United States
Environmental Protection
^'^1 # ^Agency
Office of Water
EPA 823-R-22-003
September 2022
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000:
2022 Report to Congress
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Table of Contents
Acronym List 3
Executive Summary 4
Section 1. Introduction 5
Section 2. Water Quality Criteria Development and Other Actions to Improve the Quality of Coastal
Recreation Waters 7
2.1 New Criteria and Tools 8
2.1.1 Alternative Methods Calculator Tool 8
2.1.2 2019 Recreational Water Quality Criteria or Swimming Advisories for Cyanotoxins 9
2.2 Criteria Under Development 11
2.3 New Health Studies 11
Section 3. Improvements to Methodologies and Techniques for Monitoring Coastal Recreation Waters. 13
3.1 Advances in Methods 13
3.1.1 Rapid Methods 13
3.1.2 Coliphage Methods 14
3.2 Microbial Source Tracking 14
3.3 Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters 15
3.4 Modeling 16
3.4.1 Virtual Beach 16
3.4.2 Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment 16
3.5 Participatory Science 16
Section 4. Evaluation of Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH
Act 19
4.1 EPA Efforts 19
4.1.1 EPA BEACH Act Grants 19
4.1.2 EPA Efforts to Streamline Reporting and Data Repositories for Transparency and Ease of Use
20
4.1.3 EPA Working Toward More Timely Beach Decisions 21
4.1.4 EPA Study on Environmental Justice and Beach Access 21
4.1.5 EPA Communications and Knowledge Sharing 21
4.1.6 Additional EPA Programs Supporting the BEACH Act 22
4.2 State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 23
4.2.1 Monitoring and Notification Reporting Data 23
4.2.2 Environmental Justice Preliminary Analysis 26
4.2.3 Innovative or Effective Approaches 27
1
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
4.3 Other Federal Agency Efforts Supporting the BEACH Act 32
Section 5. Challenges and Opportunities 35
Appendix: USGS Journal Articles and Reports 37
Glossary 39
2
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Acronym List
BEACH Act - Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
BEACON - Beaches Advisory and Closure Online Notification
CWA - Clean Water Act
cyanoHABs - cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms
ddPCR - droplet digital polymerase chain reaction
EJ - environmental justice
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
HABs - harmful algal blooms
HEP - Harbor and Estuary Program
NEP - National Estuary Program
NPS - National Park Service
ORD - Office of Research and Development
PIC - Pollution Identification and Correction
QAPP - Quality Assurance Program Plan
QMRA - Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
qPCR - quantitative polymerase chain reaction
RWQC - Recreational Water Quality Criteria
TAS - Treatment as a State
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
Web-VB - Web-based version of Virtual Beach
3
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Executive Summary
This report documents the recent progress that states, tribes, territories, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and other federal agencies have made to implement the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000. Section 7 of the BEACH Act (33 U S C. § 1375a)
requires EPA to publish reports to Congress on the implementation of the Act even four years.
Coastal beaches are one of our nation's natural treasures. They are important for recreation and
connecting with nature and are an integral part of our national economy. According to the United States
Census Bureau, 94.7 million people, or about 29.1% of the total U.S. population, lived in coastline
counties in 2017.1 The United States Lifesaving Association estimated there were more than 400 million
visits to U.S. beaches in 2019.2 Ocean-based tourism and recreation contributes an estimated $143 billion
in gross domestic product to the national economy each year according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.®
This report highlights EPA accomplishments since the 2018 BEACH Act Report to Congress:
• draft analytical methods for coliphage, an indicator of viral fecal contamination
• advances in qPCR methods providing same-day monitoring results
• the development of the Alternative Methods Calculator Tool
• recreational water quality criteria for cyanotoxins
• the development and release of the Sanitary Survey App, which is used to identify sources of
fecal contamination and document harmful algal blooms
• the development of a web-based version of Virtual Beach software which predicts pathogen
indicator levels
• a preliminary analysis to identify beaches near communities with possible environmental justice
The report also details numerous programs and projects employed by the 39 states, tribes, and territories
that receive BEACH Act grants to monitor coastal water quality and keep the public informed within
current budgets and staff levels, while facing challenges caused or exacerbated by the CQVID-19
pandemic and climate change.
concerns
1 www2.census.gov/library/stories/2018/08/coastline-counties-list.xlsx
2 http://arc.usla.org/Statistics/cuirent.asp?Statistics=5
3 https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/tourism-and-recreation.html
4
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Section 1. Introduction
On October 10, 2000, the BEACH Act was signed into law, amending the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
BEACH Act was designed to address human health risks associated with water quality and swimming or
similar water-contact activities in coastal recreational waters.
The presence of pathogens associated with fecal material at our nation's beaches is a public health
concern. Beach waters can be contaminated with pathogens that cause a variety of illnesses. Such
illnesses include diarrhea as well as respiratory, ear, eye, and skin infections. Sources of fecal
contamination at our nation's beaches include wastewater collection systems and treatment plants, septic
tanks, bathers, wildlife, urban stormwater, and runoff from coastal and shoreline development.
The BEACH Act addresses pathogens and pathogen indicators in coastal recreational waters, which are
defined in section 502 of the CWA as the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters designated under CWA
section 303(c) for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water-contact activities. The BEACH Act
amended the CWA to address three significant areas:
• The BEACH Act added CWA section 303(i) which directs states that have coastal recreational
waters to adopt new or revised recreational water quality standards by April 10, 2004, for
pathogens and pathogen indicators for which EPA had published criteria under CWA section
304(a) - i.e., EPA's 1986 Bacteria Criteria Recommendations. CWA section 303(i) also directs
EPA to promulgate standards for states that fail to establish standards as protective of human
health as EPA's 1986 criteria. EPA promulgated the 1986 criteria for 35 states and territories in
2004.
• The BEACH Act added CWA sections 104(v) and 304(a)(9) which require EPA to conduct
studies associated with pathogens and human health and to publish new or revised CWA section
304(a) criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on those studies. Under CWA section
303(i)(l)(B), states that have coastal recreational waters are directed to adopt new or revised
water quality standards for all pathogens and pathogen indicators to which EPA's new or revised
CWA section 304(a) criteria are applicable by not later than three years after EPA's publication
of the new or revised CWA section 304(a) criteria. EPA conducted over 35 studies to meet the
requirements in 2010 (https://www.epa.gov/wqc/recreational-water-qualitv-criteria-and-
methods#rec2) and published updated criteria in 2012. All jurisdictions receiving grants have
adopted the 2012 criteria or equivalent in their water quality standards and are using appropriate
notification values in their beach programs.
• The BEACH Act added CWA section 406 which authorizes EPA to award grants to states or
local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring and notification programs. It also
requires EPA to maintain state monitoring and notification data and make them available to the
public. In addition, the BEACH Act amended section 518(e) of the CWA to authorize EPA to
treat tribes in the same manners as states for the purposes of section 406; therefore, EPA is
authorized to award grants to tribes. EPA continues to maintain and upgrade its publicly available
Beaches Advisory and Closure Online Notification (BEACON) system
(https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/beacon-20-beach-advisorv-and-closing-online-notification)
where states, tribes, and territories report their monitoring and notification data. EPA currently
awards grants to 30 states, four tribes with Treatment as a State (TAS) status, and five territories.
EPA works to ensure that eligible tribes with TAS status that adopt water quality standards are
informed of the BEACH Act grant application process.
Section 7 of the BEACH Act directs EPA to include the following information in this report:
• Recommendations concerning the need for additional water quality criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators and other actions that should be taken to improve the quality of coastal
recreation waters.
5
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
• Recommendations 011 improvements to methodologies and techniques for monitoring of coastal
recreation waters.
• An evaluation of federal, state, and local efforts to implement the Act.
Lake Michigan. M. Martinez
6
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Section 2. Water Quality Criteria Development and Other Actions to
Improve the Quality of Coastal Recreation Waters
The BEACH Act directs EPA to provide recommendations concerning the need for additional water
quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators and other actions that should be taken to improve
the quality of coastal recreation waters. This section includes an introduction to recreational water quality
criteria and describes new criteria, criteria under development, and new tools that EPA has developed
since the 2018 report to Congress.
Certain pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, can contaminate water bodies (e.g., lakes, rivers, coastal
waters) and cause illness in people swimming or participating in other water-contact activities. EPA
develops recommended water quality criteria limiting pathogens, pathogen indicators and algal toxins to
protect human health in waters designated for primary contact recreation. State, territories and tribes
designate waters for primary contact recreation for waters where people may swim, bathe or surf. These
types of activities are likely to result in incidental ingestion of water. State, territorial, and authorized
tribal governments can use these recommended criteria when setting their water quality standards or
advisory notification programs.
As directed by the BEACH Act, EPA conducted studies associated with pathogens and human health and
published updated criteria recommendations for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on those
studies. The result is the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC)
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/rwqc2Q12.pdf). These are national CWA
section 304(a) recommended criteria designed to protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of
pathogens while participating in water-contact activities, such as swimming, bathing, and surfing, in all
water bodies designated for such recreational uses. These RWQC are based on bacteria (E. coli and
enterococci) that indicate fecal contamination, and thus indirectly, the presence of fecal pathogens.
In 2018, EPA published its first five-year review of the 2012 RWQC
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/2017-5vear-review-rwqc.pdf) as required by
BEACH Act amendments to the CWA. Based on that review, EPA did not choose to revise the 2012
national CWA Section 304(a) recommended recreational water quality criteria. High priority actions
identified in the report and subsequently accomplished include the completion and publication of
recreational criteria for cyanotoxins and analytical methods for coliphage, virus that infects the bacteria E.
coli found in human waste. The development of coliphage-based RWQC are under consideration. EPA
expects to complete the second five-year review of the RWQC in late 2022
(https: //www. epa.gov/wqc/five -year-reviews-epas-rwqc).
EPA continues to recommend that states and authorized tribes adopt the 2012 recreational criteria to
protect people participating in water-contact activities where incidental ingestion is likely.
