Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
August 2007
Authors
Mark Dorfman
Nancy Stoner
Natural Resources Defense Council
Acknowledgments
NRDC wishes to acknowledge the support of The Davis Family Trust for Clean Water, John Dawson, Sarah K. deCoizart
Article Tenth Perpetual Charitable Trust, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc., The Joyce Foundation, The Lawrence
Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Prospect Hill Foundation, The Mary
Jean Smeal Clean Water Fund, and Victoria Foundation, Inc. We also thank our more than 650,000 members, without
whom our work to protect U.S. coasts, as well as our other wide ranging environmental programs, would not be possible.
NRDC would like to thank Tonya McLean and Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot for their research assistance. Thanks also to Rita
Barol, Kathryn McGrath, Shanti Menon, Lisa Whiteman, Auden Shim, and Megan Lew for their assistance in producing
this report on NRDC’s website and to Julia Bovey, Serena Ingres, Elizabeth Heyd, Jenny Powers, Daniel Hinerfeld,
Hamlet Paoletti, and Jon Coifman from our communications team for developing our release strategy. Finally, thanks to
Henry Henderson, Sarah Chasis, David Beckman, Michele Mehta, Andrew Wetzler for releasing the report for NRDC
this year and Natalie Roy and Christy Leavitt for arranging for releases by chapters of the Public Interest Research Group
and the Clean Water Network.
National Overview............................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1
Sources of Beachwater Pollution......................................................................................................................................14
Chapter 2
Health Risks and Economic Impacts of Beach Pollution.................................................................................................21
Chapter 3
Beachwater Monitoring and Closing/Advisory Practices..................................................................................................33
Chapter 4
Plan of Action.................................................................................................................................................................37
Chapter 5
State Summaries..............................................................................................................................................................42
Alabama Florida Louisiana Minnesota North Carolina South Carolina
Alaska Georgia Maine Mississippi Ohio Texas
California Hawaii Maryland New Hampshire Oregon Virginia
Connecticut Illinois Massachusetts New Jersey Pennsylvania Washington
Delaware Indiana Michigan New York Rhode Island Wisconsin
Figures
Figure 1. Total Closing/Advisory Days, 2000–2006 (excluding extended and permanent).................................................2
Figure 2. Reported Causes of Closings/Advisoris in 2006..................................................................................................3
Figure 3. Reported Causes of Closings/Advisories, 2000–2006..........................................................................................3
Figure 4. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories, 2006..............................................................................4
Figure 5. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories, 2000–2006....................................................................4
Figure 6. Major Pollution Sources Causing Beach Closings/Advisories in 2006...............................................................14
Figure 7. Expansion of HAB Problems in the U.S...........................................................................................................25
Figure 8. Lag Time Associated with Current Water Quality Monitoring and Public Notification Methods......................26
Tables
Table 1. Rank of States by Percent of Tier 1 Beachwater Samples Exceeding the National Standard in 2006.....................6
Table 2. Tier 1 Beaches with More Than 25 Percent of Samples Exceeding National Standards in 2006,...........................7
by Percent Exceedance
Table 3. U.S. Ocean, Bay, Great Lakes, and Some Freshwater Beach Closings/Advisories, 2000–2006............................12
Table 4. Details on the 62 Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Reported to CDCP: Jan 2003–Dec 2004..............................22
Table 5. Pathogens and Swimming-Associated Illnesses...................................................................................................23
Table 6. BEACH Act–Required Beachwater Water Quality Standarrds............................................................................26
Table 7. Value of Tourism to Selected Coastal States........................................................................................................29
Table 8. 2007 Federal BEACH Act Grant Allocations to States and Territories................................................................34
Table 9. Number and Percent of Tier 1 Beaches Regularly Monitored in 2006................................................................35
Table 10. Abbreviations Used in Beach Closing/Advisory Tables.....................................................................................44
Executive Summary
In 2006 there were more beach closings and advisories than at any other time in the 17 years the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) has been tracking them. The number of closing and advisory days at ocean, bay, and Great
Lakes beaches jumped 28 percent to more than 25,000, confirming that our nation’s beaches continue to suffer from se-
rious water pollution.
For the second consecutive year, we were able to determine not only the number of closings and advisories, but also
the number of times that each beach violated current public health standards. This year, a curious picture emerged: while
the number of closing/advisory days increased, the percent of all samples exceeding national health standards decreased
to 7 percent in 2006 from 8 percent in 2005. The culprit is stormwater runoff: the number of closing/advisory days due
to stormwater doubled to more than 10,000 in 2006. The
structures and infrastructures of our coastal cities and towns The EPA missed its congressionally
create the conditions for rain to wash infectious bacteria, vi- mandated deadline to revise the
ruses, and parasites into our beachwater. In fact, in many of
current public health standards
the more populated coastal areas, health officials are so sure
that heavy rains will wash sewage, nutrients, and debris into for beachwater quality, which are
our coastal recreational waters, that they don’t even wait for outdated and inadequate.
the results of monitoring before taking action to protect
the public – they close beaches or issue advisories preemptively. In 2006, 79 percent of the closing/advisory days due to
stormwater contamination were preemptive. Hawaii, which had record amounts of rain in 2006, accounts for the largest
share of preemptive closing/advisory days.
For the first time this year, our report puts a special focus on our nation’s highest risk beaches—those with the great-
est amount of use and/or proximity to potential pollution sources. This new area of focus is the result of a peer review
process NRDC undertook with five professionals from local and state health agencies, academia, and the research com-
munity. States must identify their highest risk beaches when they receive federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We found that closing/ad-
visory days at these so-called “Tier 1” beaches steadily increased at a rate of 3 percent per year from 2004 through 2006.
Heavy rains in some areas, more frequent monitoring, and uncontrolled stormwater and sewage pollution appear to be
the major factors contributing to the steady increase. Ninety-seven percent of Tier 1 beaches are monitored at least once a
week compared to 79 percent of all monitored beaches.
Dirty coastal waters not only threaten our health, they hurt our economy. Coastal “tourism and recreation constitute
some of the fastest growing business sectors—enriching economies and supporting jobs in communities virtually every-
where along the coasts of the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island territories and com-
monwealths,” according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.1 That translates into new employment opportunities:
in 2000, U.S. coastal tourism and recreation created 1.67 million jobs, a 41 percent increase from 1990, earning workers
$13.8 billion in wages. Annual economic output nearly doubled during the same time period to $29.5 billion.
But U.S. “beachonomics” might have been more robust if it were not for the condition of our coastal waters. Some
45 percent of our waters assessed by states are not clean enough for fishing or swimming, according to EPA data from
2000, the most recent national information available. In 2006, 8 percent of all water samples taken at beaches across
the country exceeded the federal minimum public health–based monitoring standard, showing no improvement over
the previous year. Worse yet, the federal public-health standard is more than 20 years old, does not provide informa-
tion on the full range of waterborne illnesses that make beachgoers sick, and usually provides information that is
24–48 hours old. So, even if a beach is deemed “safe” under the federal public health standard, it may still contain
undetected human or animal waste that can make swimmers sick. In the BEACH Act, Congress required the EPA
to modernize this outdated standard, but the EPA has not yet done so. Last summer, NRDC sued the EPA to force it
to comply with the BEACH Act by accelerating its timetable for proposing new standards, setting standards that fully
protect the public, and establishing testing methods that will enable public health officials to make prompt decisions
about closing their beaches and issuing advisories. Americans need to know that the waters in which we swim, surf,
and dive are safe. At a minimum, that means that recreational waters must be tested regularly, and the results must be
measured against effective health standards. When waters do not meet these standards, authorities must promptly and
clearly notify the public.
While authorities are doing a better job monitoring beaches than in the past, that monitoring reveals the extent
to which they are failing to clean up the sources of beachwater pollution. Closings and advisories are rising steadily,
and most authorities are not even attempting to identify pollution sources, much less control them. One prob-
lem is that BEACH Act grants are currently not available for source identification and correction, so NRDC is
supporting federal legislation, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, that would double the amount of funding for
BEACH Act grants and allow them to be used for sanitary surveys, source tracking, and other means of identifying
and addressing the direct sources of the contamination. Further improvements to monitoring and public notifica-
tion programs should include expanding them to cover all designated coastal beaches and popular inland beaches.
Meanwhile, NRDC’s lawsuit is already prodding the EPA to move forward with developing a new health standard
and faster test methods. Finally, it is time for the EPA and state and local authorities to seriously address the sources
of beachwater pollution, which most often is stormwater and sewage pollution. Prevention is the best way to make
sure that a day at the beach will not turn into a night in the bathroom, or worse, in a hospital emergency room.
• The EPA should accelerate its timetable for proposing new health standards for beachwater quality, set standards that
fully protect the public, and establish testing methods that will enable public health officials to make prompt decisions
about closing their beaches and issuing advisories.
• The EPA and states should tighten and enforce controls on all sources of beachwater pollution. Controls on sewage
overflows, urban stormwater, and other sources of polluted runoff are particularly critical. The best way to prevent
swimmers from getting sick is to clean up the water.
• Congress should pass the Beach Protection Act of 2007, S. 1506, HR 2537, which would reauthorize the federal
BEACH Act of 2000, double the authorized funding and allow that funding to be used for identifying and correcting
sources of beachwater contamination, require EPA to approve rapid test methods for monitoring beachwater pollution,
and improve coordination between the public health officials who monitor the beachwater and the environmental
agencies who regulate the sources of beachwater pollution.
• Congress should substantially increase the federal appropriations available to meet clean water and beach protection
needs through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, federal BEACH Act grants, and eventually, a Clean Water Trust
Fund or other dedicated source of clean water funding.
• The EPA should promptly and effectively implement and enforce the BEACH Act by setting and enforcing minimum
standards for all BEACH Act recipients to ensure comprehensive state and local monitoring of beachwater quality and
prompt public notification when bacterial standards are exceeded.
• State and local governments should make preventing beachwater pollution a priority. They should adopt monitoring
and closure programs that adequately protect the public, and they should do sanitary surveys to identify and then remedy
the sources of beachwater pollution.
• State and local governments should issue preemptive advisories where a correlation between rainfall and elevated
bacteria levels exists or when sewer overflows or other catastrophic events jeopardize beachwater safety.
• A portion of the revenues generated by tourism should be allocated to monitoring and prevention programs to ensure
that swimming in coastal waters does not jeopardize the health of beachgoers.
• Voters should support increased federal, state, and local funding for urban stormwater programs and for repairing,
rehabilitating, and upgrading our aging sewer systems. The public also should support funding for maintaining and
expanding natural areas (wetlands, shoreline buffers, coastal vegetation) that trap and filter pollution before it reaches
the beach.
• Individuals can help clean up beach pollution. Simple measures, including conserving water, redirecting runoff, using
such natural fertilizers as compost for gardens, maintaining septic systems, and properly disposing of animal waste, litter,
toxic household products, and used motor oil can reduce the amount of pollution in coastal waters.
Notes
1 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Governor’s Draft, Washington, D.C., April 2004, pp. 2,
7, available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov.
Major Findings
This section provides a national perspective on the major findings of NRDC’s Testing the Waters report regarding 2006
beachwater quality, closings and advisories, sources of pollution, associated health risks, and economic impacts. For more
information on state programs and specific beaches, see the individual state summaries in Chapter 5.
• During 2006, U.S. ocean, bay, Great Lakes, and some freshwater beaches had 25,643 days of closings and advisories,
73 extended closings and advisories (seven to 13 consecutive weeks), and 69 permanent closings and advisories (more
than 13 consecutive weeks). Including extended days, the total comes to 29,785 beach closing and advisory days.
• Since 1992, there have been more than 155,286 days of closings and advisories and 562 extended closings and
advisories. (See Figure 1 and Table 3.)
• The number of beach closing and advisory days increased 28 percent to 5,568 days in 2006 (see Figure 1). The
two major factors leading to the increase in 2006 appear to be heavy rainfall in some areas, particularly Hawaii, and
30 3.0
Closing/advisory days
Thousands of Closing/Advisory Days
Thousands of Beaches
20
2.0
15
1.5
10
1.0
5
0 0.5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Note: Because of inconsistencies in monitoring and closing/advisory practices among states and the different levels of data
submission over time, it is difficult to make comparisons between states or to assess trends based on the closing/advisory
data.
unaddressed bacteria-laden stormwater and sewage pollution that contaminate beachwaters. The percent of beaches
monitored at least once a week remained steady at 79 percent.
• The continued high level of closings/advisories is an indication that regular monitoring continues to reveal serious
water pollution at our nation’s coastal, bay, and Great Lakes beaches. Figure 2 (page vii) shows that 15,738 (63%) of the
2006 beach closings and advisories were issued because water quality monitoring revealed bacteria levels exceeding health
and safety standards.
Major causes of beach closings and advisories in 2006 were as follows (see Figure 2):
• 63 percent (15,738) were based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding beachwater quality standards (a
decrease from 75 percent in 2005);
• 33 percent (8,334) were precautionary, due to rainfall known to carry pollution to swimming waters (an increase from
21 percent in 2005);
• 4 percent (966) were in response to known pollution events, such as sewage treatment plant failures or breaks in
sewage pipes. In other words, localities did not wait for monitoring results to decide whether to close beaches or issue
advisories (an increase from 3 percent in 2005);
• Less than 1 percent (89) was due to other causes, such as dredging and algal blooms (a decrease from 2 percent in
2005).
• Major pollution sources listed as responsible for 2006 beach closings and advisories include the following. The total is
greater than 25,643 and 100 percent because more than one source may have contributed to a given closing or advisory
(see Figure 4):
30
� A-Monitoring
� B-Response
Thousands of Closing/Advisory Days
25 � C-Preemptive Rainfall
� D-Other
20
15
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Key: (A) Based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standards. (B) In response to known pollution event
without relying on monitoring. (C) Preemptive due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters. (D) Other reason.
• Unknown sources of pollution caused 14,167 closing/advisory days (54 percent of this year’s total)—a decrease of 435
days from 2005—plus 58 extended and 37 permanent closings or advisories. Sewage or stormwater discharges usually
cause elevated bacteria levels, but efforts to determine the causes of increased bacteria levels have not kept pace with new
or more frequent monitoring practices;
• Polluted runoff and stormwater caused or contributed to 10,597 closing/advisory days (40 percent of this year’s
total)—an increase of 5,264 days from 2005—plus three permanent closings or advisories;
• Sewage spills and overflows caused or contributed to 1,301 closing/advisory days (5 percent of this year’s total)—an
increase of 402 days from 2005—plus six extended and two permanent closings or advisories (includes combined sewer
overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, breaks or blockages in sewer lines, and faulty septic systems);
� Unknown
� Polluted runoff, stormwater or preemptive due to rain
� Sewage spills
� Other
Totals shown are greater than annual totals because more than one pollution source may have contributed to each closing/
advisory.
30
� A-Sewage S
� B-Rain/Runoff/Stormwater
Thousands of Closing/Advisory Days
25 � C-Unknown
� D-Other R
20 U
15 O
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Totals shown are greater than annual totals because more than one pollution source may have contributed to each closing/
advisory. Key: (A) Sewage spills and overflows. (B) Polluted runoff, stormwater, or preemptive due to rain. (C) Unknown.
(D) Other reasons (including those with no source information provided).
• Elevated bacteria levels from miscellaneous sources, such as boat discharges or wildlife, accounted for 410 closing/
advisory days (2 percent of this year’s total)—an increase of 77 days from 2005—plus two extended and 28 permanent
closings or advisories;
• Preemptive rainfall advisories, usually due to polluted stormwater or sewage overflows, accounted for 8,334 closing/
advisory days (33 percent of this year’s total)—an increase of 4,005 days from 2005.
Beachwater Quality
For the second consecutive year, NRDC used the percentage of all beachwater samples collected in 2006 that exceeded
the BEACH Act–required daily maximum standards to compare water quality at beaches ringing our nation from the
Pacific Northwest to Southern California, from New England to the Florida Keys, and all along the U.S. Great Lakes
shoreline. For marine waters, the standard is 104 enterococcus colony forming units per 100 milliliters (ml) and for the
freshwater, the standard is 235 E .coli colony forming units per 100 ml.
For the 2006 beach season, the NRDC dataset includes monitoring results for 109,950 samples at 3,492 beaches and
beach segments (most state and local officials divide longer beaches into manageable monitoring segments). Nationally,
the percent of all samples exceeding the BEACH Act standard remained constant at 8 percent between 2005 and 2006.
Sources of Information
For the fourth consecutive year, our research for Testing the Waters is based primarily on the EPA’s new electronic report-
ing system designed to meet the requirements of federal BEACH Act grants to all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and
territories. From 1998 through 2003, the report had been based on the EPA’s annual Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health (BEACH) Program survey, supplemented by NRDC interviews with state and local officials. The
EPA’s electronic reporting system replaced the BEACH survey.
Although it is improving, there are still technical problems with EPA’s electronic data submission system. In some
cases, the EPA’s 2006 closing/advisory or beach detail data were incomplete or inaccurate and were replaced or supple
mented with data requested by NRDC and received directly from the states. In three cases, the EPA closing/advisory
data were completely replaced with data received directly from the state (California, Rhode Island, and Washington).
NRDC updated the EPA’s state beach lists with information solicited from all 30 coastal and Great Lakes states and con-
tacted state and local officials with specific questions regarding their beach programs.
In addition to closing/advisory data, NRDC has compiled and analyzed, for the second consecutive year, each state’s
beach monitoring results. With these data, we are now able to present a comparative analysis of water quality at beaches
across the United States—thanks to provisions of the BEACH Act which require the EPA to collect and publicize beach
monitoring data from all states receiving BEACH Act grants. NRDC obtained 2006 beach season monitoring data
through the EPA’s STORET data warehouse (the EPA’s main repository of water quality monitoring data) for 26 states
(Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). EPA data for California, New Hampshire,
and Washington were found to be in error, so NRDC requested and received monitoring data directly from these states.
Data for Indiana and Pennsylvania beaches were not available through STORET; they were obtained directly from
these states. Lake County in Illinois provided monitoring data for Lake Michigan beaches in its jurisdiction, but no data
were obtained for Lake Michigan beaches in Cook County—the Illinois Department of Public Health is the only agency
in all 30 coastal or Great Lakes states that did not provide 2006 monitoring data to either the EPA or NRDC. NRDC
included U.S. territories for the purpose of comparing total closing/advisory days to earlier years. However, we did not
include them in our more detailed 2006 beach season analysis by state in Chapter 5.
In 2006, Tier 1 beaches in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Rhode Island ranked highest in percent of
samples exceeding national standards. It is important to note that a top-ranking state, while a clear indication of dirty
coastal recreational waters, is not necessarily an indication of a bad actor. For example, Ohio and Indiana always issue an
advisory when a sample exceeds the standard; they do not wait for the results of a resample, or check other conditions
first as some other states do. Although Rhode Island does wait for the result of a resample before taking action, it has the
highest average closing/advisory days per beach among the top ranking states indicating that the public is frequently noti-
fied when conditions are unsafe. Ohio goes even further by monitoring more of its Tier 1 beaches more frequently than
once a week (see Table 1).
Table 1. Rank of States by Percent of Tier 1 Beachwater Samples Exceeding the National Standard
in 2006
Percent of Resample
2006 Tier 1 Average
Tier 1 Beaches or Other
Total Percent Beach Closing/Advisory
State Monitored More Information
Samples Exceedance Closing/Advisory Days Per
Frequently Than Needed Before
Days Tier 1 Beach
Once a Week Action
OH 1,066 22% 319 16 100% no
IN 516 19% 38 5 63% no
WI 1,960 16% 469 18 100% no
IL 3,682 15% 97 7 72% no
RI 493 14% 240 27 70% yes
MN 411 14% 65 8 100% no
MD 688 13% 241 5 0% yes
NY 2,431 13% 704 9 7% sometimes
ME 651 12% 134 3 7% sometimes
SC 1,300 12% 676 17 0% yes
PA 1,502 11% 52 7 90% no
CA 30.582 9% 4,641 9 8% no
MS 1,221 9% 0 0 100% no
MA 702 8% 444 44 0% no
TX 4,243 8% 470 8 0% sometimes
AL 326 6% 18 2 100% yes
FL 15,729 6% 2,686 9 0% yes
WA 3,299 5% 157 2 0% yes
MI 2,470 4% 124 1 14% sometimes
CT 914 4% 54 1 0% yes
GA 884 4% 135 8 0% no
HI 3,070 3% 728 16 98% yes
NH 622 3% 17 2 100% no
NJ 3,894 3% 122 1 0% yes
OR 435 3% 15 4 0% no
LA 167 2% 5 1 0% yes
NC 3,057 2% 283 3 0% no
DE 299 1% 0 0 0% yes
VA 886 1% 43 1 0% no
NRDC identified 92 beaches in 19 states that exceeded the standard more than 25 percent of the time (California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin) (see Table 2). Those viola-
tions are pretty good indications that the beachwater was contaminated with human and animal waste, and that beach
goers were either swimming in that waste or banned from doing so due to the health risks.
Table 2. Tier 1 Beaches with More Than 25 Percent of Samples Exceeding National Standards in
2006, by Percent Exceedance
Health Risks
• Because pathogens in sewage-contaminated waters can cause a wide range of diseases—including ear, nose, and throat
problems, gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and respiratory illness—beachwater pollution threatens public health. The
consequences of these swimming-associated illnesses can be worse for children, elderly people, pregnant women, cancer
patients, and others with weakened immune systems.
• Pollution contributed to the contamination of popular beaches. In 2006, known sewage contamination from spills,
storm drains, runoff, or leaky septic systems was reported in such popular vacation destinations as Surfrider Beach in
California, Ogen Dunes Beach in Indiana, Orchard Beach in the Bronx, and two beaches in Newport, Rhode Island.
• Aside from the disease-causing organisms present in sewage, its high nutrient content acts as fertilizer that can spur
massive blooms of microscopic organisms. Harmful algal blooms (HAB), or “red tides,” pose a serious risk to aquatic
and human health. They are natural phenomenon occurring for a variety of reasons, but can be exacerbated by nutrient
overloads into coastal waters. Nutrients spur harmful algae species such as the photosynthetic dinoflagellates Karenia
brevis or Alexandrium tamarense and the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis to multiply rapidly, producing red or green
pigmented algal blooms that last for days, weeks, or months. Red tides may result in serious and potentially life-
threatening human illnesses that have a slew of symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping,
chills, diminished temperature sensation, muscular aches, dizziness, anxiety, sweating, seizures, numbness and tingling of
the mouth and digits, and paralysis, as well as cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms.1 Although red tides are a growing
problem off the coasts of Florida and NewEngland, no closings or advisories were attributed to red tides in 2006.
Bacterial Standards
• The BEACH Act of 2000 required states and local agencies to use EPA standards or standards equally protective
of public health to monitor their coastal waters. The current EPA standards, which were adopted in 1986, include a
geometric mean value for multiple samples, generally taken over 30 days, and an instantaneous, single-sample value.
Some state and local agencies measure both the geometric
mean and the single sample when taking beachwater The high level of closings/advisories
samples, and issue beach closings or advisories if either
indicates that new and more frequent
standard is exceeded; others measure the geometric mean or
the single sample but not both. monitoring continues to reveal serious
water pollution at our beaches.
• In 2006, all coastal and Great Lakes states reported using
at least one of the BEACH Act–required standards. Four states went beyond these requirements by setting either stricter
standards or by adding additional indicators to trigger beach closing/advisory decisions (California, Florida, Hawaii,
and Louisiana).
• The BEACH Act also required the EPA to update its public health–based standards, which are based on out-of-
date science, but the EPA has failed to do so. NRDC sued EPA to force it to update those standards, which provide
incomplete information to beachgoers about health risks and do so one to two days after the water is tested.
Economic Impact
• Beaches are the top vacation destination in the country. Coastal tourism, dependent in part on clean beaches, generates
substantial revenues for state and local governments. According to the Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
ocean-related tourism and recreation contributed roughly $29 billion and 1.67 million jobs to the U.S. economy in 2000.
• The economic benefit of faster beachwater testing methods and earlier posting of advisories or closings was found to be
about $202,000 per year for two Great Lakes beaches.
• Economic activity associated with the ocean contributed more than $117 billion to the U.S. economy in 2000.2 About 85
percent of all tourism revenue is received in coastal states.3
• Researchers conclude that higher property values are associated with proximity to beaches and open water, and that
people are willing to pay more to be closer to these attractive environmental features.
• Beach-related products, such as swimsuits, sunscreen, beach chairs, towels, boogie boards, and surfboards, generate
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars each year in sales. Sunscreen lotions and potions alone earn manufacturers
revenues of about $640 million a year.4
• In a September 2000 report, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution estimated that red tides cost an average of $49
million per year.5
• Water pollution has a significant economic effect on coastal states. Failing to invest in clean water costs coastal states
jobs, job productivity, tourism, property-tax dollars, and economic growth.
• Polluted waters cause economic losses when beachgoers cannot use the beach or go in the water.
The shortcomings of our development and land use practices and sewage and stormwater management practices lead to
increasing pollution of our coastal recreational waters. The more we look, the more we find contamination in our beach-
water: as the number of beaches monitored and sampling frequencies increase, we can expect more beach closing/advisory
days until we start identifying and controlling the sources of beachwater pollution.
Notes
1 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/
2 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, D.C.,
September 2004, Appendix C, p. 3, available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov.
3 Ibid., p. E-6.
4 “New-Wave Sunscreens,” Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 83, No. 15, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., April 11, 2005, pp. 18–22,
available at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/print/8315sunscreens.html.
5 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) in the United States, September 2000,
p.7, at http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/pertinentinfo/Economics_report.pdf.
300
� Permanent Events
� Extended Events
250 � Days (Hundreds)
200
150
100
50
0
Elevated bacteria levels Stormwater and runoffa Sewage spills Other (boats, wildlife,
of unknown origin and overflowsb inflow from creeks, etc.
a Includes preemptive due to rain and high bacteria levels due to stormwater.
b Includes sewage overflows from combined and sanitary sewers, malfunctioning sewage treatment plants and pupm stations, sewage spills, and
sewer-line breaks.
Extended: closings or advisories of 7 to 13 weeks.
Permanent: closings or advisories of more than 13 weeks.
to these sources, are summarized in Figure 4. A state-by-state breakdown of pollution sources can be found in the state
summaries in Chapter 5.
Sewage overflows from aging sanitary and combined sewer systems, leaking sewage pipes, and malfunctioning sewage
treatment plants and pump stations have always been a major cause of ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beach closings and
advisories. Today, stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas is posing an even more significant problem and one
that is growing rapidly with rising populations and sprawl development. When it rains, the stormwater flows over roads,
parking lots, lawns, and other surfaces where it can pick up a variety of pollutants, including wildlife and pet wastes, and
transport them to surface waters. As is the case with sewage pollution, stormwater discharges result in elevated bacteria lev-
els and increased illness rates for swimmers.1 Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stopped collecting
information on pollution sources near beaches, almost every coastal and Great Lakes state previously reported having at
least one beach where stormwater drains onto or near bathing areas.
More than half of the people in the United States live in coastal towns and cities, occupying an area that is only
17 percent of the nation’s land mass (excluding Alaska).2 Between 1980 and 2003, coastal population grew by 33 million,
and by 2015 it is projected to increase by another 19 million.3 As population grows along the U.S. coast, pressure is put
on the environment, sewage systems become overwhelmed, and more land is converted to impervious cover. Population
growth is particularly challenging given the U.S. development trend of sprawl and land consumption now occurring at
about twice the rate of population growth. At the current rate, by 2025 more than a quarter of the coast’s acreage will be
developed.4 Unless strong measures are taken, sewer overflows and stormwater runoff from these rapidly growing areas will
increasingly degrade coastal waters and pollute our beaches.
The following sections describe the different sources of beachwater pollution.
Stormwater starts as rain or snowmelt. As it washes over roads, rooftops, parking lots, construction sites, and other im-
pervious areas, it becomes contaminated with oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, litter, and pollutants from vehicle
exhaust. On its way to stormdrains, it also often picks up fecal matter from dogs, cats, pigeons, other urban animals, and
even humans. The amount of pollution present in stormwater can generally be correlated to the amount of impervious
cover. A study conducted in South Carolina found that a watershed that was 22 percent covered by impervious surfaces
had an average fecal coliform count seven times higher
than a watershed that was 7 percent covered by impervious A study conducted in South Carolina
surfaces. Suburban lawn runoff also contains significant
5 found that a watershed that was
amounts of animal waste, fertilizer, and other chemicals. 22 percent covered by impervious
This uncontrolled suburban runoff can foul beaches in
less densely populated areas. surfaces had an average fecal coliform
Stormdrains may empty into separate storm sewer sys- count seven times higher than a water
tems that carry only stormwater and discharge directly into shed that was 7 percent covered by
waterways, or they may become part of combined sewer
impervious surfaces.
systems, which usually overflow when it rains. Moreover,
human waste may find its way into storm sewer systems from adjacent sewage pipes that leak, or from businesses or
residences that are illegally hooked up to the system. Illicit discharges may also include such substances as oil from cars,
paint, and grease from restaurants. In Los Angeles County, for instance, the sewer system is separate from the stormdrain
system, yet Santa Monica Bay stormdrains discharge runoff containing human enteric viruses, indicating the presence of
human waste.6
The EPA estimates that more than 10 trillion gallons of untreated stormwater make their way into our surface waters
each year.7 Urban stormwater fouls about a quarter of our nation’s polluted estuaries and lakes, and it is a significant
source of bathing-beach pollution in many regions.8 For example, a Southern California study showed the direct effect
to coastal water quality from urban stormwater draining from the Santa Ana River. In the zone surrounding the river’s
confluence, fecal indicator bacteria concentrations were found to be up to 500 percent greater than California’s ocean
bathing water standards.9 In addition to human health effects, urban runoff has been found to have significant impacts
on aquatic life in receiving waters.10 Urban runoff can lead to excess sedimentation, suffocating fish eggs and smothering
the habitat of bottom-dwelling organisms such as aquatic insects, which are a food source for many fish and other wild-
life species. Toxic chemicals washed into the water can increase the susceptibility of aquatic organisms to disease, interfere
with reproduction, reduce the viability of offspring, or kill aquatic species.11
EPA regulations require cities and industrial and construction sites to obtain permits, develop stormwater manage-
ment plans, and implement best management practices; however, only limited progress has been made to date. Vigorous
implementation and enforcement and ambitious pollutant reduction goals are necessary to make this program successful.
Unfortunately, despite the magnitude of stormwater pollution, the EPA has still not set baseline technology standards for
new construction and development.2
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) carry both raw sewage from residences and industrial sites and stormwater runoff from
streets to sewage treatment plants. Unfortunately, in heavy rainfall, the volume of the combined wastewater becomes too
great for the treatment plant to handle. In such circumstances, the flow is diverted to outfall points that discharge pollut-
ants—including raw sewage; floatables such as trash, syringes, and tampon applicators; toxic industrial waste; and con-
taminated stormwater—into the nearest stream or coastal waterway.
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are a major cause of pathogen contamination in marine and Great Lakes waters
near urban areas, discharging 850 billion gallons of raw
sewage every year.13 According to the EPA, 43,000 CSO Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
events occur per year nationwide. Although they are most
14 are a major cause of pathogen con
prevalent in urban areas, CSOs affect 46 million people tamination in marine and Great Lakes
in 746 communities throughout 32 Northeast and Great
Lakes states.15 Combined sewer overflows contaminate waters near urban areas, discharg-
shellfish waters and recreational beaches. Shellfish harvest- ing 850 billion gallons of raw sewage
ing is restricted in the majority of the 659 shellfish beds lo- every year.
cated close to a CSO outfall.16 Although an EPA policy that
aims to reduce these overflows has been in effect since 1994, virtually all combined sewer systems continue to overflow
when it rains. As of 2004, only 59 percent of communities with CSOs had submitted plans for controlling them.17
Global warming is predicted to increase the amount of rainfall, leading to increased sewer overflows in the Great Lakes
and New England key regions, where the majority of CSSs are concentrated.18 As communities plan for CSO mitiga-
tion projects, they will need to consider whether future precipitation amounts will be consistent with present conditions.
Given the uncertainty in predicting our future climate, communities will need to decide whether to ensure mitigation
effectiveness based on predicted changes, or be faced with potentially significant retrofit costs in the future to maintain
effective mitigation.
Sanitary sewer systems—those designed to carry only human and industrial waste from buildings to sewage treatment
plants—also pose a threat to bathing-beach safety. As of 2004, separate sanitary sewers were serving 164 million people
nationwide.19 Although most of these systems were built more recently than combined stormwater and sewer systems,
they are also aging and deteriorating rapidly.20 A nationwide survey of 42 treatment plants found some that have been
in use for as long as 117 years, with the average being 33 years.21 As the pipes deteriorate, population increases, and re-
habilitation and maintenance schedules lag, pipes can break and spill sewage directly onto streets or into waterways. The
EPA has estimated that between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) occur annually, discharging a total
of 3 billion to 10 billion gallons of sewage per year.22 Many of these overflows discharge untreated sewage directly into
coastal waterways or their tributaries.
Nearly 70 percent of sewage overflows from human-waste sewage lines are due to breaches, obstructions such as tree
roots or grease clogs, line breaks, and mechanical failures.23 These dry-weather overflows are frequent enough, but when
sanitary sewers become overloaded as rain seeps into cracks or flows into the sewer system from stormwater cross-con-
nections or open manholes, the sewer system is even more likely to overflow and discharge raw sewage from manholes,
overflowing pipes, and treatment-plant bypasses. Although only 26 percent of sanitary sewer overflows nationwide were
caused by wet weather events and related inflow and infiltration, these events accounted for nearly 75 percent of the total
SSO volume discharged.24 In January 2001, the EPA proposed SSO regulations that would have required improved ca-
pacity, operation, and maintenance as well as public notification when these overflows occur. Unfortunately, instead of
finalizing these proposed rules to prevent SSOs, the Bush administration shlved them.
Sewage plants near coastal waters tend to serve densely populated, rapidly growing urban areas. When too many homes
and businesses are hooked up to a sewage treatment plant, the plant cannot treat the sewage adequately. Plants that
exceed their capacity or the capacity of their collection systems are prone to more frequent bypasses and inadequate
treatment. Moreover, sewage treatment plants can, and often do, malfunction as the result of human error, breakage of
old equipment, or unusual conditions in the raw sewage. When that happens, raw or partially treated sewage may be dis-
charged into coastal waterways and their tributaries.
