\
r\ \
EPA's BEACH Report:
Washington 2010 Swimming Season
May 2011
Introduction
The BEACH Act of 2000 requires that coastal and Great
Lakes states, territories, and tribes report to EPA on
beach monitoring and notification data for their coastal
recreation waters. The BEACH Act defines coastal
recreation waters as the Great Lakes and coastal waters
(including coastal estuaries) that states, territories, and
authorized tribes officially recognize or designate for
swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar activities in the
water.
This fact sheet summarizes beach monitoring and
notification data submitted to EPA by the State of
Washington for the 2010 swimming season.
Between Memorial Day and Labor Day each year, the
Washington BEACH Program monitors fecal bacteria
at approximately 47 saltwater beaches. The Program
is managed collaboratively by the State Departments
of Ecology and Health and implemented through the
cooperative efforts of local health jurisdictions, tribal
nations, non-profit organizations, and volunteers. There
are more than 100 people involved in implementing
Washington's BEACH Program.
Bacteria levels at Washington's marine waters are
typically very low with 58 percent of samples showing
bacteria levels below the detection limit in 2010.
Beaches that exceed water quality standards are
usually shallow enclosed bays close to urban areas.
The Washington BEACH Program implements several
strategies to protect beachgoers from bacteria related
illness and improve water quality. In addition to
monitoring and notification, it identifies beaches with
chronic problems and assists local health jurisdictions
in fixing those problems. For instance, in the fall
of 2008, Purdy Sandspit County Park was closed
after identification of failing on-site septic systems
near the beach. The Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department worked to address concerns and correct
on-site problems, and the beach was reopened in
July 2010. Additionally, Larrabee State Park has had
recurring high bacteria results for several seasons.
Failing septic systems near the beach were corrected
and the park's sewage treatment plant was replaced
with an upgraded system but bacteria counts continued
to be high. In 2010, the BEACH Program met with
partners in Whatcom County—the Whatcom County
Health Department, Larrabee State Park Ranger, local
Surfrider chapter, and State Department of Ecology's
wastewater treatment plant permit manager—to assess
contamination sources and develop plans for moving
forward. 2011 plans include an education and outreach
initiative and continued source investigation.
Figure 1. Washington coastal counties.
Table 1. Breakdown of monitored and
unmonitored coastal beaches
by county for 2010.
County
Total
Beaches
Monitored
Not
Monitored
CLALLAM
88
4
84
GRAYS
HARBOR
69
3
66
ISLAND
114
3
111
JEFFERSON
122
3
119
KING
99
7
92
KITSAP
193
8
185
MASON
70
2
68
PACIFIC
59
0
59
PIERCE
138
5
133
SAN JUAN
218
0
218
SKAGIT
65
1
64
SNOHOMISH
42
7
35
THURSTON
41
1
40
WHATCOM
50
3
47
TOTALS
1,368
47
1,321
Whatcom
Skagit
Island
Clallam
Snohomish
Jefferson
Mas< 4	
Gra} > hferbor
Pierce
Kitsap
Pac fic Thurston

-------
2010 Summary Results
How many notification actions were reported
and how long were they?
When water quality standards are exceeded at a
particular beach, Washington issues a water contact
advisory. Sewage spills usually trigger a closure.
A total of nine monitored beaches had at least one
advisory issued during the 2010 swimming season.
Figure 2 presents a breakdown of notification
action durations. This graph does not include three
permanent advisories and one sewage spill closure
that occurred during the swimming season, as those
beaches were not monitored in 2010.
What percentage of days were beaches under a
notification action?
For Washington's 2010 swimming season, actions
were reported about four percent of the time (Figure
3).
How do 2010 results compare to previous years?
Table 2 compares 2010 notification action data with
monitored beach data from previous years.
What pollution sources possibly affect
investigated monitored beaches?
Figure 4 displays the percentage of Washington's
investigated monitored beaches possibly affected by
various pollution sources. In 2010, 45 percent of the
beaches reported that possible sources included a
sewer line leak or break.
For More Information
For general information about beaches:
www.epa.gov/beaches/
For information about beaches in Washington:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/beach/
Figure 2: Beach notification actions by duration.
w e
c 6
o
30
Duration of Actions (Days)
Figure 3:
Table 2. Beach notification actions, 2008-2010.

2008
2009
2010
Number of monitored
beaches
56
68
47
Number of beaches
affected by notification
actions
11
8
9
Percentage of beaches
affected by notification
actions
20%
12%
19%
Percentage of beach
days affected by
notification actions
2%
2%
4%
14
Figure 4: Percent of investigated monitored beaches
affected by possible pollution sources (22 beaches).
Percent of beaches
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Investigated / no sources found
Non-storm related runoff
Storm-related runoff
Agricultural runoff
Boat discharge
Cone, animal feeding operation
Combined sewer overflow
Sanitary sewer overflow
Publicly-owned treatment works
Sewer line leak or break
Septic system leakage
Wildlife
Other (identified) source(s)
Unidentified source(s)
27
Note: A single beach may
have multiple sources.
9
9
45
Beach days
with no action:
4,150
(96%)
Beach days with
and without
notification
actions.
Beach days
with an action:
174
(4%)

-------