7
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Virginia Beach, Virginia. S. Barash
2.1 New Criteria and Tools
2.1.1 Alternative Methods Calculator Tool
States and other partners can opt to develop site-specific criteria rather than adopting EPA's 2012 national
recommended RWQC. In 2021, EPA released the Alternative Methods Calculator Tool (AltCalc Tool)
(https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/other-files/2021-ll/site-specific-alt-calculator-tool.xlsm). This is a
user-friendly Excel-based tool to determine whether an alternative microbial water quality indicator
and/or method can be used to derive alternative site-specific recreational water quality criteria. New
methods or indicators might provide improvements over existing approaches with regards to speed,
sensitivity, specificity, cost, ease of use, and performance.
The AltCalc Tool is used in conjunction with EPA's Site-Specific Alternative Recreational Criteria
Technical Support Materials for Alternative Indicators and Methods
(https://www.epa.gOv/sites/default/files/2015-ll/documents/sitespecific-alternative-recreational-
indicators-methods.pdf). These outline the scientific information needed before an alternative
indicator/method can be used to replace a recommended or approved method on a site-specific basis. Tool
users enter water quality data from an EPA-approved method and an alternative method into the AltCalc
Tool that performs a statistical comparison to determine whether the two methods produce a consistent
and predictable relationship. If so, with EPA approval, the user may replace the EPA-approved water
quality method with the alternative method.
8
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Algal bloom near Gwynn Island, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
2.1.2 2019 Recreational Water Quality Criteria or Swimming Advisories for Cyanotoxins
Since the passage of the BEACH Act, EPA has focused its implementation on protecting public health
from exposure to fecal pathogens in recreational waters. Recently, another human health concern has
emerged when toxins are released by cyanobacteria in recreational waters. Cyanobacteria, commonly
called blue-green algae, are naturally occurring photosynthetic bacteria found in freshwater and marine
ecosystems. Under certain environmental conditions, such as elevated levels of nutrients, wanner
temperatures, still water, and plentiful sunlight, cyanobacteria can rapidly multiply to form harmful algal
blooms (HABs). HABs have been reported in ambient water in every state. As the cyanobacteria multiply
creating cyanobacteria! HABs (cyanoHABs), some of the cells can produce toxic compounds. These toxic
compounds, known as cyanotoxins, can be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.
CyanoHABs ( :tps://www.epa.gov/cvanohabs' can also harm the economy, dnnking water supplies,
property values, and recreational activities, including swimming and fishing.
During a cyanoHAB event, the toxin concentrations can rapidly increase and may become elevated before
a visible bloom is observed. Elevated cyanotoxin concentrations m surface waters can also persist after
the bloom fades, so human exposures can occur even after the visible signs of a bloom are gone.
Microcystins and cylindrospermopsin are two types of cyanotoxins that can be produced by a variety of
cyanobacteria species. Studies indicate that, at certain concentrations, short-term and long-term adverse
effects from oral exposure of microcystins and cylindrospermopsin include liver and kidney damage.
EPA issued recommendations for recreational water quality criteria and swimming advisories for
microcystins and cylindrospermopsin in 2019 ( itps://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
05/documents/hh-rec-criteria-habs-document-2019.p(j ). These national CWA section 304(a)
recommendations are designed to protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of cyanotoxins while
participating in water-contact activities, such as swimming, bathing, and surfing, in all water bodies
designated for such recreational use. EPA identified recommended concentrations of these cyanotoxins at
or below which human health is protected while swimming or participating in other water-contact
activities. The recommendations reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the potential human health
effects from recreational exposure to these two cyanotoxins. The recommendations are based on
children's recreational exposures because children have a higher share of incidents during HAB-
associated outbreaks. Studies show that children have a greater potential exposure than adults because
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
they are generally in the water longer and ingest more water while in the water (DeFlorio-Barker et al.
2018; DuFour et at. 2017).
EPA's Final Technical Support Document: Implementing the 2019 Recommended Human Health
Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria or Swimming Advisories for Microcystins and
Cylindrospermopsin (https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/final-tsd-implement-2019-
rwqc.pdf.pdf) details how states, territories, and authorized tribes can adopt these recommended criteria
into their water quality standards or swimming advisory programs. The document focuses on the human
health risks associated with incidental ingestion while recreating in freshwaters containing these harmful
cyanotoxins. EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances where cyanoHABs can impact downstream
marine and estuanne waters. The document provides information on occurrence and incidental ingestion
in estuarine and marine water for states, territories, and authorized tribes to consider but does not provide
recommendations for those waters.
EPA has published materials to help recreational waterbody managers responsible for monitoring and
responding to cyanobacterial blooms. These materials include customizable infographics
(https://www.epa.gov/cvanohabs/infographics-help-educate-public-habs-basics) and a communication
toolbox (https://www.epa.gov/cvanohabs/communicating-about-cvanobacterial-blooms-and-toxins-
recreational-waters) with examples of public messages, press releases, and signage that recreational water
body managers may use to infonn the public of increased health risks associated with exposure to HABs,
or cyanobacteria, and their toxins.
For the protection of human health when recreating, EPA recommends that states, territories, and
authorized tribes adopt the released criteria/swimming advisory values for microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin. At the same time, EPA will continue to develop and release criteria for other
cyanotoxins.
41
, ¦ y-
at • a , & v*
MOT',
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. K. Davis
10
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
2.2 Criteria Under Development
EPA has been working for several years to develop RWQC for coliphage, a viral indicator, to ensure
public health protection from water sources that have been influenced by viral fecal contamination.
Increasing evidence through microbial risk assessments and epidemiological studies shows that viruses
cause most of the illnesses associated with primary contact recreation in surface water impacted by
human sources. The 2017 Five-Year Review of the Recreational Water Quality Criteria
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/2Q17-5vear-review-rwqc.pdf) explains the
need for coliphage criteria and describes in detail the criteria development process - literature reviews,
methods refinement, coliphage experts workshop, and epidemiological data analysis.
Health studies indicate that viruses that replicate in the gastrointestinal tract (enteric viruses) cause the
majority of swimming-related illnesses in waters affected by human fecal contamination (CDC 2011;
Garciaa et al. 2018; Soller et al. 2010). Enteric viruses enter surface water from treated and untreated
sources since traditional wastewater treatment processes are not designed to reduce enteric viral loads.
Enteric viruses are difficult and slow to culture and there is a need for an indicator that can reflect the
potential risks from enteric viruses in contaminated recreational waters. Viruses that infect the bacteria E.
coli are called coliphages and are found in high levels in human sewage and therefore may be an ideal
candidate as a viral indicator for the development of recreational water quality criteria. Coliphages exhibit
numerous desirable indicator characteristics. For example, they are abundant in domestic wastewater, raw
sewage sludge, and polluted waters; are physically similar to viruses causing illnesses associated with
primary contact recreation; are nonpathogenic; are amenable to overnight culture methods and can be
counted cheaply, easily, and quickly; are shown in some studies to be correlated with gastrointestinal
illness among swimmers; and are similarly resistant to sewage treatment and environmental degradation
as enteric viruses of concern.
In 2018, EPA published draft analytical methods for coliphage. Method 1642 was developed in response
to stakeholders" needs for a validated method for coliphage for monitoring recreational waters and
wastewater effluents. Method 1643 was developed to address stakeholder needs for a lab-validated
coliphage method for monitoring secondary (no disinfection) wastewater matrices under the CWA.
Through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires
coliphage sampling results to determine when shellfish harvesting areas can open following wastewater
treatment plant emergency or extreme weather events.
2.3 New Health Studies
EPA used a pooled data set of over 80,000 beachgoers from 13 beach sites across the United States to
compare risks associated with the fecal indicator bacteria Enterococcus for different age groups across
different exposures, sites, and health endpoints (Wade et al. 2022). The 13 beach sites were categorized
according to the predominant type of fecal contamination. Risk of illness associated with water quality
was compared among the exposed groups and across different age categories, including children. Under
many exposure scenarios, children were at higher risk of gastrointestinal illness associated with exposure
to fecal contamination as measured by Enterococcus. The source of fecal contamination and the intensity
of swimming exposure were also important factors affecting the association between Enterococcus
species and swimming-associated illness.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks and
Other Health Events Associated with Recreational Water - United States, 2007-2008 and Surveillance for
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2007-2008. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries. 60(12).
DeFlorio-Barker, S., Arnold, B.F., Sams, E.A., Dufour, A.P., Colford, J.M., Jr, Weisberg, S.B., Schiff,
K.C., Wade, T.J. (2018). Child environmental exposures to water and sand at the beach: Findings from
11
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
studies of over 68,000 subjects at 12 beaches. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology.28(2), 93-100. doi:10.1038/jes.2017.23
Dufour A.P., Behymer T.D., Cantu R., Magnuson M., and Wymer L.J. (2017). Ingestion of swimming
pool water by recreational swimmers. Journal of Water and Health, 15(3), 429-437.
Garciaa, D.S., Cope, J.R., Roberts, V.A., Cikesh, B.L., Kahler, A.M., Vigar, M., Hilborn, E.D., Wade,
T.J., Backer, L.C., Montgomery, S.P., Secor, W.E., Hill, V.R., Beach, M.J., Fullerton, K.E., Yoder, J.S.,
& Hlavsa, M.C. (2018) Outbreaks associated with untreated recreational water - United States, 2000-
2014. American Journal of Transplantation, 18, 2083-2087.
Soller, JA, T Bartrand, NJ Ashbolt, J Ravenscroft, and TJ Wade. (2010). Estimating the primary etiologic
agents in recreational freshwaters impacted by human sources of faecal contamination. Water Research,
44s4736-4747.
Soller, J.A., Schoen, M.E., Bartrand, T., Ravenscroft, J.E., & Ashbolt, N.J. (2010). Estimated human
health risks from exposure to recreation waters impacted by human and non-human sources of faecal
contamination. Water Research, 44, 4674-4691.
USEPA. (2018) 2017 Five-Year Review of the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. Office of
Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
05/documents/2017-5vear-review-rwqc.pdf.
Wade, T.J., Arnold, B.A., Schiff, K., Colford, J.M., Jr, Weisberg, S.B., Griffith, J.F., & Dufour, A.P.