To make matters worse, in 2003 the EPA proposed allowing plants to discharge largely untreated sewage during rains
so long as it was sufficiently diluted by “blending” it with treated sewage. During blending, instead of providing full
secondary treatment for all sewage, treated and untreated sewage are mixed and released, increasing the pathogen load to
receiving waters. Scientific analysis of pathogen data from blended sewage discharges gathered by the Milwaukee Public
Health Department indicated that people swimming at the sewage discharge point in Lake Michigan would have had
a 50 percent chance of contracting giardiasis after this blended sewage had been released; this represents a thousand-
fold increase in the risk of getting sick as a result of exposure to pathogens while swimming.25 Follow-up research in
Milwaukee has found a connection between pediatric hospital admissions for gastroenteritis and blending events.26 The
EPA’s proposal to allow blending created such a firestorm of protest that the agency was forced to withdraw it.27 It has
proposed replacing that policy with a requirement for full treatment for sewage to the maximum extent feasible, but has
not yet finalized that proposal.28
Under section 301(h) of the federal Clean Water Act sewage treatment plants may obtain a waiver allowing them to
forgo basic federal secondary-treatment requirements and discharge wastes into marine waters that have undergone only
primary treatment. Releasing primary-treated sewage into
water bodies degrades receiving waters and poses serious In Morro Bay waters, the threatened
risks to public health and the marine ecosystem. The vast California sea otter is nine times more
majority of pathogens are not removed by primary treat-
likely to be infected with the parasite
ment of wastewater.29 For example, 85 percent of Shigella
bacterium, 85-100 percent of salmonella, 50-100 percent Toxoplasma gondii—which causes
of Entamoeba histolytica, and greater than 90 percent of disease and death—than sea otters
fecal coliform may remain in wastewater even after primary not near the outfall.
treatment.30 In contrast, secondary treatment removes up to
95 percent of suspended solids in the waste stream,31 and is significantly more effective than primary treatment in remov-
ing biologic pathogens from sewage. For example, secondary treatment removes 80-90 percent of Shigella bacterium, 70-
99 percent of Salmonella, and 75-99 percent of enteric viruses prior to discharge of the effluent.32
While sewage treatment plants with a waiver under section 301(h) have become increasingly rare in the United
States, there are still approximately 30 waivers in use.33 The sewage treatment plant in Morro Bay, California, discharges
primary-treated wastewater just a half-mile offshore, at a depth of only 50 feet. The World Health Organization recom-
mends sewage outfalls to be a minimum of one mile offshore and/or at a minimum depth of 60 feet. In Morro Bay
waters, the threatened California sea otter is nine times more likely to be infected with the parasite Toxoplasma gondii—
which causes disease and death—than sea otters not near the outfall.34
NRDC recently stepped in to prevent another waiver from being issued to the Morro Bay sewage treatment plant.
After years of pressure from environmental groups and the public, local officials voted unanimously to upgrade the plant.
The plant now will go from discharging the dirtiest wastewater to creating some of the cleanest in the nation —clean
enough to be recycled and reused. The water coming out into the ocean will be 10 times cleaner—so clean, in fact, that
the city may sell it for use at nearby golf courses and irrigation projects.
Agricultural Runoff
In nonurban and suburban areas, rainwater often flows directly over farms, roads, golf courses, and lawns into wa-
terways. Agricultural runoff may contain high concentrations of pathogenic animal waste, fertilizers, and pesticides.
The EPA has stated that agricultural runoff is responsible for as much as 70 percent of water quality problems
identified.35 For example, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) produce huge quantities of manure that
far exceed the assimilation capacity of neighboring crops and pastures and are a contributing source in 20 percent
of impaired rivers and streams.36 Animal waste from large feedlots has been linked to outbreaks of a toxic micro
organism, Pfiesteria piscicida, in the Chesapeake Bay region and North Carolina, causing numerous waterway closings
and serious human and aquatic health impacts. Animal waste can also contain pathogens usually not found in human
waste, such as E. coli 0157:H7, which contaminated baby spinach last fall and resulted in 205 confirmed illnesses and
three deaths.37
Septic Systems
Dwellings built near the coast may be equipped with underground septic systems, which, if not sited, built, and main-
tained properly, can leach wastewater into coastal recreational waters. Homeowners often do not adequately maintain
their septic systems, and there is no federal regulatory program to control waste from septic systems. Local governments
and states rarely inspect septic systems sufficiently to prevent such failures. Fecal matter from malfunctioning or over-
loaded septic systems can contaminate bathing beaches. Runoff can also carry bacteria from failing septic systems far
from the shore into streams that empty into bays near beaches. According to the 2001 American Housing Home Survey,
6 percent of septic systems fail annually, resulting in improper treatment of 66 billion to 144 billion gallons of sewage.
The EPA estimates that one-third of new construction and 25 percent of existing U.S. dwellings use some kind of septic
tank or on-site waste disposal system.38
Boating Wastes
Improperly handled boating wastes can pose a health and aesthetic threat to bathing beaches. Marinas are often located
in confined areas with minimal ocean flushing where wastes can accumulate and pose a serious health threat. Elevated
concentrations of fecal coliform have been found in areas with high boating density.39 Federal law requires boats with
onboard toilets either to treat the waste with chemicals before discharging it or to hold the waste and later pump it out
into a sewage treatment plant. The federal Clean Vessal Act (CVA) was passed in 1992 to provide federal grant money
to states for building pumpout and dump stations in marinas to allow boaters to dispose of human wastes in an environ-
mentally sound manner.40 However, many marinas still lack sufficient pump-out facilities, and compliance with the law
appears to be poor in many areas.1
Oil Pollution
Oil reaches the ocean through its production, transportation, and use, and even from natural seeps. Oil spilled during
tanker accidents, pipeline breaks, and refinery accidents can foul beaches. Many oils evaporate quickly, creating unsafe
fumes. Other oils form globules that can float for days and wash onto beaches for weeks after a spill. In addition to cata-
strophic oil spills, small oil spills occur every time it rains. Over the course of a year, urban runoff from a city of 5 million
can contain as much oil and grease as a large tanker spill.42 Normal ship operations also frequently cause small oil spills.
A report by the National Research Council states that nearly 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of petroleum that enter
North American ocean waters each year as a result of human activities comes from land-based runoff, polluted rivers,
airplanes, and small boats and jet skis. The report estimated that two-stroke outboard motors release between 0.6 million
and 2.5 million gallons of oil and gasoline into U.S. coastal waters each year.43 Oil runoff from cars and trucks is increas-
ing in coastal areas where population growth has resulted in expanding roads and parking lots.44
Waterfowl
Municipalities also list waterfowl as the cause of beach closings or advisories. During migration season, large or excessive
populations of waterfowl can gather at beaches or in suburban areas that drain into beaches. These dense clusters occur
when other potential waterfowl habitats are unavailable, often because wetlands have been filled or ecological conditions
have been altered (for example, when Canada geese that were previously migratory become resident). Waterfowl are also
attracted by food sources, including trash or litter left on beaches and in overflowing garbage cans. The fecal matter from
these waterfowl can sometimes overload the normal capacity of a beach to absorb natural wastes, degrading water quality,
particularly if there is no vegetation around the waterway to absorb the waste
Notes
1 R. Haile et al., An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project,
1996.
2 NOAA- National Ocean Service, Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008, September 2004, p. 6, available at: http://www.
oceanservice.noaa.gov.
3 Ibid., p.1.
4 Dana Beach, Coastal Sprawl—The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States, Pew Ocean Commission, 2002; U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Summary Report 1997 Natural Resources Inventory, December 2000.
5 Michael A. Mallin, “Wading in Waste,” in Scientific American, June 2006, pp. 53–59.
6 Bartlett Gold, McGee, and Deets, Pathogens and Indicators in Stormdrains Within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed, Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project, 1992, p. 18. See also R. Haile et al., An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica
Bay Restoration Project, 1996.
7 EPA, Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, April 26, 2004, EPA 833-R-04-001, p. 4-29, available at: http://cfpub.epa. gov/npdes/cso/
cpolicy_report2004.cfm.
8 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, EPA 841-R-001, June 2000.
9 John Ho Ahn, Stanley B. Grant, Cristiane Q. Surbeck, Paul M. Di Giacomo, Nikolay P. Nezlin, and Sunny Jiang, “Coastal Water Quality Impact
Of Stormwater Runoff From An Urban Watershed In Southern California,” in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 39, No. 16, 2005, pp. 5,940-
5,953.
10 D. Hoffman, B. Rattner, G.A. Burton, Jr., and J.Cairns, Jr., Handbook of Ecotoxicology, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton, FL: CRC-Lewis, 2002).
11 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress, EPA 841-R-02-001, August 2002.
12 Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 801, Monday, April 26, 2004, p. 22,472.
13 EPA, Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, p. 4-13.
14 Ibid , p. 4-19.
15 Ibid, p. 4–13.
16 Ibid , p. 5-14.
17 Ibid, p. ES 5.
18 Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 60, March 29, 2007, pp. 14,803-14,804.
19 Ibid , p. 4-22.
20 The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the U.S. wastewater system an overall rating of D-minus. ASCE, Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure, 2005, available at:http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm.
21 EPA, Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, p. 2-1.
22 Ibid, p. 4-29.
23 Ibid, p. 4-27.
24 Ibid, p. 4-27.
25 Joan B. Rose, Michigan State University, personal communication, March 24, 2004.
26 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Kids’ Illnesses Raise a ‘Red Flag,’ ” April 30, 2006, available at http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=419926.
27 Congressional Record H3665-3669, May 19, 2005.
28 See “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges from Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems,” in Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 245, December 22, 2005, p.
76,013.
29 National Research Council, Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed Water, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 1998 pp. 90-91.
30 Ibid, p. 92.
31 Ibid, p. 92.
32 Ibid, p. 92.
33 EPA, Ocean Regulatory Programs, available at: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/discharges/301list.html.
34 For more information about threats to the sea otter and ongoing research, visit the Sea Otter Alliance website: http://seaotterresearch.org/.
35 Cook M. Reducing Water Pollution from Animal Feeding Operations. Testimony before Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and
Research of the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, May 13, 1998. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/105_
1997_1998/051398.htm.
36 Marc Ribaudo and Noel Gollehon, Animal Agriculture and the Environment, Economic Research Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture; in
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition, EIB-16, pp. 124-133.
37 U.S. Food and Drug Adjministration, FDA News: FDA Finalizes Report on 2006 Spinach Outbreak, available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/
NEWS/2007/NEW01593.html.
38 EPA, Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, p. 4-11.
39 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, State of the Sound, 1992, p. 22.
40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Keep Our Waters Clean- Use Pumpouts, available at: http://federalasst.fws.gov/cva/cva.html.
41 A 1987 Maryland survey found that 80 percent of boaters did not comply with the law. See Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay Citizen
Report, 1989, p. 1. A similar survey of Puget Sound boaters, conducted in the summer of 1988, found that 37 percent had no toilet equipment or
discharged raw sewage directly into the water. See Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Managing Nonpoint Pollution: An Action Plan Handbook for
Puget Sound Watersheds, 1989, pp. 8–10.
42 From the Ocean Planet Exhibition, Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Information available at: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/
HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html.
43 National Research Council, Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, National Academies Press, 2002.
44 Ibid.
Polluted waters may contain disease-causing organisms, called pathogens. The most common types of pathogens are
those associated with sewage pollution, such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Enteric pathogensthose that live in the
human intestinecan carry or cause a number of infectious
diseases. Swimmers in sewage-polluted water can contract The Centers for Disease Control and
any illness that is spread by ingestion of fecal-contaminated Prevention concluded that the inci-
water (AIDS and many other diseases are not carried by
dence of infections associated with
enteric pathogens).1 Pathogens cause a wide variety of acute
illnesses including gastroenteritis, respiratory infection, di- recreational water use has steadily in-
arrhea, ear infection, and others (see Table 4). While most creased over the past several decades.
illnesses last from a few days to several weeks, in some cases
pathogens may cause severe, long-term illness or even death. Sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, or those
with weakened immune systems, are particularly at risk for these long-term effects.
Swimming-associated diseases such as gastroenteritis, hepatitis, respiratory illness, and ear, nose, and throat problems
are believed to be frequently caused by viruses. Gastroenteritis, which can also be caused by bacteria, is a common term
for a variety of diseases that can cause symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache, nausea, headache, and fever.
Other microbial diseases that can be contracted by swimmers include salmonellosis, shigellosis, and infection caused by
E. coli (a type of enteric pathogen). Other microbial pathogens found in varying concentrations in recreational waters
include amoebae and protozoa, which can cause giardiasis, amoebic dysentery, skin rashes, and pinkeye. Giardiasis, a pro-
tozoan infection, is the most commonly reported intestinal disease in North America.2
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) such as red tides are another cause of disease and a growing problem in surface waters
where nutrient-rich pollution can spur algal growth. Exposure to HABs can cause a suite of illnesses including diarrhea,
memory loss, liver failure, abdominal pain, fever, and skin irritation.3
Swimming in polluted water can make you sick. Studies conducted during the past several decades show a clear rela
tionship between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal and Great Lakes waters and the incidence of swimming-
associated illnesses. Common indicator bacteria include total and fecal coliform, enterococcus, and E. coli. They are
called indicator bacteria because, although they may not be directly harmful to humans, they are relatively easy to test
for and are typically found in the presence of harmful pathogens. However, the effectiveness of bacterial indicators as
predictors of viral contamination is questionable.4
Since 1971, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), the EPA, and the Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists has worked to maintain the Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System for col-
lecting and reporting waterborne disease and outbreak-related data. Their most recent report released in 2006 summarizes
findings for January 2003–December 2004. During this survey period, 62 waterborne disease outbreaks were reported
(see Table 3). These outbreaks caused illness in 2,698 people, resulting in 58 hospitalizations and one death. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the incidence of infections associated with recreational water use has
steadily increased over the past several decades. The increase is attributed to a combination of factors, such as the emer-
gence of new pathogens, increased participation in aquatic activities, and better reporting.5
Table 4. Details on the 62 Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Reported to CDCP: Jan 2003-Dec 2004
Associated Illnesses Incidence
Gastroenteritis 30 (48.4%)
Dermatitis 13 (21.0%) Etiologic Agents Identified:
Bacteria 32.3%
Acute Respiratory Illness 7 (11.3%)
Parasite 24.2%
Others:
Virus 9.7%Chemical or Toxin 4.8%
Amebic Meningoencephalitis, 12 (19.3%)
Meningitis, Leptospirosis, Otitis,
Externa, Mixed Illnesses
In 2005, the first major report of the National Epidemiological Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR)
Water Study examined the association between recreational freshwater quality and gastrointestinal illness after swimming at
two beaches in the Great Lakes region.6 Both beaches were known to be affected by sewage discharges from waste treatment
plants. Water samples were collected from each beach and tested for enterococcus and bacteroides using rapid methods.
The NEEAR Water Study reported finding one beach where subjects with any contact with water were almost twice as
likely to have gastrointestinal illness compared with non-swimmers, with a 10 percent incidence of illness among swim-
mers and a 5 percent incidence among non-swimmers. The rate of gastrointestinal illness among swimmers was 14 per-
cent at the second beach. The presence of the indicator organism enterococcus was associated with the increased risk of
illness. The study concluded that enterococcus measured using rapid methods can predict gastrointestinal illness among
those who have swum in fecally contaminated freshwater, and that samples collected each morning could allow beach
managers to assess the microbiological safety of the beach before most beachgoers are exposed.
A large-scale 1995 epidemiological study investigated possible adverse health effects associated with swimming in
ocean waters contaminated by urban runoff.7 The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project study involved initial interviews
with 15,492 beachgoers who bathed and immersed their heads, as well as follow-up interviews with 13,278, to ascertain
the occurrence of certain symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. The study found an increase in risk of ill-
ness associated with swimming near flowing stormdrain outlets in Santa Monica Bay, compared with swimming more
than 400 yards away. For example, swimmers near stormdrains were found to have a 57 percent greater incidence of fever
than those swimming farther away. This study also confirmed the increased risk of illness associated with swimming in
areas with high densities of indicator bacteria. Illnesses were reported more often on days when water samples tested posi-
tive for enteric viruses.
In a recent California study the rates of reported health symptoms among surfers were compared in urban North
Orange County and rural Santa Cruz County during two winters to determine the health impacts of exposure to urban
runoff.8 The urban North Orange County surfers who were interviewed for the study reported almost twice as many
symptoms as the rural Santa Cruz County surfers. There were numerous illnesses reported by the study participants, in-
cluding respiratory disease, fever, nausea, gastrointestinal illness, sore throat, vomiting and others. In both study years, the
risk of illness increased for all symptom categories by 10 percent for each 2.5 hours of weekly water exposure.
Swimmers who contract a waterborne illness may also pass the disease on to household members, multiplying the ef-
fect of the polluted water. While swimming-related illnesses are usually not severe or life threatening, they can take a sub-
stantial toll in terms of convenience, comfort, and the well-being of the people affected. They can also result in
substantial economic costs from lost work or sick days. Moreover, gastroenteritis can be serious for sensitive populations,
such as small children. Children under the age of nine have more reports of diarrhea and vomiting from exposure to wa-
terborne parasites than any other age group, with at least a twofold increase occurring over the summer swimming
months.9 The EPA is being urged to revise water quality standards to reflect the risk to sensitive populations.
Harmful algal blooms (HABs), also known as “red tides,” pose a serious risk to aquatic and human health. They are natu-
ral phenomenon occurring for a variety of reasons, but can be exacerbated by nutrient overloads into coastal waters.
Nutrients spur harmful algae species such as the photosynthetic dinoflagellates Karenia brevis or Alexandrium tamarense
and the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis to multiply rapidly, producing red or green pigmented algal blooms that last for
days, weeks, or months. Red tides may result in serious and potentially life threatening human illnesses that have a slew
of symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping, chills, diminished temperature sensation, mus-
cular aches, dizziness, anxiety, sweating, seizures, numbness and tingling of the mouth and digits, and paralysis, as well as
cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms.10 These microscopic algae can adversely impact some of the sea’s largest crea-
tures. In March 2004, dolphin deaths began to be reported in St. Josephs Bay, Florida. Researchers investigating the dol-
phin carcasses confirmed that their deaths were the result of exposure to concentrated algal toxins associated with
blooms.11 By April a total of 107 dolphins had been found dead along the Florida panhandle. The year 2005 was the
second deadliest on record for Florida’s endangered manatee population. One of the leading causes of fatalities was the
toxins produced by K. brevis red tide blooms.12
Although the most common type of poisoning related to toxic blooms comes from eating contaminated shellfish,
there are also instances in which such blooms have directly affected fishermen and swimmers and other recreational
users of near shore marine and riverine waters. Toxic outbreaks of organisms such as Pfiesteria piscicida, which was first
discovered in North Carolina in 1991, have been found to be associated with fish kills as well as with skin and neurologi-
cal damage and memory loss.13 In 1996 red tide algal blooms of Gymnodinium brevii on the west coast of Florida also
resulted in respiratory illness in beachgoers. The incidence of red tides has increased over the past 30 years, particularly
along the New England coastline (see Figure 5).14
Analyzing data over a 50-year period from the southwest coast of Florida, researchers at the University of Miami
determined that K. brevis red tides are occurring with greater frequency, closer to shore, and during more months of
the year. They attribute this phenomenon to greater inputs of nutrients into coastal waters due to increased agricultural
runoff and sewage discharges in the watershed over that time period.15 Elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, K. brevis red
tides are becoming more common. Along the Texas coast, red tide blooms occurred in all but one year between 1995 and
2002.16
Sewage pollution is also contributing to increased algal blooms on Florida’s Atlantic coast.17 Since 1990, coral reefs off
southeast Florida have experienced an unprecedented succession of macroalgal blooms and invasions including invasive
species that threaten economically important reef resources in southeast Florida.18
Controlling agricultural nutrient runoff and sewage discharges can reduce the number of red tide events and im-
prove human health and the economy. Land-use and development practices along coastlines and in watersheds can lead
to increased runoff into water bodies and a greater number of red tide events. Human-made alterations to hydrology,
e.g., dredging and infilling, can slow water circulation and thus impede the ability of the water body to cleanse itself
of harmful algae. We must be more mindful of the effects of these practices on the natural aquatic systems and algal
(Abbreviations: NSP: Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning, PSP: Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, ASP: Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning,
and DSP: Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning)
blooms. Filter feeding shellfish serve as natural cleansers of phytoplankton, so human activities that diminish shellfish
populations reduce the ecosystem’s capacity to naturally cleanse itself of toxic algae. We need to make a greater effort to
control nutrient pollution from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff and septic tank runoff, as well as from point
sources, such as sewage treatment and aquaculture facilities.19
Efforts to deal with red tides are focused on mitigating the effects of these pollution events, primarily through
improving monitoring systems for harmful algal blooms, educating and communicating the risks to the general
population, and learning more about the causes of harmful algal blooms and how they affect humans and aquatic
life. There are some ways, however, that algal blooms can be prevented and controlled. Prevention techniques involve
controlling nutrient pollution from point and nonpoint sources, as well as restricting the movement of harmful algal
species via the shellfish market and ship ballast water. (Ballast water may be heated or chemically treated to prevent the
introduction of invasive species, and trade may be restricted on shellfish from areas experiencing red tides.) There have
also been some innovative attempts to control harmful algal blooms. In Korea, clay has been used to effectively sup-
press red tides. By spreading a thin layer of clay over the surface of the water, the clay particles bind to the algae and
sink to the bottom. Introducing shellfish populations to a water body has also been used as a way to filter harmful algal
blooms naturally.
Under the BEACH Act, the EPA is required to develop water quality criteria for pollutants based on their impact on
human health and aquatic life. States are then required to create limits, or standards, for these pollutants using the EPA-
recommended water quality criteria or other criteria that the EPA deems as protective. In 1986 the EPA developed crite-
ria for testing recreational waters using E.coli and enterococci bacteria as pathogen indicators in Great Lakes (fresh)
waters, and enterococci as indicators in marine waters, based on prior scientific research on their effectiveness (see Table
5).21 Because testing for the full range of pathogens found in beachwaters is difficult, water quality tests have typically
been done using indicator bacteria that signify pathogens may be present.
As of 2000, only 11 states had adopted the 1986 water criteria. Recognizing the need for consistent water quality cri-
teria at recreational beaches, Congress passed the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in
2000, amending the Clean Water Act to improve beachwater quality monitoring notification programs and processes of
notifying the public of health risks from contamination at beaches. Under the BEACH Act, states were required to adopt
standards based on the EPA’s 1986 criteria for pathogen indicators. 22 In addition, the EPA was required to complete
studies on the human health effects of pathogens in coastal recreational waters and to develop new criteria and methods
for detecting pathogens by 2005.23
Although the levels set under the 1986 criteria were deemed acceptable by the U.S. EPA, they are not completely safe:
The EPA estiates that 19 out of 1,000 people swimming in ocean waters and eight out of 1,000 swimmers in fresh waters just
meeting these standards will become ill. Put another way, if a family of four was to swim once a week in the summer (June,
July, and August) in ocean waters that just meet the EPA’s standard, one member of the family would probably become ill.
Because the EPA has not yet completed studies on the human health effects of swimming in pathogen-contaminated
waters, they have not yet revised their water quality criteria. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO), the current criteria have two significant limitations that make them inadequate for protecting the health of
beachgoers.24 First, current detection methods require a long incubation period, producing results in 24 to 48 hours.
The lag time between when pathogen contaminated waters are sampled to when the public is notified creates a dangerous
window where swimmers can be infected (see Figure 8). Secondly, the current indicators may not indicate the presence of
all pathogens and health risks. Moreover, the GAO points out that standards were developed primarily to address the risk
of contracting gastroenteritis but not necessarily to address rashes, earaches, pinkeye, respiratory infections, or very seri-
ous illnesses such as hepatitis and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
Figure 8. Lag Time Associated with Current Water Quality Monitoring and Public Notification
Methods
Tuesday morning to
Monday morning: Collect Day 2 to 3: Samples are Wednesday afternoon:
water samples incubated and tested Advisory/closure decision
made and public notified
Evidence suggests that current water quality criteria may not be adequate to protect swimmers from all pathogens.
A 2003 study found that while the majority of illnesses derived from recreational use of marine waters are said to be
unidentified, many are caused by viruses.25 This study also noted a trend in research findings that bacterial indicator
occurrence frequently did not correlate with viral occurrence.26 Exposure to even a small number of virus particles can
cause infection.27 A report compiled for Heal the Ocean notes that although disinfected effluent lacks indicator bacteria,
it could still contain viruses at levels high enough to be infectious.28 A study conducted by the department of environ-
mental analysis and design at the University of California, Irvine, found human adenoviruses in four out of 12 samples
taken at the mouths of major rivers and creeks on beaches from Malibu, California, to the border of Mexico in February
and March 1999. Researchers also tested for the bacterial indicators used for beachwater monitoring in the state (total
coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus) but found no correlation with the presence of these viruses. The study recom-
mends that current recreational water quality standards be improved to reflect the presence of viruses and that regular
monitoring for human viruses be conducted on a regular basis.29
Parasites such as cryptosporidium and giardia are a cause of waterborne illnesses in the United States yet are not ac-
counted for by the current standards. Cryptosporidiosis was responsible for 400,000 illnesses and as many as 100 deaths
in Milwaukee in 1993 from contaminated tap water.30 Children are susceptible to chronic episodes of giardia, which can
cause a failure to gain weight and failure to advance mentally and physically. Cryptosporidium has a high mortality rate
in immunocompromised patiets.31
Another potential problem with the EPA’s bacterial in- Red tides may result in serious and
dicator is that the underlying epidemiological studies used potentially life-threatening human
to develop pathogen indicators have been based primar-
illnesses.
ily on exposure to human feces–dominated point-source
contamination coming from pipes. In many coastal areas, urban runoff, septic system discharges, and animal waste can
be larger sources of pathogens in recreational waters than sewage discharges from pipes. For example, a single gram of
dog feces is estimated to contain 23 million bacteria.32 Drinking water contaminated with animal waste killed seven and
hospitalized nearly 100 with bloody diarrhea and vomiting in Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000.33 These deficiencies are espe-
cially dangerous for those most likely to die from infectious diseases contracted from swimming in contaminated beach-
water—the elderly, small children, cancer patients, and others with impaired immune systems.
The EPA included rapid detection technologies as part of its freshwater epidemiological surveys conducted in the
Great Lakes in 2004. The study concluded that the use of faster indicators of recreational water quality would result in
the ability to make decisions about recreational water quality on the day of sample collection and could thereby lower
gastrointestinal illnesses in beach communities.34 The economic benefit of faster testing and earlier posting was found to
be about $202,000 per year for two Great Lakes beaches. Racine Wisconsin is one city that has been testing and piloting
different rapid detection technologies since 2006 with the goal of obtaining EPA approval.35 Meanwhile, because of the
lag time for producing results using current monitoring criteria, states should at least provide adequate warnings to swim-
mers about the risks of infection after a sewage spill or even heavy rainfall near urban areas. Where health risks are signifi-
cant enough, states should take the further step of preemptively closing beaches to swimming.
Researchers who design sampling plans to assess the presence or absence of pathogens in recreational waters must be
mindful of other challenges as well. Recent studies establish that ambient concentrations of bacteria in dynamic aquatic
environments can vary radically within short spatial and temporal scales.36 Also, because pathogens can live much longer in
sediments (particularly fine-grained sediments) than they can in the water column, sediment sampling may be necessary to
adequately assess pathogen loading.37 In the Great Lakes, for instance, higher concentrations of beach closings have been
found near areas with heavy loadings of contaminated sediments.38 Finally, because human viruses are generally more resis-
tant to sunlight than the indicator microorganisms measured, sampling should be conducted in the early morning hours.39
Beaches, rivers, and lakes are the number-one vacation destination for Americans. Each year, Americans take more than
1.8 billion trips to waters to fish, swim, boat, or just relax. That is an average of approximately six trips per person per
year. About one-fourth of the population goes swimming in our waterways every year.40
Economic activity associated with the ocean contributed more than $117 billion to the U.S. economy in 2000.41 About
85 percent of all tourism revenue is received in coastal states.42 Polluted water puts these revenues at risk. It can also re-
duce the property value of houses and land near polluted waters. An American Housing Survey found that, other things
being equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet of a waterbody increases by up to 28 percent.43 Investing in
clean water will help protect the millions of visitors to ocean and bay beaches, property values, and the jobs of local busi-
nesspeople that rely on beach recreation and fishing.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recently conducted a study on the value of certain natural
features in their state, including beaches.44 Assuming that people are willing to pay to be close to environmental features
that are attractive to them, the study analyzed the effect on actual residential housing prices of closeness to beaches. The
study focused on seven local housing markets located in Middlesex, Monmouth, Mercer, and Ocean counties, which are
representative of the state as a whole. Results showed that in four of the seven markets, sale prices for homes within 300
feet of a beach were from $81,000 to $194,000 higher than homes more than 300 feet away.45 Researchers concluded
that higher property values are associated with proximity to beaches and open water, and that people are willing to pay
more to be closer to these attractive environmental features.
Pathogen pollution not only harms people but also causes ecological impacts, which in turn have economic impacts.46
Each year, 4 million visitors augment the 90,000 inhabitants of the Florida Keys; its reefs are the biggest diving destination
in the world.47 Yet coral reefs are adversely impacted by a combination of rising temperatures, increasing nutrients, and
pathogen pollution from sources such as untreated or inadequately treated sewage. Diseases killing coral, sponges, and other
marine life were first identified about 30 years ago, and most were unknown just 10 years ago.48 Fecal contamination from
sewage in the Florida Keys is thought to be a major source of disease in coral. Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) was once
the most common coral in the Caribbean. Since 1980, more than 90 percent has died.49 In 2006, the species was listed on
the U.S. Endangered Species List.50 Scientists in Queensland, Australia, using an epidemiological technique first used to
link smoking to lung cancer in the 1960s, have uncovered a
Polluted beaches not only cause a loss
causal link between agricultural pollution, low coral biodi-
versity, and poor recolonization of the reef.51 Hard coral bio- to those who had planned to visit the
diversity was found to be almost twice as high on the reefs beach and swim in the water, but also
far from agricultural areas as on the reefs close by. cost local economies tourist dollars
Upsetting the nutrient balance of the oceans can stimu-
late the growth of algae. Algal growth on reefs may damage and jobs.
coral by taking over habitat space that would otherwise be occupied by coral.52 Explosive growth of algae associated with
red tides, or Harmful Algal Blooms, occur in every coastal state. These events also create substantial economic costs in
terms of their effect on public health (lost work days and medical costs), commercial fisheries, recreation and tourism,
and monitoring and management. In a September 2000 report, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution estimated
that red tides cost an average of $4 million per year.53
Polluted beaches not only cause a loss to those who had planned to visit the beach and swim in the water, but also
cost local economies tourist dollars and jobs. Coastal tourism, attributable in part to clean beaches, generates substantial
revenues for state and local governments (see Table 6). Economists estimate that a typical swimming day is worth $30.84
to each individual.54 Depending on the number of potential visitors to a beach, this “consumer surplus” loss can be quite
significant. For example, one study estimated economic losses as a result of closing a Lake Michigan beach due to pollu-
tion as ranging between $7,935 and $37,030 per day.55
While beach closures may be necessary to protect swimmers, they are no substitute for efforts to clean up our wa-
ters. In fact, the Lake Michigan study estimated that even a perfectly implemented beach closure policy would result in
considerable economic losses and reduce predicted illnesses by only 42 percent.56 Another study, performed in Orange
County, California, evaluated the economic burden of several individual illnesses that can be contracted from swimming
in polluted recreational marine waters. The study found that the burden per gastrointestinal illness is $36.58, $76.76
per acute respiratory disease, $37.86 per ear ailment, and $27.31 per eye ailment.57 The annual cumulative public health
burden for the two beaches studied was determined to be $3.3 million, not including personal out-of-pocket expenses as-
sociated with having a prescription filled after a doctor visit or the costs of self-medication.
Coastal industries, such as commercial fin fishing and shell fishing, are also affected by beach pollution. According
to the 2000 U.S. census, the wholesale fish and seafood industries employed 28,710 people at 2,992 establishments
with a total annual payroll of $855 million (a 5 percent increase in employees and a 16 percent increase in payroll
over 1998 levels). According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. fishermen in the 50 states brought 9.6 billion pounds of commercial fish and shellfish to market in 2005,
with a total annual value of $3.9 billion.58 This value increases more than tenfold, to an estimated $45 billion, in the
retail marketplace.59 Harmful algal blooms, spurred by inputs of nutrients from a variety of sources, including storm-
water, can close shellfish beds for prolonged periods. In the spring and summer of 2005, shellfish beds from Maine to
Cape Cod that represented more than 35 percent of the nation’s clam harvest were closed due to the worst toxic algae
bloom in New England since 1972. The problem was so bad that the governor of Massachusetts asked the Small Business
Administration to declare an “economic injury disaster” for the state’s fishermen and related businesses.60
Some areas either do not monitor their beaches or do not close them when pollution exceeds standards. This can
result in lower short-term losses for businesses in the area, but it also means that those who get sick will incur medical
costs and lost workdays as a result. Cleaning up the sources of pollution so that beachwater does not pose a health risk is
the optimal solution. In the meantime, protecting public health will require increased beachwater monitoring and clos-
ing beaches when contamination is detected, rather than allow people to swim and get sick. Given the large number of
people using beaches and the substantial income from coastal tourism, the cost of monitoring programs is reasonable.
Notes
1 V. Cabelli, Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters, EPA 600/1-84-004, 1983, p. 7.
2 Protozoa: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, Health Canada, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety, Ottawa, July 1996, revised May 1999, available
at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/water/pdf/ protozoa_final.pdf ). O.D. Simmons, M.D. Sobsey, Enteric Parasites of Health Concern: Overview and Examples,
ENVR 195, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, PowerPoint lecture, Spring 2001. National Academy of Sciences, op.
cit., 1993.
3 Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson and P.M. Gilbert (Eds.), HARRNESS; Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmetnal Science Strategy
2005-2015, available at: http://www.esa.org/HARRNESS/harrnessReport10032005.pdf
4 Dale W. Griffin, Kim A. Donaldson, John H. Paul, and Joan B. Rose, “Pathogenic Human Viruses in Coastal Waters,” in Clinical Microbiology
Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 2003, pp. 129–143.
5 Eric J. Dziuban, et al., “Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks: United States, 2002–2004,” in Morbidity and Mortality Report, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, December 22, 2006/55(SS12) pp. 1–30.
6 Timothy J. Wade, Rebecca L. Calderon, Elizabeth Sams, Michael Beach, Kristen P. Brenner, Ann H. Williams, and Alfred P. Dufour, “Rapidly
Measured Indicators of Recreational Water Quality Are Predictive of Swimming-Associated Gastrointestinal Illness,” in Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol. 114, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 24–28.
7 R. Haile et al., An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project,
1996.
8 Dwight, Ryan H., Dean B. Baker, Jan C. Semenza, and Betty H. Olson, “Health Effects Associated with Recreational Coastal Water Use: Urban
Versus Rural California”, American Journal of Public Health, April 2004, Vol. 94, No. 4.
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cryptosporidiosis Surveillance—United States 1999–2002, January 2005, available at: http://www.cdc.
gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5401a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Giardiasis Surveillance—United States, 1998–2002, January
2005, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5401a2.htm.
