United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-98/079

Environmental Protection Development March 1999

Agency Office of Water www.epa.gov/

ORD/publications

Action Plan for Beaches and

Recreational Waters
i

 EPA /600/R-98/079

March 1999

EPA Action Plan for Beaches and

Recreational Waters

Reducing Exposures to Waterborne Pathogens

Office of Research and Development

and

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
ii

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, generated the information described in this plan for beach and recreational

waters. This plan has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review process and has

been approved for publication as an EPA document.

Notice

iv

EPA recognizes the need for stronger beach monitoring programs, improved water quality standards,

and broader public guidance relating to the use of recreational waters in the United States. In response to national directives such as the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health

(BEACH) Program and the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA has prepared this Action Plan for Beaches

and Recreational Waters (the “Beach Action Plan”)—a multi-year strategy for reducing risks of

infection to recreational water users through improved recreational water quality programs, risk

communication, and scientific advances.

The Beach Action Plan describes EPA’s actions to improve and assist in state, tribal, and local

implementation of recreational water monitoring and public notification programs. It describes related activities of the Office of Water (OW) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

As long as contamination of ambient waters remains a threat, more and more Americans face risk of

exposure to waterborne microbial pathogens as increasing numbers of people visit or move to coastal

areas, lakes, and rivers. Exposure to pathogens can occur during swimming or other recreational

activities via ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with polluted water. Despite the potential risks to

the public from gastrointestinal illness and other infections, water quality monitoring programs vary

widely at the state and local levels.

The Beach Action Plan’s first objective, therefore, is to enable consistent management of recreational water quality programs. EPA will sponsor conferences and meetings with federal, state,

tribal, and local representatives to identify the needs and deficiencies of recreational water quality

monitoring programs. Based on this information, EPA will strengthen water quality standards and

implementation programs by developing policies and assisting local managers in their transition to

recommended criteria. EPA will also develop and issue guidance on managing risk at recreational

waters and on using monitoring methods and indicators developed during subsequent research.

To expedite the pace at which states and tribes strengthen their water quality standards, EPA will

develop policies to ensure that states and tribes adopt the currently recommended Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Bacteria–1986 and make the transition to monitoring for E. coli and enterococci

indicators rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms.

EPA recognizes that the science and policies related to the protection of recreational waters will

constantly evolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and support training as needed. These efforts may

involve training in new methods, other technology transfer opportunities, and guidance documents.

Because recreational waters are primarily managed by local agencies, risk communication practices

vary widely throughout the United States. EPA will provide risk communication tools to regional

and local authorities to promote consistent effectiveness. EPA will maintain a website to communicate timely recreational water quality information to beach managers and the public. The “BEACH

Watch” website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches) will provide real-time details on advisories and

closings to authorities as well as to members of the public with access to the Internet. Input from

other EPA programs, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects will be used to develop the site.

Executive Summary
v

Regional managers will be able to provide this information to the public in a format deemed locally

feasible.

EPA will conduct a National Beach Health Survey annually to collect detailed data on state and

local monitoring efforts, applicable standards, water quality communication methods, the nature

and extent of contamination problems, and any protection activities.

EPA will develop a national inventory of digitized beach maps. These maps will be linked with

locations of pollution sources through a Geographic Information System. They are expected to become an invaluable source of information to local organizations and the general public.

EPA will develop and support strong regional and local partnerships through the Environmental

Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking Program (EMPACT). Current beach-specific EMPACT projects with EPA offices in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the

Great Lakes region, the South, the West, and the Gulf Coast region are investigating the use of better

bacterial indicators, exploring improved monitoring methods, developing site-specific predictive

tools, and making timely beach information available to the public.

The second objective of the Beach Action Plan is to improve the science that supports recreational

water monitoring programs. The Beach Action Plan’s scientific research addresses three broad areas:

(1) Water Quality Indicators Research. Rapid analytical methods are needed to identify risk before

exposure takes place. Real-time or near-time analytical methods would trigger warnings or closures

or set in motion a more rigorous monitoring protocol.