(2022). Health risks to children from exposure to fecally-contaminated recreational water. PLOS ONE
17(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0266749.
12
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Section 3. Improvements to Methodologies and Techniques for
Monitoring Coastal Recreation Waters
The BEACH Act directs EPA to provide recommendations on improvements to monitoring
methodologies and techniques. For years, EPA has been developing rapid methods, microbial source
tracking and predictive tools as well as improving the science and integration of monitoring and modeling
pathogens in coastal recreation waters. Some of these monitoring techniques are used in participatory
science efforts supported by EPA. EPA recommends that states, territories, and tribes explore using the
methods and tools described in this section.
3.1 Advances in Methods
3.1.1 Rapid Methods
Culture-based laboratory methods to monitor microbial water quality require more than 18 hours to obtain
results. To reduce the number of swimming-related illnesses, beach managers need quicker ways to
determine when beaches are unsafe for swimming. The 2012 national CWA section 304(a) recommended
recreational criteria include a rapid quantitative molecular based method for Enterococcus, a fecal
indicator bacteria used to measure the total level of fecal pollution in a water sample. This method relies
on the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) technology, which measures the concentration of
Enterococcus DNA. This method produces results in less than four hours, giving beach managers the
ability to alert beach-goers to unsafe levels of microbial contamination on the same day that the sample is
taken. Earlier notification of health hazards at beaches could result in a potential reduction in the number
of swimming-related illnesses due to exposure to waterborne pathogens. EPA has continued to update and
refine these methods; see EPA Method 1609.1 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-
08/documents/method 1609-1-enterococcus-iac 2015 3.pdf) and Method 1611.1
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-Q8/documents/method 1611-1-enterococcus 2015.pdf).
EPA researchers have also further refined Draft Method C, a standardized qPCR method for quantifying
E. coli concentrations in recreational fresh waters. Method C can provide same-day results for improving
public health protection with demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, and data acceptance criteria. EPA and
Michigan tested the use of Method C for three years in a jointly conducted large-scale data collection
effort to compare the occurrence of culturable E. coli and E. coli determined by the qPCR method, at
more than 100 recreational beach sites in Michigan. The study indicated a correlation between results of
the two E. coli monitoring methods for each of the multi-site datasets, suggesting that these methods may
provide the same beach notification outcomes more than 90% of the time.
Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a newer PCR-based technology and has promise for use as a rapid
method for recreational waters due to increased sensitivity detecting target DNA. EPA completed a single
laboratory validation of a ddPCR method for E. coli and enterococci based on a method used in a recent
pilot project in San Diego, California.
In response to the need for microbial source tracking methods to characterize human fecal pollution
sources in recreational waters, EPA conducted a national multiple laboratory validation study resulting in
standardized EPA Methods 1696.1 and 1697.1 for the characterization of human sources of fecal
pollution in ambient marine and fresh waters (see Section 3.2 Microbial Source Tracking for more
information). EPA anticipates that stakeholders will use these methods to identify trends in human fecal
contamination, to provide additional information to support water quality management decisions, and to
help determine actionable outcomes that can improve public health protection of fresh and marine
recreational waters. These updated implementation tools are available to the public at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/other-clean-water-act-test-methods-microbiological.
A standard control material developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology will also be available to the public (Willis et al. 2022).
13
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
High bacteria levels iri this
water may cause illness.
Other beach activities permitted.
© ecology.wa.gov/beach
V. 360-480-4868
9tiTealWi
Washington state Beach Environmental Assessment Communication and Health
Program sign.
3.1.2 Coliphage Methods
In 2018, EPA published two draft analytical methods for coliphage. Method 1642 was developed in
response to stakeholders" needs for a lab-validated method for coliphage for monitoring recreational
waters and wastewater effluents. Method 1643 was developed to address stakeholder needs for a lab-
validated coliphage method for monitoring secondary (no disinfection) wastewater matrices under the
CWA. See Section 2 of this report for additional information on coliphage.
3.2 Microbial Source Tracking
Fecal pollution can originate from numerous sources such as humans, domestic and agricultural animals,
and wildlife, making it challenging for local water quality managers to pinpoint the source and prevent
future contamination events. EPA's Office of Research and Development maintains an active research
program to develop, validate, and implement tools to characterize fecal pollution sources in
environmental waters. General fecal indicators (enterococci and E. coli) typically used to assess fecal
pollution do not provide information on the sources of fecal contaminants. The level of human health risk
can change from one animal source to another, and water quality managers will likely use different
remediation strategies based on the source of fecal pollution.
EPA researchers have developed several tools to characterize the sources of fecal microbial
contamination. Among these microbial source tracking tools are host-associated qPCR methods, which
can quantify fecal pollution levels and identify a fecal pollution source. In 2019, EPA published Method
1696 and Method 1697, the first nationally lab-validated protocols for human fecal pollution source
characterization in recreational waters. These methods were recently updated (Method 1696.1 and
Method 1697.1) as mentioned in the Section 3.1 Advances in Methods. Continued research activities
include (1) the development of human and o ther fecal source-associated methods and the science to
support implementation in recreational water settings and (2) microbial source tracking case studies to
evaluate performance in real-world scenarios.
In a recent study, EPA used host-associated qPCR methods to identify microbial contamination from key
animal groups potentially contaminating recreational waters at three Great Lake beach areas (Li et al.
2021). Water samples were analyzed for human, ruminant (e.g., cattle, deer), avian and canine fecal
14
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
pollution sources. The results of these analyses identified fecal source pollution trends and provided
information on method performance at Great Lakes recreational beaches.
Measuring water temperature in Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology.
3.3 Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters
Sanitary surveys are one of the most widely accepted tools to assess potential sources of pollution that can
adversely affect public health. A sanitary survey is a method of investigating the sources of fecal
contamination to a waterbody by collecting information at the beach, shoreline, and surrounding
watershed. Information collected may include weather conditions, number of people, location and
condition of bathrooms, presence of algae, land use information, stormwater outfall locations, and surface
water quality. The data can be used to identify sources and magnitude of a water quality problem, make
decisions on beach closures and remediation actions, and implement predictive tools to ensure same day
swimming advisory decisions. Jurisdictions can reduce or eliminate beach advisories and closures by
identifying and mitigating pollution sources. These efforts can ultimately promote safe public access to
urban waterways and lead to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
In July 2020, EPA released its updated Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters with enhanced
features to help states, territories, and tribes gather sanitary survey data to identify sources of fecal
contamination and potential HAB events affecting coastal recreation waters. In 2021, EPA was able to
allow increased access to the Sani tan Survey App for use by local governments, participatory scientists,
non-governmental organizations, and the public. The Sanitary Survey App consists of four surveys —
routine surveys for marine and freshwater environments for conducting short-term assessments and
annual surveys for marine and freshwater environments for conducting long-term assessments. The
surveys allow users to collect and share data on potential sources of fecal pollution and information on
potential HAB events in local surface waters, including designated recreational waters. The data from the
App can be exported for use in predictive models and for sharing within or between groups.
The Sanitary Survey App can be used on any device (i.e., phone, tablet, computer) and special
features include photo storage, real time geolocation, links to websites such as the National Weather
Service to access data, and free data storage. As of April 2022, the App has 332 users and 745 surveys
have been conducted. Additional information is located on the Sanitary Surveys for Recreational Waters
webpage (https://www.epa.gov/beach-tecli/sanitarv-survevs-recreational-waters). EPA is currently
developing a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) template for the Sanitary Survey App to
streamline future QAPP development for participatory science groups and non-governmental
organizations. A QAPP must be completed to use the EPA Sanitary Survey App.
15
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
3.4 Modeling
3.4.1 Virtual Beach
Virtual Beach is a software package designed for developing site-specific statistical models for the
prediction of pathogen indicator levels at recreational beaches. As a follow up to earlier versions of
Virtual Beach that focused on Enterococciis and E. coli indicators that can be used in fresh or marine
waters, EPA's recent recreational water predictive modeling efforts have focused on developing statistical
models for predicting coliphage and qPCR-based molecular data at multiple Great Lake recreational
beaches. In the last year, software development efforts have concentrated on creating a web-based version
of Virtual Beach (Web-VB), with focus on cross-validation for a more accurate assessment of the
predictive potential of developed models. Web-VB will depend heavily on machine learning techniques,
and include ensemble modeling, so that predictions can be made using a weighted average of predictions
from multiple modeling techniques. It will be used to analyze water quality data (traditional fecal
indicator bacteria, cultured coliphage, and qPCR-based molecular data) from several marine beach sites in
the Gulf of Mexico collected in the spring and summer of 2022.
EPA is also exploring ways to integrate data from the Sanitary Survey App (see Section 3.3) into Web-
VB to help streamline the development of site-specific predictive models.
3.4.2 Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) is a tool that can be used to estimate the human health
risks associated with exposure to fecal pathogens in recreational water. QMRA can be used to support
evaluation of candidate fecal indicators and pathogen surrogates, thus providing additional tools to help
manage recreational waters and protect public health. QMRA can also help evaluate the relative risks
between different sources of fecal contamination. EPA is revising technical support materials for
developing site-specific water quality criteria accounting for non-human fecal sources using QMRA.
States, territories, and authorized tribes can use these tools along with EPA's Sanitary Survey App
(https://www.epa.gov/beach-tech/sanitarv-survevs-recreational-waters). which also supports QMRA.
3.5 Participatory Science
Participatory science offers new opportunities for the public and EPA to interact to improve
environmental science and protection. Participatory science engages the public to formulate research
questions, collect data, and interpret results. The focus may be on a specific area where information is
used to encourage social learning, empower local groups, and aid communities with potential
environmental justice concerns to bring information to decision makers and regulators. It is a
transformational approach to environmental protection that engages volunteers, allowing large numbers of
people to contribute to science. EPA supports these initiatives through a range of resources including
funding, technical support, and tools. In 2021, EPA published a StoryMap on participatory science
(https://storvmaps.arcgis.com/stories/57b2ee78221341al8b0f7ebe8017340d) with interactive maps
highlighting the importance of participatory science and how EPA supports these efforts. Featured
projects include the Chesapeake Monitoring Cooperative that trains participatory scientists in collecting
water quality data and the Hui O ka Wai Ola project that enlists volunteers to collect water quality data at
more than 30 beach-access sites in Hawaii. Water quality focused projects, including several related to
bacterial monitoring, are also highlighted on EPA's Community and Citizen Science website
(https://www.epa.gov/citizen-science/communitv-citizen-science-water-proiects).