10 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/
11 NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, Interim Report on the Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Unusual Mortality Event Along the
Panhandle of Florida March-April 2004, available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/event2004.htm.
12 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, “Florida’s 2,000-Pound Canary—Red Tide Toll Increasing for Manatees...and Humans” Harbor Branch,
Official Press Release (http://www.hboi.edu/news/press/feb1806.html as viewed on 3/12/2007)
13 V.L. Trainer, “Unveiling an Ocean Phantom,” in Nature, Vol. 413, August 29, 2002, pp. 925–926.
14 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s “The Harmful Algae Page” at http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/HABdistribution/habexpand.html
15 Brand, L.E., Compton, A. “Long-term increase in Karenia brevis abundance along the Southwest Florida Coast”, Harmful Algae Vol. 6, No.
2, February 2007, pp. 232-252.
16 Stumpf, R. P., M. E. Culver, P. A. Tester, M. Tomlinson, G. J. Kirkpatrick, B. A. Pederson, E. Truby, V. Ransibrahmanakul, M. Soracco, “Monitoring
Karenia brevis blooms in the Gulf of Mexico using satellite ocean color imagery and other data”, Harmful Algae, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 147-160.
17 Ibid., pp. 1,106-1,122.
18 Lapointe, B.E., P.J. Barile, M.M. Littler, D.S. Littler, “Macroalgal blooms on southeast Florida coral reefs: II. Cross-shelf discrimination of nitrogen
sources indicates widespread assimilation of sewage nitrogen,” Harmful Algae Vol. 4, Issue 6, November 2005, pp. 1,106-1,122.
19 See Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Prevention Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan,” September 2001,
pp. 9–10 at http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/pertinentinfo/PCM_HAB_Research_Plan.pdf.
20 Anderson, Donald M., “Harmful Algal Blooms: An Expanding Problem in the U.S. Coastal Zone,” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
presented to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy at the Northeast Regional Meeting July 23-24, 2002, Boston, MA, available at: http://www.
oceancommission.gov/meetings/jul23_24_02/anderson_testimony.pdf.
21 EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, EPA 440/5-84-002, 1986.
22 33 USC 1342(q).
23 33 U.S.C. 1254, sec. 104(v) and 33 U.S.C 1314(a), sec. 304(a).
24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, But Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection, May 2007, pp 15-17.
25 Dale W. Griffin, Kim A. Donaldson, John H. Paul, and Joan B. Rose, “Pathogenic Human Viruses in Coastal Waters,” in Clinical Microbiology
Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 2003, pp. 129–143.
26 Ibid.
27 EPA, 2004 Report to Congress, p. 6-3.
28 Howard Kantor, environmental microbiologist, personal communication, May 16, 2003. Data collected through 2005, available at: http://www.
healtheocean.org/virus_data.pdf
29 S. Jiang, R. Noble, W. Chu, “Human Adenoviruses and Coliphages in Urban Runoff–Impacted Coastal Waters of Southern California, Applied and
Environmental Microbiology,” in American Society for Microbiology, Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2001, pp. 179–184.
30 EPA, Infective Dose of Cryptosporidium in Immunocompromised Hosts, October 2002, p. 1, available at: http://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2001/pdf/g2-
4.pdf.
31 Rachel Katonak and Joan B. Rose, “Public Health Risks Associated with Wastewater Blending,” Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, prepared for NRDC, November 17, 2003.
32 Michael A. Mallin, “Wading in Waste,” in Scientific American, June 2006, pp. 53–59.
33 S.E. Hrudey, P.M. Huck, P. Payment, R.W. Gillham, and E.J. Hrudey, “Walkerton: Lessons Learned in Comparison with Waterborne Outbreaks in
the Developed World,” in Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, Vol. 1, July 2002, pp. 397–407.
34 Ritu Tuteja, Julie Hewitt, Matthew Clark, William Wheeler, Elizabeth Sams, Tim Wade, Kristen Brenner, Al Dufour, “Economic Benefits of a New
Beach Water Quality Monitoring Method,” EPA Science Forum, 2005, available at http://www.epa.gov/scienceforum/2005/pdfs/ordposter/Hewitt_
ORD11.pdf.
35 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Annual Report, 2006, p. 12, available
at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs/beaches/AnnualReport2006.pdf .
36 A.B. Boehm, S.B. Grant, J.H. Kim, S.L. Mowbray, C.D. McGee, C.D. Clark, D.M. Foley, and D.E. Wellman, “Decadal and Shorter Period
Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at Huntington Beach, California,” in Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 36, No. 13, 2002, p. 3,885.
37 Kris Christen, “Making Accurate Water-Quality Determinations,” in Environmental Science and Technology Online News, American Chemical Society,
September 18, 2002, available at: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/sep/science/kc_beachwater.html.
38 Environmental Integrity Project, All Backed Up, May 2005, pp. 18, 59.
39 Boehm et al., “Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at Huntington Beach, California,” in Environmental Science & Tech
nology, Vol. 36, No. 13, 2002, p. 3891.
40 EPA, Liquid Assets: A Summertime Perspective on the Importance of Clean Water to the Nation’s Economy, EPA 800-R-96-002, 1996.
41 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, D.C.,
September 2004, Appendix C, p. 3, available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov.
42 Ibid., p. E-6.
43 U.S. Department of Commerce et al., “Perspectives on Marine Environmental Quality Today,” in 1998 Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers, 1998,
p. E-4.
44 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science Research and Technology, “Valuing New Jersey’s Natural Capital: An
Assessment of the Economic Value of the State’s Natural Resources”, April 2007, available at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/naturalcap/.
45 Ibid., p. S 4.
46 EPA, 2004 Report to Congress, p. 5-5.
47 “Sewage Casts Pox on Reefs,” in Nature, June 18, 2002.
48 Environmental and Energy Studies Institute, Endangered Oceans: Threats to Human Health, February 1999.
49 NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata), available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/
elkhorncoral.htm.
50 “Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral,” in Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 89,
May 9, 2006, p. 26852.
51 “Farm Run-Off Linked to Barrier Reef Damage,” New Scientist, June 7, 2003, available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3795.
52 “Sewage Nutrients Fuel Coral Disease,” New Scientist, January 11, 2004, available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4539.
53 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) in the United States, September
2000, p. 7, at http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/pertinentinfo/Economics_report.pdf.
54 EPA, Pathogens and Swimming: An Economic Assessment of Beach Monitoring and Closure, draft report prepared by Environomics, Inc., 1995. The
authors review studies of consumer surplus, which is the excess of willingness to pay over cost, and conclude that $30.84 is a best estimate. See also F.
Bell and V.R. Leeworthy, “Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days,” in Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 189–205; R.G. Walsh, D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean, “Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies, 1968–1988,” in Water
Resources Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1988, pp. 707–713.
55 S.J. Rabinovici, R.L. Bernknopf, A.M. Wein, D.L. Coursey, and R.L. Whitman, “Economic and Health Risk Trade-Offs of Swim Closures at a Lake
Michigan Beach,” in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2004, p. 2,742.
56 Ibid., p. 2,737.
57 Ryan H. Dwight, Linda M. Fernandez, Dean B. Baker, Jan C. Semenza, and Betty H. Olson, “Estimating the Economic Burden from Illnesses
Associated with Recreational Coastal Water Pollution: A Case Study in Orange County, California,” in Journal of Environmental Management, pp.1–9.
58 National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Fisheries of the United States: 2005, February, 2007, available at http://www.st.nmfs.
gov/st1/fus/fus05/index.html.
59 Water and Infrastructure Network, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century: A Renewed National Commitment to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,
April 2000, pp. 1–4.
60 New York Times, “Red Tide Emergency,” June 10, 2005, late edition–final.
61 Sources of information for “Value of Tourism to Selected Coastal States.”:
AK: http://www.alaskatia.org/govtrelations/PDF/TSA_10-25-04.pdf
AL: http://www.800alabama.com/about-alabama/news/press/Tourism2006Report.pdf
CA: http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/econ/MIindex.htm
CT: http://www.cultureandtourism.org/cct/cwp/view.asp?a=2326&q=329202
DE: http://www.ncbl.com/archive/10-05coverstory.html
FL: http://media.visitflorida.org/about/research/
GA: http://www.gov.state.ga.us/press/2005/press800.shtml
HI: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/main/about/annual-reports/2005-hta.pdf
IL: http://www.tourism.uiuc.edu/itf/facts.asp
IN: http://www.in.gov/tourism/pdfs/IndianaTourismImpact_0613.pdf
LA: http://www.latour.lsu.edu/pdfs/ecoimpact2005.pdf
ME: http://www.econdevmaine.com/resources/tourism/mainefacts04_ME.doc
MD: http://www.choosemaryland.org/newsandevents/pressreleases/05-11-08apr.html
MA: http://www.mass-vacation.com/jsp/static_in/research/welcome.jsp?cat=95
MI: http://www.msue.msu.edu/objects/content_revision/download.cfm/item_id.259874/workspace_id.117274/
state-wide-2004.pdf/
MS: http://www.visitmississippi.org/resources/fy2006%20economic%20impact%20for%20tourism%20in%20mississippi.pdf
NH: http://www.resourcenh.org/page.php?page=research
NJ: http://www.state.nj.us/travel/ppt/fy2006-04-tourism-ecom-impact.ppt
NC: http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/econ/FastFactsEI_06.pdf
OH: http://industry.discoverohio.com/media/28/430.pdf
OR: http://www.deanrunyan.com/pdf/or06p.pdf
PA: http://mediaroom.visitpa.com/files/nationaltourismweek0426061.doc
PR: http://www.wttc.org/2005tsa/pdf/World.pdf
RI: http://www.visitrhodeisland.com/travelindustry/index.aspx
SC: http://www.scprt.com/files/Research/EconImpactofTravelonSC2005.pdf
TX: http://travel.state.tx.us/asp/tspend.asp?reporttype=a
VI: http://www.wttc.org/2005tsa/pdf/World.pdf
VA: http://www.vatc.org/research/2005VAStateEstimates.pdf
The BEACH Act was passed by Congress to improve states’ beach monitoring programs and public notification methods
to protect the public from the health risks of beachwater contamination through standardized water quality criteria. The
BEACH Act authorizes the EPA to award grants to states for implementing programs to monitor coastal recreational
waters adjacent to beaches used by the public for compliance with the standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
Grant funds are also used to notify the public promptly of any exceedances through posting or equivalent means. To
be eligible for grants, states must develop monitoring and notification programs that are consistent with the EPA’s per
formance criteria. The EPA is required to perform monitoring and notification activities for waters in states that do not
have a program consistent with the EPA’s performance
criteria, using grant funds that would otherwise have been Swimmers continue to be at an
available to the states. unnecessarily elevated risk due to
The BEACH Act authorizes $30 million a year for the limited scope of recreational water
state grants for monitoring and public notification, but
standards.
appropriations have funded only about one-third of that
level each year. The EPA awarded $10 million in annual grants to states for use in improving monitoring and notification
programs in 2002 through 2005, and $9.9 million in 2006. This year the EPA has again awarded $9.9 million in grants
to states (see Table 8).
The BEACH Act also directed the EPA to conduct the necessary epidemiology studies to assess the full human health
risk from exposure to pathogens in coastal recreational waters by 2003 and to subsequently publish new or revised crite-
ria based on these studies by October 2005, and every five years thereafter. States must then adopt these new or revised
criteria. The EPA failed to meet the first deadline. The EPA has concluded some of its freshwater studies and began the
first in a series of marine studies in 2005, but they have not yet finished the necessary studies and there have been no up-
dates to the outdated criteria used to issue standards for beachwater quality. Swimmers continue to be at an unnecessarily
elevated risk due to the limited scope of recreational water standards. The studies and criteria have not yet addressed all
the sources of pollution, all the types of pathogens, and the entire range of waterborne diseases that may threaten beach-
water quality.
States currently use interim standards based on the EPA’s 1986 criteria for testing recreational waters, while they wait
for the EPA to issue revised criteria. The BEACH Act required states with coastal recreational waters to adopt new or
revised water quality standards by April 2004 for pathogens and for pathogen indicators for which the EPA has published
criteria under the Clean Water Act. The state standards were required to be the same as the EPA’s, or as protective of pub-
lic health as EPA standards. In November 2004, the EPA enacted standards for those states that had failed to adopt the
more protective standards by the April 2004 deadline.
In May 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported to Congress on the progress of the
BEACH Act. Among their findings was that the formula the EPA uses to distribute BEACH Act funds is not reflective
of the states’ varied monitoring needs. The GAO concluded that because funding allocations have been only one-third
of the amount authorized by the act annually, the EPA has issued funds based primarily on length of the beach season
and have given much less weight to factors such as states’ total beach miles and beach use, which also have an impact on
public health risk.1 As a result, beach monitoring and public notification programs vary across states and may not con-
sistently protect public health. The GAO has recommended that the EPA adjust the fund distribution formula to more
accurately reflect each state’s need. The GAO also recommended that states be allowed to use their grant funds for inves-
tigation and remediation of pollution sources as well as monitoring and public notification. Currently, most communities
have not identified the specific pollution sources that contaminate their beaches. Increasing the amount of annual grant
funds available to states would help achieve monitoring and notification consistency as well as give states a greater ability
to address pollution sources.2
Table 8. 2007 Federal BEACH Act Grant Allocations to States and Territories
State/Territory Allocation
Alabama $262,510
Alaska $150,000
American Samoa $302,200
California $522,920
Connecticut $224,010
Delaware $211,040
Florida $534,700
Georgia $287,200
Guam $302,680
Hawaii $323,660
Illinois $244,120
Indiana $205,960
Louisiana $325,370
Maine $256,240
Maryland $271,150
Massachusetts $255,940
Michigan $280,610
Minnesota $204,390
Mississippi $257,720
New Hampshire $204,660
New Jersey $279,870
New York $352,830
North Carolina $303,920
Northern Marianas $303,430
Ohio $224,300
Oregon $229,570
Pennsylvania $223,150
Puerto Rico $329,240
Rhode Island $212,990
South Carolina $297,940
Texas $385,180
State/Territory Allocation
U.S. Virgin Islands $303,270
Virginia $279,020
Washington $272,250
Wisconsin $225,960
Despite the passage of the BEACH Act, there is still a considerable amount of variability among state beachwater moni-
toring programs and public notification programs, and some state programs may not be adequate for protecting public
health. The EPA’s current published standards include a geometric mean value for multiple samples taken over 30 days,
and an instantaneous single-sample value. Some state and local agencies measure both the geometric mean and the
single sample when taking beachwater samples and issue beach closings or advisories if either standard is exceeded; oth-
ers measure the geometric mean or the single sample but not both. States vary as to how often they sample. Some states
monitor their high-priority beaches almost daily, while other states only monitor their priority beaches once or twice a
week (Table 9). Although the EPA has recommended daily beach monitoring for high-priority beaches, local govern-
ments have stated that they lack the necessary staff and funding to carry this out. As a result, beaches may remain open
during a contamination event on days when they are not sampled. States also vary in their sampling methods. While
most states are consistent in sampling at the same time of day and same location, there is variability in the depth at which
samples are taken. In spite of the EPA’s recommendation that samples be collected at a depth of approximately three feet,
states reported collecting samples at depths ranging from 1-48 inches, which affects the microbial indicator level.3
Public notification programs are inconsistent and may be insufficient for protecting public health. Because states have
established different standards for triggering an advisory or closure, states vary as to whether or not they issue a public
health advisory or close a beach or both when sampling has found bacteria at levels dangerous to human health.4 Some
states wait until there have been two consecutive standard violations before an advisory is issued. Some states may also
use predictive modeling to issue preemptive closures or advisories when a contamination event is expected, such as after
a heavy rain or known sewage overflow, but not all states are using this extra measure to protect beachgoers.
Methods for notifying the public of health advisories and beach closures vary among states as well, and may make
it unnecessarily difficult for beachgoers to get notifications promptly and to get complete information including the
effective date of the closure/advisory.5 There are a variety of notification methods states can use, including toll-free phone
lines, signs posted at beaches, electronic notifications, newspaper notices, and television and radio coverage in conjunc-
tion with the weather report (for information on individual state monitoring and public notification programs, see
Chapter 5, State Summaries).
Notes
1 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, But Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection, May 2007, pp. 15-17.
2 Ibid p. 17.
3 Ibid p. 27.
4 Ibid p. 28.
5 Ibid p. 30.
Plan of Action
I n the 1992 edition of this report, NRDC unveiled a national beach protection program designed to provide a strong
foundation for monitoring coastal water quality and protecting public health at our beaches. The EPA’s BEACH pro-
gram and the federal BEACH Act have adopted several elements of NRDC’s proposed program. While that effort is not
yet complete, what has become increasingly clear in the intervening years is that beachwater monitoring technology and
posting is inadequate. The beachwater quality testing technology currently being utilized must be upgraded to provide
comprehensive public health warnings in a more timely manner. In addition, instead of merely warning the public or
closing our beaches when they are unsafe, we need to focus on addressing the sources of beachwater pollution so that our
beachwater will not pose a threat to public health. The beachwater quality testing
In May 2007, the 2007 Beach Protection Act, H.R.
2537/S. 1506 was introduced in the U.S. Congress, reau- technology currently being utilized
thorizing the BEACH Act of 2000. If passed, the act will must be upgraded to provide com
mandate the use of rapid testing methods by requiring prehensive public health warnings in
the EPA to develop, and coastal states to adopt, methods
to detect beach water contamination in two hours or less
a more timely manner.
so that beachgoers can be notified promptly of public health risks. The act will also increase the amount of grant money
available to states from $30 million to $60 million annually through 2012 and expand the uses of grant funds to include
source tracking and pollution prevention. NRDC supports this important piece of legislation and sees it as a positive step
in protecting public health and coastal economies
NRDC’s comprehensive 2007 National Beach Protection Program is outlined below. This program would provide a
strong foundation for monitoring coastal water quality and protecting public health at our beaches by preventing beach-
water pollution and warning the public when it is not safe to swim.
Update Beach Protection Standards and Contamination Detection Methods and Create Monitoring and Advisory
Requirements Today’s beachwater quality standards, which were set in 1986, are deficient and may leave beachgoers
vulnerable to a range of illnesses. The current standards focus on bacteria found in human waste, and may not protect
the public from diseases caused by viruses and parasites, such as cryptosporidium and giardia, which are also a cause of
waterborne illnesses in the United States. The standards should be more protective than the EPA’s current recommended
bacteria standard, which allows 19 illnesses per 1,000 saltwater swimmers and eight illnesses per 1,000 freshwater swim-
mers. Monitoring requirements should protect the public from the full range of waterborne illnesses, including rashes,
earaches, sore throats, and respiratory infections. They should protect in all types of waterbodies, including tropical and
semitropical waters. The standards should be designed to protect sensitive populations, including small children and the
elderly as well as those with prolonged and repeated exposure to beachwater pollution, such as surfers and lifeguards. The
water quality criteria should not just protect from contamination from sewage, but also from pollution carried by storm-
water discharges. More intensive monitoring may be needed in areas of chronic pollution and after rain events. Beach ad-
visories should be posted the first time levels exceed the EPA’s public health standards, and the closing or advisory should
continue until further testing demonstrates that the beachwater is safe. With updated standards and monitoring require-
ments, the public will be assured of a consistently high level of protection.
In May 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported to Congress on its assessment of the EPA’s
implementation of the BEACH Act. The GAO found that the EPA had failed to conduct the necessary epidemiology
studies to update the public health–based standards used to monitor beachwater quality as the BEACH Act requires and
that current water quality monitoring tests are not comprehensive and take too long to produce results. The EPA needs
to speed up and complete the required epidemiology studies and speed up the timetable for proposing new standards.
Rapid methods for detecting beachwater contamination need to be approved and mandated. Current methods require
a long incubation period, producing results in 24 to 48 hours. This lag time between when pathogen-contaminated
waters are sampled and when the public is notified creates a dangerous window during which swimmers can be infected.
Rapid testing methods that give results in two hours or less need to be approved so closure or advisory decisions can be
made the same day samples are taken. If passed, the 2007 Beach Protection Act would require rapid testing and notifica-
tion to ensure that beachgoers know whether the water they swim in is safe.
Public notification programs need to be consistent among states and must provide beachgoers with prompt and
complete information. The EPA needs to update its public notification guidance to states and require states to follow it
as a criterion of grant funding. The public should be notified immediately when monitoring reveals that public health
standards have been violated. Notification should include toll-free phone lines, signs posted at beaches, electronic notifi-
cations, newspaper notices, and television and radio coverage in conjunction with the weather report. States should also
issue preemptive rainfall advisories in anticipation of elevated bacterial levels where a correlation between rainfall and
water quality exists or when sewer overflows or catastrophic events jeopardize beachwater safety. Computer modeling
systems, which take into account current weather and environmental conditions, should be used to predict bacteria levels
and issue advisories in real time.1
Prevent Beachwater Pollution: Provide Assistance for Source Tracking and Remediation. In addition to reducing peoples’
exposure to beachwater pollution through increased monitoring and public notification, the EPA and states need to con-
trol beachwater pollution at the source. As the data show, most beach closures and advisories are due to elevated bacteria
levels. However, in most cases the source of bacterial contamination causing beach closures/advisories is not known.
Federal, state, and local officials need to step up both monetary assistance and enforcement of Clean Water Act programs
to control these sources of pollution. Officials should also set strong regulatory standards to ensure that stormwater and
sewage are being reduced through the best technologies available and that water quality standards designed to protect
humans and wildlife are being met.
To help prevent future contamination, sanitary surveys to identify the source of beachwater pollution should be
required when a water-quality standard designed to protect swimming use is repeatedly exceeded. This information
would also help close the gap that exists between sewer overflows and stormwater discharges and water-quality impacts.
State beachwater programs funded under the federal BEACH Act should be required to obtain and report potential
source information to the EPA, and the EPA should make that information publicly available in searchable databases.
Most important, that information should be used to reduce the sources of beachwater pollution. The GAO recom-
mended that BEACH Act grants provided to states for monitoring and notification programs be expanded for use in
investigating and remediation of pollution sources. Increasing the amount of state BEACH Act grant funding as pro-
posed by the 2007 Beach Protection Act, and expanding the uses of these funds, would provide states necessary assistance
for source identification and remediation.
Implement and Enforce Better Controls on Pollution Sources Preventing beachwater contamination is the best tool for
protecting humans and aquatic life. As an aggressive prevention strategy, we need stricter controls on stormwater and
combined sanitary and sewer overflows. Federal stormwater permitting requirements for municipal systems, industrial
stormwater dischargers, and construction sites are now in place, but these programs need to be implemented and
enforced so that discharges do not contribute to beachwater pollution. The EPA should require programs to use up-
to-date technologies to reduce contaminated stormwater discharges and put additional controls in place where basic
technologies are not sufficient to make beachwater safe. Under court order, the EPA is now required to establish efflu-
ent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPSs) for construction and development by
December 1, 2009.
Although the EPA’s combined sewer overflow policy has been in place since 1994, as of 2004 only 35 percent of the
828 communities nationwide with combined stormwater and sewage systems had begun implementation of a long-
term plan to control combined sewer overflows.2 Sanitary sewer overflows are illegal, yet the EPA has estimated that
there are more than 23,000 sanitary sewer overflows every year into rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters.3 A con-
sensus proposal for controlling SSOs was shelved by the White House in January 2001and has never been finalized.
Implementation and enforcement of these programs need to be substantially increased.
We need to be using effective and innovative stormwater management approaches, particularly low-impact develop-
ment (LID), which uses soil and vegetation to capture and filter stormwater where it falls. Water resource protection
goals are not being met by conventional stormwater management, and communities often struggle with the economic
burden of repairing or expanding existing stormwater infrastructure. LID offers an approach that is both more economi-
cally sustainable and more environmentally sound.4
Improve Coordination Between Sanitation and Public Health Officials Improved monitoring, immediate reporting of
overflows to public health authorities and to the general public, and prompt response to overflows to minimize human
exposure and environmental harm are critical steps that need to be taken to close the communication gap between those
responsible for sewage and stormwater treatment and those charged with protecting public health. The public has the
right to know when there is a sewer overflow or stormwater discharge that threatens beachwater quality, and they should
be informed when it happens, not days later when the beachwater monitoring results finally arrive. In response to the
need for public notification, The Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act, H.R. 2452 was introduced
in May 2007. If passed, this act will amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct owners or operators of
publicly owned treatment works to 1) institute an alert system for sanitary sewer overflows; 2) notify the public of such
overflows in areas where human health is potentially affected within 24 hours; 3) immediately notify public health au-
thorities, such as beachwater managers, and other affected entities; and 4) provide specified reports to the Administrator
of the EPA or the state.5 NRDC supports H.R. 2452, which would ensure that beachwater managers and the public
know about sewage spills that could endanger public health. We also support the Beach Protection Act provision to
require public health officials to inform environmental organizations when they find a violation so that its source can
be addressed.
Close the Funding Gap The EPA estimates that there will be a funding gap between the costs of sewage and storm
water controls and available resources of between $72 billion and $229 billion over the next 20 years, depending
on the growth of the economy.6 This funding gap will only grow over time as we continue to defer operations and
maintenance and allow our sewer and stormwater systems to deteriorate. Congress needs to assist state and local
communities in bridging the funding gap by substantially increasing the federal resources available to meet clean
water needs through the creation of a Clean Water Trust Fund or other dedicated source of clean water funding.
Communities also need to spend smarter by preserving and enhancing the use of wetlands, soil, and vegetation to
reduce beachwater pollution.7 In watersheds with at least 13.5 percent wetland coverage, periods of rainfall do not
substantially increase fecal coliform bacteria counts.8 The Water Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, which is currently
pending in the Senate, would authorize $14 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund over the next four years
and provide critical assistance for projects that repair and rebuild failing water and wastewater infrastructure, including
the use of LID.
Finally, the 2007 Beach Protection Act has proposed a doubling of the federal grants made available to states
under the BEACH Act. This funding is crucial and should not only be authorized but should be fully appropriated
to provide states with the full support they need to tackle beachwater contamination and protect the public and the
environment.
Everyone can help reduce beachwater pollution. For example, we can all take steps to reduce the amount of water sent to
sewage treatment plants—which have the potential to overflow—by helping to reduce polluted runoff. Individuals can
also make a difference by becoming educated and expressing their desire for clean, healthy water. Below are 15 simple ac-
tions individuals can take to improve our beachwater.
1. Conserve water. Reduce the amount of water you use at home. Extra water overwhelms sewage treatment plants
and contributes to raw sewage overflows. a) Do not let water run unnecessarily when brushing your teeth, shaving, or
washing dishes. b) Install a displacement device, such as a small plastic bottle, in your toilet. Or, even better, install a
1.6‑gallon-per-flush water-saving toilet to save thousands of gallons annually. c) Install faucet aerators and a water-effi-
cient showerhead to cut the amount of water you use by 50 percent and to save energy by reducing hot water use. d) Use
a bucket and sponge instead of a hose when washing your car to save more than 100 gallons of water.9
2. Read product labels. To avoid contaminating local waterways, choose nontoxic alternatives to household cleaners with
harsh chemicals. You can use baking soda, for example, to deodorize drains, clean countertops and polish stainless steel.
See NRDC’s Simple Steps website (www.simplesteps.org) and This Green Life (http://www.nrdc.org/thisgreenlife/0405.
asp), as well as the EPA’s Safe Substitutes at Home fact sheet (http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/facts/safe-fs.html) for more non-
toxic household alternatives.
3. Don’t pour it down the drain. When you dump paint, oil, harsh cleansers, and other hazardous products down the
drain, they can find their way into nearby bodies of water. Contact your local sanitation, public works, or environmental
health department to find out about hazardous waste collection days and sites.
4. Direct runoff to soil, not street. Rain gutters and down spouts on your home should lead to soil, grass, or gravel areas,
and not blacktop, cement, or other hard surfaces. Wash your car on the lawn instead of on the street or driveway. Sweep
your driveway and sidewalks, rather than hosing them down.
5. Maintain your septic system. Have your septic tank cleaned out every three to five years. Such maintenance prolongs
the life of your system and can help prevent groundwater contamination and beachwater contamination.
6. Clean up after your pet. Don’t leave pet waste on the ground. It could contain harmful bacteria and excess nutrients
that can wash into stormdrains and eventually pollute local waters. Flush it, bag it, or look for signs in public parks that
direct pet owners to appropriate trash receptacles.
7. Practice proper lawn and garden care. Use natural fertilizers such as compost on your garden, and minimize the use of
chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Landscape with natural vegetation rather than lawns, which require fertil-
izers and herbicides, to reduce the amount of runoff and pollution.
8. Recycle used motor oil. A single quart of motor oil can pollute 250,000 gallons of drinking water. Resist the tempta-
tion to dump waste oil on the ground or pour it into gutters or stormdrains. Inquire about local programs that buy back
waste oil and dispose of it properly.
9. Keep up on vehicle maintenance. Make sure your car isn’t leaking oil, coolant, antifreeze, or other hazardous liquids.
Bring it to a mechanic for regular checkups.
10. Practice proper marine and recreational boating waste disposal. Dispose of your boat sewage in onshore sanitary
facilities. Don’t dump sewage or trash overboard. Boating wastes discharged into coastal waters can be a major cause of
high pathogen concentrations.
11. Make sure infants wear swim diapers and rubber pants. Children not yet toilet trained should be dressed in a swim
diaper and rubber pants or a similar tight-fitting outer garment. An extra layer of protection in addition to a swim diaper
is necessary to help prevent bacteria from entering the water.
12. Clean up after yourself at the beach. Pick up your garbage if you bring a picnic to the beach. And do not feed the
birds or other wildlife. Seagulls and other wildlife are attracted to the garbage and food waste that people often leave
behind on the beach and feeding them will only encourage their permanent presence there. The fecal matter left on the
beach by wildlife visitors can contribute to elevated bacteria levels in the water and cause the beach to close. Waste from
wildlife is one of the three largest known sources of bacterial pollution. Help convince your local beach management
agency to invest in secure garbage cans with close-fitting lids.
13. Learn about the water quality at local beaches. Go to NRDC’s website (www.nrdc.org), the EPA’s website (www.
epa.gov and than BEACON), Earth 911 (www.beaches911.org), or your local public health authority, all of which have
data on beach monitoring and notification policies and on closings/advisories. Also, to show your concern, ask an
official with your county’s or town’s department of health: a) What are the sources of pollution affecting the waters where
I swim? b) What sort of water-quality monitoring is performed at these beaches? c) Are beaches always closed when
monitoring shows that the bacterial standard is exceeded? d) What is the current status of these waters (are they closed or
open?), and what warning signs can I look for?
14. Choose your beaches carefully. Whenever possible, swim at the beaches that your research shows have the cleanest
waters or are carefully monitored with strict closure or advisory procedures in effect. Beaches adjacent to open ocean and
beaches that are removed from urban areas generally pose less of a health risk than do beaches in developed areas or in
enclosed bays and harbors with little water circulation. Stay away from beaches with visible discharge pipes, and avoid
swimming at urban beaches after a heavy rainfall.
15. Support local, state, and federal legislation that promotes the cleanup of pollution sources. Write to your representa-
tives and senators and let them know you support strong beach legislation and clean water protections. Tell your local
government to move forward quickly to address sewage overflows and stormwater. Make sure you tell officials that you
are willing to pay for programs to monitor beaches and reduce runoff pollution.
For more ways you can prevent beachwater pollution, visit NRDC’s Your Oceans website (http://oceans.nrdc.org/
coastaldwellers/guide).
Notes
1 USGS Ohio Water Science Center, “Nowcasting Beach Advisories,” June 28, 2006, available at: http://www.ohionowcast.info/index.asp.
2 EPA, Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy, p. 7-3, August 2004.
3 EPA, 2004 Report to Congress, p. ES-5.
4 Low Impact development Center, Inc, available at: http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/.
5 33 U.S.C. 1342, sec. 402(r).
6 EPA, 2004 Report to Congress, p. 9-10.
7 Christopher Kloss and Crystal Calarusse, Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows, NRDC,
June 2006.
8 Michael A. Mallin, “Wading in Waste,” in Scientific American, June 2006, pp. 53–59.
9 The Earth Works Group, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, 1989.
State Summaries
The following pages contain the summaries of state beachwater quality standards, monitoring and closing/advisory
practices, and NRDC’s database of 2006 monitoring results and closings and advisories, listed alphabetically by state. It
is impossible to make direct comparisons between states or to assess trends over time on the basis of advisory and closure data.
Standards, monitoring, and closing/advisory practices vary
from state to state, making it difficult to know, for exam- High numbers of closings and
ple, whether a state with many closings has vigilant health advisories may indicate that the state
officials or has more coastal pollution. Until procedures are
or county is making a good effort to
consistent, it will be very difficult to assess trends in beach-
water quality. It is also impossible to make comparisons protect the public health by monitoring
because of the ways beaches are designated by officials. its waters and closing beaches when
Some areas may have a greater number of beaches per mile they are polluted.
of coast than others.
High numbers of closings and advisories, while indicating pollution problems, may also indicate that the state or
county is making a good effort to protect the public health by monitoring its waters and closing beaches when they are
polluted. States with comprehensive programs and closure practices should be commended for their efforts.
In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a state-based electronic reporting system designed to
collect beach information from all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories that received federal BEACH Act
grants. Although improving, there are still technical problems with the EPA’s electronic data submission system. In some
cases, the EPA’s 2006 closing/advisory or beach detail data were incomplete or inaccurate and were replaced or supple
mented with data requested by NRDC and received directly from the states. In three cases, the EPA closing/advisory data
were completely replaced with data received directly from the state (California, Rhode Island, and Washington). NRDC
updated the EPA’s state beach lists with information solicited from all 30 coastal and Great Lakes states. In addition,
NRDC contacted state and local officials with specific questions regarding their beach programs.
In addition to closing/advisory data, NRDC has compiled and analyzed, for the second consecutive year, each state’s
beach monitoring results. With these data, we are now able to present a comparative analysis of water quality at beaches
across the United States—thanks to provisions of the BEACH Act which require the EPA to collect and publicize
beach monitoring data from all states receiving BEACH Act grants. NRDC obtained 2006 beach season monitor-
ing data through the EPA’s STORET data warehouse (the EPA’s main repository of water quality monitoring data) for
27 states (Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). EPA data for California, Rhode
Island, and Washington were found to be in error, so NRDC requested and received monitoring data directly from these
states. Data for Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania beaches were not available through STORET; they were obtained
directly from these states. NRDC included the U.S. territories in the national closing/advisory totals for 2006, but did
not provide detailed summaries in Chapter 5.MEthodology
NRDC looked at several criteria to evaluate the efficacy of beach monitoring programs: indicator organisms, stan-
dards, and testing frequency.