Although the 1986 criteria are an improvement over prior ones, better indicators of the potential

presence of enteric pathogens must be developed and assessed for their public health risk predictive

value. Discriminating between human and animal sources of contamination is important not only to

locate sources, but because not all animal pathogens cause human disease and their presence may

lead to unnecessary precautions. Furthermore, current indicator microbes are based solely on fecal

contamination and may not accurately assess the risk of disease due to a myriad of other potential

pathogens that cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases.

Finally, EPA will assess whether currently used indicator bacteria proliferate naturally in soil and

water under tropical conditions. If they do so, their use as indicators in tropical climates would be

ineffectual.

(2) Modeling and Monitoring Research. Although some local water quality managers estimate impending beach pollution through computer models or other tools, most must wait for laboratory test

results before they can make a determination of health risk. In the meantime, this leaves the potential

for exposing the public to pathogens. EPA will assess the utility of existing models; those that

provide improved assessments of water quality will be recommended to local authorities.

EPA will assemble a workgroup with expertise in monitoring recreational waters, determining the

risks associated with currently used indicator levels, and determining the need for public health controls at recreational waters. The workgroup will recommend guidelines for new testing protocol. The

protocol will address the timing and locations of samples and other factors influencing the levels and

types of fecal indicators in recreational water samples. Guidance will be developed for public health

professionals on when, where, and how to set up and conduct an appropriate monitoring program for

typical beaches.
vi

(3) Exposure and Health Effects Research. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are mixed discharges of storm water and domestic waste that occur when the flow capacity of a sewer system is

exceeded during rainstorms. They are potentially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather discharges from other point sources. The effects of CSO discharges on recreational waters need to be

quantified. EPA will conduct research to determine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationships

associated with wet weather flows.

The zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed by waves or tides offers micro-habitats where

organic matter may collect and where warm, moist sand may be conducive to the growth of certain

bacterial pathogens protected from dilution with open waters. EPA will conduct research necessary to

determine if special consideration of this interstitial zone and its impact on children and other sensitive populations is warranted.

A significant uncertainty in recreational water risk assessment is the actual exposure level associated

with ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contaminated water and the corresponding level of

illness. EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establish the link between water quality indicators and disease.

EPA intends to coordinate with other agencies in recreational water related activities. The next phase

of the Beach Action Plan will integrate EPA activities with those carried out by agencies such as the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

the U.S. Geological Survey, and state environmental and public health departments.
vii

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview ................................................................................................ 2

 2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Quality Programs ............... 3

 2.1.1 Program Development Activities ....................................................................... 3

 Conferences and Meetings ................................................................................. 3

 Guidance Documents ......................................................................................... 4

 Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs ............ 4

 Training and Technology Transfer ..................................................................... 5

 2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities ......................................................................... 5

 Beach Watch Website ......................................................................................... 5

 National Beach Health Survey ........................................................................... 5

 Beach Maps ........................................................................................................ 5

 Regional and Local Partnerships........................................................................ 5

 Risk Communication Guidance ......................................................................... 6

 2.2 Improving the Science that Supports Recreational Water Monitoring Programs ......... 6

 2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research ..................................................................... 6

 Rapid Indicators of Fecal Pollution ................................................................... 6

 Enhanced Analytical Methods for Detecting Intestinal Pathogen Presence ...... 6

 Indicators that Distinguish Between Human and Animal Fecal

 Contamination ............................................................................................... 6

 Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing Non-Enteric Diseases .................... 7

 Tropical Indicators ............................................................................................. 7

 2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research .................................................................. 7

 Improvement of Predictive Models.................................................................... 7

 Experimental Validation of Models ................................................................... 7

 Monitoring Strategy ........................................................................................... 7

 2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research .............................................................. 8

 Combined Sewer Overflows .............................................................................. 8

 Shoreline Interstitial Water................................................................................. 8

 Human Exposure Factors ................................................................................... 8

 Epidemiological Studies .................................................................................... 9

Beach Action Plan Implementation Table .................................................................................... 10

Appendix A: Overview of the Science and Regulatory History .................................................. 12

Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix C: Agency Contacts .................................................................................................... 16

Principal Authors .......................................................................................................................... 19

Contents
1

1.0 Introduction

As growing numbers of persons move to coastal areas

and pollution continues to threaten the waters in which

we swim and play, many Americans still risk illness

from exposure to contaminated recreational waters.

