^EDS7^
Vv s
PRO"^
EPA's BEACH Report:
Washington 2006 Swimming Season
June 2007
Introduction
The BEACH Act of 2000 requires that coastal and
Great Lakes states and territories 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 2006 swimming season.
Between Memorial Day and Labor Day each year, the
Washington BEACH Program monitors fecal bacteria
at approximately 70 marine recreational beaches
throughout Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and
the Pacific Coast. While swimming occurs mainly in
summer, other contact activities such as SCUBA diving,
surfing, and kayaking occur throughout the year. The
BEACH Program's mission is to monitor fecal bacteria
at the state's public marine beaches and notify the
public when bacteria levels present a risk to beach goers.
The Program is managed collaboratively by the State
Departments of Ecology and Health and accomplished
through the cooperative efforts of multiple agencies
and organizations: county health and surface water
programs, tribes, and non-profit organizations and
volunteers. These relationships are crucial to the success
of the Program.
Bacteria levels in Washington's marine waters are
typically very low with 85 percent of sample results
below the detection limit. Beaches that exceed water
quality standards are usually shallow enclosed bays
close to urban areas. The Program implements several
strategies to protect beach goers from bacteria related
illness and improve water quality. In addition to
monitoring and notification, they identify beaches with
chronic problems and assist local health jurisdictions in
fixing those problems. They have successfully conducted
shoreline surveys and assisted with dye studies to
identify contamination sources at beaches that are
frequently out of compliance. In one instance, identifying
the source of contamination led to a $12 million dollar
state effort to inspect and make improvements on the
septic systems at numerous state parks. They are also
developing an outreach program to educate the public
about the risks of water born illnesses and what each of
us can do minimize that risk and improve water quality.
The program includes a Web site, posters and brochures,
landscape models for street festivals, and a radio spot.
Figure 1. Washington coastal counties with
2006 monitored beach data.
San Juan
Whatcom
Islan
Kitsap
lallam
Skagit
Snohomish
Jefferson
Pierce
Thurston
Table 1. Breakdown of monitored and
unmonitored coastal beaches by
county.
County
Total
Beaches
Monitored
Not
Monitored
CLALLAM
61
7
54
GRAYS HARBOR
24
3
21
ISLAND
60
5
55
JEFFERSON
52
3
49
KING
64
15
49
KIITSAP
60
10
50
MASON
41
4
37
PACIFIC
29
1
28
PIERCE
55
9
46
SAN JUAN
165
1
164
SKAGIT
51
1
50
SNOHOMISH
32
6
26
THURSTON
16
2
14
WHATCOM
32
3
29
TOTALS
742
70
672

-------
>red 1
A/ithniit '
Monitored
beaches without
. actions: 60
(75%)
J
2006 Summary Results
How many beaches had notification
actions?
When monitoring of water at beaches
shows that levels of certain bacteria exceed
standards, Washington's beach managers
notify the public on their Web site. Of the
80 coastal beaches that were monitored
in 2006, 20, or 25 percent, had at least one
advisory during the 2006 season (Figure
2).
How many notification actions were
reported and how long were they?
A total of 20 beach notification actions
were reported in the 2006 swimming
season. Fifteen actions lasted longer than
7 days. Figure 3 presents breakdowns of
action durations.
What percentage of days were beaches
under a notification action?
For Washington's 2006 swimming season,
EPA determined there were a total of
11,120 beach days associated with the 80
monitored beaches. Actions were reported
on 474 of those days or about 1 percent of
the time (Figure 4).
How do 2006 results compare to
previous years?
Beginning in 2003, states are required to
submit data to EPA under the BEACH Act
for beaches which are in coastal and Great
Lakes waters. Table 2 compares 2006 data
with data reported in previous years.
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: Monitored
beaches
with and
without
notification
actions.
Monitored
beaches with
actions: 20
(25%)
Figure 3: Beach notification actions by duration.
Figure 3:
12

<2 10

£ 8-

o
< 6-

S 4-

2 2-

o-

12
1 -2
3-7	8-30
Duration of Actions (days)
>30
Figure 4: Beach days with
and without
notification
actions.
Beach days
with an action:
474
(4%)
Beach days with
no action
10,646
(96%)
Table 2. Beach notification actions,
2004-2006.

2004
2005
2006
Number of
monitored beaches
11
73
80
Number of beaches
affected by
notification actions
10
6
20
Percentage of
beaches affected by
notification actions
91%
8%
25%

-------