Indicator Organisms: The type of indicator organism a monitoring program tests for is important because it reveals
whether disease-causing bacteria may be present in the water. Monitoring programs in all states now test for enterococcus
or E. coli. The EPA recommends, and the federal BEACH Act of 2000 requires, using the enterococcus indicator for
marine waters, and enterococcus or E. coli indicators for the Great Lakes and other freshwaters. These indicators provide
the most reliable estimate currently available of the degree to which disease-causing bacteria and viruses are present in
the water.
Standards: NRDC contacted the state beach coordinator in each of the 30 coastal and Great Lakes states to obtain up-
dated information on which indicator organisms and standards are used.
Testing Frequency: According to the EPA’s federal BEACH Act grant guidance, sampling frequency at bathing beaches
should be related to the intensity of their use. Beaches used most heavily, particularly during summer weekends, should
be tested weekly; beaches used less heavily should be tested biweekly or monthly. Beaches that are most heavily used and
are near potential sources of pollution are designated by the states as “Tier 1” beaches. Beaches less heavily used are given
Tier 2 or 3 status. Coastal and Great Lakes states and territories are beginning to improve monitoring frequency with an-
nual BEACH Act grants.
Several useful pieces of information that were collected in past years are not available for 2006 (in particular, potential
sources of pollution that may affect the beach and preemptive rainfall standards). Still, NRDC was able to piece together
a complete picture of beach closings/advisories for all 30 U.S. coastal and Great Lakes states. The results are given in the
state summaries and tables included in the following pages. Information on beach closings and advisories is organized al-
phabetically by county and beach name. Information on monitoring frequency and percent exceedance are organized by
county and beaches in decreasing order of percent exceedance.
In an effort to be consistent in tabulating closings and advisories, NRDC used the following guidelines:
• Closings or advisories issued for an individual beach for one day are counted as one closing/advisory day.
• Extended closings/advisories are those lasting seven to 13 consecutive weeks.
• Permanent closings/advisories include those lasting longer than 13 consecutive weeks, as well as standing advisories that
warn against swimming whenever certain conditions occur, such as a heavy rainfall or stormdrain flow.
• If a reported advisory at a specific beach overlapped with a general rain advisory that applied to all beaches within
the same jurisdiction, the overlapping days were subtracted from the advisory for that specific beach to avoid double
counting. However, if a specific beach was closed during a general rain advisory, NRDC did not modify the reported
duration. Individual and total beach closing and advisory information is included in each state summary, and state totals
are provided in Table 3 on page 12.
Alabama
According to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), Alabama has classified swimming
beaches along 50 miles of the Gulf of Mexico, 65 to 70 miles of bays including Mobile Bay, Perdido Bay, Mississippi
Sound, and Wolf Bay, and 16 miles at Dauphin Island. ADEM reports a total of 95 such coastal beaches, all in Baldwin
and Mobile Counties.
Through federal BEACH Act grants, ADEM monitors more than a fourth of the coastal beaches in the state.
Monitoring is done weekly to every other week from May to September and monthly the rest of the year.
Alabama does not issue beach closures; their policy is to
issue advisories only.1 All of the advisories issued in 2006 For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
were at sound, bay, and inlet sites. Bacterial contamination of samples exceeding the standard
in Alabama’s coastal recreational waters originates from increased to six percent in 2006 from
sources such as shoreline development, wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities, septic tanks, urban runoff,
five percent in 2005.
disposal of human waste from boats, bathers themselves, commercial and domestic animals, and wildlife.
Alabama received a $262,170 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $262,510 grant in 2007. The
federal grants fully fund the Alabama beach monitoring and notification program. Coastal tourism, valued at about
$8.3 billion in Alabama, provides more than 162,688 jobs, making it an important part of the state’s economy (see
Table ••).
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Alabama adopted BEACH Act–required standards in 2004: for ocean and bay waters, the Enterococcus single-
sample maximum of 104 cfu/100ml is used to issue beach advisories. Although Alabama calculates a geometric mean,
only the single-sample standard is used to issue beach advisories. There are no standards for preemptive advisories, but
full-scale advisories for all sites have been issued by the Health Departments after hurricanes.1
Monitoring
Frequency: Alabama reported monitoring of 26 beaches in 2006, nine of which were monitored twice a week, 12 of which
were monitored once a week, and five of which were monitored twice a month. Alabama has a quantitative ranking scheme
for prioritizing their beach monitoring efforts. This scheme is based predominantly on the degree of beach use and the level
of risk. Beaches are ranked into four tiers:2 Tier 1 beaches are monitored twice a week, Tier 2 beaches are monitored once a
week, Tier 3 beaches are monitored every other week, and Tier 4 beaches are monitored on an as-needed basis.
Practice: Samples are collected before 1:00 p.m., 6 to 12 inches below the surface of the water, usually in knee-deep
water. Typically, results of samples are known 24 hours after sampling takes place.1 Sampling takes place on Mondays and
Wednesdays unless a holiday interferes, in which case it takes place on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Alabama’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the state standard.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were the Baldwin County beaches of Fairhope
Public Beach (23%), Boggy Point (20%), and Pirate’s Cove (10%).
Fifty-eight percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Mobile
County had the most beaches with no exceedances (75%) followed by Baldwin (55%). The table below lists the tier
status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches
are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Alabama issued 16 beach advisories in 2006. Total advisory days increased 63 percent from 27 in 2005 to 44 in 2006.
Advisories at Alabama’s nine Tier 1 beaches were steady at six days in 2004 and 2005, then increased to 18 days in 2006.
During the time period over which this overall increase in advisory days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at
these beaches was steady.
Advisory Issuance: When sample results exceed the standard, a yellow advisory is issued. Yellow indicates that there
may be an increased risk of illness associated with swimming in such water, and that the beach is being immediately
retested. If a resample, taken the next day, also exceeds the standard, a red public health advisory is issued. Red indicates
that retesting reveals enterococcus levels over the EPA threshold. Factors other than sample exceedance are not taken
into account when issuing advisories. Advisories are posted on the ADEM website as well as being announced on local
radio and television stations and in newspapers. Advisories can be issued for a section of a beach, as opposed to the
entire beach.1
Reopening Procedures: Once an exceedance is reported, samples are collected daily until results are below the EPA
threshold.1
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from
unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Suzi Farr, Senior Environmental Scientist, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, personal communication, May 11, 2007.
2 Baldwin County Health Department, Risk Based Beach Evaluation and Ranking, not dated.
Alaska
Alaska has nearly 34,000 miles of coastal shoreline. Because of low temperatures, its coastal waters do not attract large
numbers of swimmers. However, recreational shoreline activities do occur, and a survey has identified 204 recreational
beaches in the state.1 Alaska is launching a beach monitoring and notification program during the 2007 season. The
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation admin-
isters the program and will contract with local agencies to Alaska’s full-scale monitoring program
conduct monitoring and notification activities. These local begins in 2007.
agencies are being encouraged to sample for eight weeks
during June, July, and August. In 2006, Alaska conducted a pilot monitoring program in order to test procedures.
When the monitoring and notification program begins, the state will not issue either advisories or closures, but local
governments will issue advisories, if necessary, with guidance and cooperation from the state.
The Alaska beach monitoring program is fully supported by BEACH Act grant monies. Alaska received a $150,000
federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $150,000 grant in 2007. Tourism in Alaska is worth about
$2.4 billion and generates 39,420 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Fecal coliform, enterococcus
Standards: Water quality standards for the monitoring program include Alaska’s fecal coliform standard (in a 30-day
period, the geometric mean of five samples may not exceed 100 cfu/100 ml, and not more than one sample may exceed
200 cfu/100 ml) and EPA’s enterococcus standard (single-sample maximum of 276 cfu/100 ml, 30-day 5-sample geo-
metric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml). The enterococcus standards are the BEACH Act—required standards for moderately and
lightly used beaches, and the fecal coliform standard is adopted in state water quality regulations.2 An exceedance of any
of the four standards will trigger a recommendation that an advisory be issued.
Alaska has no preemptive standards as yet, but is hoping to use data gathered in 2007 to provide advance warning
when the probability of fecal contamination is high.1
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, a small amount of sampling was conducted at three beaches as part of a pilot program to test proce-
dures and logistics. Monitoring frequency for beaches in the program will be prioritized based on the types of recreational
activities that occur, the levels of use, and the types of nearby pollution sources.2
Practice: Samples are collected 12 inches below the surface in water that is three feet deep, at high tide if possible.3
Sample results are generally known 24 hours later. In locations where processing samples within six hours is not feasible,
field-based screening methods that provide results for E. coli in 18 hours and Enterococcus in 24 hours will be used.2
Results: There are too few monitoring results to report for 2006. Alaska’s full-scale monitoring program begins in 2007.
Advisories
No advisories were issued in Alaska in 2006 in the pilot program. The monitoring and notification program begins dur-
ing the 2007 season.
Advisory Issuance: If an exceedance is found, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will recommend an
advisory be issued without resampling. The public will be notified of advisories via signs, press releases to television and
radio stations, and fliers. Advisories will be issued for whole beaches, not sections of a beach.
Reopening Procedures: If a beach is placed under advisory, monitoring will occur daily until standards are met.1
Notes
1 Erin Strang, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication, July 2007.
2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Beach Water Quality Monitoring and Pathogen Detection 2007 Quality Assurance Program
Plan, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., April 2007.
3 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Standard Operating Procedure for Sampling Recreational Beach Marine Waters for Microbial
Pathogen Detection and Sample Handling Prior to Sample Analysis 2007, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., March 2007.
California
California has more than 400 beaches stretching along more than 500 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline in 15 counties.
Some of the most popular beaches in the country are in California. More than 450 million tourists and residents use
them annually to swim, wade, surf, and dive.
Nearly two-thirds of beaches in California are monitored For Tier 1 beaches, the percent of
from April 1 to October 31, and most beaches in Southern
samples exceeding the state standard
California plus Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco
County are monitored year-round. Lifeguards generally remained constant at 12 percent
post warnings, known as “advisories,” at beaches when between 2005 and 2006.
water monitoring reveals unhealthy levels of bacteria and
when runoff from rainfall threatens coastal water quality. They generally close beaches contaminated by sewage spills or
other serious health hazards. The state reported a total of 4,644 closing and advisory days statewide in 2006. Most clos-
ings occurred during the wet-weather months between November 1 and March 31.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus.
Standards: For total coliform, the single-sample standard is 1,000 cfu/100 ml if the ratio of fecal/total coliform bac-
teria exceeds 0.1. Otherwise, the single-sample standard for total coliform is 10,000 cfu/100 ml. The total coliform
standard for the geometric mean of at least five weekly samples collected during a 30-day period is 1,000 cfu/100 ml.2
For fecal coliform, the single-sample standard is 400 cfu/100 ml and the standard for the geometric mean of at least
five weekly samples collected during a 30-day period is 200 cfu/100 ml. For enterococcus, the single-sample standard is
104 cfu/100 ml and the standard for the geometric mean of at least five weekly samples collected during a 30-day period
is 35 cfu/100 ml. An exceedance of the single-sample or geometric mean standard of any one of these three indicators
triggers an advisory. Some counties measure E. coli and use the result as a surrogate value for fecal coliform. These stan-
dards were set in California Assembly Bill 411 (the Right to Know Bill) in October 1997. The law requires weekly moni-
toring from April to October at all beaches with more than 50,000 annual visitors or at beaches located in areas adjacent
to stormdrains that flow during the summer. In September 2004, California passed Assembly Bill 1876, which extends
these requirements to all beaches along San Francisco Bay. Sampling under the AB411 program started in July of 1999.
In addition to advisories triggered by indicator exceedances, three-day preemptive rain advisories are automatically
issued for all beaches in five counties (Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Cruz) when rainfall exceeds
predetermined levels, regardless of whether bacterial monitoring samples have been collected and analyzed. Preemptive
advisories are also issued for reasons other than rain, such as excessive debris on the beach. Finally, preemptive closings
are issued when there is a known sewage spill or when sewage is suspected of impacting a beach.
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, 67 percent (276) of California’s public beaches, representing more than 360 miles of coastline, were
monitored between April 1 and October 31. These beaches represent the vast majority of beach day use in California, as
monitoring locations were selected based on the number of visitors, the location of storm drains, NPDES effluent dis-
charge requirements, and legislative requirements. All beaches along the San Francisco Bay are monitored per legislation.
Only two Tier 1 beaches were not monitored: Agate Beach in Humboldt County and Basin H in Los Angeles County.
No Tier 2 or Tier 3 beaches were monitored. Between April 1 and October 31, two beaches were monitored once per
day, eight beaches were monitored five times per week, one beach was monitored four times per week, 13 beaches were
monitored two times per week, 238 beaches were monitored one time per week or four times per month, and 12 beaches
were monitored once per month. During the off-season, from November 1 to March 31, 194 beaches were monitored.
Two of these beaches were monitored once per day, eight were monitored five times per week, five were monitored two
times per week, 162 were monitored once per week or four times per month, five were monitored two times per month,
and 13 were monitored once a month.1
Practice: Samples are taken in ankle-deep water, usually in the morning. Samples are usually collected in the most likely
areas of possible contamination, particularly in Los Angeles County, where many sampling points are located where
creeks or storm drains enter the surf zone, and which are usually permanently posted as being under advisory.
Results: For the third consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded California’s
daily maximum bacterial standards for enterococcus, total coliform, and fecal coliform (some counties are measuring
E. coli and using the results as a surrogate for fecal coliform). For Tier 1 beaches, which are the only ones monitored, the
percent of samples exceeding the standard remained constant at 12 percent between 2005 and 2006.
Six Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were in Los Angeles County (Long Beach—area B-70,
Colorado Lagoon-South, Colorado Lagoon-North, Colorado Lagoon-Center, Avalon Beach north of GP Pier, and
Long Beach—Alamitos Bay Beach at 2nd St. Bridge & Bayshore). Other Tier 1 beaches with the highest amount of
exceedances were: Santa Monica State Beach at Santa Monica Pier and Long Beach (area B‑69) in Los Angeles County,
Marina Lagoon in San Mateo County, and East Beach-Mission Beach in Santa Barbara County.
In 2006, 18 percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken during the year, a
decrease from 20 percent of all monitored beaches in 2005. Mendocino County had the highest percent of monitored
beaches with no exceedances (88%), followed by Sonoma (71%), Monterey (50%), San Diego (32%), Marin (30%),
Ventura (27%), Santa Cruz (24%), San Mateo (15%), Orange (6%), Santa Barbara (5%), and Los Angeles (1%). The
table below lists the Tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches
reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Closings/advisories are issued without resampling when a single-sample or geometric mean
standard for any of three indicators is exceeded. Local health officials may decide to close instead of post an advisory
when exceedances occur for multiple indicators or when they are at a level that is far in excess of the standard. However,
this is rare, and closures are generally issued when it is suspected that sewage is affecting a beach. The public is notified
of advisories and closures by conspicuous warning signs, telephone hotlines, the Internet, and newspaper press releases.
During closures, lifeguards may direct people to get out of the water.
Beaches in California are relatively long. Long Beach, for example, is seven miles long. Therefore, health officials often
issue advisories and closings for one or more sections of a large beach rather than the whole beach when high bacteria
levels are detected at a monitoring site. For example, at beaches with multiple sampling stations, a section of beach that
extends 100 yards on either side of a sampling station may have an advisory if it is the only station at the beach with an
exceedance. Closure distances are based on the size of the sewage spill and the distance of the spill from impacted waters
as well as tides and currents.1
Causes of Closings/Advisories: Ninety-two percent (4,257) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that
revealed elevated bacteria levels. Of these, 97 percent (4,149) were from unknown sources of contamination, 2 percent
(74) were from miscellaneous sources (pets, coastal outlets, boat discharges, etc.), and the remaining 1 percent were from
sewage overflows (20) and stormwater runoff (14). Eight percent (360) were closing days in response to known sewage
spills, and less than 1 percent (27) were preemptive rain advisory days.
Los Angeles County: In 2006, Los Angeles County had 2,072 closing and advisory days, the first decrease in six years, but
still the highest number except for 2005, and still the highest number statewide for the fourth consecutive year. As com-
pared with the 2005 total of 2,213, closing/advisory days decreased 6 percent.
The monitoring data revealed that 95 percent (1,976) of advisory days in 2006 were due to elevated bacteria levels from
unknown sources of contamination. Three percent (69) were closings in response to known sewage spills. In 2006, Los
Angeles County and the City of Long Beach together reported monitoring a total of 49 beaches, all of them once a week.
Los Angeles County advises swimmers that “to stay safe when swimming in the ocean…ocean water should be
avoided for 72 hours after a rainstorm.”3 These general advisories affect all beaches in the county. As a general rule,
the Recreational Health Program issues a rain advisory when there is 0.1 inch or more of rainfall at the University of
Southern California rain gauge, but it varies depending on factors such as how long it has been since the last rainfall,
how sporadic the rainfall is, and where it is falling, since, according to the agency, much of the watershed that feeds storm
drain flow is in the hills and mountains, which have different rainfall levels than at the rain gauge. The county did not
provide 2006 rain advisory information by press time, but based on National Weather Service rainfall data at the USC
rain gauge, there should have been as many as 63 rain advisory days for 2006.
Polluted urban stormwater runoff continues to be the largest source of pollution in Santa Monica Bay and across
California, according to the State Water Board.4 It is a predominant cause of beach closures in each region of the state.
Strong pollution prevention programs are instrumental in reducing and cleaning up stormwater pollution.
Orange County: Orange County reported monitoring a total of 26 beaches between one and five times a week during
the summer swim season. Total closing and advisory days increased 5 percent in 2006 to 975 from 929 in 2005. This
was the first increase for Orange County in at least four years. Ninety-one percent (885) of closing and advisory days in
2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources. Six percent (63) were pre-
emptive closings due to known sewage contamination. Orange County issued county-wide rain advisories, warning of
elevated bacteria levels in the ocean for a period of at least 72 hours after rain events of 0.2 inches or more. The county
reported 75 rain advisory days for 2006.
San Diego County: The total number of closing/advisory days in San Diego County increased 32 percent in 2006 to 714
from 542 in 2005. Approximately 25% of the increase in closing/advisory days in 2006 were related to changes in post-
ing policy; in 2005, the county issued six extended or permanent advisories (each lasting at least 43 consecutive days)
as compared to two in 2006; extended and permanent advisories are not included in NRDC’s total closing/advisory
days. Seventy-one percent (509) of advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels.
Of these, 97 percent (492) were from unknown sources of contamination, and 3 percent (17) were from pets. Twenty-
nine percent (205) were preemptive closings in response to known sewage spills. San Diego also issues preemptive rain
advisories for a period of up to 72 hours after a rain event of 0.2 inches or more. In 2006, San Diego County reported
issuing 43 rain advisory days.
Santa Barbara County: The total number of closing/advisory days in Santa Barbara County decreased 56 percent in 2006
to 285 from 653 in 2005. The number had doubled the year before from 330 in 2004. All advisory days in 2006 were
due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources.
Ventura County: The total number of closing/advisory days in Ventura County decreased for the fourth year in a row
(61 percent) in 2006 to 168 from 434 in 2005. All advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels. Of these, 92 percent (154) were from unknown sources, and 8 percent (14) were due to stormwater
runoff.
Notes
1 Michael Gjerde, California State Water Resources Control Board, personal communication, June 2007.
2 Regulations for Public Beaches and Ocean Water-Contact Sports Areas, Title 17 of the California Code, Group 10, Article 4, accessed at www.dhs.
ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/AB411_Regulations, June 2007.
3 Christopher Stevens, senior water resources control engineer, State Water Resources Control Board, personal communication, June 29, 2004.
4 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Recreational Health Program website, FAQs, available at: http://lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/
envirp/rechlth/ehrecocfaq.htm.
5 “Urban runoff is a leading cause of pollution throughout California,” State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No.__2003–0005–
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit No. CAS000004 Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Finding 1.
6 40 CFR Part 131, “Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters: Final Rule,” November 16, 2004.
Connecticut
Connecticut has 67 public beaches stretching along 18 miles of Long Island Sound coastline, all of which were
monitored in 2006. Beach monitoring efforts in Connecticut are coordinated by the Connecticut Department of
Public Health, which administers the state’s BEACH Act grant. The state of Connecticut does not require that beaches
be monitored, but coastal beaches covered by its federal
BEACH Act grant must be regularly tested for indicator For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
organisms. Shoreline health departments monitor munici- samples exceeding the state standard
pal marine bathing areas, and the Connecticut Department remained constant at 4 percent
of Environmental Protection monitors the state park
beaches. All counties with marine coastline (Fairfield,
between 2005 and 2006.
Middlesex, New Haven, and New London) have monitored beaches, and the Connecticut beach monitoring season
stretches from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The 2006 swim season saw more rainfall than usual, which accounts at least
in part for the increased number of closing and advisory days in 2006.
Connecticut received a $223,370 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $224,010 grant in 2007.
Connecticut provides monitoring guidance to coastal municipal officials and the Connecticut Department of Public
Health offers sample analysis free of charge at its lab in Hartford. Examples of costs not covered by the BEACH Act
grant include 1) shoreline towns and municipalities cover the cost for their marine beach water sample collection and
public notification efforts; 2) some shoreline towns choose to contract with municipal or local environmental laboratories
for marine water sample analysis, and these costs are covered by those shoreline towns; 3) the cost of full-time laboratory
personnel required for sample analysis is covered by the state of Connecticut; 4) beach data collection, management, and
analysis for state park marine beaches are not covered by the US EPA beach grant; 5) revision of the Quality Assurance
Project Plan, which is required by the U.S. EPA for beach grant recipient states and territories, is covered by the state of
Connecticut; and 6) the costs of oversight, audit, and management of beach grant expenses are covered by the state of
Connecticut.1 Tourism contributes $6.9 billion to the state’s economy, generating 60,700 jobs (see Table ••). Tourism
in Connecticut contributes about $9.1 billion to the state’s economy and generates 110,775 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus
Standards: Since at least 2000, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut
Department of Public Health have used the BEACH Act–required standards for marine and estuarine beaches: an
enterococcus single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. Some municipali-
ties use either the single sample maximum or the geometric mean to trigger closing and advisory decisions, while for
other municipalities, both the single-sample maximum and the geometric mean must be exceeded to trigger closing and
advisory decisions.
A number of municipalities have adopted a rainfall threshold. When this threshold is reached, beaches are auto
matically closed until test results indicate that there is no bacterial violation. Local health departments may close beaches
if there is a known sewage spill or indications of sewage plant debris. These decisions may be based on currents, tides,
wind direction, or other factors.
Monitoring
Frequency: The Connecticut Department of Public Health provided 2006 monitoring frequency information for all
67 public beaches along 18 miles of coastline. Monitoring locations were selected using a risk-based approach. All Tier 1
and Tier 2 beaches were monitored once a week, and all Tier 3 beaches were monitored once a week except for two
beaches that were monitored three times a month.1 This means that 97 percent (65) of Connecticut’s beaches were moni-
tored once a week and 3 percent (2) were monitored three times a month.
Practice: Samples are taken 12 to 18 inches below the surface in water that is three to four feet deep.2 Sampling results
are available no sooner than 24 hours after the sample is delivered to the lab. Sampling generally takes place Monday
through Thursday, usually before noon.
Results: Although 65 of Connecticut’s 67 public beaches were reported as monitored at least once a week in 2006,
Connecticut told NRDC that its level of BEACH Act grant funding allowed it to maintain data for only 54 beaches in
2006.2 For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Connecticut’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the state standard remained
constant at 4 percent between 2005 and 2006.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Kiddie’s Beach (29%) and Green Harbor
Beach (19%) in New London County, followed by Esposito Beach (13%) and Clinton Town Beach (13%) in Middlesex
County, Ocean Beach Park in New London (11%), Island Beach in Fairfield County (9%), Jacobs Town Beach in New
Haven County (9%), Waterford Town Beach in New London (9%), and Clark Avenue Beach in New Haven (8%).
Forty-eight percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Middlesex
County had the most beaches with no exceedances (67%) followed by New Haven (47%), New London (45%), and
Fairfield (45%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard
for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: Closing and advisory procedures differ among the different monitoring agencies within
the state.
When routine samples exceed the state standards, the state recommends that a resample be taken and a sanitary
survey be conducted to determine if raw or partially treated sewage is contributing to the elevated bacterial levels. If
the survey reveals discharges of raw or partially treated sewage, then the state recommends that the bathing area be
closed. If sample results exceed the standards and a sanitary survey reveals no evidence of sewage contamination, the
state recommends that the bathing area be examined on an individual basis with consultation from the Connecticut
Department of Public Health before any decision about closure is made. A beach whose samples exceed the standards
may remain open if a sanitary survey reveals no sign of a sewage spill.2 Some municipalities collect multiple samples at
each monitoring event, and in most cases, if more than one sample exceeds the standard, they will close the beach with-
out resample.
The monitoring agency for each beach is responsible for notifying the public of beach closures and advisories.
Notification methods vary and include signs, radio announcements, telephone hotlines, and the internet.1
Sections of a beach or a whole beach may be placed under advisory or closed, depending on the circumstances.
Reopening Procedures: For the four state park beaches monitored by the Department of Environmental Protection,
resampling is conducted every day until the beach is reopened or the advisory is lifted.3
Causes of Closings and Advisories: Seventy-eight percent (174) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were preemptive rainfall
advisories. Eighteen percent (41) were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels. Of these, 66 percent (27)
were due to stormwater, 17 percent (7) were due to unknown sources, 10 percent (4) were due to boats, and 7 percent
(3) were due to wildlife. Four percent (8) of closing/advisory days were preemptive due to known sewage spills, and less
than one percent (1 day) was preemptive due to other causes.
Notes
1 Jon Dinneen, Connecticut Department of Public Health, personal communication, May 2007.
2 Jon Dinneen, Connecticut Department of Public Health, personal communication, July 2007.
3 Connecticut Dept of Public Health and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Indicator
Bacteria Monitoring at Public Bathing Beaches, available at http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/quality_assurance/qaap_water/qapp_indbac.pdf, February
2003.
Delaware
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) administers Delaware’s beach
monitoring and notification program. The state has sampled swimming water at varying levels of intensity since 1979.
Delaware has about 25 miles of Delaware Bay coastline and 26 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline. All three counties
(Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex) have coastline, but all moni-
tored beaches are in Sussex County. The monitoring season
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
stretches from the first Monday in May to the second samples exceeding the state standard
Monday in September. went from 0 percent in 2005 to 1 per-
Delaware issued advisories only in 2006, and no
cent in 2006.
closings. All of the indicator-based advisories were for
freshwater swimming areas. State policy is to issue advisories and not closings for indicator exceedances. However, cir-
cumstances that would trigger an imminent health threat would trigger a closure. Permanent swimming advisories were
issued for two marine beaches, Holts Landing Beach (Indian River Bay) and Tower Road Bayside (Rehoboth Bay).1
These two beaches were historically under indicator-based advisories for 20 days during the beach season, which made
them difficult to staff with lifeguards. Because of the greater probability of an advisory and to save on lifeguard costs,
these beaches were placed under permanent advisory.2
Delaware received a $210,750 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $211,040 grant in 2007.
The full cost of Delaware’s coastal beach monitoring and notification program is approximately double the amount
of the BEACH Act grant.2 Tourism in Delaware contributes about $1.2 billion and generates 23,000 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Delaware has adopted BEACH Act–required standards: for ocean and bay waters, an enterococcus
s ingle‑sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml.3 EPA standards for coastal
beaches and fresh water were formally adopted as per Title 7 of the Delaware Annotated Code in 2004.2 For
freshwater, Delaware’s enterococcus standard is a geometric mean of 100 cfu/100 ml and a single sample of
185 cfu/100 ml.
Delaware has preemptive rainfall advisory standards for freshwater but not marine swimming areas. People are advised
not to swim in small, inland waterways after a heavy rain due to runoff from the land. The Shellfish and Recreational
Water Branch may issue swimming advisories based on rainfall events in excess of the applicable standards, and/or may
issue a blanket rainfall advisory for all swimming areas when an intensive and extensive rainfall occurs.1 The freshwater
preemptive standards are 2.5 inches of rain within 24 hours or 1.5 inches within 12 hours. The DNREC indicates it
believes that the majority of Delaware’s ocean and bay beaches are not significantly affected by rainfall. The exception is
Tower Road Bay Side (Rehoboth Bay) Beach, which is significantly affected by rainfall and runoff and which is under a
permanent swimming advisory.
Monitoring
Frequency: The DNREC monitored 20 ocean and bay beaches for the 2006 swim season. Beaches were initially priori
tized for the monitoring program based on whether they were regulated and lifeguards were present, but now all of the
Atlantic Ocean coastline and the bay coastline south of Slaughter Beach is considered to be covered under the program.
All Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches were assigned a weekly monitoring frequency in 2006. However, Holts Landing Beach, a
Tier 1 beach, was not monitored the weeks of May 8 or July 31. Another Tier 1 beach, Broadkill Beach, was not moni-
tored the week of May 29. Slaughter Beach (Tier 1), Prime Hook Beach (Tier 2), and Tower Road Bayside (Tier 2) were
not monitored the week of July 3, and Lewes Beach South (Tier 1) was not monitored the week of July 10. There are no
Tier 3 beaches.
Practice: Samples are taken in knee-deep water, generally on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays.2 Results are available
24 hours after sampling.1 Replicate samples are sometimes taken.1
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Delaware’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard went from 0
percent in 2005 to 1 percent in 2006.
In 2006, 18 percent of monitoring samples exceeded the state’s standards at one Tier 1 beach (Holts Landing). Ninety
percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. The table below lists the tier
status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are
grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Indicator-based beach advisories are not issued in Delaware unless re-sampling confirms an
exceedance. Whether advisories are issued for an entire beach or for a section of beach is taken up on a case-by-case basis.
The DNREC examines bacterial monitoring results, along with other factors, before issuing a “no swimming” advisory.
For example, if the DNREC determines that elevated bacterial levels are the result of natural conditions and are present-
ing no threat to public health, an advisory will not be issued. The DNREC provides an advisory information line during
the summer (800-922-WAVE), posts monitoring results and current advisory status on its website (http://www.dnrec.
state.de.us/dnreceis/Div_Water/Apps/RecWater/Asp/RecWaterPublic.asp), and offers automatic updates to beachgoers
via email messages. Also, signs are posted.
Reopening Procedures: Once an advisory is issued, the beach is monitored more frequently until the advisory can be
lifted.2
Causes of Closings/Advisories: There were no marine beach closures in 2006. All advisory days were for two beaches,
Holts Landing Beach and Tower Road Bayside, which were placed under permanent advisory.
Notes
1 Delaware Deptartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 2006 Recreational Water Year-End Report, not dated.
2 Jack Pingree, Environmental Program Manager, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, personal communication,
May 2007.
3 40 CFR Part 131, “Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters: Final Rule,” November 16, 2004.
Florida
With its year-round swim season and more than 1,000 miles of coastal beach, Florida has by far the most coastal swim-
mers in the nation.1 The state has 634 public coastal beaches stretching along the Atlantic and Gulf coastline. The
Florida Department of Health (FDOH) administers the state’s beach monitoring and notification program. Monitoring
and advisory/warning issuance are conducted by Florida’s
county health departments, which are agents and employ- For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
ees of the FDOH. Local health departments in 34 of the of samples exceeding the standard
state’s 35 coastal counties (Jefferson County has no acces-
sible beaches) monitor an average of nine sites each, so that
decreased to 6 percent in 2006 from
nearly half of the beaches in the state are monitored. The 8 percent in 2005.
peak monitoring season is from April to mid-September.
Florida’s Big Bend area had the highest beach advisory rate in 2006, probably due to a combination of poor water
circulation with silty, organic-laden bottom soils and multiple streams draining many square miles of natural woodlands,
silviculture, and farmlands.2 Generally, drought conditions impacted the beach program in 2006, with statewide pre-
cipitation at 80 percent of normal, but the year did see two tropical storms come ashore. On June 13, rain from Alberto
flooded the cities of Perry and Homossassa Springs. On August 30, heavy rainfall from Ernesto affected Collier County
along with many other counties in south Florida.
Shired Island, which is perhaps incorrectly classified as a beach, has ongoing high bacteria counts. This site is in a
remote area of Dixie County, six miles from the nearest municipality by sea and two miles from any private residences.
It is adjacent to a National Wildlife Refuge and has a small county park with facilities. With its low wave action and
shallow mucky water, this site can be best described as a saltwater marsh or estuary. The Dixie County Soil and Water
Conservation District has expressed an interest in researching the high bacteria counts at the site and has paid for limited
initial source tracking that indicated there was no human component to the enterococcus counts at the beach. Further
funding is being sought from the Suwannee River Water Management District to upgrade the facilities at the site and
conduct further source tracking.
Beach warnings are issued in Florida when fecal coliform levels exceed standards and advisories are issued when
enterococcus levels exceed standards. As far as the beachgoing public goes, these are identical, so NRDC refers to both
warnings and advisories as advisories. There is no statutory authority for closing beaches.
The Florida Healthy Beaches Program received a $528,410 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006, along with an alloca-
tion of $525,000 in recurring general revenue from the state. Florida is eligible for a $534,700 BEACH Act grant in
2007. Tourism in Florida contributes about $62 billion to the state’s economy and generates 948,700 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus, fecal coliform
Standards: Florida uses the EPA standards for Enterococcus of a single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geomet-
ric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml, as well as a fecal coliform single-sample standard of 400 cfu/100 ml, to determine the health
safety of beachwater. In most coastal counties, officials issue an advisory if any one of the three standards is exceeded. The
fecal coliform standard has been adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in state rule, and the
FDOH is given the authority to monitor and advise about the health impacts of swimming at beaches under state statute.2
Pinellas County has a preemptive rainfall standard for two saltwater beaches: Maximo and North Shore. Maximo
Beach’s standard is 0.8 inch within a 24-hour period, while North Shore Beach’s standard is one inch within a 24-hour
period. Okaloosa County has a preemptive rain standard for freshwater beaches that is in effect only when there is hard
rain for eight hours or more than four inches of rain falls within two days. Martin County has a preemptive standard
based on turbidity, and Monroe County also issues preemptive rainfall advisories. Most counties will warn against swim-
ming after a sewage spill until sampling results are satisfactory. After a hurricane or tropical storm comes ashore, precau-
tionary advisories are issued.
Monitoring
Frequency: Since August 2002, 307 sites in 34 coastal counties have been monitored once a week. However, it may not
have been the same 307 sites at all times. In 2006, the 307 monitored beaches represented 576 miles of coastline.
Beaches are prioritized for monitoring on a county-by-county basis. Criteria are population served, pollution poten-
tial, and rainfall. While this ensures that the most critical beaches in each county are monitored, there are a wide variety
of beach characteristics in Florida, and beaches chosen for monitoring in one county may not be as important as beaches
in another county. Florida is currently working on implementing a statewide program for prioritizing its beaches, so that
the most important beaches in the state are monitored.
