swimming and wading are
not considered safe at this time. For more info, visit: maps.nyc.gov/beach
Receive FREE TEXT ALERTS about
water quality at New York City beaches.'
BEF
YOU
Text BEACH to 877- 8
or visit nyc.gov and &
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important guidance document.
Sincerely,
Christopher Boyd
Assistant Commissioner
Attachments
-------
WARNING
Swimming and wading are
not recommended.
Water is contaminated with sewage or storm runoff, which may cause
vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory illness or infections. Children, pregnant
women, the elderly and the chronically ill are at higher risk.
For beach status updates:
Text BEACH to 877-877 or call 311
Health
-------
BEACH
CLOSED
By order of the Health Department,
Swimming and wading are
not permitted.
For beach status updates:
Text BEACH to 877-877 or call 311
Health
-------
Receive FREE TEXT ALERTS about
water quality at New York City beaches.'
Be aware of warnings or closures before you go to the beach.
Message From
BEACH HEALTH & SAFETY
Message From
BEACH HEALTH & SAFETY
Beach open today
I Message From
BEACH HEALTH & SAFETY
Beach closed today
YOU GO
For beach status updates:
or visit nyc.gov and search BEACH
*Standard texting rates apply
-------
------- |