16
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Hui O ka Wai Ola project in Maui, Hawaii.
The EPA Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters allows the public to report on conditions of
local water bodies such as the occurrence of algae, surface water quality, and location of storm water
outfalls. This helps waterbody managers monitor and assess the condition of recreational waters.
The Cyanobacteria Monitoring Collaborative (https://cvanos.org/) maintains three tools for participatory
scientists to get involved with cyanobacteria monitoring. The BloomWatch App is a crowdsourcing tool
for reporting cyanobacteria blooms. The CyanoScope is a tool for collecting cyanobacteria, preparing
microscope slides, identifying cyanobacteria in the sample, uploading images and locations to
iNaturalist.org, and engaging the iNaturalist community to confirm the identity. Monitoring cyanobacteria
populations over time to track seasonal patterns is done by participatory scientists and professionals
through the CyanoMonitoring tool.
In order to support collection of actionable data by participatory scientists, in 2019 EPA prepared a
Handbook for Citizen Science Quality Assurance and Documentation ( tps://www.epa.gov/citizen-
science/qualitv-assurance-handbook-and-guidance-documents-citizen-science-proiects) to help external
organizations understand how to prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The Handbook
provides an overview about preparing different levels of quality planning based on the kind of data to be
collected. As indicated in the Sanitary Survey App section, EPA is developing a QAPP template for the
Sanitary Survey App to streamline the process for participatory science groups and non-governmental
organizations to complete this requirement.
References:
Crain, C., Kezer, K., Steele, S., Owiti, J., Rao, S., Victorio, M., Austin, B , Volner, A., Draper, W.,
Griffith, J., Steele, J., & Seifert, M. (2021). Application of ddPCR for detection of Enterococcus spp. in
coastal water quality monitoring, Journal of Microbiological Methods, 184, 106206.
Iiaugland, R., Oshima, K., & Sivaganesan, M. (2021) Large-scale comparison ofE. coli levels
determined by culture and a qPCR method (EPA Draft Method C) in Michigan towards the
implementation of rapid, multi-site beach testing. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 184, 106186.
17
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Li, X., Kelty, C.A., Sivaganesan, M., & Shanks, O.C. (2021). Variable fecal source prioritization in
recreational waters routinely monitored with viral and bacterial general indicators. Water Research, 192,
116845.
Schoen, M., Boehm, A., Soller, J., & Shanks, O. Contamination Scenario Matters when Using Viral and
Bacterial Human-Associated Genetic Markers as Indicators of a Health Risk in Untreated Sewage-
Impacted Recreational Waters. (2020) Environmental Science & Technology, 54(20), 13101-13109.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0cQ2189.
Willis, J.R., Sivaganesan, M., Haugland, R.A., Kralj, J., Servetas, S., Hunter, M.E., Jackson, S.A., & O.C.
Shanks, O.C. (2022). Performance ofNIST SRM® 2917 with 13 recreational water quality monitoring
qPCR assays. Water Research, 212, 118114.
18
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Section 4. Evaluation of Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal and Local
Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act
Federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments work cooperatively to implement the BEACH Act
with the shared goal of conducting and improving beach monitoring and public notification efforts for
coastal recreation waters to reduce risks to human health. The following section summarizes program
highlights and innovations that federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments have been
implementing since the 2018 BEACH Act Report to Congress.
4.1 EPA Efforts
EPA has made significant progress in strengthening protection of public health at our nation's beaches by
administering BEACH Act grants, developing user-friendly tools to report beach monitoring and
notification data, researching innovative and rapid monitoring and predictive methods for more timely
beach decisions, and facilitating knowledge sharing with water quality managers, stakeholders,
researchers and public health officials across federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local levels. Some of the
major EPA accomplishments over the past four years follow in this section.
4.1.1 EPA BEACH Act Grants
EPA awards grants under authority of the BEACH Act to eligible states, territories, and tribes with
beaches in marine and estuarine waters and on the Great Lakes to develop and implement programs to
monitor their beaches and notify the public when it is not safe to swim. During each swimming season,
state, tribal, territorial, and local health and environmental protection agencies monitor the quality of
water at coastal recreation beaches that they have prioritized. When levels of fecal pathogens or pathogen
indicators in the water are present at levels associated with harm to human health, these agencies notify
the public by posting beach warnings or closing the beach. These grants help local authorities monitor
beach water quality and notify the public of conditions that may be unsafe for swimming.
Three factors influence the grant allocations: (1) the length of the beach season, (2) the number of miles
of shoreline, and (3) the populations of coastal counties. EPA's formula for calculating grant allocations
is published in the Federal Register (75 FR 1373; January 11, 2010).
EPA has allocated more than $205 million in grants for the beach monitoring and notification programs
since it started awarding grants in 2001. There are currently 30 states, five territories, and four tribes that
are eligible to apply for beach grant funds. Total funding amounts for the five most recent fiscal years are
shown below:
Fiscal Year Grant Total
2022 $10,119,000
2021 $ 9,619,000
2020 $ 9,238,000
2019 $ 9,238,000
2018 $ 9,331,000
For a breakdown of how the grants were allocated among states, territories, and tribes refer to:
• Beach Grants from Fiscal Year 2001 through 2022:
https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2022-05/beach-grants-2Q22.pdf
For the required performance criteria, refer to:
• National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants: https://www.epa.gov/beach-
tech/national-beach-guidance-and-required-performance-criteria-grants
19
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Wisconsin. T. Seilheimer
4.1.2 EPA Efforts to Streamline Reporting and Data Repositories for Transparency and Ease of
Use
Release of Dynamic National Report Generator and other beach data tools
EPA updated and enhanced its online tools, including the Beaches Advisory and Closure Online
Notification (BEACON) system, to provide up-to-date and tailored information to the public. One tool,
the Dynamic National Report Generator ( tps://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/beacon2/f?p=BEACON2:DNR:0:).
produces annual summaries and 5-year national trend data and graphs for any year since 2014 using the
most recent data, which may have been updated after EPA published an annual report. Other tools include
customized reports and trend graphs that show similar information at the state and local level
(https ://watersgeo .epa. gov/BEAC ON2/reports .html).
Release of Annual Beach Swimming Season Reports
Using the data in the BEACON system, EPA releases annual reports that contain national summary
statistics of beach closings and advisories that states, territories, and tribes issued during the swimming
season as well as beach data trends over several years. In 2019, EPA resumed creating these reports,
which had been discontinued after the 2012 swimming season. The report on the 2020 swimming season
included information on how COVID-19 impacted monitoring and use of the nation's coastal and Great
Lakes beaches. Swimming season results for 2021 are summarized in section 4.2.1 of this report. Beach
swimming season reports released in the last four years can be found at https://www.epa.gov/beach-
tech/annual-beach-swimming-season-reports.
Release of Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters
In July 2020, EPA released its Sanitary Survey App for Marine and Fresh Waters to help states and tribes
gather sanitary survey data to identify sources of fecal contamination and potential HAB events affecting
20
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
coastal recreation waters and the Great Lakes. Section 3.3 contains additional details and more
information is available at https://www.epa.gov/beach-tech/sanitarv-survevs-recreational-waters.
Update to National List of Beaches
As required by the BEACH Act, EPA publishes a list of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches (or
similar points of access) used by the public in the U.S. The list is dynamically generated online via
BEACON from data provided electronically by states, territories, and tribes. The list identifies waters that
are subject to a jurisdiction's beach water quality monitoring and public notification program
consistent with the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for BEACH Act Grants.
The list also specifies beaches for which there is no monitoring or notification program. More information
on the National List of Beaches can be found at https://www.epa.gov/beach-tech/national-list-beaches.
In the National List of Beaches, EPA recently added a column, "Tier 4 (B)". displaying counts for Tier 4
beaches. Tier 4 beaches are BEACH Act beach waters that are not included in a state or tribe's
monitoring or notification program, including those beach waters for which fiscal constraints prevent
consistency with the performance criteria. Note that not all jurisdictions utilize this additional reporting
tier. See Section 4.2.1 for description of additional tiering designations.
Enhancement of Verification Tool - Monitoring Module
EPA continued to enhance the Verification Tool, which allows jurisdictions to have password-protected
access so they can update and verify their data in BEACON. The most recent update of the Verification
Tool was added in 2021, which enabled easier updates to water quality monitoring data.
Citation of BEACON by World Health Organization
In an article published by World Health Organization in 2021 on its updated Guidelines for Recreational
Water Quality, EPA's BEACON data system is cited as the U.S. source for beach water quality
information posted online. The article can be found at https://www.who.int/news/item/13-07-2021-who-
launches-guidelines-for-recreational-water-qualitv-as-summer-heats-up.
4.1.3 EPA Working Toward More Timely Beach Decisions
See Section 3 for a description of EPA's advances in rapid methods, microbial source tracking, and
predictive modeling. These tools help managers make more timely beach decisions and protect human
health.
4.1.4 EPA Study on Environmental Justice and Beach Access
EPA conducted a study (Twichell et al., 2022) examining disparities in coastal access in Rhode Island by
assessing 1) different populations' relative travel distances to all public coastal access and to public
marine swimming beaches across the state of Rhode Island by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomics; and 2)
relative travel distances to high quality public coastal amenities with no history of water quality
impairment. The analysis revealed statewide disparities in access to Rhode Island's public coastal
amenities, with disproportionately shorter travel distances for non-Latinx white populations, and
disproportionately longer travel distances for Black and Latinx populations, in particular to public coastal
sites with better water quality and to public swimming beaches. These findings have environmental
justice and economic implications, as disparities in travel distances suggest that White populations
experience a cost savings per coastal recreation trip, while Black and Latinx populations experience an
added cost of several dollars (USD) on each coastal trip.