Practice: Samples are collected in water that is approximately 18 inches deep, usually in the morning. Lab analysis takes a
minimum of 24 hours to complete, and with transport and reporting, county health departments usually receive results
about 30 hours after samples are collected. Most sampling is conducted on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, with
some resampling done on Thursdays.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Florida’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
6 percent in 2006 from 8 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Cedar Island in Taylor County (89%) fol-
lowed by Shired Island in Dixie County (85%); Dekle Beach (70%), Keaton Beach (68%), and Hagen’s Cove in Taylor
County (64%); Navy Point-Bayou Grande (61%), Bayview Park (55%), and Bayou Chico in Escambia County (52%);
Carrabelle Beach in Franklin County (49%); Mash Island in Wakulla County (48%).
Forty-two percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Brevard,
Flagler, Indian River, St Lucie, and Hernando Counties had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances
(100%), followed by Volusia (80%), Walton (75%), and Collier (71%). The table below lists the tier status, monitor-
ing frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by
county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Advisories were issued for Florida beaches 285 times in 2006. The number of advisory days for events lasting six consecu-
tive weeks or fewer at Florida beaches decreased 10 percent, to 2,686 days in 2006 from 2,991 days in 2005. There were
13 extended and nine permanent advisory events in Florida in 2006 compared to 13 extended events and seven perma-
nent events in 2005. Advisories at Florida’s 308 Tier 1 beaches decreased from 3,328 days in 2004 to 2,991 days in 2005,
then decreased again to 2,686 days in 2006. During the time period over which this steady decrease in advisory days
occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches was steady.
Advisory Issuance: The Florida Department of Health requires that swimming advisories be issued when monitoring
samples exceed the BEACH Act–required geometric mean or single-sample maximum standard for enterococcus, and
that warnings be issued when state fecal coliform levels are exceeded. Counties are responsible for issuing warnings and
advisories.2 There is no practical difference between an advisory and a warning—the program makes the distinction
based simply on the indicator organism that is triggering the action. All advisories and warnings are referred to in this
report as advisories.
If a sample exceeds a standard, an advisory is issued unless the county can conduct a follow-up sample within the
same week. If the re-sample confirms an exceedance, a advisory is issued. The Florida Department of Health posts moni-
toring results for all 307 beaches on its website. Local media is alerted and signs are posted at the beach when a advisory
is issued. Advisories apply to entire beaches, not to sections of beaches.
Reopening Procedures: Most sites in Florida are sampled weekly and the monitoring frequency does not increase if an
advisory is issued. Resamples are instead taken to confirm poor water quality results.
Causes of Advisories: All (2,686) of Florida’s beach advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 NOAA, Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation, November 2001.
2 David Polk, Florida Department of Health, personal communication, July 2007.
Georgia
The Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources administers Georgia’s beach monitor-
ing and notification program. Georgia has 41 beaches that cover 118 miles along the Atlantic Coast and its barrier islands
in Camden, Glynn, McIntosh, Liberty, and Chatham Counties.1 More than two-thirds of the beaches are monitored,
and most of the monitored beaches are sampled year-
round. Monitored beaches are found in Chatham, Glynn,
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
and McIntosh counties. Beaches that are not monitored samples exceeding the state standard
year-round are sampled from April through November. decreased to 4 percent in 2006 from
Drought conditions existed for the 2006 swim season.
9 percent in 2005.
Although the Health Department can issue a closing in the
case of an immediate threat to public health, such as a sewage spill,1 only advisories were issued in 2006, with no clos-
ings. The spring months of March, April, and May were the busiest time of year for advisories, with the most advisories
issued for Jekyll St. Andrews and Jekyll Clam Creek beaches.1 An attempt to restore oyster reefs in these two areas is
being made and it is hoped that the restored reefs will lead to lower bacteria levels in the water.1
Georgia received a $286,200 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006, and is eligible for a grant of $287,200 in 2007.
Tourism contributes $15.4 billion to the state’s economy, generating 211,800 jobs.
Standards: The BEACH Act–required standards for ocean and bay waters are an enterococcus single-sample maximum
of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. In Georgia, if either standard is exceeded, an advisory is is-
sued.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Coastal Resources Division began monitoring beachwater during the
2003 swim season. That year, they monitored for fecal coliform because the regulatory standards for marine swimming
in Georgia are based on fecal coliform. Starting in 2004 with the BEACH Act, Georgia began monitoring beachwater
for enterococcus. During the 2004 swim season, they also monitored for fecal coliform. However, during this year, they
noted that fecal coliform was not necessarily found in samples that contained enterococcus, presumably because fecal coli
form is more quickly destroyed in marine waters than enterococcus. Georgia has monitored solely for enterococcus since
2005. Georgia conducts a review of their standards triennially and may revise their water quality rules so that they are
aligned with the federal standards during the next review.
Georgia has no preemptive advisory standards but permanent advisories are issued for beaches that have ongoing
water quality issues; Kings Ferry was under permanent advisory in 2006.1
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, Georgia monitored 28 beaches covering 52 miles of coastline.1 Forty-six percent (19) of the state’s
41 beaches were monitored once a week, 22 percent (9) were monitored once a month, and 32 percent (13) were not
monitored. Beaches that are assigned Tier 1 status have large populations nearby, have tourist accommodations, are easily
accessible, and have the most amenities. Tier 2 beaches are less accessible and have a smaller nearby population. All Tier
1 and 2 beaches were monitored in 2006. Tier 3 beaches are the most remote beaches in uninhabited areas, and were not
monitored in 2006.1
Practice: Samples are taken in about 3 feet of water (from wavetop) at a depth of 15–30 cm. Samples are generally taken
in the morning in order to reach the laboratory in time to be processed that day, so that results are available the next day.
Sampling occurs Monday through Thursday.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Georgia’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
4 percent in 2006 from 9 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were St. Andrews Picnic Area (Jekyll) (22%), fol-
lowed by Jekyll Clam Creek (11%), and 12th St. Goulds Inlet (SSI) (7%), all in Glynn County.
Fifty-nine percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Mcintosh
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (100%), followed by Chatham (67%), and Glynn
(50%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all
beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
conditions that existed during 2006. There were fewer extended and permanent beach closings and advisories in 2006
than in 2005 as well, with two extended events and one permanent event in 2006 compared to three extended events and
one permanent event in 2005. Advisories at Georgia’s 17 Tier 1 beaches increased from 354 days in 2004 to 500 days in
2005, then decreased to 135 days in 2006. During the 2004 to 2006 period over which this overall decrease in advisory
days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches was steady.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: When either of the BEACH Act–required standards is exceeded, the Coastal Resources
Division notifies the Georgia Division of Public Health and the local health districts. The local health district issues an
advisory and posts signs at the beach. The public is notified within 24 hours. No other factors are taken into account be-
fore issuing an advisory, and resampling to confirm an exceedance is not done before an advisory is issued. Entire beaches
are placed under advisory, not sections of beach. Monitoring results and advisories are posted on the department’s website
and on Earth911.org. In addition, the media is notified and e-mail alerts are sent when an advisory occurs.1
Reopening Procedures: The monitoring frequency for a beach increases when an exceedance occurs: for a Tier 1 beach
under advisory, the beach is resampled the following day (the day after the lab results are received) and then twice weekly
until the bacteria levels drop below the threshold level. For Tier 2 beaches under advisory, the beach is re-sampled weekly
until the bacteria levels drop. When both the geometric mean and the single-sample maximum are within the BEACH
Act–required standards, the local health district drops the advisory.1
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less in 2006 were due to
monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources.
Notes
1 Elizabeth Cheney, Beach Water Quality Manager, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, May 2007.
Hawaii
Hawaii has more than 400 public beaches stretching along nearly 300 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline. The Clean Water
Branch of the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) runs a statewide beachwater-quality monitoring program. The
monitoring season in this tropical state is year-round,
and nearly a third of the beaches, representing beaches For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
in all four of Hawaii’s counties, are monitored. Hawaii’s samples exceeding the state standard
Department of Health does not have the authority to close decreased to 3 percent in 2006 from
beaches; instead, they issue advisories that are associated
with storm water runoff and post warnings that are associ- 4 percent in 2005.
ated with high indicator counts, known sewage spills, or evidence of sewage spills. Hawaii uses beach monitoring data
as evidence of sewer leaks and if indicator counts are continuously high, they search for the source of the discharge and
remedy it.
In Hawaii, 2006 will be remembered as the Year of Rain. For 42 days, Oahu endured nonstop rain that caused sewer
manholes to overflow and contributed to the break of the beachwalk force main in Waikiki. In March of 2006, there were
as many as 16 sewer overflows happening at the same time. These nonstop heavy rains resulted in a 48 million gallon spill
into the Ala Wai Canal. Most warnings in 2006 occurred on Oahu in the spring and were due to this large rain event.1
Hawaii received a $323,020 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $323,660 grant in 2007. An addi-
tional $719,552 in state funds was spent in 2006 to support nine people.2 Tourism contributes $11.4 billion to the state’s
economy, generating 183,800 jobs.
Standards: The BEACH Act–required standards for ocean and bay waters are an enterococcus single-sample maximum
of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. Hawaii’s standards for enterococcus in 2006 were stricter
than this with a single-sample maximum of 100 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 7 cfu/100 ml. The geometric mean
standard is applied in most cases, while the single-sample maximum standard is only meant to be used by beach managers
who were able to sample only a few times a month. While its standards are stricter than federal standards, Hawaii does
not rely on enterococcus levels alone when determining whether to post a warning at a beach. Because of studies that
show that enterococcus replicates in biofilm and in sand, the Department of Health has concluded that when enterococ-
cus is found in near-shore waters, it may indicate contamination from the soil rather than sewage pollution. Therefore,
for both marine water and freshwater, the state also measures levels of Clostridia perfringens, which is another bacteria
found at high concentrations in human feces. In 2006, Hawaii’s “level of warning” for Clostridia was 5 cfu/100 ml.2
Hawaii’s water quality rules have yet to be updated, but attempts to begin this process are being made. The state is
going to increase the geometric mean standard for Enterococcus to be in line with the EPA standard and is currently using
50 cfu/100 ml as the level of warning for Clostridia.2
Preemptive rainfall advisories are issued when rains are unusually heavy or when a flood warning issued by the
National Weather Service indicates that there will be a discharge of significant quantities of turbid storm waters into
coastal areas. These preemptive rainfall advisories, called “Brown Water Advisories,” can be issued statewide, island-wide,
or to specific areas of one island.
Monitoring
Frequency: Hawaii monitored 30 percent (131) of its 428 coastal beaches in 2006. The monitored beaches represent
about 109 miles of coastline.
HDOH divides beaches into three tiers, based on the risk of illness to swimmers and the frequency of use. Tier 1
beaches are Hawaii’s important and threatened beaches and are monitored year-round. Groups of Tier 2 beaches are
sampled weekly for six-month periods until all Tier 2 beaches have been sampled. After the six-month period, data are
evaluated to determine if any Tier 2 beach needs continued monitoring. If the data suggests that a Tier 2 beach requires
continued monitoring, the monitoring will continue for another six months or the beach will be upgraded to Tier 1
classification. A Tier 1 beach can also be lowered to a Tier 2 classification based on bacteria counts and the degree of rec-
reational use. In 2006, Hawaii’s 52 Tier 1 beaches were monitored twice weekly year-round and 79 Tier 2 beaches were
sampled weekly for six months out of the year. Tier 3 beaches have low bacteria counts, limited recreational use, or dif-
ficult access and receive no further monitoring except for a review of status each year.
Practice: Samples are taken in the morning a foot below the surface in water that is knee to waist deep. Sampling results
are known 24 hours after sampling. Samples are generally taken on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.2
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Hawaii’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
3 percent in 2006 from 4 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Kualoa Beach Park in Honolulu County and
West of Lydgate Park Wading Pool in Kauai County (14%), followed by Kuhio Beach in Honolulu County (12%),
Honolii Cove (Ocean) in Hawaii County (10%), and Waimea Bay in Honolulu (10%).
Fifty-six percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Hawaii County
had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (68%), followed by Honolulu (56%), Maui (50%), and Kauai
(43%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all
beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Warning/Advisory Issuance: Hawaii’s standard for enterococcus is one of the strictest in the nation, but the Depart
ment of Health does not always post a warning if the standard has been exceeded. A warning is posted when the
geometric mean is exceeded and the Clostridia count exceeds its level of action and if the exceedances are not expected
to be due to weather-related issues. Warnings are also posted if there is a confirmed sewage spill or other evidence
of human fecal contamination. For weather-related issues, a Brown Water Advisory is issued. Information about
warnings and advisories is disseminated via a telephone hotline, email, signs, and the media. Depending on the size of
the beach, warnings and advisories could be issued for a section of beach, for a whole beach, or even beyond the beach’s
boundaries.
Reopening Procedures: If a warning for a beach is posted due to a known sewage spill, daily monitoring is conducted
until the beach is reopened.2
Causes of Warnings and Advisories: In 2006, 96 percent (6,272) of warning and advisory days for events lasting six con-
secutive weeks or less were preemptive rain advisories, 3 percent (166) were preemptive sewer warnings, and 1 percent
(69) were warnings due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from stormwater.
Notes
1 Hawaii Department of Health, Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act 2006 Notification Report to EPA, not dated.
2 Watson Okubo, Hawaii Department of Health, personal communication, May 2007.
Illinois
Illinois has 73 public Great Lakes beaches along approximate 60 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. The Illinois
Department of Public Health (IDPH) administers the state’s beach monitoring program. The IDPH and the Lake
County Health Department issue closings at state-run
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
beaches. Otherwise, local municipalities and park districts
close beaches. Local health agencies in Cook and Lake of samples exceeding the standard
Counties monitored the water quality of about three- increased to 15 percent in 2006 from
fourths of the Great Lakes beaches in 2006. The monitor-
14 percent in 2005.
ing season extends from Labor Day to Memorial Day.
As part of its efforts to educate the public, the beach program has posted “Don’t feed the waterfowl” signs at several
beaches to discourage people who want to feed the birds, which can contribute significant fecal loads to the water.1
It is up to the managing entity for each beach to issue a closure or an advisory depending upon the U.S. EPA
guidance and their own policies.2 Most closings and advisories issued in 2006 occurred in July.2
Illinois received a $242,940 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $244,120 grant in 2007. BEACH
Act grants fully fund the Great Lakes beach monitoring program. Tourism in Illinois contributes about $26.2 billion to
the state’s economy and generates 300,100 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli
Standards: The water quality standard in Illinois is an E. coli single-sample maximum of 235 cfu/100 ml, which matches
the BEACH Act–required single-sample maximum for freshwater beaches. The BEACH Act–required freshwater beach
E. coli standard for the geometric mean of five samples taken over a 30-day period of 126 cfu/100 ml is not applied when
making closing and advisory decisions. Illinois’s current legislation specifically exempts municipalities operating beaches
on Lake Michigan from the standards published in the swimming pool and bathing beach section of state regulatory
code. However, municipalities operating beaches on Lake Michigan comply with the EPA single-sample guidelines and
the state program standards.
At the discretion of the managing entity, other factors are often considered in beach action decisions, including rain
events and predictive models. The motivation to use predictive models is that health warnings are not issued until at least
24 hours after samples are taken because of the time it takes sampling results to be known. A study of the reliability of
one predictive model, SwimCast, indicates that it correctly predicts whether E. coli concentrations are above or below the
235 cfu/100 ml standard 85 and 86 percent of the time, respectively.1 SwimCast predictions can be made on an hourly basis.
At a minimum, predictions are generally made at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and whenever hydrometeorological conditions change
at beaches where SwimCast is used. For each beach where the SwimCast system exists, there are similar but slightly different
predictive models utilized. However, the determination of swim bans and risk advisories is the same at all locations: 1) A
swim ban occurs when the lower 99 percent confidence interval prediction is above 235 MPN/100 ml and is posted as a red
flag. This is the highest risk condition. 2) When the average and upper 99% confidence interval prediction is above, but the
lower 99 percent confidence interval prediction is below 235 MPN/100 ml, this is considered to be a moderate- to high-risk
condition and is posted as an advisory at the beach. 3) When the upper 99 percent confidence interval prediction is above,
but the average and the lower 99 percent confidence interval predictions are below 235 MPN/100 ml, this is considered to
be a moderate-risk condition and is posted at the beach. 4) When the upper 99 percent confidence interval prediction is
below 235 MPN/100 ml, this is considered to be a low-risk condition and posted as a green flag condition.
Monitoring
Frequency: Sampling frequencies for Illinois’s monitored Great Lakes beaches are among the highest in the nation. In
2006, 54 Great Lakes beaches representing 20 miles of shoreline were monitored. All Tier 1 beaches as well as some
Tier 2 and Tier 3 beaches were monitored. Most beaches are sampled daily, as Illinois believes that daily monitoring is
most protective of public health. Beaches in Lake and suburban Cook counties were monitored seven days a week while
beaches in Chicago were monitored Monday through Friday. In all, in 2006, 74 percent (54) of the Lake Michigan
beaches reported in Illinois were monitored at least five times a week, and 26 percent (19) were not monitored.
Practice: Samples are taken in water that is knee- to waist-deep, usually in the morning. Generally, 24 hours pass before
sampling results are known. Sampling takes place every day of the week except in Chicago, where it is conducted on
weekdays unless a beach is closed, in which case sampling continues through the weekend until samples are once again
below the standard.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Illinois’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
15 percent in 2006 from 14 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Jackson Park Beach in Cook County (54%);
North Point Marina North Beach in Lake County (47%); Calumet South Beach (28%), 31st Street Beach (25%),
Montrose Beach (24%), Rainbow Beach (24%), and South Shore in Cook County (23%); Illinois Beach State Park
South Beach in Lake County (23%); and Pratt Blvd And Park Beach in Cook County (23%).
One beach in Illinois, Wilmette Gillson Park Dog Beach, had no exceedances in 2006. The table below lists the tier
status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are
grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
in Illinois in 2006 compared to one in 2005. Closings and advisories at Illinois’s Tier 1 beaches increased from 447 days
in 2004 to 584 days in 2005, then increased again to 591 days in 2006. During the time period over which this increase
in closing days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches was steady.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: If a sample exceeds the standard, action is taken in all jurisdictions.2 Two samples are
taken daily by the Wilmette Health Department and the Winnetka Park District, both in Cook County. If one sample
exceeds the standard, they resample before closing, but if both exceed they close the beach.
The public is notified of beach actions via websites and signs at the beach. The Chicago Park District in Cook
County flies green flags when a beach meets standards, yellow flags when the reading is between 235 and 1000 cfu/100
ml, and red flags when levels exceed 1000 cfu/100 ml.2 Closing and advisory actions affect entire beaches rather than sec-
tions of beaches in Illinois.
Reopening Procedures: Monitoring on a daily basis continues when a beach is closed. Beaches are reopened only when
daily samples are within the health standard. For beaches under the Wilmette Health Department and the Winnetka
Park District, both samples taken in a day have to meet standards for the beach to reopen.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All of Illinois’s beach closures were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria
levels. Ninety-eight percent (580) of these elevated levels were reported as due to stormwater and 2 percent (11) were
attributed to wildlife.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
2 Justin DeWitt, Illinois Department of Health, personal communication, July 2007.
Indiana
Indiana has 25 public Great Lakes beaches stretching along 23 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management administers the state’s beach monitoring program. Lake, Porter, and
La Porte counties all have Great Lakes beaches that are
monitored. Every Great Lakes beach in Indiana where For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
swimming is allowed and that has public access is moni- samples exceeding the state standard
tored under the program.1 Generally, the monitoring sea- increased to 19 percent in 2006 from
son is from late May through the first week of September.
16 percent in 2005.
Actual sampling may begin and end a week earlier or later.
Beginning with the 2005 swim season, authority was transferred from the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management to local beach managers for determining whether to post an advisory or a closing. Beach managers make
the decision based on their lab test results (or on model results at beaches where predictive models are used).2 Most of the
beach closing and advisory days in 2006 occurred at beaches in Lake County.
Indiana received a $205,800 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $205,960 grant in 2007. Tourism
in Indiana contributes about $8.9 billion dollars to the state’s economy and generates 264,960 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli
Standards: Indiana uses BEACH Act–required standards: an E. coli single-sample maximum of 235 cfu/100 ml and a
30‑day, five-sample geometric mean of 126 cfu/100 ml. These standards are established in the Indiana Administrative
Code.3 Up until the 2004 swim season, exceedance of the single-sample maximum or the 30-day geometric mean
standard required a beach closure. Under a new policy announced on May 5, 2005, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management transferred authority for making beach closure and advisory decisions to local beach
managers.1
Local health departments have a statutory obligation to notify the public of a condition that may cause, transmit, or
generate disease. La Porte County issues a preemptive rain advisory if excessive debris, such as oil globules or algae, is found
in the lake or on the beach. Park departments close the beach for weather and current conditions, such as a rip current.
BEACH Act grants have been used to partially fund predictive model development; these models make predic-
tions based on current conditions, turbidity, chlorophyll, and color. In 2006, a model called Project SAFE was used to
issue preemptive closures for Ogden Dunes, Wells Street, Marquette, and Lake Street beaches. Each morning, Monday
through Friday, beach managers were given the model’s predicted likelihood that the E. coli count would exceed safe lim-
its. On that basis the beach manager would choose whether to issue an advisory or closing. Direct bacterial monitoring
also continues at these beaches to complement the predictive modeling information.
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, Indiana reported 25 Great Lakes beaches, all of which were monitored.2 Some of these beaches have
more than one monitoring station, and monitoring occurred at 29 stations. Fourteen percent (4) of stations were moni-
tored daily, 10 percent (3) were monitored five times a week, 45 percent (13) were monitored three times a week, and
31 percent (9) were monitored once a week. Monitoring priorities are based on the number of swimmers.1 In 2006, there
were eight Tier 1 beaches, two of which were monitored daily, two of which were monitored five times a week, one of
which was monitored three times a week, and three of which were monitored once a week. There were 11 Tier 2 beaches,
two of which were monitored daily, one of which was monitored five times a week, four of which were monitored three
times a week, and four of which were monitored once a week. There were six Tier 3 beaches, four of which were moni-
tored three times a week (one beach at three locations and two beaches at two locations) and two of which were moni-
tored once a week.
Practice: Results are available 16 to 24 hours after samples are delivered to the lab. Sampling occurs every day of the week.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Indiana’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
19 percent in 2006 from 16 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Washington Park in La Porte County (31%),
IN Dunes State Park East in Porter County (20%), Whihala East End in Lake County (18%), IN Dunes State Park West
in Porter County (15%), Mount Baldy in La Porte County (11%), West Beach in Porter County (11%), and Whihala
West End in Lake County (8%).
Two beaches, Central Avenue Beach and Kemil Avenue Beach in Porter County, did not exceed the standard for any
sample taken in 2006. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the
standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent
exceedance.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: Local beach managers decide between posting an advisory and closing a beach if there is a
sample exceedance.1 Beaches that use predictive models may also issue a closure or advisory based on whether the model
predicts a high probability of exceeding safe E. coli levels.2 The public is notified of advisories and closings via websites
and signs posted at the beach. Sections of a beach can be closed or placed under advisory.
Reopening Procedures: Advisories are lifted and beaches are reopened when sampling confirms that bacterial levels have
fallen to safe levels. Sampling frequencies are increased at beaches that are closed or under advisory unless the beach
already undergoes daily sampling.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: Seventy-seven percent (86) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring
that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination. Fifteen percent (17) were preemptive due to
known sewage spills, 6 percent (7) were preemptive due to other causes, and 1 percent (1) was a preemptive rainfall advisory.
Notes
1 Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Final Report for FFY 04 BEACH Act Grant, March 2007 (covers the 2005 swim season).
2 Hala Kuss, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, personal communication, July 2007.
3 Alex da Silva, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, personal communication, July 4, 2005.
Louisiana
Because of the Mississippi Delta, Louisiana’s coastline is primarily wetlands. There are areas of coastal beaches, however,
including the barrier island Grand Isle, as well as some beaches on the Texas border and on the south shore of Lake
Pontchartrain. The Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals (LDHH) administers the state’s coastal monitor- For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
ing program, which runs from April 1 through October 31.
of samples exceeding the standard
There are 12 publicly accessible beaches in the state that are
not under a permanent swimming advisory, and two-thirds decreased to 2 percent in 2006 from
of these were monitored by LDHH in 2006. Since 2000, 6 percent in 2005.
the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, a nonprofit,
membership-based citizens’ organization, has been monitoring nine additional beaches around Lake Pontchartrain that
are under a permanent swimming advisory.
In late summer 2005, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina affected the majority of coastal environments in Louisiana and
caused massive destruction. Louisiana continues to recover from these hurricanes. In 2006, all beaches were affected
to some extent by either or both hurricanes, and beach use was low. Louisiana expected lower bacterial counts at the
Cameron Parish beaches because of the reduced local population caused by Hurricane Rita, but this did not occur.1
Louisiana issues beach advisories, but it is state policy not to issue closings.2 One advisory was issued in 2006, at
Cypremort Point State Park in September.1
The Louisiana Beach Monitoring Program is fully supported by BEACH Act grant monies. Louisiana received a
$322,010 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $325,370 grant in 2007. Tourism in Louisiana con
tributes about $8.1 billion to the state’s economy and generates 110,000 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Fecal coliform, enterococcus
Standards: Water quality standards are not met if any of the following are exceeded: 1) an enterococcus single-sample
maximum standard of 104 cfu/100 ml, 2) an enterococcus geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml for five samples taken
over a 30‑day period, or 3) a fecal coliform geometric mean of 200 cfu/100 ml based on a minimum of five samples
taken over no more than a 30-day period and no more than 10 percent of the samples during any 30-day period exceed
200 cfu/100 ml.1 The Louisiana State’s Sanitary Code and Water Quality Standards stipulate the use of fecal coliform as
an indicator of bacterial contamination, so the Louisiana Beach Monitoring Program implemented both the BEACH
Act-required enterococcus and state-required fecal coliform standards in its decision rule.1 Multiple samples are some-
times taken, and when they are, the results are averaged to determine whether standards are being exceeded.2
Louisiana is studying statistical relationships between enterococcus counts and water temperature, salinity, tide condi-
tions, weather conditions, wind direction, wind speed, and the amount of rain that has fallen within the last 48 hours or
the last 72 hours. They are finding correlation with different variables for different beaches, and no correlation for some
beaches. They have discovered that the density of enterococcus is influenced by at least one precipitation-based variable
at all beach segments, but that the amount of variability explained by precipitation is low.1
Laboratories at the LDHH analyze the Lake Pontchartrain samples for fecal coliform levels. However, these monitor-
ing results are not used to issue beach advisories because Lake Pontchartrain beaches are under permanent advisory.
Monitoring
Frequency: The LDHH monitored and maintained data for eight beaches covering 20 miles of coastline in 2006, but
only three were eligible for advisory issuance because Louisiana issues advisories at Tier 1 and 2 beaches only.
Levels of beach use and perceptions of water quality determine monitoring priorities. Tier 1 and 2 beaches are
monitored with the same frequency, but Tier 1 beaches have more dense sampling sites (500 m apart for Tier 1 beaches
compared with two miles apart for Tier 2 beaches). Tier 3 beaches have stations two miles apart, but are sampled less
frequently than Tier 2 beaches. A fourth tier of beaches, comprised of beaches on private land or with existing swim-
ming advisories posted by the state and with very low public use, is not monitored. Monitoring has not yet been initated
at three Tier 1 beaches in Lake Charles. All Tier 2 beaches were monitored, and one Tier 3 beach was not monitored
because damage from Hurricane Katrina constrained access. Two Tier 1 beaches and one Tier 2 beach were sampled once
a week in 2006, and five Tier 3 beaches were sampled every other week.
Practice: Routine samples are generally collected on Mondays. Results of sampling are generally known 24 hours after the
sample is delivered to the lab for analysis.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Louisiana’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
2 percent in 2006 from 6 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Holly Beach 3 (25%), Martin Beach (19%),
Holly Beach 6 (19%), Holly Beach 1 (19%), Holly Beach 4 (19%), Holly Beach 2 (19%), Dung Beach (19%) and in
Cameron County..
Thirty-six percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Jefferson
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (86%) followed by Cameron (8%).. The table below
lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006.
Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Louisiana issued one beach advisory in 2006. Total advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or fewer de-
creased 99 percent, from 406 days in 2005 to 5 days in 2006. There were 23 extended advisory events in Louisiana in
2005 compared to none in 2006. These changes are due largely to the influences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—only
a few beaches were accessible in 2006 due to lingering damage, but beach accessibility has improved in 2007.
Advisory Issuance: When a single sample exceeds the standard, resamples are conducted as soon as possible when a single
sample exceeds the standard in order to confirm high bacteria levels before issuing an advisory.1 Advisories are not issued
at Tier 3 beaches because they are only sampled every other week. To inform the public that an advisory has been issued,
LDHH notifies local government officials and partner agencies prior to or concurrent with issuing an advisory, posts
the advisory at the beach by flipping the sign located at the sampling location to display the advisory, posts the swim-
ming advisory notice at that location, and issues a press release to local newspapers to communicate the advisory to the
general public and to inform potential swimmers of adverse water quality conditions prior to their arrival at the beach.
Additionally, LDHH provides weekly beach classification results on the web, including current water quality classifica-
tions, whether or not an advisory has been issued, a map of sample locations, and contact information for the public to
acquire information. If the beach is long, advisories can be issued for sections of a beach rather than a whole beach. The
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation posts current monitoring results on its website.
Reopening Procedures: Aside from resampling, the monitoring frequency does not increase for beaches that have been
placed under advisory. Advisories are lifted when bacteria levels are in compliance with standards. When a beach is placed
under advisory, the advisory generally lasts for about a week.
Causes of Advisories: All five beach advisory days issued in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed a single-sample
exceedance of enterococcus from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Louisiana Dept of Health and Hospitals, Final Louisiana BEACH Grant Report, 2006 Swimming Season, May 2007.
2 Bruce Champion, Louisiana Dept of Health and Hospitals, personal communication, 2006.
Maine
Maine has 46 public coastal beaches stretching along approximately 35 miles of Atlantic shoreline.1 Relatively little
swimming takes place in the cold waters of the eastern part of the state, but the mid-coast and southern regions have
intense recreational usage during the three-month beach season.2 Beach monitoring and notification activities in Maine
are conducted by the Maine Healthy Beaches Program,
which is a partnership between the Maine State Planning For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
Office Coastal Program, the Maine Bureau of Health, the of samples exceeding the standard
Maine Department of Conservation and Environmental decreased to 12 percent in 2006 from
Protection, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension/
Sea Grant, and local municipalities. Participation in the 16 percent in 2005.
program is voluntary; the decision to monitor and issue closings or advisories is left to the discretion of municipalities.3
The program is funded by the EPA, managed by the Maine State Planning Office Coastal Program, and coordinated by
the University of Maine Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant.1
Counties with beaches in the program, all of which are on the southeastern portion of the state’s coastline, are
Cumberland, York, Sagadahoc, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo Counties. Hancock, Washington, and Knox Counties each
have one beach that is not in the program. These three beaches, which are the only major recreational coastal beaches in
Maine that are not monitored, are in outlying remote areas that have very little swimming or recreational water activity
and are difficult to sample.1 The monitoring season lasts three months, from Memorial through Labor Day. This length
of monitoring is extended to include spring wet weather monitoring and special studies for targeted areas.1
Both closings and advisories are issued in Maine, but closings are rare and occur only in municipalities where closure
ordinances are in place.1 A record number of coastal beach advisories and closings occurred in 2006 due to heavy rain-
fall, severe flooding in coastal areas, an increase in the number of beaches in the program, and improved notification
of advisories and closings by the participating towns and state parks.3 Most closings and advisories in 2006 were issued
in the last half of July. Goose Rock had the most closing and advisory days in 2006, followed by Camden Yacht Club,
which has a dock where a lot of people swim.3 The number of advisory days at localities that do not have the ability to
re-sample following the issuance of an advisory may be inflated because those beaches remain closed until the next rou-
tine monitoring can be conducted.1
Variable water quality found by the Maine Healthy Beaches program at Biddleford’s beaches motivated the remedia-
tion of unlicensed and undocumented sewer systems, replacement of old clay-tile pipes with PVC piping, and combined
sewer overflow abatement. The Maine Healthy Beaches Program has been assisting towns with identification of pollution
sources and further assessment of freshwater flows contributing to poor beach water quality.3 In addition, beachwater
monitoring data in Maine has been used by scientists investigating harbor seal mortality.2
Maine received a $254,730 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $256,240 grant in 2007. The
University of Maine Cooperative Extension contributes approximately $50,000 in salary and match to the state agree-
ment from the university.1 Tourism in Maine is worth about $13.6 billion dollars and 176,633 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: When determining whether to recommend issuing a beach alert, the Maine Healthy Beaches Program applies
a single-sample standard for marine waters of enterococcus greater than 104 mpn/100 ml3. (Note that mpn is “most
probable number” and differs from cfu which is a plate count of colony forming units.) The BEACH Act’s 30-day,
five‑sample geometric mean standard of 35 cfu/100 ml is not used except that it is calculated and taken into consider-
ation along with the history of the site when making beach management recommendations.1 When multiple samples are
collected, their results are averaged.3 These standards have been adopted by the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection.3
There are a few cities that automatically post an advisory after a certain amount of rainfall.1
Monitoring
Frequency: Maine’s Healthy Coastal Beaches Program provided information on 46 ocean and bay beaches. Ninety-four
percent (43) of the beaches in 21 towns and state parks were monitored, including three new beaches for the 2006
sampling year: Little Beach in Ogunquit, Scarborough Beach in Scarborough, and Laudholm Beach in Wells. The towns
of Mt. Desert and Parsons Beach in Kennebunk are no longer participating in the program.3 The 43 monitored beaches
represent approximately 31 miles of public swimming area. This does not include private beaches that are monitored or
non-beach areas that are monitored to evaluate water conditions or for special studies.1 Sites are prioritized for monitor-
ing based on usage, the presence of storm drain outfalls, and other known conditions affecting water quality. Nearly all
of the monitored beaches are monitored once a week. A handful are monitored more often than once a week, and two
are monitored less than once a week.3
EPA funding supported the collection and analysis of special studies and pollution identification efforts along the
coast. Intensive monitoring of the Ogunquit River (10-15 samples) and Kennebunk River (6-10 samples) was conducted
on a weekly basis from June through October 2006. Rigorous daily monitoring of problematic beaches, such as Goose
Rocks (Kennebunkport) and Gooches Beach (Kennebunk), was conducted depending on conditions. Additional samples
were collected and analyzed in the Biddeford marsh, and the Spurwink and Saco rivers.2
Practice: Samples are taken in three feet of water. Routine monitoring occurs in the morning, typically before 10:00 am.
Resampling efforts may occur morning or afternoon. Between 26 and 30 hours generally go by before sampling results
are known. Routine monitoring occurs Monday through Thursday, but resampling and special study sampling may
extend into Friday and the weekend.1
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Maine’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased
to 12 percent in 2006 from 16 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Goose Rock (Kennebunkport) in York County
(43%), Pine Point in Cumberland County (33%), Riverside (Ogunquit) (30%) and Laudholm Beach (WNERR-Wells)
in York County (25%), Camden Yacht Club in Knox County (23%), East Beach (Georgetown) in Sagadahoc County
(20%), Lincolnville Beach Area in Waldo County (20%), and Gooches Beach (19%) and Ferry Beach (Saco) in York
County (19%)
Thirty-seven percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Sagadahoc
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (60%), followed by Cumberland (43%), York (33%).
Lincoln County’s single coastal beach (Pemaquid Beach )also had no exceedances in 2006. The table below lists the tier
status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are
grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closings/Advisories
In 2006, 35 advisories and 4 closings were issued at public coastal beaches. Maine reported 134 closing/advisory days in
2006, a 45 percent increase from 92 days in 2005. This increase may be due in part to increased rainfall and increased
monitoring. Closings and advisories at Maine’s 42 Tier 1 beaches increased from 56 days in 2004 to 88 days in 2005,
then increased again to 134 days in 2006. This steady increase in closing and advisory days from 2004 to 2006 may be
due in part to a small increase in monitoring frequency of Tier 1 beaches over that time period.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Results of all monitoring samples are transmitted to the Maine Health Beaches office. Auto
matic email alerts are issued to beach managers, local officials, and other entities as soon as an exceedance is found.3
The Maine Healthy Beaches program always recommends an advisory or closing when the standard is exceeded, but
the decision to post the beach is the responsibility of the town or state park.1 In February 2003, the Maine Healthy
Beaches Program developed the Coastal Swim Beach Risk Assessment Matrix, a scoring system for local health officials to
use to determine whether to close a beach or issue an advisory when bacteria levels exceed the standard. The guidelines
suggest that communities assess risk factors such as rainfall, tidal conditions, nearby sources of pollution, the number
of beach users, the extent of development in close proximity to the beach, and bacterial concentration history when
determining whether to post an advisory or closing. Resampling to confirm an exceedance may be conducted if a sample
exceeds 100 mpn/100 ml, but a resample confirmation is not necessary in every situation, especially in areas with chronic
bacteria problems.1
The public is notified of closings and advisories via signs at beach access points and a website.3 Several communities
have a beach hotline and/or post this information on the town website as well.1 For some larger beaches, sections of a
beach instead of a whole beach can be closed or placed under advisory.3
Reopening Procedures: Once a beach is closed or placed under advisory, the monitoring frequency is supposed to increase
until the beach is reopened.3 However, not all localities have the ability to conduct increased monitoring, and as a result
the beaches in these towns cannot be reopened until the next routine sample is analyzed.1
Causes of Closings/Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bac-
teria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes – lots of missing footnotes (this was the author’s note, not mine)
1 Esperanza Stancioff, University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant, personal communication, July 2007.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Maine Healthy Beaches Program, 2006 EPA Report, not dated.
Maryland
Maryland conducts water quality sampling at both freshwater and coastal beaches. The administering agency for
Maryland’s BEACH Act grants is the Maryland Department of the Environment. Beach monitoring and notifica-
tion activities are delegated to local health departments.
Individual counties have had their own programs since the
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
1980s, and Maryland is working to standardize the pro- of samples exceeding the standard
grams across the state. 1
increased to 13 percent in 2006 from
Monitoring programs have identified and informed
9 percent in 2005.
remediation of water quality problems at beaches, in-
cluding a stormwater outfall at North Beach.1 In 2006, the Maryland Beaches Program tested a technology-based
data collection system to conduct Beach Shoreline Surveys. This system improves data management and analysis, and
will provide key information for identifying and mitigating actual and potential pollution sources that may impact
beach water quality. This data system has provided MDE with a unique view on how land-based activities can affect
water quality at beaches.2 Nearly one-half of beach advisory and closure days were in Kent County. Chesapeake Station
Beach and North Beach in Calvert County were each closed for more than 30 days during the swim season due to
sanitary sewer overflows. Most beach closing and advisory days were for events that started in late June and extended
into July.
For 2006, the EPA reported that Maryland has 81 public coastal beaches, all of which are monitored.2 However,
Maryland reported 191 public coastal beaches in 2005, and 86 public coastal beaches in 2004. Maryland did not answer
when NRDC asked how many public coastal beaches or how many miles of public coastal beaches are in the state.3
Maryland’s beaches are on the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, barrier islands, and other bays and sounds. Sixteen
of Maryland’s counties have coastline, but only nine report the presence of public beaches. They are Anne Arundel,
Baltimore, Calvert, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, St. Mary’s, and Worcester Counties. Maryland’s monitoring
season is from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Maryland issues both closings and advisories.
Maryland received a $260,250 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $271,150 grant in 2007.
Maryland’s counties and the Maryland State Laboratory support the state’s beach monitoring program with other funds.3
Tourism in Maryland contributes about $10.1 billion to the state’s economy and generates 115,000 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus (for coastal beaches); E. coli (for freshwater beaches)
Standards: All three tiers of beaches use a geometric mean standard for enterococcus of 35 cfu/100 ml. Three samples are
taken per sampling event. For Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches, the single-sample standard for enterococcus is the upper 75 per-
cent confidence limit of the single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml. The single-sample standard for Enterococcus at
Tier 3 beaches is the upper 82 percent confidence limit of 158 cfu/100 ml. These standards and the formulas used to cal-
culate confidence intervals can be found in Maryland’s monitoring guidance document.4 EPA-recommended indicators
and criteria have been adopted in state regulations.1
Maryland does not have preemptive rainfall advisory standards. However, a predictive model is being developed for a
high-use beach at Sandy Point State Park.1
Monitoring
Frequency: For the 2006 beach season, Maryland reported a total of 81 marine and estuarine beaches (less than half the
previous year’s total of 191), all of which are monitored. Fifty-seven percent (46) were routinely monitored four times
a month, 12 percent (10) were routinely monitored twice a month, and the remaining 31 percent (25) were routinely
monitored once a month. Beach monitoring priorities are based on bather use level, historical water quality, proximity
of human and animal fecal contamination sources, and beach structure and ecological factors.4
Practice: Samples are taken 12 inches below the water’s surface in knee-deep water. Generally, 30 hours pass before sam-
pling results are known.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Maryland’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
13 percent in 2006 from 9 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Hacks Point in Cecil County (60%), Bay
Country Campground and Beach in Kent County (56%), Kurtz Beach in Anne Arundel County (50%), Holloway
Beach in Cecil County (50%), YMCA Camp Tockwogh (Youth Camp) (50%), and Ferry Park in Kent County (44%),
Red Point Beach in Cecil County (43%), and Tolchester Marina and Beach in Kent County (41%).
Fifty-one percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Anne Arundel
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (76%) followed by St Mary’s (67%), Worcester
(64%), Calvert (57%), Baltimore (50%), Kent (13%), Cecil (8%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring fre-
quency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county
and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: In June 2004, Maryland’s secretary of the environment signed new regulations requiring
beach advisories to be issued if standards are exceeded. In the past, a resample was often taken prior to issuing an advi-
sory. Now, if the county has no reason to doubt the validity of the first sample, it is required to issue an advisory and
notify the public. If a known pollution source exists (e.g., a combined sewer overflow, failing sewer infrastructure, or
wastewater treatment discharge), the county must close the beach. Also, if there is any dangerous contaminant or condi-
tion, the local health department or the Maryland Department of the Environment may issue an immediate closure.4
All counties notify the public when a beach is closed or an advisory issued by posting signs at the beach, providing
phone hotlines, and posting announcements on the Internet. In some cases, sections of a beach may be placed under ad-
visory or closed, rather than the entire beach.4
Reopening Procedures: NRDC was unable to ascertain from Maryland’s personnel or their beach monitoring guidance
document whether or not the frequency of water quality monitoring was increased at beaches that were closed or placed
under advisory, until they are reopened.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: Seventy-one percent (226) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that
revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination. Twenty-nine percent (91) of closing/advisory
days were preemptive in response to a known sewage spill.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s BEACH Report: Maryland 2006 Swimming Season, June 2007.
3 Heather Morehead, Maryland Department of the Environment, personal communication, June 2007.
4 Maryland Department of the Environment, Guidance for County Recreational Water Quality Monitoring and Notification Programs, December
2003.
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts has 727 miles of sandy marine coastline,1 204 miles of which consist of public swimming beaches.2 State
water quality regulations require that all public and semi-public freshwater and marine bathing beaches in Massachusetts
be monitored for bacterial and sometimes other types of contamination during the bathing season.3 In 2006, water qual-
ity at all 525 public coastal beaches, along with more than
600 freshwater beaches, was monitored through a program For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
administered by the Massachusetts Department of Public
samples exceeding the state standard
Health (MDPH). Local boards of health, the Barnstable
County Department of Health, and the Department of decreased to 8 percent in 2006 from
Conservation and Recreation do most of the sampling in 15 percent in 2005.
the state.
All the coastal counties (Suffolk, Plymouth, Norfolk, Nantucket, Essex, Dukes, Bristol, and Barnstable) have
beaches that are monitored. The monitoring season starts as early as Memorial Day at some beaches, and lasts through
Labor Day in most years.3 Beaches are closed to swimming when standards are exceeded; Massachusetts does not issue
advisories.2 In 2006, July had more beach closings than any other month.2 Total rainfall amounts at many Massachusetts
beaches during the 2006 season were higher compared to 2005,2 and more closing days were issued in 2006 than
in 2005.
Massachusetts received a $254,440 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $255,940 grant in 2007.
In addition to federal funding, MDPH has contributed staff and administrative resources amounting to approximately
$75,000 annually.2 Tourism in Massachusetts contributes about $12.5 billion to the state’s economy and generates
125,300 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus, E. coli
Standards: For marine beaches, the standard is a single-sample maximum of enterococcus of 104 cfu/100 ml or a
f ive‑sample geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. For freshwater beaches, either enterococcus or E. coli can be used as
indicator species. For enterococcus at freshwater beaches, the standard is a single-sample maximum of 61 cfu/100
ml or a five-sample geometric mean of 33 cfu/100 ml. For E. coli at freshwater beaches, the standard is a single-sample
maximum of 235 cfu/100 ml or a five-sample geometric mean of 126 cfu/100 ml. In addition to closings due to
bacterial exceedances, the local board of health and/or the MDPH can close a beach if they determine there is a threat
to human health for any other reason, such as algal blooms or oil spills.2 Local boards of health can preemptively close
beaches that have consistently elevated indicator levels, and preemptive rain closures are issued as well.3
In August 2000, the Massachusetts Beaches Act was passed (Chapter 248 of the Acts of 2000). Beginning in 2001,
the act required adopting the water quality standards recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
all marine and freshwater public beaches, weekly monitoring, and informing the public about unsafe waters by posting
notices at beaches when the water is polluted. Prior to these regulations, the state used total coliforms and fecal coliforms
as indicators at marine beaches.3
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, there were 602 sampling locations at 525 marine beaches and 591 sampling locations at 537 fresh-
water beaches.2 The minimum requirement for sampling is weekly. More than 99 percent (597) of the sampling locations
at marine beaches were tested daily or weekly. The five marine beaches that were not tested at the required frequency
were either in close proximity to beaches that were tested weekly or were beaches with Tier 3 status that qualified for
reduced sampling because a sanitary survey and historical bacterial results demonstrated a low potential of bacterial con-
tamination.2 All data collected are maintained within MDPH’s internal database.
Monitoring locations are chosen by the local board of health or MDPH. The frequency of monitoring is determined
by a tier classification system. Tier 1 beaches include heavily used beaches that have pollution problems and Tier 2
beaches include heavily used beaches with some pollution. Low-use beaches that have no known pollution problems, and
that have completed a sanitary survey to show a low potential of bacterial contamination are classified as Tier 3.2 Sanitary
surveys are conducted more frequently at Tier 1 beaches.3
Practice: Samples are taken from the area of greatest bather density, usually before noon. Environmental observations are
recorded when sampling.3 Samples are collected in three feet of water, one foot below the surface of the water.2 Sample
results are known 24 hours after the sample is delivered to the laboratory. Sampling occurs throughout the week, and the
day of the week that sampling occurs can vary among beaches. Most communities pick one day during the week to com-
plete all of the necessary sampling.2
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
Massachusetts’ daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the stan-
dard decreased to 8 percent in 2006 from 15 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Wollaston-Sachem Street in Norfolk County
(15%), Constitution-Middle (13%) and Constitution-North site in Suffolk County (11%), Wollaston-Channing Street in
Norfolk County (10%), City Point Beach in Suffolk County (9%), and Wollaston - Milton Street in Norfolk County (7%).
Sixty-eight percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Nantucket
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (87%) followed by Dukes (83%), Plymouth (76%),
Barnstable (74%), Essex (58%), Bristol (47%), Norfolk (39%), and Suffolk (18%). The table below lists the tier status,
monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are
grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closings
In 2006, 412 closings were issued at Massachusetts’ public coastal beaches. Total closing days for events lasting six con-
secutive weeks or less increased 61 percent, from 680 days in 2005 to 1,092 days in 2006. There were six extended clos-
ing events in Massachusetts in 2006 compared to two extended events in 2005. The increased number of closings was
due at least in part to heavier rainfall in 2006 than in 2005. Closings for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less at
Massachusetts’ 13 Tier 1 beaches increased from 38 days in 2004 to 80 days in 2005, then increased again to 444 days in
2006. During the time period over which this steady increase in closing days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency
at these beaches initially declined.
Closing Issuance: If a bacterial exceedance is found at either a marine or freshwater beach, a closure sign must be posted
by the local board of health.3 Resampling to confirm results is not conducted before closing the beach. Sampling results
are displayed on the MDPH beaches public website within six hours of being validated, and MDPH has to be notified of
exceedances within 24 hours.2 At some of the larger beaches in Massachusetts where multiple samples are taken, the local
board of health and/or MDPH determines the appropriate portion of the beach to close when only one sample exceeds.
At a minimum, the section of the beach where the sample exceeded the standard must be posted.2
Reopening Procedures: When an exceedance is found, beachwater is generally sampled every day until the standards are
met and the beach is reopened.
Causes of Closings: Sixty-six percent (722) of closure days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less in 2006 were
due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination, and 34 percent (370)
were preemptive rainfall closures.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
2 Chris Huskie, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, personal communication, June 2007.
3 Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report 2005 Season, June 2006.
Michigan
Michigan has 594 public beaches1 stretching along 546 miles of Great Lakes coastline. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)—contracting mostly with local health departments but also with municipalities,
environmental groups, regional planning agencies, and universities that agree to work closely with local health depart-
ments—administers Michigan’s beach monitoring program.
Monitoring and notification activities take place in 38
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
counties. Iron, Dickinson, and Tuscola counties are the of samples exceeding the standard
only counties with Great Lakes coastline that do not report increased to 4 percent in 2006 from
public beaches, and none of the public beaches in Luce
3 percent in 2005.
and Gogebic counties are monitored. Michigan conducts
monitoring activities at inland lakes as well, but only Great Lakes beaches are covered in this report. MDEQ has made an
effort to integrate beach monitoring data into water pollution prevention programs to encourage strategic improvements
in water quality.2
More than a third of Michigan’s beaches are monitored between April and October. Both advisories and closings were
issued in 2006.
Michigan received a $278,450 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $278,450 grant in 2007. The
state contributes $100,000 in grants for inland lake beach monitoring. Local funding requirements for the beach moni-
toring and notification program is at least $33,000 (matching funds are required for BEACH Act grant monies) and the
total amount of local funding is estimated to be between $200,000 and $300,000 each year.3 Tourism in Michigan con-
tributes about $17.5 billion to the state’s economy and generates 192,700 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli
Standards: Water quality standards recommended by state law in Michigan in 2002 are less stringent than EPA standards
for full-body water contact recreation in fresh water. The EPA’s recommended standard for such circumstances are an
E. coli concentration of 126 cfu/100 ml for the geometric mean of five samples collected over 30 days, and 235 cfu/
100 ml for a single sample. The standards in use in Michigan are a geometric mean of E. coli of 130 cfu/100 ml for five
sampling events over 30 days and a single-sample maximum for one sampling event of 300 cfu/100 ml.4 These standards
are viewed by EPA as consistent with the requirements of the BEACH Act.1 Rainfall or other conditions may be used to
make closing and advisory decisions as well.3 However, there are no preemptive rainfall advisory standards. Known sew-
age spills trigger a preemptive advisory.
Monitoring
Frequency: A total of 207 beaches, all Tier 1, were regularly monitored and had their monitoring data maintained in
Michigan in 2006.3 These beaches represent 71 miles of Great Lakes coastline. Of these beaches, 203 were monitored
once a week and four were monitored two or more times per week.3 Beaches in Michigan are prioritized for monitoring
based on known or potential sources of contamination; other conditions related to water quality, human exposure, and
beach use, including the importance of the beach to the local economy; and community input. Tier 1 beaches have pub-
lic access, high bather densities, and may have known or potential sources of contamination. All Tier 1 beaches are moni-
tored at least five times per 30-day period. Tier 2 beaches, which have public access and may have known or potential
sources of contamination, are monitored but not as frequently as Tier 1 beaches; many Tier 2 beaches, for example, may
have had only one sample collected during the year.3 No Tier 3 beaches were monitored in 2006.
Practice: Samples are taken in the morning, one foot below the surface in water that is three to six feet deep. At least
three simultaneous samples are taken during each sampling event, and the results of these three samples are averaged to
determine whether the water meets standards.4 Results are known 18 to 24 hours after samples are delivered to a lab.
Regularly scheduled samples are collected early in the week; follow-up samples may be collected any day from Monday
through Thursday. Samples may be collected any day of the week under unique circumstances.3
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Michigan’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
4 percent in 2006 from 3 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Crescent Sail Yacht Club in Wayne County
(35%), followed by Mackinaw City Lighthouse Park in Cheboygan County (23%), Wilderness State Park in Emmet
County (23%), Whites Beach in Arenac County (20%), SCS Blossom Heath Beach in Macomb County (20%), East
Bay Beach at Traverse City State Park in Grand Traverse County (19%), Cross Village Beach in Emmet County (17%),
Lexington County Park in Sanilac County (17%).
Seventy-six percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Alcona,
Alpena, Baraga, Benzie, Berrien, Delta, Houghton, Huron, Iosco, Keweenaw, Leelanau, Mackinac, Marquette, Mason,
Monroe, Muskegon, Ontonagon, Presque Isle, and Schoolcraft counties reported no exceedances in 2006. The table
below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported
in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Closings and advisories are issued without resampling. However, factors other than sample
exceedance can be considered before issuing a closing or advisory in some counties.3 Bay County, for example, takes
weather, runoff, and known causes of contamination into account before issuing closings and advisories.
Michigan state law recommends but does not require monitoring of beachwater quality. However, the law requires
signs to be posted at the main entrance of public beaches telling the public whether the beach is tested for swimmer
safety and where the results can be obtained. Long stretches of beach or beaches at road ends that are not advertised as
public bathing beaches do not need to have advisory signs posted.1 The law also gives local health officers the authority
to test beachwater for swimmer safety, and if monitoring is performed, the results must be directly communicated within
36 hours to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as well as to the beach owner, beach operator, city, vil-
lage, or township in which the bathing beach is located. However, even if state bacterial standards are exceeded, the law
recommends but does not require public notification. Instead, it allows the health officer to petition the circuit court of
the county for an injunction ordering the beach to be closed. Monitoring results for Michigan beaches that are moni-
tored using funds received through a federal BEACH Act grant, however, must be made available to the public, and the
public must be notified when an advisory is issued or a beach is closed. Closings and advisories can be issued for a section
of a beach instead of a whole beach.
Reopening Procedures: Depending on the local health department, the monitoring frequency of a beach that has been
closed or placed under advisory can be increased. Beaches are reopened when standards are met.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: All 124 of closing and advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Annual Report for the Beach Act Program Implementation Grant, CU965106, not dated.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Shannon Briggs, MDEQ, personal communication, June 2007.
4 Michigan Regulation 323.1062 of the Part 4. Water Quality Standards (WQS) promulgated under Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, Subrule 62(1).
Minnesota
The Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program is administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). MPCA partners with the Department of Natural Resources, the county health departments, and private and
public organizations in the region to achieve the objectives
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
of the program. Minnesota has approximately 58 public
beach miles in a total of 79 public beaches along the Lake of samples exceeding the standard
Superior coastline. Only three counties in Minnesota bor- increased to 14 percent in 2006 from
der Lake Superior: St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties. 12 percent in 2005.
Each county monitors about half of its Great Lakes public
beaches at least once a week, from the week before Memorial Day to the week after Labor Day. Inland lakes in Minnesota
are subject to more recreational water contact than Lake Superior, but are not covered under the BEACH Act or in this
report.
There were few wind and rain events during the 2006 season, which resulted in a quiet summer for beach advisories.1
Minnesota does not issue beach closures; its policy is to issue advisories only.2 Nearly all of the sampling exceedances were
for beaches in the Duluth area. Three of the monitored beaches in the Duluth area (Park Point Southworth Marsh Beach,
Park Point 20th Street/Hearding Island Canal Beach, and Park Point New Duluth Boat Club Boat Landing/14th Street
Beach2) were under advisory for most of June, July, and August.
Minnesota received a $204,440 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $204,390 grant in 2007. The
federal grants fully fund the Minnesota beach monitoring and notification program.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli
Standards: Since 2003, Minnesota has been using the BEACH Act–required E. coli standards (an instantaneous single-
sample standard of 235 cfu/100ml and a geometric mean of 126 cfu/100ml for the five most recent samples collected
during a 30-day period) for making advisory decisions. Minnesota has no preemptive standards, but does post advisories
after known sewage overflows or other events that are considered likely to result in high bacteria levels.2
Monitoring
Frequency: As in 2005, forty-nine percent (39) of Minnesota’s public Great Lakes beaches, representing 30 beach miles, were
monitored at least once a week in 2006. In Minnesota, beaches are prioritized based on the potential for impacts from
storm water runoff, bather and waterfowl loads, and the location of wastewater treatment outfalls and farms. In 2006,
nine beaches were assigned high priority (Tier 1) and were sampled twice a week (on Mondays and Thursdays). Thirty
beaches were assigned medium priority (Tier 2) and were sampled once a week (on Mondays). The remaining 40 beaches
(Tier 3), which typically receive sporadic use, have limited access, and have few if any potential sources of pollution in
the area, were not sampled.
Practice: The sampling method is to collect the samples at a depth of six to 12 inches in water that is knee deep. Samples
are received by the lab within six hours of being taken, and results are available 24 to 48 hours after that.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Minnesota’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
14 percent in 2006 from 12 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Park Point, Southworth Marsh, and Duluth
(41%), followed by St. Louis Bay, Pk Pt 20th/Hearding Is, Duluth (32%), and St. Louis Bay, Pk Pt Boat Club/14th St,
Duluth (15%), all in St. Louis County.
Seventy percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Cook County
had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (80%), followed by St. Louis (72%), and Lake counties
(64%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all
beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Minnesota issued 16 advisories in 2006. Total advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less decreased
50 percent, from 143 days in 2005 to 73 days in 2006. The number of advisory events lasting longer than six consecu-
tive weeks remained unchanged in 2005 and 2006 at four. Advisories at Minnesota’s eight Tier 1 beaches decreased
from 122 days in 2004 to 120 days in 2005, then decreased again to 65 days in 2006. The overall monitoring frequency
at Minnesota’s Tier 1 beaches was unchanged over the time period during which this overall decrease in advisory days
occurred.
Advisory Issuance: Advisories are issued for an entire beach, rather than sections of a beach.2 When a sample exceeds
either bacteria criterion (either a single sample or the geometric mean of the most recent five samples in a 30-day pe-
riod2), the public is immediately notified with news releases, web updates (www.MNBeaches.org), emails, and phone
calls. No resampling is done before the advisory is issued, and no factors other than an exceedance are taken into account
before issuing an advisory. Large portable orange and white hazard signs with reflective material are posted in high-traffic
areas of the beach.
Reopening Procedures: The site is resampled as soon as possible, and daily (Monday through Thursday) sampling con
tinues until the site meets the water quality standards. The “all clear” is issued through the same steps as the advisory
(signs are removed, a news release goes out, and appropriate phone calls are made).
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less in 2006 were due to monitoring
that revealed elevated bacteria levels, all of which were due to unknown or “other” sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Lake Superior Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Annual Report Beach Season 2006, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, February 2007.
2 Heidi Bauman, Manager of the Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, personal communication,
May 8, 2007.
Mississippi
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in conjunction with the State Beach Monitoring Task Force
conducts Mississippi’s beachwater quality monitoring program. The state reports that it has 22 beaches stretching along
43 miles of Gulf coastline and that all of its beaches are
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
monitored. Counties involved are Hancock, Harrison, and
Jackson. The beaches are monitored year-round but more of samples exceeding the standard
monitoring is done during the recreational season, which decreased to 9 percent in 2006 from
extends from May through October.
23 percent in 2005.
Mississippi issues both advisories and closings for its
beaches. Throughout 2006, the beaches west of Front Beach in Ocean Springs were closed due to Hurricane Katrina.
Fourteen other beaches or sections of beaches were closed throughout 2006 because of debris in the water due to the hur-
ricane, and six beaches in Jackson County were closed during the first half of the 2006 recreational season. Beaches in
Hancock County remain closed in 2007 due to debris in the water from the hurricane.
Mississippi received a $257,510 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $257,720 grant in 2007.
In addition to the BEACH Act grant monies, Mississippi’s Beach Monitoring Program is supported by approximately
$40,000 of in-kind services provided by the state.1
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus
Standards: Mississippi reported a marine and estuarine enterococcus single-sample maximum standard of 104 cfu/100
ml, as required by the BEACH Act. Mississippi also has preemptive standards; there is a standing advisory against swim-
ming at beaches for 24 hours following a significant rainfall (characterized by noticeable runoff ). Swimmers are particu-
larly advised to avoid swimming near stormdrains, which are present at nearly all of Mississippi’s Gulf Coast beaches.
Beaches are closed if there is a known sewage spill.
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, Mississippi monitored 22 beaches at least once a week. The state reports that these 22 beaches
represent 43 miles of coastline and 100 percent of the state’s beaches. The frequency of monitoring is based on (1) the
period of recreational use, (2) the nature and extent of use during each period, and (3) the beach ranking. Tier 1 beaches
are monitored 10 times a month during the recreational season and Tier 2 beaches are monitored once a week during
the recreational season. During the remainder of the year, these beaches are monitored once a week. Mississippi reported
16 Tier 1 beaches and six Tier 2 beaches in 2006.
Practice: Samples are taken mid–water column at wading depth (approximately 0.5 m) between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 2 p.m. Sampling is conducted Monday through Thursday. Lab results are usually available 24 hours after samples
are received.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Mississippi’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
9 percent in 2006 from 23 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Gulfport East Beach in Harrison County
(34%), and Pascagoula Beach West in Jackson County (16%).
Only one beach (Pass Christian West Beach in Harrison County) did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in
2006. The table on the following page lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the stan-
dard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: Mississippi issues an advisory if the standard is exceeded. Other factors are not taken
into account before issuing the advisory. When a sample exceedance is discovered, an advisory is immediately placed on
the beach monitoring website and a press release is issued from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.
Advisories are issued for the entire beach if an exceedance is found.1
Reopening Procedures: Once a beach is placed under advisory, the monitoring frequency is increased until standards are
met and the beach is reopened.1
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All beach closure days in 2006 were preemptive due to debris in the water from
Hurricane Katrina.
Notes
1 Emily Cotton, Regional Biologist, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, personal communication, June 2007.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire has 18 miles of coastline along the Atlantic Ocean, all of which are in Rockingham County. Including
Great Bay and the estuarine Piscatagua River, the coastline measures 100 miles. Only a portion of the coastline is
accessible beach. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services monitors its Atlantic coast beaches to de-
termine the suitability of its waters for swimming. All but
one of the 16 coastal beaches in the state are monitored.
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
The monitoring season extends from May through Labor of samples exceeding the standard
Day. New Hampshire also monitors water quality at its increased to 3 percent in 2006 from
freshwater beaches.
1 percent in 2005.
Most of the coastal beach advisories issued in 2006 coin-
cided with a heavy rainfall event in July.1 It is New Hampshire’s policy to issue beach advisories only and not closings.
New Hampshire received a $204,530 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $204,660 grant in 2007.
Coastal tourism contributes $4.1 billion to the state’s economy, generating 66,700 jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus for coastal beaches; E. coli and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) for freshwater
beaches
Standards: For ocean and bay waters, New Hampshire uses the BEACH Act-mandated enterococcus single-sample maxi-
mum of 104 cfu/100 ml and geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. For freshwater beaches, New Hampshire uses E. coli as
an indicator organism and mandates an advisory if visible toxic cyanobacterial scum is present. New Hampshire has ad-
opted these state water quality standards through legislation.
The Department of Environmental Services uses preemptive standards for chronic advisory freshwater lakes and is
currently working on a model for coastal waters that would provide data for creating predictive models for issuing pre-
emptive coastal advisories.1
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, the department monitored water quality at 15 marine beaches weekly or biweekly. These beaches
stretch along nearly eight miles of coastline.
Beaches in New Hampshire are ranked into three tiers based on pollution threats, sanitary survey information, expo-
sure conditions, and monitoring data. Tier 1 beaches are those where actual public health risks exist and the beach has
been listed as impaired, Tier 2 beaches are those where an actual or potential public health risk exists, and Tier 3 beaches
are those that have minimal to no public health risk. Coastal areas identified as secondary-contact recreation areas are not
considered to be beaches and are not assigned a tier ranking. Of the 15 monitored beaches, 47 percent (7) beaches, repre-
senting all of the state’s Tier 1 beaches, were monitored at least two times a week. Another 47 percent (7), representing all
of the state’s Tier 2 beaches, were monitored at least once per week. One Tier 3 beach was monitored twice per month.
Star Island Beach, a Tier 3 beach that is only accessible by boat, was not monitored. In addition to routine monitoring,
additional sampling is required when there is a heavy bather load, sewage spill, or pollution event. Additional sampling
is recommended if waterfowl congregate at a beach that may be impacted by marinas. Freshwater beaches are assigned to
Tier IV (or Tier V if they are at youth recreation camps).
Practice: Samples are taken in knee-deep water on weekdays. Generally, sampling results are known 24 hours after
samples are delivered to the lab. Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches longer than 100 feet are sampled at the left edge, center, and
right edge of the beach. Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches shorter than 100 feet are sampled in two locations, each of which is a
third of the distance from the end of the beach. Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches that are located on a flowing body of water are
sampled upstream, downstream, and at the center of the beach. Tier 3 beaches longer than 100 feet are sampled in two
locations, each of which is a third of the distance from the end of the beach, and Tier 3 beaches on a flowing body of
water or shorter than 100 feet are sampled once at the center.2
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded New
Hampshire’s daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
increased to 3 percent in 2006 from 1 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Pirates Cove Beach (9%), Jenness Beach Sp
(7%), Sawyer Beach (6%), and State Beach (6%).
Six beaches (Foss Beach, Hampton Beach SP, North Beach, Northside Park, Sun Valley Beach, and Wallis Sands SP)
did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and
percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in
descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
New Hampshire issued six beach advisories in 2006. Total advisory days increased from 1 in 2005 to 23 in 2006. Nearly
all of the 2006 advisory days followed a single significant rain event in July. Advisories at New Hampshire’s seven Tier 1
beaches decreased from two days in 2004 to one day in 2005, then increased to 17 days in 2006. This overall increase in
advisory days from 2004 to 2006 may be due in part to an increase in monitoring frequency of Tier 1 beaches over that
time period.
Advisory Issuance: In New Hampshire, beaches have a sign saying they are open if they are sampled at least as frequently
as the state requires beaches in their tier to be sampled if they are meeting water quality standards. Beaches that do not
meet the minimum sampling requirements for their tier have a sign saying they are not monitored, and beaches that do
not meet the state standards for acceptable bacteria levels and/or have a toxic cyanobacterial scum (freshwater only) have
a sign saying that the beach is under advisory.2 New Hampshire’s water quality standards allow for the use of both the
geometric mean and the single-sample standards. However, single-sample values are typically used to post advisories.1
When a sample exceeds the standard, officials notify other state and local government agencies without resampling. The
public is generally notified within 24 hours. In addition to monitoring results, the state is guided in its advisory issuance
by illness complaints, which are solicited on its website. Advisories are usually issued for whole beaches rather than sec-
tions of a beach, but the beach coordinator could place a section of a beach under advisory if conditions warranted.1
Reopening Procedures: When a sample exceeds water quality standards, the Department of Environmental Services
resamples water from the beach to determine when bacteria levels have decreased to within the state standards.
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels. Stormwater was
listed as the reason for the elevated levels of bacteria for 61 percent (14) of the days and the cause of the remaining 39
percent (9) of the days with elevated levels of bacteria was reported to be unknown.
Notes
1 Jody Connor, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, personal communication, June 2007.
2 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, NHDES Beach Program Tiered Monitoring Plan Revision 5.0, January 18, 2007.
New Jersey
New Jersey was the first state to have a statewide mandatory beach protection program that includes a bacteria standard,
a testing protocol, and mandatory closure requirements whenever the bacteria standard is exceeded. Since 1974, the
Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CCMP) has
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
been assessing coastal water quality for swimmer safety.1
In 2006, the New Jersey Department of Environmental samples exceeding the state standard
Protection administered the state’s BEACH Act grant. increased to 3 percent in 2006 from
Other agencies participating in CCMP were the county
1 percent in 2005.
health departments of all five coastal counties (Atlantic,
Cape May, Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties), the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services,
four municipal health departments, and the Monmouth County Regional Health Commission.2
New Jersey has 127 miles of public coastal beaches3 with 325 beaches.4 Water quality at 70 percent of these beaches
was monitored from mid-May to mid-September in 2006. In addition to regular beach water monitoring for bacteria
concentrations, the Department of Environmental Protection conducted aerial surveillance of nearshore coastal waters
six days a week during the summer and routinely inspected the 17 wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to the
ocean. The information collected under the CCMP assists the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in
developing coastal zone management strategies, such as land use planning to control pollution from nonpoint sources.1
New Jersey also has a program for freshwater recreational beach monitoring.
New Jersey’s policy is to issue beach closings when bacteria levels exceed standards. Preemptive rain advisories are is-
sued in some areas of the state as well. Frequent episodes of intense rainfall, with their associated stormwater discharges,
may have resulted in an increased number of closings in 2006.3
New Jersey received a $277,730 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $279,870 grant in 2007.