4.1.5 EPA Communications and Knowledge Sharing
National Recreational Water Quality Workshop
In April 2021, EPA hosted a virtual three-day National Recreational Water Quality Workshop which
served as a forum for approximately 800 recreational water quality managers, stakeholders, researchers
and public health officials at all levels to share information and ideas about implementing a successful
recreational water program. The workshop focused on two common challenges in ambient recreational
waters: fecal contamination and HABs. The workshop included pre-recorded presentations, panel
discussions and poster sessions on topics including risks to recreation, restoring waters to recreational
21
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
use, advances in monitoring approaches and technology, notification and risk communication, building
partnerships in recreational water monitoring and remediation, and emerging concerns. More information
on the National Recreational Water Quality Workshop can be found at:
https://ctic.org/2020 Rec Workshop.
4.1.6 Additional EPA Programs Supporting the BEACH Act
National Estuary Program
Established by Congress under CWA Section 320, the National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-
regulatory EPA place-based program to protect and restore the water quality and ecological integrity of
28 estuaries of national significance, located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto
Rico. Each NEP focuses on a study area that includes the estuary and surrounding watershed. More
information on the NEP is available at https://www.epa.gov/nep.
While many NEPs conduct pathogen monitoring efforts, three examples of successful pathogen
monitoring programs in NEP programs - which do not span the whole range of activities in these NEPs
and may represent different levels of involvement in pathogen monitoring - include Puget Sound,
Washington, Casco Bay, Maine, and New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program (HEP).
• Puget Sound NEP's Shellfish Strategic Initiative has been instrumental in supporting Pollution
Identification and Correction (PIC) programs in all 12 Puget Sound counties. PIC programs are
an important tool for local partners to protect and restore shellfish beds and protect people from
water-borne pathogens. PIC programs survey watersheds and offer education, technical, and
financial assistance to help community members manage septic systems, farm animal manure, pet
waste, urban wildlife, and boater/recreationalist waste to prevent pollution to waterways.
Furthermore, EPA Region 10's Manchester Environmental Laboratory provides important
scientific support for PIC programs through microbial source tracking, using DNA analytical
methods to help evaluate whether fecal bacteria are more likely from dogs, humans, cattle, or
other animals.
• Casco Bay Estuary Partnership helps report and synthesize data from two regulatory programs in
the Casco Bay "State of the Bay" reports and at network monitoring meetings, to track how
actions implemented in their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan result in
changes to environmental or public health. The first regulatory program is Maine Healthy
Beaches Program, which works with volunteers and staff in state parks and towns to collect
samples from public beaches to be analyzed for fecal indicator bacteria. The other regulatory
program is the Maine Department of Marine Resources Shellfish Program which tracks bacteria
in shellfish harvesting areas to assess risks to human health.
• New York-New Jersey HEP works with 33 stakeholder groups to collect data through 36
pathogen monitoring programs. These programs monitor fecal coliform bacteria and/or
Enterococcus and work towards identifying pollution sources, monitoring gaps, and identifying
opportunities to use microbial source tracking. HEP informs and engages the public by
synthesizing data from two harbor-wide programs as well as citizen science data. Their "State of
the Estuary" reports help track how actions implemented in HEP's Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan result in changes to ecological health.
Trash Free Waters Program
The BEACH Act also directs EPA to provide technical assistance to state, territorial, tribal, and local
governments for the development of assessment and monitoring procedures for floatable materials. These
are defined as any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended in the water column, including
debris such as plastic, aluminum cans, wood products, bottles and paper products. Although it does not
directly operate under the Beach Program, EPA's Trash Free Waters program works to reduce and
prevent trash from entering U.S. waters and the ocean, playing a unique role in helping states,
municipalities, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and concerned citizens work together to
explore more effective ways to reduce the amount of litter and packaging waste that enters the water.
More information on Trash Free Waters is available at https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters.
22
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
4.2 State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act
States, territories, and tribes primarily implement the BEACH Act and ensure that public health is
protected at beaches through their monitoring and notification programs. Currently, 30 states, five
territories and four tribes are funded by BEACH Act grants. These programs are improved over time with
the development and implementation of more innovative monitoring and notification methods. The
following section focuses on state, territorial and tribal monitoring and reporting data, how beach
programs address disadvantaged communities, and highlights of beach program accomplishments for
jurisdictions within each EPA region.
4.2.1 Monitoring and Notification Reporting Data
This section includes highlights from the EPA's Beach Report: 2021 Swimming Season. States, territories,
and tribes with coastal and Great Lakes beaches submitted information to EPA about beach water quality
monitoring and notification actions (i.e., beach closings and advisories) for the 2021 swimming season,
covering the period of January 1 through December 31. The report includes data submitted to EPA as of
June 10, 2022.
"Program beaches" have, at minimum, a program to notify the public if swimming in the coastal
recreation water is unsafe, and most also have a program to routinely monitor the water quality.
Monitoring frequency of beaches is determined using a three-tier classification of beaches based on the
amount of historical illness risk from swimming at a beach, frequency of beach use, or both. EPA
recommends that samples be taken one or more times per week during the swimming season at Tier 1
(highest priority beaches because of high risk and/or high use) beaches and once per week at Tier 2
(beaches with high or moderate use and moderate or low risk) beaches, starting a month before the
swimming season, to monitor whether fecal indicator bacteria (e.g., enterococci) exceed the levels derived
from the water quality standards that apply to that water. For Tier 3 (beaches with low use and low or
very low risk) beaches, EPA recommends a minimum sampling frequency consistent with other ambient
water quality sampling programs. However, Tier 3 beaches should be reviewed periodically to determine
whether they should be reclassified as Tier 1 or Tier 2 or non-program beaches. Jurisdictions have the
discretion to follow EPA's recommended tiering definitions or may utilize a different tiering approach.
In 2021, 68% of coastal and Great Lakes program beaches in the United States were monitored for
pathogens or pathogen indicators. Figure 1 shows the number of beaches that were monitored and number
of program beaches in each state, territory, and tribe in 2021. When monitoring results show exceedances
for pathogens or pathogen indicators, states, territories, and tribes either issue a beach advisory that warns
people of possible risks of swimming or a beach closing that closes the beach to public swimming. The
states and local agencies that do not routinely monitor water quality use models or policies (e.g., advisory
after a certain amount of rainfall) as a basis for issuing notification actions at beaches. Advisories or
closures typically stay in effect until monitoring shows that levels of pathogens or pathogen indicators
comply with the beach notification value derived from the applicable water quality standards.
23
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
s
AK
16 16
*
»S>
HI
404 124
c
5,053 Program Beaches
3,436 Monitored Beaches
MA 567 S65
598, Rl 69 69
CT 73 72
IL iN I OH 1 10 8 - f NJ 398 211
57 266150 r'7M / DE 20 20
50 \ HK-/ rWtĄ MD 62 62
Tribes:
Grand Portage Band 12 12
Makah Tribe 11 5
Bad River Band 15 15
Swinomish Tribe 6 6
Commonwealth of
Northern Marianas
83 83
American
Samoa
48 48
Guam
32 31
L.T3-
Puerto Rico
35 35
J®*-
U.S, Virgin
Islands
45 45
Figure 1. Number of total and monitored coastal and Great Lake program beaches by state/territory/tribe
In 2021, 33% of the nation's program beaches (1,644 out of 5,035) had at least one advisory or closing.
Figure 2 shows the percent of program beaches with one or more advisories or closings in years 2018
through 2021.
Figure 2. Percent of nation's program beaches with one or more notification actions
Beach advisories and closings can result from a variety of pollution sources: stonnwater runoff after
rainfall; pet and wildlife waste; waste from boats; leaking septic systems; malfunctions at wastewater
treatment plants or broken sewer lines; overflows from sewer systems; or FIABs. To help minimize the
risk to beachgoers, EPA is, for example, helping communities improve sewage treatment plants and
reduce adverse impacts from rainfall as much as possible by providing water infrastructure investment
loans.
24
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
States, territories, and tribes reported the possible sources of pollution shown in Figure 3 that resulted in
beach advisories or closings or were identified in beach surveys at program beaches in 2021.
Unknown
Stormwater Runoff
22% (1281)
Wildlife
6% (351)
Dry-weather Runoff
5% (275)
Other
5% (270)
Boat Discharge
¦ 3% (159)
Sewer Line Leakage
¦ 2% (121)
Septic System Leakage
¦ 2% (118)
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
¦ 2% (109)
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
¦ 2% (103)
Agricultural Runoff
| 1% (36)
Algae
| 0% (12)
Figure 3. Reported possible sources of pollution in 2021
States, territories, and tribes issued 9,382 beach notification actions (i.e., advisories or closings) during
the 2021 swimming season. An advisory or closing is typically removed when follow-up water quality
monitoring shows that pathogens or pathogen indicators comply with applicable beach notification values
derived from applicable water quality standards. For 82% of the notification actions in 2021, coastal
recreational waters no longer exceeded applicable beach notification values and beaches were deemed
safe for swimming within a week (Figure 4). In 2021, 17% of the notification actions lasted only one day,
and 22% ended between one and two days.
>30 days
1%
Figure 4. Duration of beach notification actions in 2021
Program beaches on U.S. coasts and along the Great Lakes were open and safe for swimming 92% of the
time in 2021. EPA calculates the total available beach days and the number of beach days with advisories
or closings to better track trends over time. To calculate total available beach days, EPA adds the length
of the beach season (in days) for every program beach in each state, territory, and tribe. For 2021, EPA
25
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
determined that 723,783 beach days were associated with the swimming seasons of 5,053 beaches with
monitoring and/or notification programs. Notification actions were reported on 54,578 days out of those
723,783 beach days. Figure 5 shows the percentage of beach days that the nation's program beaches were
open and without any advisories in years 2018 through 2021.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
91%
93%
92%
92%
2018
2019
2020
2021
Figure 5. Percent of days the nation's program beaches were open and safe for swimming
4.2.2 Environmental Justice Preliminary Analysis
EPA is exploring approaches to quantify how many beaches in the program serve disadvantaged
communities, and how different aspects of the program benefit those communities. EPA conducted a
preliminary analysis using data from two major sources: the BEACON system, which has monitoring or
notification action information about beaches in the program, and EPA's EJScreen. EJScreen is an
environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool with information on different environmental and
social indicators at the Census Block Group level. These indicators can help identify which communities
may be of interest when addressing environmental justice concerns. In EPA's initial effort to determine if
a beach serves a disadvantaged community, EPA quantified EJScreen data for communities within five
miles of a beach. If at least 25% of the communities within the five miles of a beach had three or more
EJScreen indicators at or above the 80th percentile, those beaches were identified as beaches that serve
disadvantaged communities. As EPA obtains important feedback from the BEACH Act jurisdictions and
the public, the Agency will continue to refine the selection methods for determining disadvantaged
communities.