Federal funding supports only a portion of New Jersey’s beach monitoring and notification program. New Jersey con
tributes an additional $200,000 to the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program through the sale of Shore Protection
license plates.3 Tourism in New Jersey contributes about $37.6 billion and generates 480,800 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: In 2004, the State Sanitary Code was amended such to change the primary contact standard from a single
sample with fecal coliform levels greater than 200 cfu/100 ml to a single sample with enterococcus levels greater than
104 cfu/100 ml.2
Three ocean beaches around the Wreck Pond outfall (Brown Avenue, York Avenue, and Terrace) and L Street Beach
in Belmar are automatically closed for 24 hours after the end of all rainfall events greater than 0.1 inch or that cause an
increased flow in storm drains, and for 48 hours from the end of all rainfalls greater than 2.8 inches within a 24 hour
period. Near the Wreck Pond outfall, lifeguards (or staff designated by Spring Lake) will prohibit swimming near any
parts of these beaches where the stormwater plume is observed to be mixing within the swimming area.2 Health and
enforcement agencies can close a beach at their discretion at any time.
Monitoring
Frequency: County health departments routinely monitored approximately 200 ocean and bay beaches at least weekly
uring the summer 2006 beach season. In 2006 (as in 2005), CCMP had 325 sampling locations, but only 226
d
(183 ocean stations and 43 bay stations) were in recreational waters. The others were environmental samples taken
in beach areas closed to the public for swimming.5 Most ocean stations are sampled to evaluate the water quality at several
lifeguarded beaches in an area rather than one lifeguarded beach.2 Each recreational beach is monitored because these
beaches are noncontiguous. If aerial monitoring is included, all 127 miles of coastal beach in New Jersey are monitored.
Practice: Samples are taken 12 to 18 inches below the surface in water that is between knee and chest deep. Routine sam-
pling is conducted on Monday mornings. At least 24 hours pass before sampling results are known. New Jersey is pilot-
ing the use of rapid test methods this summer.6
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded New Jersey’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
3 percent in 2006 from 1 percent in 2005.
In 2006, 8 of the top 10 Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were in Ocean County: Beachwood
Beach West (60%), Money Island Beach (40%), 21st St. Beach (22%), Anglesea Beach (22%), New Jersey Beach (21%),
West Beach (21%), 14th St. Beach (18%), and Maxon Beach (18%). The other two beaches were in Monmouth County:
L Street Beach (36%) and Rec Center (20%).
Seventy-four percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Cape May
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (87%), followed by Atlantic (82%), Ocean (72%),
and Monmouth (51%) counties. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples ex-
ceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by
percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: If bacteria levels exceed the standard, the beach is resampled immediately. If the second sam-
ple exceeds the standard, the beach is closed. Resampling is conducted in conjunction with a sanitary survey of the beach.
If high bacteria concentrations are found at an ocean station, sampling is conducted linearly along the beach to deter-
mine the extent of the affected area. This “bracket sampling” can result in an extension of a beach closing to contiguous
lifeguarded beaches.2 The public is notified of beach closings via signs, red flags, the internet, and during the summer
months, a telephone hotline.
Reopening Procedures: Daily monitoring is conducted until the beach water meets water quality standards and the
results of the sanitary survey are acceptable.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: Sixty-five percent (87) of closing and advisory days in 2006 were preemptive due to
rain and the remaining 35 percent (47) of closing days were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from
unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
2 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program: Summary Report for 2005 and 2006, not dated.
3 Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication, June 2007.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s BEACH Report: New Jersey 2006 Swimming Season, June 2007.
5 Lisa Jackson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection testimony at House Transportation and Infrastructure hearing on reauthorizing
the BEACH Act, July 12, 2007.
6 Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication, August 2006.
New York
New York is the only state in the nation with ocean, estuarine, and Great Lakes coastline. There are 127 miles of
Atlantic Ocean coastline, 231 miles of shorefront on Long Island Sound, 548 miles of Long Island bayfront, and
83 miles of shorefront on islands off the Long Island coast. In addition to these marine waters, there are at least 200
miles of freshwater shoreline on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.1 The state of New York has 318 Great Lakes and marine
beaches.2 Most of these beaches are on Atlantic waters;
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of
only 39 are on Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. The beach
monitoring program in New York is administered by the samples exceeding the state standard
New York State Department of Health in conjunction decreased to 13 percent in 2006 from
with eight county health departments, the New York City
15 percent in 2005.
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and one State Health Department District Office.2
Great Lakes shoreline is found in Cayuga, Chautauqua, Erie, Jefferson, Monroe, Niagara, Orleans, Oswego, and Wayne
Counties. All of these counties have Great Lakes beaches except for Orleans County. Beaches on Atlantic marine or
estuarine waters are found in Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, and Westchester counties. All of the
beaches in all of these counties are monitored except for three beaches each in Westchester County and Suffolk County
where swimming is prohibited.2
The monitoring season extends from May to September. Both closings and advisories are issued for beaches in the
state. On a per beach basis, there were more advisory and closing days at Great Lakes beaches than at marine beaches. In
2006, Erie and Chautauqua Counties had the most closing and advisory days at Great Lakes beaches. More than 70 per-
cent of New York City’s 6,000 miles of sewer system are combined with stormwater pipes, which can discharge a mixture
of rainfall runoff and raw sewage into area waterways during and immediately after precipitation.3 For coastal beaches,
relatively wet weather in 2006, especially during the late summer hurricane season, resulted in a high number of wet
weather advisories at private beaches.4 Marine beaches in Suffolk County had the most closing and advisory days of any
county, with almost 40 percent of the state’s total for Great Lakes and coastal beaches combined. In July, Orchard Beach
and all the private beaches in the Bronx and Douglaston in Queens were issued a total of 27 pollution advisory days due
to a reduction from secondary to primary treatment at the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant caused by a power
outage at the Con Edison facility in Astoria, Queens. In addition, in August these beaches were closed for two days as a
preemptive measure after a sewage main in the area of the Hunts Point treatment plant was blocked, resulting in sewage
discharging into the Bronx River.4 New York State received a $348,740 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible
for a $352,830 grant in 2006.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus and E. coli
Standards: Beginning in 2005, all beach closing/advisory days resulting from monitoring that revealed high bacteria
levels at coastal beaches were based on BEACH Act indicator organisms. For marine beaches, New York uses an entero
coccus single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml. For freshwater beaches, New York uses an E. coli single-sample maxi-
mum of 235 cfu/100.
All of the counties with marine beaches and most of the counties with Great Lakes beaches issue preemp-
tive rain advisories. New York City has rainfall standards at some of its beaches. South Beach, Midland Beach,
Manhattan Beach, and Kingsborough Community College are under advisory for 12 hours if more than 1.5 inches
of rain fall in a six-hour period. All Bronx private beaches and Douglaston are under advisory for 48 hours and
Gerritsen Beach is under advisory for 72 hours if more than 0.2 inches of rain fall in a two-hour period or if more
than 0.4 inches of rain fall in a 24‑hour period. New York City also issues preemptive advisories when there is a known
sewage spill.
Monitoring
Frequency: New York State reported 318 marine and Great Lakes beaches. Nearly half of the marine beaches and all of
the Great Lakes beaches were monitored at least once a week in 2006. Remaining beaches were monitored less than once
a week. All New York City beaches were monitored at least once a week, except for Breezy Point and Rockaway, which
were monitored every other week.
At New York City beaches, monitoring locations and sampling frequency are based on potential pollution sources and
storm water discharges, historical water quality data, ongoing trends, regional hydrodynamics, frequency of use, beach
length, and geomorphology.
Practice: In New York City, sample collection is generally performed in the morning on weekdays. Water samples are
c ollected at a depth of 18 inches in water approximately three feet deep. Results are available 24 hours after the sample
reaches the lab for analysis. Routine samples are generally collected early in the week, and resampling occurs later in the
week as needed.4
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded New York’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
13 percent in 2006 from 15 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Point Gratiot Beach in Chautauqua County
(47%), Boys And Girls Harbor in Suffolk County (40%), Tides Property Owners Association in Suffolk County (40%),
Main Street Beach (35%) and Wright Park East in Chautauqua County (35%), Ontario Beach in Monroe County
(31%), Wright Park West in Chautauqua County (29%), Pultneyville Mariners Beach in Wayne County (29%), and
Valley Grove Beach in Suffolk County (28%).
Forty-eight percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Jefferson
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (100%) followed by Oswego (86%), Queens (73%),
Wayne (67%), Nassau (66%), New York (50%), Westchester (48%), Suffolk (46%), Kings (45%), Richmond (33%),
and Erie (10%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the
standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent
exceedance.
events in 2006. The increased number of closures and advisories was due at least in part to heavier rainfall in 2006 than in
2005. Closures for events lasting six consecutive weeks or fewer at New York’s 85 Tier 1 beaches decreased from 1,168 days
in 2004 to 599 days in 2005, then increased to 704 days in 2006. During the time period over which this overall decrease
in closing and advisory days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches remained essentially steady.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: When monitoring of water at beaches shows that levels of certain bacteria exceed standards,
New York’s beach managers either notify the public or resample if there is reason to doubt the validity of the original
sample result. Resampling is performed no more than 48 hours after the routine monitoring results indicated an ex-
ceedance. Beach managers notify the public if the resampling exceeds the water quality standard. This notification is
in the form of a sign or functionally equivalent communication measure stating the type of advisory or closing and the
reason it was issued (heavy rainfall, the high levels of bacteria, etc.). Signs are located where they are most likely to be
noticed by beach users: at beach entrances, on bulletin boards, or in the general vicinity of the common swimming areas.
Functionally equivalent communication measures include mass media, such as newspapers, television and radio, the
Internet, telephone hotlines, and technical reports.1 New York City conducts a resampling or issues an advisory or closing
on a case-by-case basis, after analyzing ongoing water quality trends, historical water quality data, reports of pollution
events, and other factors that may be affecting the beach.4 In New York City, signs must be posted for the duration of
closure and advisory events. A website and a hotline are also maintained.4 Generally, advisory and closures in New York
City apply to entire beaches rather than sections of a beach.4
Reopening Procedures: The monitoring frequency at beaches in New York City is increased if a beach is closed or placed
under advisory.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: Sixty-seven percent (855) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were preemptive rain adviso-
ries. Twenty-nine percent (374) were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels. Of these, 49 percent (183)
were from unknown sources of contamination, 49 percent (184) were from stormwater, eight percent (29) were from
sewage overflows, and 2 percent (7) were from other sources. Two percent of closing/advisory days (27) were preemp-
tive in response to known sewage spills, and two percent (24) were preemptive in response to other sources. Totals may
exceed 100 percent because more than one factor may have contributed to a beach closing or advisory.
2006 New York State Coastal and Great Lakes Beach Closings/Advisories
County Beach Name Start Date End Date Reason Source
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 8/31 8/31 Bacteria
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 6/2 6/5 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 6/7 6/8 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 6/24 6/26 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 6/28 7/1 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 7/5 7/7 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 7/13 7/14 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 7/21 7/21 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Comb-sew-overflow,
Bronx American Turners 8/11 8/12 Prempt-rain
Stormwater
Notes
1 New York State Department of Economic Development, http://www.iloveny.com/AboutNY/TopFacts. aspx as viewed on 7/16/2007
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s BEACH Report: New York 2006 Swimming Season, June 2007.
3 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey, New York State Department of Sanitation, 1993.
4 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006 NYC Beach Survelliance (sic) and Monitoring Program Summary, October 2006.
North Carolina
Most of North Carolina’s 241 public coastal beaches, which stretch along 415 miles of Atlantic waters, are located on
barrier islands. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) began monitor-
ing beaches along the North Carolina coast in 1997. In 2006, through a program administered by the NCDENR,
water quality monitoring was conducted at all public coastal beaches in the state. This agency does all of the beach sam-
pling, analysis, and public notification activities in North
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
Carolina. Seventeen counties have marine coastline, and all
have at least one beach that is monitored. of samples exceeding the standard
Even though the barrier islands are sparsely developed, remained steady at 2 percent in 2006
they are affected by visits from millions of tourists each year.
and 2005.
These beaches are threatened by pollution from agricultural,
septic system, and development runoff into estuarine and bay waters, particularly in the southern region of the state, where
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and many of the most popular beach communities are
located. Except for areas adjacent to storm drains, beaches along the open ocean are not as affected by stormwater as beaches
on the sound side.1 The NCDENR has a $15 million grant to do extensive studies and implement best management prac-
tices for ocean stormdrains in Dare County.1 Most beach advisories occur on the sound side, particularly at beaches where
waterfowl congregate and in areas where there is a lack of tidal action and water circulation because of the distance from an
ocean inlet.1
NCDENR does not have the authority to close beaches: it issues alerts and advisories only. However, the state and
county health directors do have the authority to close any body of water if necessary for the protection of public health.1
North Carolina’s swim season is from April to October. During the off-season, advisories are not posted, but sampling
continues on a less frequent basis.2
North Carolina received a $302,480 BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $303,920 grant in 2005. The
state funds monitoring of Tier 2 and Tier 3 beaches (about half of the beaches) while the EPA grant pays for monitor-
ing at Tier 1 beaches.2 The annual contribution from the state to the monitoring program is approximately $240,000.1
Tourism in North Carolina is contributes $15.4 billion to the state’s economy and generates 187,200 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: For its Tier 1 beaches, from May through September, North Carolina’s water quality standards are a single-
sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml water and a running monthly geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. These standards
match the BEACH Act–required standards for full-body water-contact recreation in marine waters. Action levels at
Tier 2 and Tier 3 beaches are different. at Tier 2 beaches, the standard is a single-sample maximum of 276 cfu/100 ml,
and at Tier 3 beaches, the standard is a single-sample maximum of 500 cfu/100 ml.3 State legislation passed in 2004
codified these standards.4 During April and October, the standard for Tier 1 beaches is generally the same as the standard
for Tier 2 beaches.2 However, the NCDENR can opt to apply Tier 1 standards during those months if the water tempera
ture is warm enough for high recreational usage.1
Beach advisories are issued when pumping of floodwaters between the primary dune and the ocean beaches occurs
and when disposal of dredge material from closed shellfishing waters on ocean beaches occurs.2 Permanent signs are
posted on either side of stormdrain outfalls stating that swimming between the signs is not recommended and that waters
may be contaminated by discharge from the pipe.1 Advisories are also issued after known sewage spills. During extreme
rain events, the NCDENR sometimes issue blanket advisories that cover large regions or all of coastal North Carolina.1
Monitoring
Frequency: North Carolina reported 240 monitoring sites in 2006. These sites represented all public coastal beaches in
the state. Thirty-eight percent (92) were at Tier 1 beaches that were monitored weekly from April through September
NC.1 Natural Resources Defense Council
Testing the Waters 2007
and twice a month in October. The remaining 62 percent (148) were at Tier 2 and 3 beaches, which are monitored twice
a month between April and October. All beaches are monitored once a month from November to March.
North Carolina has prioritized its beaches based on usage and potential for contamination. Tier 1 beaches are adjacent
to resort areas, public accesses, and summer camps and are used on a daily basis. All ocean beaches are considered Tier 1.
Tier 2 beaches constitute areas such as those in the intracoastal waterway, tidal creeks, and exposed shoals. People fre-
quent Tier 2 sites mostly on weekends and these sites are usually accessed by watercraft. Tier 3 beaches are used an aver-
age of four times per month, or used less frequently but intensively for special events such as triathlons.
Lateral sampling to determine the extent of the plume from discharging stormdrains is done in Dare County. Lateral
sampling is also done at some sites when the geometric mean is exceeded in order to determine the extent of the con-
taminated area.2
Practice: Samplers take care not to disturb bottom sediment when sampling. Samples are collected in the ocean surf
16 feet from the sampler’s body using a telescopic golf ball retriever in knee-deep water, six to 12 inches below the
surface of the water. Half of the samples are collected by boat, and these samples are taken in water that is three feet
deep, 12 inches below the surface. Samples taken from piers must be taken at the location of the most used area six to
12 inches below the water’s surface. Stormdrains that extend to the water’s edge are sampled 10 feet on either side when
practical. Storm drains that do not extend to the water’s edge are sampled where the swash enters the surf.2
Sampling is routinely conducted Monday to Thursday, but takes place on Fridays and weekends if necessary. Sampling
is conducted early enough in to day for the samples to be received by the lab before 2 pm. Sample results are avail-
able approximately 24 hours after samples are delivered to the lab for analysis. In addition to recording sampling data,
samplers record rainfall, air and water temperature, wind speed and direction, current direction, tidal stage, and presence
of waterfowl and wildlife.2
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded North
Carolina’s daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
remained steady at 2 percent in 2006 and 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Town Creek in Carteret County (15%),
Southern Shores Private Soundside Access in Dare County (14%), Banks Channel-Waynick Blvd. approx. 150 yds N of
Iula St. (13%) and Banks Channel - Waynick Blvd. between Snyder and Seashore St in New Hanover County (12%),
and Public Beach S side of Dawson Crk Bridge in Pamlico County (12%).
Seventy percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Pender and
Camden Counties had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (100%), followed by Craven (88%),
Carteret (85%), Hyde (80%), Brunswick (77%), New Hanover (76%), Dare (76%), Pamlico (70%), Beaufort (67%),
Currituck (67%), and Onslow (50%). Five counties whose lone coastal beach did not exceed the standards are Bertie,
Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Tyrrell counties. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and
percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in
descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Thirty-nine advisory events were issued at North Carolina’s public coastal beaches in 2006. Total advisory days for events
lasting six consecutive weeks or less increased 76 percent, from 197 days in 2005 to 346 days in 2006. There were two
extended advisory events in North Carolina in 2006 compared to one extended and one permanent advisory event in
2005. Closings and advisories at North Carolina’s 93 Tier 1 beaches decreased from 241 days in 2004 to 48 days in 2005,
then increased to 283 days in 2006. During the time period over which this overall increase in advisory days occurred,
the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches was steady.
Advisory Issuance: When tier-based action levels are exceeded, a swimming advisory or alert is issued. An alert is issued
for Tier 1 beaches whose enterococcus levels are between 104 and 500 cfu/100 ml. A second sample is collected immedi-
ately when an alert is issued, and if levels in the re-sample exceed 104 cfu/100 ml, then the alert converts to an advisory.
An advisory is also issued when two out of three simultaneous samples exceed 104 cfu/100 ml for Tier 1 beaches that are
sampled in triplicate. For Tier 2 beaches, an alert is issued if a sample is between 276 and 500 cfu/100 ml and a resample
is conducted. This alert converts to an advisory if the resample is more than 276 cfu/100 ml. An advisory is issued with-
out a resample at Tier 1 and 2 beaches if a single sample is greater than 500 cfu/100 ml. Alerts are not issued at Tier 3
beaches. Instead, the beaches are resampled if the levels are higher than 500 cfu/100 ml and if the second sample is above
that level, an advisory is issued.2
Alerts are announced in press releases and on the website but no advisory sign is posted at the beach. Signs are posted
when advisories are issued. The program’s project manager decides whether to post advisory signs during April and
October when colder temperatures result in fewer swimmers.2
Reopening Procedures: Tier 2 and 3 beaches are monitored weekly after an advisory is issued until levels fall below
276 cfu/100 ml and 500 cfu/100 ml, respectively. For a geometric mean advisory at a Tier 1 beach to be rescinded, the
beach must have two consecutive weekly samples below 35 cfu/100 ml and meet the geometric mean standard for the
last five samples. If a station has triplicate sampling, two out of three samples have to be below 104 cfu/100 ml for the
advisory to be lifted.2 NCDENR samples after storm events, sewage spills, dredge disposal, and floodwater pumping to
confirm safe bacteria levels before lifting preemptive advisories.1
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from un-
known sources of contamination.
Notes
1 J.D. Potts, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, personal communication, July 2007.
2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Beach Monitoring Project Quality Assurance Project Plan,
revised January 4, 2005.
3 North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program Sampling Data, accessed
at www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/Water_Monitoring/RWQweb/data.htm, July 2007..
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
Ohio
Ohio has 21 public beaches lining 7.3 miles of Lake Erie shoreline.1 Ohio’s Bathing Beach Monitoring Program is admin
istered by the Ohio Department of Health. This department monitored 15 Lake Erie beaches as well as beaches at inland
state parks. In addition to beaches monitored by the state,
Lake Erie beaches are monitored by the Lake County For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
General Health District, the Cuyahoga County Board of of samples exceeding the standard
Health, and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. All increased to 22 percent in 2006 from
of these entities monitored inland beachwater quality as well,
as did the Erie County General Health District. At least a few 19 percent in 2005.
beaches in all seven counties with Lake Erie shoreline were monitored in 2006. Monitored beaches represent nearly 40 per-
cent of the Lake Erie beaches in the state and 95 percent of the Lake Erie beach miles.1 The monitoring season ranges from
mid-May through August to mid-June through August, depending on the monitoring entity and the beaches involved.2
Both closures and advisories are issued at Lake Erie beaches in Ohio by local authorities based on recommendations
by the state. Under normal circumstances, beaches are not closed solely due to high bacteria levels.2 Lake County received
an unusual amount of rain over a short period of time in July and this resulted in the closure of the beach at Mentor
Headlands State Park for two weeks.2 Most of the Lake Erie closing and advisory days in the state occurred in late July
and early August.
Ohio received a $223,650 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $224,300 grant in 2007. The
BEACH Act grants fully fund Ohio’s Lake Erie beach monitoring program. Tourism in Ohio contributes about
$30.7 billion and generates 529,100 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli.
Standards: The state of Ohio revised its beachwater quality standard in 1996 to require E. coli to be used as the indicator
organism to test beachwater quality. The BEACH Act–required standards for freshwater are an enterococcus single-sam-
ple maximum of 61 cfu/100 ml and a five-sample, 30-day geometric mean of 33 cfu/100 ml, or an E. coli single-sample
maximum of 235 cfu/100 ml and a five-sample, 30-day geometric mean of 126 cfu/100 ml. The E. coli geometric mean
was used in 2005 to determine beach advisories. In 2006, Ohio began using the E. coli single-sample maximum for beach
closing and advisory decisions.
Any pollution spill, sewage overflow, or similar pollution problem occurring at or proximate to a bathing beach may
be cause to restrict public access. The Cuyahoga County Board of Health conducted a pilot study to evaluate a method
for forecasting E. coli concentrations. The system, called Nowcast, uses environmental factors including rainfall, turbid-
ity, and wave height to predict E. coli levels. In 2006, advisories at Huntington Beach were based on daily predicted E.
coli values. The beach was placed on advisory status if Nowcast predicted that the probability of E. coli concentrations
exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml was 27 percent or greater. Samples were also taken and it was shown that the Nowcast system
accurately predicted water quality conditions 80 percent of the time.2
Monitoring
Frequency: Ohio reported monitoring 48 Great Lakes beaches in 2006. Monitoring locations are based on the popularity
of beaches. Two Tier 1 beaches were monitored five times a week, 17 Tier 1 beaches were monitored four times a week,
six Tier 2 beaches were monitored between twice a month and once a week, five Tier 3 beaches were monitored twice a
month, and 18 beaches with no tier status were monitored once a week.
Practice: Samples are taken in water that is three feet deep, one foot below the surface, in an area of the beach generally used
for swimming.2 Eighteen to 24 hours go by before sampling results are known. Sampling occurs Monday through Friday.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Ohio’s daily
maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to 22 per-
cent in 2006 from 19 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Villa Angela State Park (44%), Euclid State
Park (42%), and Huntington_Beach in Cuyahoga County (32%); Camp Perry in Ottawa County (31%), Lakeshore
Park in Ashtabula County (27%); Mentor Headlands E. in Lake County (25%); Crane Creek (25%) and Maumee Bay
Sp Erie in Lucas County (24%); Lakeview Beach in Lorain County (20%); and Edgewater St. Pk. in Cuyahoga County
(20%).
Ten percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Erie County had
the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (21%) followed by Ottawa County (17%). The table below lists
the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006.
Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisory Issuance: Except for state parks and Lake Erie beaches funded through the BEACH Act, Ohio does not have a
requirement for monitoring beaches. Even where monitoring is conducted, the state has no legal authority to issue an ad-
visory or close a beach. Therefore, the state can only recommend that a municipality post a warning sign when the state
standard is exceeded. However, local agencies are complying with this recommendation, and advisories are issued if the
standard is exceeded.2 Advisories can be issued for a section of a beach as well as for a whole beach. The public is notified
of advisories and closings via a telephone hotline, website, signs, and newspaper articles.
Reopening Procedures: The monitoring frequency is at its maximum for many beaches, and the frequency does not in-
crease if a beach is placed under advisory or closed.1
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from storm-
water sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Steve Binns, Ohio Department of Health, personal communication, July 2007.
2 Ohio Department of Health, Ohio Bathing Beach Monitoring Program 2006 Program/Grant Status Report, not dated.
Oregon
With funds received through the federal BEACH Act, Oregon established a beach monitoring and public notifica-
tion program for swimmer safety in 2003. Until then, Oregon did not monitor ocean and bay recreational beaches for
swimmer safety or for other water contact activities, and
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
there were no standards for swimmer safety and no beach
closing/advisory programs in effect. The Oregon Beach of samples exceeding the standards
Monitoring Program is a joint project between the Oregon increased to 3 percent in 2006 from
Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Oregon
1 percent in 2005..
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The DHS
administers BEACH Act grant funds and the DEQ conducts beach monitoring through an inter-agency agreement with
DHS. In Oregon, the public is guaranteed free and uninterrupted use of all beaches along the coastline. Therefore, beach
advisories are issued but not closures.
Oregon has 59 beaches lining 186 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline. More than 40 percent of these beaches were moni-
tored in 2006. Seven counties are on the coast: Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lincoln, Tillamook, Douglas, and Lane. All but
Douglas and Lane counties have beaches that are monitored. Sampling occurs all year, with more monitoring occurring
during the peak season from May to September.
Most advisories in 2006 were in the late fall and winter. Nearly three-quarters of beach advisory days were for four
beaches (Agate, Cannon, Nye, and Sunset Canyon State Park beaches).1
Oregon received a $228,780 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $229,570 grant in 2007. The fed-
eral grants fully fund the Oregon beach monitoring and notification program. Coastal tourism contributes $7.9 billion
to the state’s economy, generating 88,900 jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Oregon uses a single-sample maximum enterococcus standard of 158 cfu/100 ml for beach advisory deci-
sions at marine waters. Under Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131, the state of Oregon must adopted
standards at least as stringent as EPA standards for coastal water quality. These standards require public health protec-
tion at or below a rate of 19 illnesses per 1000 swimmers for marine waters. Enterococcus water quality standards must
include a geometric mean of less than 35 cfu/100 ml and a single-sample density of 104 cfu/100 ml to 500 cfu/100 ml
depending on full-body water-contact use. A single-sample density of 158 cfu/100 ml matches the EPA’s “Moderate Full
Body Contact Recreation” category at 19 illnesses/1,000 swimmers, and is the DHS single-sample action level in use.
The Oregon Department of Human Services says the less strict standard is as protective of public health, given the water
temperature and frequency and duration of use by swimmers and others. The geometric mean is calculated for tracking
trends only, not for issuing advisories.1 The state does not have preemptive standards based on rain or other factors for
issuing beach advisories.
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, the DHS monitored 25 beaches covering 30 miles of coastline. During the summer season (May
to September), four beaches were monitored four times a month, 13 beaches were monitored twice a month, and three
beaches were monitored once a month. During the winter season (October to April), 13 beaches were monitored twice
a month and two beaches were monitored once a month. Five of the beaches that were monitored twice a month during
the winter season were not monitored during the summer season. They are Agate, Florence North Jetty, South, Barview
County Park, and Umpqua Beaches. All of the other beaches monitored during the winter season were also monitored
during the summer season.
In Oregon, the sampling frequency and location varies from season to season. Beaches are referred to according to
sampling frequency rather than tiers. Oregon abandoned the three-tiered beach ranking system in favor of a periodic
review of field observations, bacteriological data, and qualitative risk assessment. This flexibility allows monitoring re-
sources to shift to waters with suspected pollutant sources, increasing bacteria levels, and/or increasing water contact use.
The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program samples the water at those beaches that have had historically higher bacteria
levels and ocean water recreational use. Sampling locations are re-evaluated every other year and prioritized based on use
levels and previous monitoring results. This review produces a ranking of highest priority sampling beaches to be sampled
for the following two years. Beaches with low bacteria data and use observations are essentially allowed to rotate off the
list to allow other beaches to be sampled. Oregon has resources to sample about 20 of its more than 50 beaches identified
as coastal recreation waters.1
Practice: Water samples are collected at ankle to knee depth in the middle of typical bathing areas and near known
or potential pollution sources.1 Sampling results are generally known 24 hours after the sample is delivered to a lab.
Sampling activities are conducted on weekdays.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Oregon’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. Oregon did not provide a list of its Tier 1 beaches, so NRDC defined Oregon Tier 1
beaches as those monitored at least once a week. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standards
increased to 3 percent in 2006 from 1 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Twin Rocks Beach in Tillamook County
(31%), Nye Beach in Lincoln County (20%), Sunset Bay State Park Beach in Coos County (20%), and Mill Beach
(14%), Harris Beach State Park (10%), and Humbug Mountain Beach in Curry County (9%).
Thirty-six percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Clatsop
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (67%), followed by Coos (50%), Tillamook (29%),
Lincoln (25%), and one beach each in Douglas and Lane counties. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring fre-
quency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county
and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Advisories
Oregon issued 13 advisories in 2006. Total advisory days at Oregon’s coastal beaches decreased 44 percent to 66 days
in 2006 from 117 days in 2005. Oregon did not distinguish a set of Tier 1 beaches, so NRDC analyzed for a trend in
advisories from 2004 to 2006 based on the a set of beaches that was monitored at least once a week in 2006. Advisories
at these four beaches decreased from 39 days in 2004 to 10 days in 2005, then increased to 15 days in 2006. During the
time period over which this overall decrease in advisory days occurred, the overall monitoring frequency at these beaches
was steady.
Advisory Issuance: Public notification for beach advisories occurs if a single sample result exceeds Oregon’s action limit.
Resampling is acceptable in lieu of issuing public notification if there is reason to doubt the accuracy or certainty of the
first sample based on quality assurance/quality control measures described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan docu-
ment and Standard Operating Procedures.1 To date, there have not been exceedances attributed to sampling or labora-
tory error that required resampling prior to the issuance of an advisory.2 The public is notified of an advisory via email,
a website, a toll-free number, media releases, and signage.2 Advisories are issued for entire beaches rather than for sections
of a beach.1
Reopening Procedures: Advisories are not lifted until enterococcus concentrations meet applicable water quality stan-
dards. Following an advisory, additional samples are collected to lift the advisory sooner, rather than waiting until the
next routine sampling results are received. If possible, the additional samples are collected within 96 hours of the advi-
sory, after which routine sampling resumes. Resampling should occur at the sample station(s) that exceeded the water
quality standard, but may occur at all sampling stations at the particular beach. Because of limited resources, maintaining
routine sampling at designated sites generally takes precedence over resampling to lift an advisory.1
Causes of Advisories: All advisories in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed bacteria levels above standards from
unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Jennifer Ketterman, Department of Human Services, personal communication, May 2007.
2 Oregon Department of Human Services, Annual Performance Report for the Oregon Department of Human Services BEACH Monitoring Program
(Agreement #CU96023301)—Activity Period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, not dated.
Pennsylvania
The 40 miles of Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania are all located in Erie County. Of this shoreline, approximately
seven miles of beach are in Presque Isle State Park, less than one mile is a permitted public bathing beach outside the
state park, and the remainder of the shoreline is composed of private, unpermitted beaches or other shoreline. In all,
there are 14 permitted Great Lakes beaches in the state, and
12 of these public beaches are monitored from Memorial For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
Day to Labor Day. 1 of samples exceeding the standard
For the 2006 swim season, the Erie County Department increased to 11 percent in 2006 from
of Health administered the state’s BEACH Act grant.2
This agency was responsible for overseeing all monitor- 10 percent in 2005.
ing programs in the county, issuing beach permits, and enforcing state regulations. The Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources is responsible for monitoring beaches at Presque Isle State Park. Other permitted
beaches located on Lake Erie are monitored by the individual permit holders, which are usually local municipalities or
organizations. Results of all monitoring programs are reported to the Erie County Department of Health, which periodi-
cally collects samples at various beaches in the county to crosscheck monitoring results. Monitoring is not required at
unpermitted beaches.
Both beach advisories and closings were issued for Great Lakes beaches in Pennsylvania in 2006. More than half of the
closings and advisories occurred in the early half of July, and 40 percent of the closings and advisories for the season were
issued for Presque Isle State Park-Beach 1.
Pennsylvania received a $222,530 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $223,150 grant in 2007.
Standards
Indicator Organism: E. coli
Standards: The Pennsylvania Public Swimming & Bathing Places State Code, which was last revised in 1984, contains
its code for bathing beaches. For closing and advisory determinations at Pennsylvania’s Great Lakes beaches, an E. coli
single-sample maximum standard of 235 cfu/100 ml is applied.1 This matches the BEACH Act–required standard for
single-sample maximums in freshwater. Pennsylvania does not use the BEACH Act–required standard of a five-sample,
30‑day geometric mean for E. coli of 126 cfu/100 ml.
In 2004, the Erie County Department of Health began developing a predictive model of recreational beachwater qual-
ity based on weather, known sewage discharges, storm events, and water currents. The department will use data collected
to see if a correlation exists between weather conditions and high bacterial counts. The model will allow beach managers
to close beaches or issue advisories based on real-time measurement of specific weather conditions prior to obtaining the
results of monitoring samples.3 Preemptive rain advisories were issued in 2006 based on rain levels.
Monitoring
Frequency: Pennsylvania monitored 86 percent (12) of its permitted Great Lakes beaches in 2006, all of which were
monitored twice a week.1 Two Great Lakes beaches are not monitored.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
Pennsylvania’s daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
increased to 11 percent in 2006 from 10 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Presque Isle State Park - Beach 1 (14%),
Presque Isle State Park - Beach 6 (10%), and Water Works Beach (10%).
The table on the following page lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard
for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing Issuance: In the event of an exceedance, officials close the beach or issue an advisory. Resampling to confirm an
exceedance before issuing a closure or advisory is not done. If the E. coli level in a regulatory sample is greater than or
equal to 235 cfu/100ml, but less than 1,000 cfu/100ml, the beach is posted with a swimming advisory. Swimming is per-
mitted and the public is informed that the E.coli level exceeds standards and what precautions to take should they choose
to enter the water. If the E. coli level is equal to or greater than 1,000 cfu/100 ml, the beach is posted with a swimming
restriction and swimming is not permitted.4 Notification is given to appropriate officials and the media and warnings are
posted on park entrance signs. Lifeguards prevent people from entering the water during a closure.
Reopening Procedures: If an advisory or a closure is posted, beaches are resampled for three consecutive days.4 Advisories
are lifted when resampling indicates a bacteria level below 235 cfu/100 ml.
Causes of Closings: Ninety-six percent (51) of Great Lakes beach closing and advisory days in Pennsylvania in 2006 were
due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacterial levels from unknown sources. The remaining four percent (2) were
preemptive rain advisories.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s BEACH Report: Pennsylvania 2006 Swimming Season, June 2007.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Dennis C. Wilson, Pennsylvania Department of Health, personal communication, June 14, 2005.
4 Erie County Department of Health, Beach Sampling Information, accessed at http://www.ecdh.org/environmental/BeachSampleInfo.htm, July 2007..
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has 235 public coastal beaches along about 400 miles of Atlantic Ocean and Narragansett Bay waters. The
Rhode Island Department of Health is responsible for beachwater monitoring and has the authority to close beaches or issue
advisories. The Department of Health also has the authority For Tier 1 beaches only, the
to suspend the license of a bathing beach if applicable water
quality standards have been violated. Beaches north of percent of samples exceeding the
Conimicut Point in Warwick and Nayatt Point in Barrington standard decreased to 14 percent in
are unlicensed because of water quality issues, and the public 2006 from 17 percent in 2005.
is advised to avoid water contact in those areas.1
The monitoring program in Rhode Island has a strong source-identification emphasis. Because of the monitoring
program, problems with stormdrains, sewer lines, and septic systems have been revealed and corrected or are in the
process of being corrected.2
All five counties in Rhode Island have public coastal beaches, and all have at least one monitored beach.1 All licensed
marine bathing beaches in Rhode Island (slightly less than a htird of all public coastal beaches) are monitored during
the swim season, which extends from approximately one week before Memorial Day to one week after Labor Day. In
addition to conducting coastal beachwater monitoring supported by federal BEACH Act grant monies, Rhode Island
requires freshwater facility managers to sample bathing waters adjacent to their facilities and to report the results to the
Rhode Island Department of Health.1
More than twice as much rain fell in 2006 as in 2005, leading to an increase in the number of beach closings in
2006. In addition to the weather, the Rhode Island Department of Health is refining its sampling strategies to target
sample collection when and where bacteria counts are most likely to be high, and this strategic sampling leads to in-
creased sample exceedances.1 No beach advisories were issued in 2006, only closings. Kent County had more coastal
beach closing days than other counties, with more than a third of the state’s beach closing days. Conimicut Point,
Atlantic Beach Club Beach, and Warren Town Beach had the highest number of closing days in the state.1 Most closing
days throughout the state occurred in June.
Rhode Island received a $212,640 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $212,900 grant in 2007.
The cost of the coastal monitoring program is fully funded by this federal grant. Tourism in Rhode Island contributes
about $4.7 billion to the state’s economy and generates 57,837 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Rhode Island’s current bathing water standards are as follows: marine bathing waters must not exceed a
single-sample standard of 104 cfu/100 ml of Enterococcus and freshwaters must not exceed 61 cfu/100 ml of entero
coccus.1 .For “high risk” beaches (those with higher potential for adverse water quality or high bather loads), fecal coli-
form levels are obtained, but closures and advisories are determined by enterococcus results.1 Enterococcus levels have
been used since 2004 for issuing beach closings and advisories. Prior to that, fecal coliform standards applied.
If a known sewage discharge occurs in close proximity to a beach, the beach is closed immediately without waiting
for sampling results to confirm contamination. The Rhode Island Department of Health continues to collect data for
the development of a comprehensive preemptive closing model.1 In the meantime, Scarborough and Easton’s beaches are
closed when there is more than one inch of rainfall in a 24-hour period.3 There were no preemptive rainfall advisories
issued in 2006.
Monitoring
Frequency: Seventy coastal beaches covering 25 miles of coastline2 were monitored in 2006. All of the state’s 69 licensed
marine bathing beaches are monitored.1 Seven percent (16) of the state’s public coastal beaches were monitored at least
once a week and 23 percent (54) were regularly monitored but less often than once a week (usually once or twice a
month). All 20 Tier 1 coastal beaches were monitored in 2006. Of these, one was monitored four times per week, seven
were monitored three times per week, three were monitored 10 times per month, three were monitored two times per
week, two were monitored once a week, three were monitored twice a month, and one was monitored six times a year.
All 41 Tier 2 beaches were also monitored. Eight were monitored twice a month and 33 were monitored once a month.
In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches, nine Tier 3 beaches were monitored twice a year. Seventy percent (165) of
the state’s public coastal beaches, all of which are designated as Tier 3, were not monitored.
Practice: Samples are collected in the morning, just below the surface of the water in water that is approximately three
feet deep. Results are available 24 hours after delivery to the lab. Sampling generally takes place Monday through Friday,
but if needed, can be done on weekends.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Rhode
Island’s daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
decreased to 14 percent in 2006 from 17 percent in 2005. The decrease in exceedances is surprising since the state
received more than twice as much rain in 2006 as in 2005. Also, the state is refining its sampling strategies so that it is
more likely to sample when and where bacteria levels are high.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Warren Town Beach in Bristol County (29%),
Plum Beach Club (25%) and Saunderstown Yacht Club in Washington County (23%), Third Beach in Newport County
(17%), Oakland Beach in Kent County (15%), Peabodys Beach in Newport County (14%), Willow Dell Beach Club
(14%) and Scarborough State Beach South in Washington County (13%), Goddard Memorial State Park in Kent County
(13%), Mackerel Cove Beach in Newport County (13%), and Matunuck Town Beach in Washington County (13%).
Fifty-nine percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Washington
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (67%) followed by Newport County (58%). The
table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches re-
ported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Typically, if sampling results exceed the standard, a beach is closed. However, the Rhode
Island Department of Health considers several environmental factors before deciding whether to close or reopen a beach:
rainfall, historic monitoring results, known pollution events, results from adjacent monitoring stations, and beach survey
results. If environmental factors do not suggest fecal contamination, the beach may remain open while it is resampled.
The public is notified of closings and advisories via a hotline, a website, and press releases to television and radio sta-
tions. Public notification practices in Narragansett Bay include a color-coded flagging system: blue indicates safe waters
and red indicates a closing or advisory. Rhode Island plans to extend the flagging system to other beaches in the state.
Entire beaches are closed rather than sections. However, some beaches may occasionally advise swimmers not to use
certain portions, such as those areas close to streams after rainfall.3
Reopening Procedures: If a beach is closed or placed under advisory, sampling is conducted daily until the water quality
meets standards and the beach is reopened.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: All closing/advisory days in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria
levels. Of these, 95 percent (242) were from stormwater sources, 46 percent (117) were from wildlife, 43 percent (111)
were from combined sewer overflows and faulty sewage pumps, 31 percent (81), were from boats, and 5 percent (14)
were from unknown sources. Total percentages exceed 100 percent because multiple contamination sources were listed
for most closings and advisories.
Notes
1 Rhode Island Office of Food Protection/Environmental Health, Rhode Island Department of Health Beach Monitoring Program, 2006 Season
Report, March 2007.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Bonnie Blair, Rhode Island Department of Health, personal communication, July 2007.
South Carolina
In the mid-1990s, South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and communities along
the coast launched studies to determine if there was a need for a coastal monitoring program in South Carolina. The
studies showed that during and after rainstorms, stormwater discharges were responsible for levels of enterococcus bac
teria that frequently exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recommendations in some locations, and the
state established a monitoring program in the late 1990s, which DHEC administers. Some monitoring is conducted by
DHEC, while other monitoring is conducted by counties
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
and municipalities. The state’s program coordinator for the
coastal monitoring program was able to provide informa- of samples exceeding the standard
tion about monitoring practices and standards only for decreased to 12 percent in 2006 from
coastal beaches that were monitored by DHEC.1 22 percent in 2005.
There are 63 beaches in South Carolina lining 180 miles
of Atlantic coastline (102 miles on the mainland coast and 78 miles on the barrier islands). According to the DHEC, the
state monitors all 102 miles of major beaches on the mainland coast at 125 sampling sites. It does not monitor another
78 miles of beaches on barrier islands. Beaches in five of the six coastal counties are monitored: Beaufort, Charleston,
Colleton, Georgetown, and Horry. No beaches in Jasper County are monitored because it has a relatively small coastal
waterfront. Dorchester and Berkeley counties have public coastal beaches on estuarine waters, none of which are moni-
tored (even though these counties do not border the coast). More than a third of monitored beaches are monitored from
May 15 to October 15. The City of Myrtle Beach monitors water at Myrtle Beach the remaining part of the year.1
The Department of Health and Environmental Control issues advisories only, not closings. The 2006 swim season
saw more advisories (both preemptive and because of water quality) than usual because of unusually high rainfall levels.
More exceedances were found as the swim season wore on. Myrtle Beach had the most water quality advisories, and three
beaches (Myrtle, Huntington Beach State Park, and Surfside Beaches) together accounted for more than 70 percent of
the state’s water quality advisories.1
South Carolina received a $296,660 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $297,940 grant in 2007.
Federal grants fully fund South Carolina’s beach monitoring and notification program. Coastal tourism contributes
$16 billion to the state’s economy, generating 208,083 jobs.
Standards: South Carolina adopted BEACH Act–required standards in 2004: for ocean and bay waters, an enterococcus
single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml are used.1 DHEC uses the entero-
coccus single-sample maximum standards for beach advisory decisions. Advisories based on the geometric mean are
issued only for Horry County beaches based on weekly monitoring and are issued at the discretion of the district beach
program manager and the program coordinator.
Preemptive rainfall advisories are issued at certain beaches that have a history of high bacteria levels from stormwater.
Further preemptive rainfall standards are under development. In 2000, DHEC began developing a rainfall model to
predict beachwater contamination. Rainfall data continue to be collected from weather sites at three-mile intervals in
Horry and Georgetown counties. At the end of the 2007 sampling season, South Carolina hopes to be ready to use a rain
model based on five years of BEACH Act grant data that will predict the need for advisories in Horry and Georgetown
counties.2
Monitoring
Frequency: In South Carolina, beaches were prioritized for inclusion in the monitoring program based on level of use
and water quality history. Twenty-three of South Carolina’s 63 beaches (37%), representing all of the Tier 1 and Tier 2
beaches, were monitored during the 2006 swim season. Eleven percent (7) were assigned high priority and were moni-
tored weekly and 25 percent (16) were assigned medium priority and were monitored every other week. None of South
Carolina’s Tier 3 beaches, which are accessible only by boat and are not heavily used, was monitored. Monitoring staff
visited most of the Tier 3 beaches in the summer of 2006 to determine if they should be moved to Tier 2 status. In addi-
tion, South Carolina is working to get areas like Charleston Harbor removed from all beaches lists.1
Practice: Samples are taken in a falling tide at a depth of 20 to 40 inches, 12 inches below the surface. Samples are taken
at low tide if possible. Samples are delivered to the lab within six hours of sampling, and results are available in 24 hours.
The day of the week that samples are taken varies depending on weather and scheduling.1
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded South
Carolina’s daily maximum bacterial standard. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of sample exceeding the standard
decreased to 12 percent in 2006 from 22 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the 10 Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were in Horry County: Myrtle Beach City of-
Withers Swash (44%), South Carolina State Park and Campground-Pirateland-Lakewood Campground (38%), Myrtle
Beach City of-Midway Swash (31%), Myrtle Beach City of-24th Ave. N (26%), Horry County Beach Arcadia Beach-
Singleton Swash Arcadia (25%), Briarcliffe Acres Town of-White Point Swash (22%), Surfside Beach Town of-Swash @
5th Ave. N (18%), Myrtle Beach City of-77th Ave. N (18%), Myrtle Beach City of-Canes Patch Swash (18%), Surfside
Beach Town of-3rd Ave. S (16%)
Seventy percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. One hundred
percent of beaches in Georgetown and Charleston Counties did not exceed the standard, followed by Colleton (94%),
Beaufort (93%), and Horry (19%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples
exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in decending order
by percent exceedance.
Advisories
A total of 333 advisories were issued for beaches in South Carolina in 2006. Advisory days increased 16 percent at South
Carolina coastal beaches to 684 in 2006 from 592 in 2005. Advisory days at South Carolina’s seven Tier 1 beaches
increased from 381 days in 2004 to 592 days in 2005, then increased again to 684 days in 2006. The monitoring fre-
quency at Tier 1 beaches did not increase during the time period over which this sharp increase in advisory days was seen.
The increase in advisory days may be due at least in part to unusually high amounts of rainfall in 2005 and 2006.
Advisory Issuance: DHEC issues an advisory immediately when the enterococcus bacteria level reaches 500 cfu/100 ml
and above. If the bacteria level is above 104 cfu/100 ml but below 500 cfu/100 ml, an additional sample is collected. If
the second sample is also above 104 cfu/100 ml, then the department issues an advisory. Preemptive rainfall advisories
are sometimes issued at swashes or pipe outfalls during a rain event as well. When an advisory is issued, the DHEC or
the municipality posts signs (generally within four hours), provides web announcements, and notifies the newspapers.
Advisories are sometimes issued for sections of a beach, rather than the whole beach.
Reopening Procedures: Beaches where water quality has fallen below standards or beaches that have been under a rainfall
advisory are sampled daily and reopened when the standards are met.
Causes of Advisories: Fifty-eight percent (395) of advisory days in 2006 were preemptive rainfall advisories. The remain-
ing advisories were due to monitoring that revealed high bacteria levels. Of the advisories issued due to elevated bacteria
levels, 97 percent (281) were attributed to stormwater, with the remaining three percent (8) due to unknown causes.
Notes
1 Shannon Berry, Beach Monitoring Program Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, personal communica
tion, May 2007.
2 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, BEACH Grant Semi-Annual Update, November 2006.
Texas
Virtually the entire Texas coast is bordered by barrier islands, which separate the Gulf of Mexico from the bays. The
mainland has more than 1,400 miles of coastline, but most of it is privately owned or is comprised of wetlands. Of the
barrier islands, which have almost 400 miles of Gulf shore-
line and more than 650 miles of shoreline on their back For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
side, two are privately owned and have inaccessible beaches. of samples exceeding the standard
They are San Jose Island and West Matagorda peninsula. increased to 8 percent in 2006 from
Padre Island National Seashore is accessible to the public
but is not subject to the BEACH Act, and the National 6 percent in 2005.
Wildlife Refuge is not accessible to the public. Most of the back side of the barrier islands is wetlands with little or no
opportunity for water contact recreation. In all, 56 miles of mainland coast, 235 miles of barrier island Gulf coast, and
33 miles of back side barrier island coast are subject to monitoring under the BEACH Act.1 There are 166 public coastal
beaches lining this 324 miles of coastline.
The Texas General Land Office, in conjunction with various contracted entities, including local county health depart-
ments, universities, municipalities, and private laboratories, conducts the Texas Beach Watch Program. Approximately
40 percent of the public beaches in the state are monitored year-round. Nine counties had monitored beaches in 2006:
Aransas, Brazoria, Cameron, Jefferson, Galveston, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, and San Patricio. Another five counties
with at least one public water contact recreation coastal beach had no monitored beaches: Calhoun, Chambers, Harris,
Refugio, and Willacy. Orange County, Kenedy County, and Victoria County are on the coast but have no publicly
accessible beaches and/or no water contact recreation beaches.
The state does not have the authority to close beaches. Discretion to close a beach lies with local officials and health
departments.1 There were no closures issued in 2006.
Texas received a $382,890 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $385,180 grant in 2007. The federal
grants fully fund Texas’ beach monitoring and notification program. Tourism in Texas contributes about $49.2 billion to
the state’s economy and generates 514,050 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Texas has adopted BEACH Act–required standards for marine waters: an enterococcus single-sample maxi-
mum of 104 cfu/100ml.
Monitoring
Frequency: Texas monitored 65 beaches weekly from May to September and every other week from October to April
in 2006.1 Some beaches were sampled weekly during the spring break season as well.2 Monitored beaches represent
153 miles of coastline.1 Beach segments that are used most frequently by the public and where health risks are the great-
est are given priority for monitoring.3 All Tier 1 beaches and all but one Tier 2 beach were monitored in 2006. Two Tier
3 beaches were monitored as well.
Practice: The Texas Beach Watch Program collects samples between sunrise and noon. Samples are generally collected
about one foot below the surface in water that is knee deep (approximately two feet deep). If the majority of recreational
activity occurs at a depth significantly different than two feet, then samples can be collected at the location of greatest
swimmer activity. Also, if the two-foot sampling depth occurs more than 50 meters from shore, samples can be collected
50 meters from shore or at the location of greatest swimmer activity.1 Sample results are usually available 24 hours after
the lab receives the sample. Routine sampling usually takes place on Tuesdays, with Mondays and Wednesdays as alter-
nate sampling days.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Texas’ daily
maximum bacterial standards. Texas did not provide a list of its Tier 1 beaches, so NRDC defined Texas Tier 1 beaches as
those monitored at least once a week. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard increased to
8 percent in 2006 from 6 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Ropes Park (48%) and Cole Park in Nueces
County (315); Texas City Dike in Galveston County (31%); Poenisch Park in Nueces County (24%); and Spanish
Grant/Bermuda Beach (22%), Indian Beach (22%), and 25th St. in Galveston County (21%).
Seventeen percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Cameron
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (67%), followed by Jefferson (50%), Kleberg (50%),
Matagorsa (33%), and Nueces (6%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples
exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order
by percent exceedance.
tored at least once a week in 2006. Closings and advisories at these 62 beaches decreased from 569 days in 2004 to
304 days in 2005, then increased to 470 days in 2006. This overall decrease in closing and advisory days from 2004 to
2006 is in spite of a small increase in the monitoring frequency of these beaches over that time period.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Local officials are notified and a beach is recommended for an advisory if enterococcus levels
in a single sample are higher than 104 cfu/100 ml. Local governments decide whether to issue an advisory, but most local
governments have agreed to issue an advisory and post signs if a sample exceeds the standard.3 Recommended advisories
are posted on the Texas Beach Watch website regardless of what action is taken by local officials. In addition, the Texas
Beach Watch website marks beaches where single-sample levels of enterococcus are between 35 cfu/100 ml and 104
cfu/100 ml as having a medium advisory level. Advisories are routinely issued for sections of a beach rather than a whole
beach.1
Reopening Procedures: Samples are taken daily until bacteria levels fall below the standard.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: All advisories issued in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels.
Fifty-nine percent (279) of the elevated bacteria levels were due to unknown sources, 41 percent (193) were from storm-
water, and less than one percent (1) was from wildlife.
Notes
1 Sheri Land, Texas General Land Office, personal communication, June 2007.
2 Texas General Land Office, Texas Beach Watch website, http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastal/beachwatch/index.html, accessed in June 2007.
3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
Virginia
Virginia reported 48 beaches that stretch along 70 miles of Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay waters.1 In late 2001, Virginia
used funds available from the federal BEACH Act of 2000 to incorporate monitoring programs that had been in
place in Virginia Beach and Norfolk since the 1970s2 into a statewide, coordinated beach monitoring program. This
program is administered by the Virginia Department
of Health and conducted by state employees at local For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
health departments and districts. Virginia’s beaches are of samples exceeding the standard
found in Accomack, Gloucester, King George, Mathews, decreased to 1 percent in 2006 from
Northhampton, and York counties and in the independent
cities of Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, and Virginia
2 percent in 2005.
Beach. More than 15 other counties and independent cities in Virginia have marine coastline without beaches. The
monitoring season is mid-May through Labor Day, with some sites sampled through September. In 2006, Fairview
Beach and Guard Shore did not begin monitoring until the end of May/beginning of June.
The Virginia Department of Health has the authority to issue advisories and close beaches. In 2006, advisories
were issued, but not closings. Fairview Beach in King George County had most of the advisory days in the state;
these advisory days occurred from late June to early July and in early September.3 These advisories appear to be pre
cipitation related; a stormdrain near the public swimming area has been identified as a source of high levels of entero
coccus, and a source-tracking project has shown that human waste contributes to high bacteria levels.3 There were fewer
advisory days in 2006 in part due to beach restoration projects at many beaches that were damaged by Hurricane Isabel
in 2003.
A source-tracking project that uses two means of determining whether the source of high enterococcus counts is
human also has resulted in better beachwater quality at beaches in Hampton and Newport News. This project uses
microbial source tracking to determine what species the enterococcus came from, as well as fluorometry to detect deter-
gent brighteners that are found in sewage.3 In 2004 this source tracking confirmed that contamination at two beaches
was sewer-related, and steps were taken to identify and reduce the sources.1 In 2006, the source-tracking project was
able to show that steps taken to eliminate discharges that were discovered because of the source-tracking program were
successful in reducing human sources of indicators.3 Source tracking also indicated that pets, birds, and wildlife were at
times major sources of enterococcus.1
Virginia received a $276,900 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $279,020 grant in 2007. The
state’s beach monitoring and notification program is fully funded by BEACH Act grants. Tourism in Virginia contributes
about $16.5 billion and generates 206,900 related jobs.
Standards
Indicator Organism: Enterococcus
Standards: Virginia formally adopted BEACH Act–required standards in 2004: for ocean and bay waters, an entero
coccus single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a 30-day, five-sample geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. Beach
closing/advisory decisions are based on exceedance of the single-sample maximum standard; the geometric mean stan-
dard is not used.1 If more than one sampling site at a beach exists, the average of the results for all sampling sites is used
to make closing and advisory decisions for that beach.1 There are no preemptive rainfall standards, but closings and
advisories may be considered based on events such as a harmful algal bloom, fish kill, oil spill, or sewage spill.1
Monitoring
Frequency: In 2006, the program monitored 48 coastal bathing beaches weekly for bacteria during the summer months.
Most of the monitored beaches (44 percent) are in Virginia Beach. Sampling sites in Virginia are chosen based on
proximity to wastewater outfalls, bather load, and accessibility.1
Practice: Samples are collected Monday through Thursday in 0.5 m of water, 0.3 m from the surface.1 Results are avail-
able 24 hours after samples are delivered to a lab for analysis.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Virginia’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. All of Virginia’s public beaches are Tier 1. The percent of samples exceeding the
standard decreased to 1 percent in 2006 from 2 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Fairview Beach in King George County (37%),
Huntington Beach in Newport News County (10%), and 63rd Street in Virginia Beach County (10%).
Ninety-two percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. There were
no exceedances at any monitoried beaches in Norfolk, Accomack, Hampton, Northampton, Gloucester, Mathews, and
York counties. Ninety-one percent of monitored beaches in Virginia Beach and 75 percent of beaches in Newport News
had no exceedances. The table below lists the tier status, monitoring frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the
standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county and ranked in descending order by percent
exceedance.
Closing and Advisory Issuance: If a sample exceeds the standard, an advisory is issued.3 No other factors are taken into
account before issuing the advisory. The public is notified via signs at the beach, press releases to local newspapers, and
a website. Advisories are issued for whole beaches, not sections of a beach.
Reopening Procedures: If a beach is placed under advisory or closed, the monitoring frequency is increased until the
water meets water quality standards and the beach is reopened.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: All advisories in 2006 were due to monitoring that revealed high bacteria levels from
unknown sources.
Notes
1 Dan Dietrich, Virginia Department of Health, personal communication, June 2007.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Virginia Department of Health, Virginia’s Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Program Final Report on 2001–2006 EPA
Beach Monitoring Grant, April 2007.
Washington
Until 2004, Washington had no state-level program for monitoring ocean and bay coastal waters specifically to protect swim-
mer safety. The Washington Department of Health, however, has routinely monitored water quality in commercial and
recreational shellfishing and shellfish growing areas. Under
the state’s Clean Water Act, primary recreational contact For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
with water is afforded the same protection that shellfish re- of samples exceeding the standard
ceive. Through federal BEACH Act grants, the Washington increased to 5 percent in 2006 from
Department of Ecology initiated a beachwater monitoring
and public notification program. Although Washington water
4 percent in 2005.
temperatures may discourage swimming for a great part of the year, water quality monitoring and notification is expected to
help prevent public health risks to other primary-contact users, including windsurfers, scuba divers, kayakers, and boaters.
Washington State has nearly 1,400 publicly accessible beaches along the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound. Of these,
169 are used by an average of at least five people a day during the beach season, and approximately half of these were
monitored in 2006.1 The beach season lasts from May 23 through September 15. An additional four surfing and scuba
diving beaches are sampled through October. There are 14 coastal counties in Washington, all of which have beaches in
the monitoring program.
Washington issues both beach closings and advisories. Advisories and closings in 2006 were influenced by two major
sewage spills in addition to numerous other sewage spills caused by power outages that occurred during storms in
November and December. Fourteen beaches in Clallam County were closed for one to two weeks in late May to early
June following a sewage spill. Priest Point Park was under advisory from before Memorial Day weekend to after Labor
Day, Freeland County Park was placed on permanent closure at the end of June, and Hollywood Beach in Clallam
County is under permanent advisory year-round.1
Washington State received a $273,320 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $272,250 grant in 2007.
The federal grants fully fund Washington’s beach monitoring and notification program.
Standards
Indicator Organisms: Enterococcus, fecal coliform
Standards: The BEACH Act–required standards for ocean and bay waters are an enterococcus single-sample maximum
of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. Washington uses the single-sample maximum for making
closing and advisory decisions. In addition, the Washington Department of Ecology has long maintained fecal coliform
criteria for recreational swimming and wading as well as shellfish harvesting in the state’s marine waters. Washington has
no preemptive rainfall advisory standards, but beaches are closed when there is a known sewage spill.
Monitoring
Frequency: Washington monitored 49 percent (78) of its recreational beaches for enterococcus at least weekly during the
2006 beach season. All of these beaches, which cover 60 miles of coastline,2 were classified as Tier 1.1
A database was used to evaluate and rank 169 marine beaches used for water contact recreation in 14 coastal counties.
The ranking was based on use, extent of water exchange, and potential risks of fecal pollution from waste water treatment
plants, septic tanks, stormwater drains, freshwater discharges, marinas, pet waste, livestock, marine mammals, and shore
birds. The ranked list was used in conjunction with local health jurisdiction staff knowledge of beach usage and potential
pollution problems, as well as public input, to create a three-tiered system for prioritizing beaches. Tier 1, or priority
beaches, are those that were identified as high use and/or high risk. Tier 2 beaches were identified as medium use with a
reduced risk of fecal pollution. Tier 3 beaches were identified as low use with a minimal risk of fecal pollution. The final
list of Tier 1 beaches identified 73 beaches to be monitored during the summer season and four for the winter season.1
The beaches with geometric means above background levels in 2006 (showing an increase in fecal pollution) will be
evaluated to determine the need for more thorough sampling in 2007.
Practice: Samples are taken in knee-deep water, usually in the mornings to early afternoon. Results are generally known
24 hours after samples are delivered to a lab. Routine sampling in 2006 was generally conducted Monday through
Wednesday, with resampling usually done on Thursdays.
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
Washington’s daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
increased to 5 percent in 2006 from 4 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were Arness County Park (20%) and Eagle
Harbor Waterfront Park in Kitsap County (18%), Owens Beach / Point Defiance Park in Pierce County (17%), Fay
Bainbridge State Park (14%) and Pomeroy Park - Manchester Beach in Kitsap County (14%), Freeland County Park/
Holmes Harbor in Island County (13%), Fort Ward State Park in Kitsap County (13%), Edmonds Underwater Park
in Snohomish County (13%), Indianola Dock in Kitsap County (13%), and Neah Bay Picnic Area in Clallam County
(11%).
Thirty-two percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Grays Harbor
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (67%), followed by Pierce (57%), Thurston (50%),
King (40%), Island (40%), Clallam (36%), Whatcom (33%), and Snohomish (17%). Pacific and San Juan Counties
each have one coastal beach; no exceedances occurred at those two beaches. The table below lists the tier status, monitor-
ing frequency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by
county and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Samples are taken from three locations at each beach, and the bacterial count for the simul-
taneous samples is averaged and compared to the standard. Advisories are not generally issued until resampling confirms.
However, if average enterococcus concentrations are more than 1000 cfu/100 ml, the state usually recommends posting an
advisory immediately.4 The public is notified of closings and advisories via websites, signs, news releases, and email. Closings
and advisories can be issued for sections of beach rather than a whole beach but in general are issued for entire beaches.4
Reopening Procedures: If a beach is closed or placed under advisory, the monitoring frequency is increased until the
beach is reopened.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: Ninety-nine percent (291) of closing/advisory days in 2006 were in response to known
sewage spills. The remaining one percent (3) were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown
sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Washington Department of Ecology, January – December, 2006 (FFY05) Annual Report for: Washington State’s BEACH Program, not dated.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
3 Lynn Schneider, Washington Department of Ecology, April 2006.
4 Lynn Schneider, Washington Department of Ecology, May 2007.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin has 192 public beaches along 55 miles of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan coastline. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources coordinates Wisconsin’s beach monitoring program and administers the BEACH
Act grants, and local health departments conduct the
For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent
actual water quality monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of
Wisconsin’s Great Lakes beaches are monitored. At least a of samples exceeding the standard
few beaches in 13 counties bordering Lake Superior and decreased to 16 percent in 2006 from
Lake Michigan are monitored, with Door County along
17 percent in 2005.
Lake Michigan having the most monitored beaches.1 No
beaches in Marinette or Oconto Counties are monitored. Most beaches are monitored from Memorial Day weekend
through Labor Day weekend, but initiation of monitoring can be delayed where colder temperatures delay the onset of
the swim season.
Generally, water quality exceedances at Wisconsin’s Great Lakes beaches are associated with rainfall. The 2006 swim
season saw more rain than 2005, and exceedances rose. However, there were not as many exceedances as in 2004, when
rainfall was especially heavy.2
Wisconsin issues both closings and advisories, and is using its beach monitoring data to provide information needed
for source identification and mitigation to improve water quality. An extension of a stormwater outfall at Otumba Park
Beach in time for the 2006 swim season seems to have resulted in a reduced number of advisories and closings at that
location. A number of changes are planned in Door County in time to improve water quality at Door County beaches
in 2007.3
Wisconsin received a $225,270 federal BEACH Act grant in 2006 and is eligible for a $225,960 grant in 2007. While
no specific figures are available, health departments often have to pay for some of their beach monitoring costs because
funding for the program is insufficient.3
Standards: Wisconsin uses the BEACH Act standards for E. coli to make beach closing/advisory determinations. The
BEACH Act freshwater E. coli standards are a single-sample maximum of 235 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of
126 cfu/100 ml. Exceedance of the single-sample maximum or the geometric mean E. coli standards will trigger the
issuance of an advisory at Tier 1 beaches. Tier 2 and Tier 3 beaches use the single-sample E. coli standard to determine
advisory status. All tiers of beaches are closed if a single sample exceeds 1000 cfu/100 ml.
Wisconsin has not changed its administrative rule to include the 1986 E. coli criteria. Instead, its code specifies the
fecal coliform standard (although Wisconsin is not using these standards for its quality determinations). Wisconsin is
waiting until the EPA publishes new criteria before it goes through the rigor of rulemaking.2
Wisconsin also has preemptive advisory standards. Beaches are closed or placed under advisory after rainfall (depend-
ing on location), sewer overflows, or stormwater overflows. Milwaukee uses predictive models instead of monitoring to
determine advisories for a few of its beaches. All beaches must be closed if there are reports of illnesses, known sewage
spills or leaks, or after rainfall events severe enough to have known impacts on beachwaters.3
Monitoring
Frequency: Wisconsin reported 192 Great Lakes beaches for 2006. Sixty-six percent (126) of the beaches are monitored at
least once a week; these beaches represent 38 miles of coastline.3 Wisconsin has developed an inland beach monitoring pro-
gram that mirrors the Great Lakes program, and monitors popular inland swimming beaches at 10 state parks and forests.3
Beaches were assigned high, medium, and low priority based on the location of wastewater outfalls, the poten-
tial for impacts from stormwater runoff, bather and waterfowl loads, and the location of outfalls and farms.3 All
Tier 1 beaches were monitored at least four times each week, while all Tier 2 beaches were monitored at least two
times each week. Fifty-five of the 121 Tier 3 beaches were monitored once a week. Milwaukee County monitors
some beaches on a daily basis (Bradford, McKinley, South Shore, South Shore Rocky, and Watercraft in the city
of Milwaukee).1
Practice: Samples are taken in knee-deep water at a depth of six to 12 inches.3 The time of day at which samples are
t aken varies, but they are generally taken in the morning.2 Samples must be delivered to a lab within 24 hours and
are generally delivered before 2 p.m. the day that they are taken; results are available 24 hours after delivery to the
lab. Samples are generally taken Monday through Thursday for Tier 1 beaches, Mondays and Wednesdays or Tuesdays
and Thursdays for Tier 2 beaches, and Wednesday or Thursday for Tier 3 beaches, with some variation from county
to county.2
Results: For the second consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded Wisconsin’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. For Tier 1 beaches only, the percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased to
16 percent in 2006 from 17 percent in 2005.
In 2006, the Tier 1 beaches with the highest percent exceedances were YMCA Beach (84%) and Point Beach-
Lakeshore in Manitowoc County (64%); Kohler Andrae North Picnic in Sheboygan County (61%); Point Beach-
Lighthouse in Manitowoc County (58%); Kohler Andrae North Beach (58%), Kohler Andrae South (57%), Kohler
Andrae Nature Center (57%) and KK Road Beach in Sheboygan County (55%).
Twenty-five percent of all monitored beaches did not exceed the standard for any sample taken in 2006. Brown
County had the highest percentage of beaches with no exceedances (80%) followed by Ashland (71%), Door (45%),
Bayfield (44%), Iron (20%), Milwaukee (20%), Douglas (7%). The table below lists the tier status, monitoring fre-
quency, and percent of samples exceeding the standard for all beaches reported in 2006. Beaches are grouped by county
and ranked in descending order by percent exceedance.
Closing/Advisory Issuance: Resampling to confirm an exceedance is not done before an advisory or closure is issued.3
Many counties with longer beaches composite all the samples along their beach and make closing and advisory decisions
for the entire beach based on the composite results.2 Wisconsin is doing source tracking and pathogen detection in gull
feces to determine if high bacterial counts due to birds are resulting in unnecessary closures and advisories.3 When a clos-
ing or advisory is issued, the public is notified via a website and email.
Reopening Procedures: Beaches are resampled immediately if there is an exceedance. Advisories are lifted when the stan-
dards are met but closings are not lifted until standards are met for two days in a row.
Causes of Closings/Advisories: Eighty-four percent (924) of Wisconsin’s closing/advisory days in 2006 were due to moni-
toring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination. Twelve percent of closing/advisory
days (128) were preemptive rainfall advisories, and 4 percent (49) were preemptive for other causes.
Notes
1 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Beach Information Table, not dated.
2 Tony Glymph, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Beach Program Coordinator, personal communication, May 2007.
3 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Annual Report Beach Season 2006,
not dated.