The preliminary analysis indicates several noteworthy statistics demonstrating that disadvantaged
communities are benefiting from BEACH Act funding. Of the U.S. coastal recreation beaches identified
as beaches that serve disadvantaged communities, the vast majority (81.2%) are program beaches. This
means that the majority of beaches serving disadvantaged communities have a notification program in
place and are eligible for BEACH Act grant funds. Additionally, nearly 40% of beaches in disadvantaged
communities are being prioritized for grant funds (i.e., they are Tier 1 beaches) because they have
been identified as beaches of high use, high risk, or both. Beach actions include advisories and closures
and can result from monitoring data or from policy-based decisions. To quantify these beach actions, we
used data on the number of beaches with an action, the total number of beach actions, and the duration
(number of days) of the beach action. In 2020, there were 1,688 total beaches with actions; of these,
nearly 40% of events occurred at beaches serving disadvantaged communities. These beaches are likely
prioritized for monitoring because they have variable water quality, but the EJScreen analysis
demonstrates that disadvantaged communities are benefiting from the prioritization and actions taken.
26
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
4.2.3 Innovative or Effective Approaches
This section highlights innovative or effective examples of beach programs or research from states, tribes,
territories, and localities that are recipients of BEACH Act grants (also referred to as jurisdictions). While
not all of the highlights mentioned here are funded by BEACH Act grants, they provide examples of new
methods or activities that can inform or support more innovative beach monitoring and notification
programs. The information is presented by geographic region based on EPA's Regional offices.
New England (EPA Region 1) beach grant jurisdictions have focused on developing innovative microbial
source tracking methods to monitor sources of fecal contamination in coastal waters. Notably, Maine has
been tracking human fecal contamination sources using optical brighteners. They are also developing
DNA markers in collaboration with the University of New Hampshire for microbial source tracking of
human and non-human sources of fecal contamination. Rhode Island has been exploring cutting-edge
monitoring and predictive modeling methods. Rhode Island utilized Virtual Beach, a statistical modeling
software package developed and supported by EPA, to evaluate factors influencing Enterococciis
concentration in beaches with persistent water quality problems in Narragansett Bay and found that the
best predictors of water quality were unique to each beach. Furthermore, Rhode Island has been
investigating a novel testing technology called TECTA™ that may serve as an alternative to traditional
Enterococciis analysis methods with shorter turnaround time for test results due to built-in automated
elements. In 2018, Rhode Island also completed a qPCR study to build capacity in state laboratories for
rapid testing in beach water samples and succeeded in establishing qPCR capabilities in state laboratories
to target pathogenic strains of Vibrio and various microbial source tracking functions. Lastly, Rhode
Island has undertaken studies focused on inequities in beach water quality and access. In 2018, Rhode
Island Department of Health completed a study to statistically examine water quality trends in four areas
of Narragansett Bay to determine if these locations would be suitable for primary contact recreation as
part of the Urban Beach Initiative, an ongoing effort to create clean and safe recreational outlets for at-
risk communities.
In EPA Region 2, New York City provides an example of implementing a successful public notification
and risk communication program using several forms of communication and languages. They notify the
public of beach water quality status changes using on-site beach signs, websites, a 311 government
service hotline, an information sharing system for subscribers ("Notify NYC"; notifications via Twitter,
RSS feed, email and SMS), a free texting service ("Know Before You Go"), and press releases. The
"Know Before You Go" texting service allows subscribers to view beach closures and warnings at public
beaches before going to a public beach. This service has been successful and had roughly 15,000 English
language subscribers and 615 Spanish language subscribers in 2021. Additionally, New York and New
Jersey utilize innovative monitoring methods. In 2019, New York City launched a pilot project to assess
the use of rapid methods to inform same-day decision making using qPCR sampling and analysis. New
Jersey utilizes sanitary surveys to identify possible pollution sources and determine whether beaches
should be closed for recreational uses when exceedances of Enterococciis occur during sampling. Lastly,
Puerto Rico upgraded the implementation of their comprehensive evaluation to measure notification
effectiveness by successfully digitalizing the evaluation survey.
27
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Sandy Point State Park, Maryland. C. Thomson
In the Mid-Atlantic (EPA Region 3), Man land has used sanitary surveys in shellfish waters and beaches,
working with local health departments to address sources of fecal contamination, especially high-risk
sources of human pathogens. Delaware developed GIS field map surveys to conduct surveys on pollution
sources in recreation waters by capturing bather loads and other site parameters. Additionally, Delaware
has begun using EPA environmental justice tools such as EJScreen in addition to GIS mapping methods,
to identify higher bather loads in areas that were not historically monitored. If these unmonitored areas
include underserved communities, the state is looking for ways to add these areas into the monitoring
program. Finally, the local government of Erie County, Pennsylvania is working with a regional science
consortium to collect additional samples (separate from regulatory samples) to develop predictive models
which assist beach managers in making decisions on beach closures.
In the Southeast (EPA Region 4), South Carolina recently worked with local municipalities and counties
to create an online public notification and communication system called Check My Beach
(www.checkmvbeach.com). This website links to South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control's beach monitoring webpage and aims to target beachgoers who are using mobile
phones to check beach safety updates. In 2019-2020, they partnered with local governments and
organizations to publicize Check My Beach via beach signs (with QR codes for mobile phones), flyers,
websites and social media, and conducted a pilot study to assess usage and web traffic data. They found
that Check My Beach was used by over 16,000 unique visitors, of which 77% were mobile phone users
and 47% proceeded to the beach monitoring webpage after using Check My Beach, resulting in increased
visitation to web pages with important beach safety information. Additionally, they found
overwhelmingly positive results in a user survey assessing user satisfaction of Check My Beach. These
results indicate that Check My Beach is serving as a successful beach advisor} and notification system
that is reaching the target audience - mobile phone users who may be beach goers. While Check My
Beach was initially launched for South Carolina's northern coast, it will be expanded to include the entire
state. Georgia employs bilingual beach advisory signs in English and Spanish and works on a series of
notification and public engagement efforts. These efforts include distributing a flyer with frequently asked
questions to the public at health fairs and festivals, giving presentations to local organizations and schools
about the beach sampling and notification systems, and holding an annual coastal environment festival
called CoastFest. CoastFest draws thousands of visitors and has an educational booth about the beach
water monitoring and notification program.
28
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Lake Superior, Wisconsin. M. Knapstein
In the Midwest (EPA Region 5), several jurisdictions have adopted rapid qPCR methods. Michigan
worked in collaboration with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and partner laboratories
in the state to conduct studies at select beaches to compare EPA draft Method C, a rapid qPCR method
developed by EPA ORD for quantitative detection of E. coli, with current culture-based methods. With
help of ORD statisticians, a Michigan-wide S. coli qPCR beach notification value was established in
2019, allowing for the wide use of draft Method C in many of the state's Great Lakes beaches, and
providing more rapid notification about beach water quality. Furthermore, the cities of Racine, Wisconsin
and Chicago, Illinois have successfully implemented rapid qPCR methods for measuring Enterococcus
for several years. In addition, sanitary surveys have been implemented by several Great Lakes states and
tribes (including Michigan, Wisconsin, Bad River and Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa)
to determine bacterial pollution sources in recreational waters. Predictive modeling has been used to
determine beach notifications in several locations. This includes the use of Nowcasting modeling methods
in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Virtual Beach models in Michigan, Ohio and Grand Portage, Swimcast
models in Illinois, and the development of predictive models at several beaches in Indiana. Lastly, public
notification measures in states and tribes are conducted in a variety of ways including formal and informal
education and outreach efforts, festivals, school and camp programs, social media, websites, mobile
phone apps, QR codes, phone messaging systems, press releases, brochures, flags and multi-lingual signs
(English, Spanish, Hmong and Ojibwe). Several states and tribes use BEACH data to determine best
management practice and mitigation implementation plans.
In the South Central (EPA Region 6) region, Texas published research on long-term water quality
patterns and implemented new beach water quality programs. In a recently published study (Powers et al„
2021), researchers conducted a long-term assessment of fecal bacterial pollution in the northwestern Gulf
of Mexico using enterococci data spanning the Texas coast from 2009 to 2020 (66 beaches, 169 stations,
and over 75,000 samples). They found that enterococci levels were correlated with time, population size,
and sea level, and that 22 beaches were pollution "hotspots' where enterococci levels frequently exceed
the EPA Beach Action Value. As these patterns suggest a link between increasing bacteria levels and sea
level rise, this study is being used to inform future beach management actions. Furthermore, Texas
implemented a new state program called Clean Coast Texas (www.cleancoast.texas.gov). an initiative of
the Texas coastal nonpoint source pollution program that aims to help communities reduce pollution and
enhance water quality along the Texas coast. They achieve this by supporting sustainable stormwater
29
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
management in coastal communities, improving water quality and flood management, and providing
technical resources and planning tools. Texas is also initiating three new studies related to microbial
source tracking, land use, and infrastructure analysis; updating data in Texas Beach Watch
(https://cgis.glo.texas.gov/Beachwatch/). which provides beach water quality updates and advisories; and
conducting informal interviews with coastal decision makers.
Carmel River State Beach, California. R. Davis
In the Pacific Southwest (EPA Region 9), California is pursuing innovative approaches to monitoring
including using predictive models, conducting studies on rapid PCR-based methods and microbial source
tracking across the U.S.-Mexico border, and posting multilingual beach advisory signs in English and
Spanish. California tested the application of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) for
detection of Enterococcus in coastal waters of San Diego and found that ddPCR results matched closely
with the Enterolert Test for identifying exceedance levels of Enterococcus in coastal waters of San Diego,
suggesting that this rapid method may be reliable for detecting Enterococcus exceedances (Grain et al.,
2021). Furthermore, California used combined ddPCR and next generation DNA sequencing methods to
track pollutant dynamics along the US-Mexico border. They found evidence of a gradient in fecal
pollution from a wastewater treatment facility in Mexico, the spatial extent of which was dependent on
ocean conditions (Zimmer-Faust et al, 2021). In addition to California, Hawaii is pursuing QMRA studies
assessing alternative indicators (such as crAssphage, coliphages and human pathogens). Hawaii is also
testing levels of Clostridium in waters in tandem with Enterococcus, as Hawaii maintains that
Clostridium may be a better indicator for fecal contamination in tropical waters which have high natural
background levels of Enterococcus. Furthermore, Hawaii is exploring environmental justice issues by
mapping potential overlap between beach monitoring sites and poverty indicators.
30
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Refuge Cove, Alaska.
In the Pacific Northwest (EPA Region 10), jurisdictions are pursuing innovative monitoring methods and
proactive public notification measures. Oregon will carry out microbial source tracking studies in 2022
using qPCR methods to identify sources of fecal contamination at beaches that have higher rates of
closures due to water quality problems. They will use the results of studies in discussions with
stakeholders to spur actions to reduce bacteria levels and advisories. Washington provides technical
support to local health agencies, volunteers, the public, tribes, and state and federal agencies. The state
has also developed partnerships between public health agencies and volunteer organizations to implement
monitoring networks, technology transfer, and education programs. Washington works cooperatively with
the Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation on beach monitoring efforts such as providing
assistance with data entry. The Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation conducts timely
laboratory reporting within a 24-hour turnaround time of analytical results and works with the state of
Washington to make results available for the statewide Coastal Atlas for public access. The Swinomish
Indian Tribal Community has a suite of monitoring tools, including implementation of sanitary surveys to
identify linkages between beach activity and exceedances, in-house laboratory processing that allows for
fast processing and next-day results. Alaska has been conducting sanitary surveys to determine levels of
risk in coastal recreation areas and identify pollution sources to improve beach water quality. Alaska has
also been providing beach monitoring assistance to the small, remote community of Hoonah, Alaska in
partnership with the Hoonah Indian Association. This partnership has enabled samples to be collected and
flown out for laboratory analysis and has allowed sanitary surveys to be completed. The states and tribes
in this region employ similar effective communication tools to notify the public, including posting beach
advisory signs (in several languages in the case of Washington) and communicating infonnation via
websites, listservs, social media, press releases, radio ads, educational and outreach programs, pamphlets,
and local community centers (e.g., Swinomish Youth Center, Hobuck Beach Resort).
31
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Ocean City, Maryland. K. Davis.
4.3 Other Federal Agency Efforts Supporting the BEACH Act
The BEACH Act requires federal agencies that have jurisdiction over coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public, to develop and implement monitoring and
notification programs for coastal recreation waters. These programs should be designed to protect public
health and safety, meet EPAs performance criteria, and address other requirements for state and local
programs. In addition to EPA, federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, and United States Geological Survey carry out beach research, monitoring, or public
communication efforts that, although not directly under the BEACH Act, help to support the goals of the
BEACH Act either by directly implementing beach pathogen monitoring programs or indirectly
supporting beach programs through research or other means. Examples of these efforts are described in
this section.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosts a website called "Healthy Swimming"
(https://www.cdc.gov/healthvwater/swimming/index.html) that provides information about how to
maximize the health benefits of swimming while minimizing the risk of illness and injury. This website
includes links to resources for swimmers in oceans, lakes, and nvers
(https://www.cdc.gov/healthvwater/swimming/oceans-lakes-rivers/index.html). with state-specific
resources for information on water quality advisories, beach monitoring, water quality programs, and
HAB monitoring resources ( ittps ://www.cdc .gov/healthvwater/swimming/water-qualitv-oceans.html).
32
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Program is the lead federal program
for addressing marine debris, which includes at-sea sources such as derelict vessels and abandoned, lost,
or otherwise discarded fishing gear. More information on the Marine Debris Program can be found at
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/.
National Park Service (Department of the Interior)
Among 423 total units, the National Park Service (NPS) manages 88 ocean and Great Lakes parks across
23 states and four territories, comprising over 11,000 miles of coastline and 2.5 million acres of ocean and
Great Lakes waters. These ocean and coastal parks contain ecologically valuable habitats, including coral
reefs, kelp forests, glaciers, estuaries, beaches, and wetlands. They also provide tremendous recreational
value to the nation, attracting over 90 million visitors each year and generating over $6.9 billion in
economic benefits to local communities. Park managers are confronted with multiple threats to natural
and cultural resources and critical infrastructure from inside and outside of park boundaries. In response,
NPS has adopted strategies to increase the agency's organizational and scientific capacity to address
ocean and coastal issues in partnership with state and federal agencies and local organizations.
While the vast majority of long term NPS water quality monitoring focuses on natural resources,
pathogen monitoring of recreational waters has been conducted in 30 parks, often in partnership with
USGS or state, tribal and local governments. Examples of national park beaches that are monitored for E.
coli, Enterococcus or fecal coliforms include Grand Portage National Monument, Indiana Dunes National
Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Cumberland Island
National Seashore, Fort Frederica National Monument, Fire Island National Seashore, Assateague Island
National Seashore, Acadia National Park, Cape Cod National Seashore, Gateway National Recreation
Area, and Fort Pulaski National Monument. In addition to monitoring, some parks also have notification
programs, including Indiana Dunes National Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Assateague
Island National Seashore, Fire Island National Seashore, Gateway National Recreation Area, and Acadia
National Park. More information on ocean and Great Lakes national parks can be found at
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1439/OCRB.htm.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S Department of Defense)
The congressionally authorized National Shoreline Management Study documents the physical,
economic, environmental, and social impacts of shoreline change across every coastal region of the
United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is tasked with providing technical input on
current and future needs for coastal projects (https://www.iwr.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Coasts/National-
Shoreline-Management/). While USACE conducts testing of dredged sediment prior to placement on
beaches, they do not directly monitor coastal or Great Lakes recreational waters for pathogens. Where
USACE properties or structures are adjacent or overlap with coastal or Great Lakes beaches, water quality
monitoring is carried out by state or local jurisdictions with ownership over those beaches. Water quality
monitoring is carried out by USACE in inland recreational waters, but these locations are not subject to
the BEACH Act.
U.S. Geological Survey (Department of the Interior)
USGS has conducted extensive research on microbiological water quality monitoring and modeling
methods in the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Science Center, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water
Science Center, Central Midwest Water Science Center and Upper Midwest Water Science Center. Since
2018, these USGS offices have collectively published nine journal articles and reports (with an additional
imminent publication), four data releases, and one fact sheet. These products include findings on topics
such as microbial source tracking, nowcasting modeling approaches, microbial gene sequencing,
cyanobacterial toxin detection, and environmental contributors to microbiological contamination. These
studies advance knowledge on innovative water quality monitoring and forecasting techniques that can be
used to inform methods utilized by beach programs. A list of USGS Great Lakes Beach-related products
(2018-present) can be found in the Appendix: USGS Journal Articles and Reports.
33
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
References:
Crain, C., Kezer, K., Steele, S., Owiti, J., Rao, S., Victorio, M., Austin, B., Volner, A., Draper, W.,
Griffith, J., Steele, J., & Seifert, M. (2021). Application of ddPCR for detection of Enterococcus spp. in
coastal water quality monitoring. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 184, 106206.
Powers, N. C., Pinchback, J., Flores, L., Huang, Y., Wetz, M. S., & Turner, J. W. (2021). Long-term
water quality analysis reveals correlation between bacterial pollution and sea level rise in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 166, 112231.
Twichell, J. H., Mulvaney, K. K., Merrill, N. H., & Bousquin, J. J. (2022). Geographies of Dirty Water:
Landscape-Scale Inequities in Coastal Access in Rhode Island. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 1-12.
USEPA. (2022) EPA's Beach Report: 2021 Swimming Season. Office of Water, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2022-07/beach-report-
2021.pdf
Zimmer-Faust, A. G., Steele, J. A., Xiong, X., Staley, C., Griffith, M., Sadowsky, M. J., Diaz, M., &
Griffith, J. F. (2021). A Combined Digital PCRand Next Generation DNA-Sequencing Based Approach
for Tracking Nearshore Pollutant Dynamics Along the Southwest United States/Mexico Border. Frontiers
in Microbiology, 12.
34
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Section 5. Challenges and Opportunities
While many beach programs have implemented innovative monitoring and notification methods, states,
tribes, territories, and local governments face a number of challenges that can impede successful
implementation of beach monitoring and notification efforts. States have told EPA that funding shortages
can limit effective program implementation and result in the inability to meet the basic needs of beach
monitoring and notification programs, such as budget restraints in laboratories, constraints in posting
monitoring results, and the inability to monitor all beaches. While some states employ creative solutions
such as working with volunteer networks and local partners to implement monitoring programs, according
to states, many need to supplement BEACH Act funding with other sources of state or federal funding to
effectively implement their beach monitoring and notification programs. Currently, only 54.1% of total
beaches are monitored. Jurisdictions that want to implement monitoring and notification programs at
more of their publicly accessible beaches would need to identify additional resources.
There are also funding challenges for federal agencies with jurisdiction over coastal recreation waters
next to beaches used by the public to meet the BEACH Act requirement. These federal agencies must
maintain monitoring and notification programs and submit to EPA reports that describe the monitoring
data collected and actions taken to notify the public (33 USC § 1346(d)), while working within the
confines of their appropriated funds. In the future, EPA will likely need to upgrade its data systems in
order to incorporate the data submitted by other federal agencies.
Jurisdictions stated that they would also benefit from expanding the scope of work authorized under
BEACH Act funds. BEACH Act funds are currently not authorized for supporting programs that
jurisdictions rely on, such as microbial source tracking, remediation of pollution sources, and HAB and
phytoplankton biotoxin monitoring and notification in marine and freshwaters. Monitoring for HABs is
part of a comprehensive sampling strategy in jurisdictions throughout the U.S., and multiple states
indicated that they would like to be able to use BEACH Act funds for monitoring and notification aspects
of HABs programs. In some jurisdictions, HAB occurrences are currently the primary driver of
recreational beach closures.
Multiple states have identified staffing shortages as a barrier to implementing beach programs. Staffing
shortages or frequent turnover of staff can result in internal program challenges, including late or
incomplete data entry and reporting, less frequent sampling, difficulties in delivering samples to and from
laboratories, and delays in hiring. These staffing challenges are compounded in remote areas or islands,
where it can be more difficult to find qualified job applicants and proximity or access to laboratories may
be limited. States with vast geographies but sparse populations face similar challenges, such as difficulties
in sampling all beaches and therefore requiring local contractors to monitor beaches across the state. In
states, territories and tribes with staffing challenges or shortages, additional capacity building may be
useful to meet the needs of beach programs.
Additionally, some states reported to EPA there are local barriers to beach monitoring or notification. In
some jurisdictions, publicly owned beaches are sampled, while those that are privately owned are not
always required to be sampled, which may put swimmers at risk in private or resort beaches. Furthermore,
in towns or localities where beach monitoring and notification is voluntary but not required, it can be
difficult to convince these localities to implement beach monitoring and notification programs. Although
there are many successful participatory science water quality monitoring programs, there is the challenge
- whether perceived or real - that some concerned citizens or resource interest groups are sampling water
bodies for bacteria using inappropriate methods or thresholds, leading to misleading conclusions about
water quality. In these cases, states suggested that developing an EPA-approved participatory science
guide or primer would be helpful to direct participatory scientists to appropriate methods and conclusions
for water quality sampling.
Another challenge is that subsets of the population are not receiving the information when it is not safe to
swim at a beach. Many states do not erect signs at the beach that announce warnings or closures because
35
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
of cost, infrastructure needs, vandalism (e.g., target practice), and the harsh marine environment. While
all states post the information online, people without cell phones or Wi-Fi access cannot access it.
Furthermore, the information posted online is mainly in English, so non-English speakers, whether
residents or tourists, are not notified. And most importantly, people do not necessarily know the
information even exists or where to look for it.
Additional barriers to implementing BEACH Act programs include challenges created by the COVID-19
pandemic, including staffing shortages, inability to monitor or access certain beaches and conduct
outreach and education events, and reduced access for non-tribal members to enter tribal reservations,
which has resulted in more severe staffing shortages for some tribes. Fifteen percent of program beaches
had advisories or closings in 2020 based on COVID-19 policies to prevent the spread of the vims in
crowds.
Climate change is another challenge that has increasingly caused climate-related water quality
exceedances and notifications in some regions and staffing and beach access problems due to extreme
climate events. Additional barriers to implementation include complex, localized environmental
conditions: the lag time between sampling and results, causing delays in public notification; balancing
tourism with public health risks at beaches; and aging infrastructure.
One final challenge is the assertion by some tropical jurisdictions that the indicators used in EPA's
recreational criteria (E. co/i. enterococci) do not work well in their waters due to high background levels.
However, studies are underway to determine if another fecal indicator is more appropriate for tropical and
sub-tropical waters.
Each of these challenges is an opportunity to further improve the programs supported by the BEACH Act
and to continue to protect human health at U.S. coasts and the Great Lakes.
Madaket Beach, Nantucket, Massachusetts. B. Kramer
36
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Appendix: USGS Journal Articles and Reports
Articles:
Francy, D.S., Brady, A.M.G, Cicale, J.R., Dalby, H.D., & Stelzer, E.A. (2020). Nowcasting
methods for determining microbiological water quality at recreational beaches and drinking-
water source waters. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 175.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.mimet.2020.105970
Francy, D.S., Brady, A.M.G, Stelzer, E.A., Cicale, J.R., Hackney, C., Dalby, H.D., Struffolino,
P., & Dwyer, D.F. (2020). Predicting microcystin concentration action-level exceedances
resulting from cyanobacterial blooms in selected lake sites in Ohio. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 192, 513. https://doi. org/10.1007/s 10661 -020-08407-x.
Kephart, C.M., Brady, A.M.G., & Jackwood, R.W. (2019). Escherichia coli and microbial
source tracking marker concentrations in and near a constructed wetland in Maumee Bay State
Park, Oregon, Ohio, 2015-16: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018-
5127. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185127.
Kinzelman, J., Byappanahalli, M.N., Nevers, M.B., Shively, D., Kurdas, S. & C. H. Nakatsu,
C.H. (2020). Utilization of multiple microbial tools to evaluate efficacy of restoration strategies
to improve recreational water quality at a Lake Michigan beach (Racine, WI). Journal of
Microbiological Methods, 178. 10.1016/j.mimet.2020.106049.
Nakatsu, C. H., Byappanahalli, M.N., & Nevers, M.B. 2019. Bacterial community 16S rRNA
gene sequencing characterizes riverine microbial impact on Lake Michigan. Frontiers in
Microbiology, 10, 996.
Nevers, M. B., Byappanahalli, M.N., Nakatsu, C.H., Kinzelman, J.L., Phanikumar, M.S.,
Shively, D.A., & Spoljaric, A.M. (2020). Interaction of bacterial communities and indicators of
water quality in shoreline sand, sediment, and water of Lake Michigan. Water Research, 178.
Nevers, M. B., Byappanahalli, M.N., Shively, D., Buszka, P.M., Jackson, P.R., & Phanikumar,
M.S. 2018. Identifying and eliminating sources of recreational water quality Degradation along
an urban coast. Journal of Environmental Quality, 47, 1042-1050.
Safaie, A., Weiskerger, C.J., Nevers, M.B., Byappanahalli, M.N., & Phanikumar, M.S. (2021).
Evaluating the impacts of foreshore sand and birds on microbiological contamination at a
freshwater beach. Water Research, 190. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2020.l 16671.
Zhang, J., Qiu, H., Li, X., Niu, J., Nevers, M.B., Hu, X., & Phanikumar, M.S. (2018). Real-Time
Nowcasting of Microbiological Water Quality at Recreational Beaches: A Wavelet and Artificial
Neural Network Based Hybrid Modeling Approach. Environmental Science and Technology, 52,
8446-8455.
Data Releases:
Byappanahalli, M. N, & Nevers, M.B. (2019). 16S rRNA gene sequencing and E. coli for
shorelines and the Grand Calumet River, Indiana, 2015 (Version 2.0, July 2019) [Data set],
http://doi.org/10.5066/P92JWFUR.
37
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Nevers, M. B. (2018). Identify sources of high E. coli concentrations, Grand Calumet River Area
of Concern beaches of southern Lake Michigan, 2016-2018 [Data set]
https://doi.org/10.5066/P9M8Y8F3.
Nevers, M. B., & Byappanahalli, M.N. (2020). Microbial communities and bacterial indicators
for shoreline sand, sediment, and water in Racine, Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois; and East
Chicago, Indiana; 2016-2017 [Data set], https ://doi.org/10.5066/P9NFKBEB.
Nevers, M. B., Byappanahalli, M.N. & Shively, D.A. (2018). Identify sources of high E. coli
concentrations, beaches of southern Lake Michigan, 2015 (Version 2.0, July 2020) [Data set],
https://doi.org/10.5066/F7H70F3D.
Fact Sheet:
Francy, D.S., Brady, A.M., and Zimmerman, T.M. (2019). Real-time assessments of water
quality—A nowcastfor Escherichia coli and cyanobacterial toxins [Fact sheet], U.S. Geological
Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20193Q61.
38
-------
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: 2022 Report to Congress
Glossary
Clostridium - a genus of saprophytic rod-shaped or spindle-shaped usually gram-positive bacteria that are
anaerobic or require very little free oxygen and are nearly cosmopolitan in soil, water, sewage, and animal
and human intestines; includes many pathogenic species, e.g., those causing tetanus, gas gangrene,
botulism, and other forms of food poisoning.
Coliphage - virus that infects the bacteria E. coir, ideal candidate for viral indicator for fecal
contamination since coliphage is found in high levels in human sewage, physically similar to viruses that
cause illness associated with primary contact water recreation, nonpathogenic, amenable to overnight
culture methods, can be counted cheaply, easily, and quickly, similarly resistant to sewage treatment and
environmental degradation as enteric viruses of concern.
Cyanotoxin - toxic compound produced by some cyanobacteria harmful algal blooms; can be harmful to
humans, other animals, and the environment; toxin concentrations may become elevated before visible
bloom is observed and may persist after a bloom fades; microcystins and cylindrospermopsin are two
types of cyanotoxins produced by a variety of cyanobacteria species that can cause liver and kidney
damage after oral exposure.
enteric virus - viruses that replicate in the gastrointestinal tract.
Enterococcus - fecal indicator bacteria used to measure the level of fecal pollution in a water sample; the
bacteria lives in the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals, including humans; not considered harmful
to humans, but their presence in the environment may indicate that other disease-causing agents such as
viruses, bacteria, and protozoa may be present.
E. coli (Escherichia coli) - fecal indicator bacteria used to measure the level of fecal pollution in a water
sample; species of fecal coliform bacteria that is specific to fecal material from humans and other warm-
blooded animals; bacteria found in the environment, foods, and intestines of people and animals.
HAB (harmful algal bloom) - out of control growth in freshwater or coastal waters of algae producing
toxic or harmful effects on people, animals and environment.
Pathogen - a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease.
Pathogen indicator - a substance that indicates the potential for human infectious disease.
water quality criteria - elements of state or tribal water quality standards, expressed as constituent
concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular
use, such as recreation. When criteria are met, water quality will generally protect the designated use.
39
------- |