While there is no true measure of the magnitude of

disease associated with recreational water exposures,

epidemiology studies in the United States and abroad

have consistently found an associated disease burden.

In addition, thousands of beach advisories and closings are issued at recreational rivers, lakes, and oceans

every year throughout the United States. According to

the Natural Resources Defense Council’s eighth annual survey on beach water safety, at least 4,153 days

of beach closings and advisories were caused by pollution in 1997 alone, and “adequate monitoring and

notification procedures are still lacking at many of the

nation’s most popular beaches.” This number of advisories may be an underestimate of incidents of contamination because many states and localities do not

conduct, nor are they required to have, regular recreational water quality monitoring programs.

Beach advisories and closings in the United States are

generally due to elevated levels of indicator organisms

which may indicate the presence of pathogens, disease-causing microorganisms. The source of these indicator organisms can be discharges of untreated or

partially treated sewage into ambient waters. Recreational water users are at risk of infection from waterborne pathogens through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated water or through contact with the water.

Some people may face a disproportionate risk from

exposure to the pathogens because of heightened

susceptibility. For example, children may be more

vulnerable to environmental exposure due to their active behavior and their developing immune systems.

Adverse events at treatment plants can lead to recreational water users being exposed if there is inadequate

monitoring or untimely notification. Currently, monitoring programs vary widely at the local level. While

they may have prevented some exposure and illness in

the past, many of these programs are not using the best

possible indicators of microbial pathogens presence.

Beginning in 1976, EPA recommended fecal coliforms

to the regulatory community as indicator organisms

for the presence of pathogens in recreational waters.

Coliforms are bacteria found in the intestinal tract of

humans and animals; therefore their presence in ambient water indicates fecal pollution and the potential

presence of pathogens. In 1986, based on new research

data, EPA recommended new monitoring guidelines,

including the use of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enterococci as indicators to replace fecal coliforms. The

presence of these bacteria in recreational waters correlates with swimming-associated gastrointestinal disease better than a total fecal coliform count. About onethird of all states have adopted either E. coli or enterococci for monitoring fresh and marine waters. However, other states have continued to use fecal coliforms,

and a small number still use total coliforms to indicate

water quality.

The inconsistent use of indicator organisms for monitoring recreational waters has resulted in occurrences

of one state prohibiting use of recreational waters that

were considered safe by a neighboring state. A scientifically based investigative process to determine potential health risks and eliminate their sources in recreational waters is sorely needed in order to foster consistent use of indicators. To be effective, this process

must be recognized and accepted by state and local

officials. Flexibility in the program would allow for

differences in health risk from differing sources, source

elimination as an alternative to monitoring, and regional differences in climate, resources, and geography. Research is needed to improve the scientific basis of monitoring programs. This will include identifying appropriate indicators, determining relationships

between indicators and risk levels for disease, and developing more accurate models and faster analytical

methods to ensure timely notification of problems.
2

Recognizing the need for consistent and improved

monitoring programs, EPA’s Administrator, Carol

Browner, announced the Beaches Environmental

Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Program

on May 23, 1997. The goal of this program is to significantly reduce the risk of disease to users of the

nation’s recreational waters through improvements in

recreational water programs, communication, and scientific advances. The BEACH Program applies to fresh

water recreational areas such as lakes, ponds, and rivers, as well as marine waters such as oceans and bays,

as does the Beach Action Plan. They do not apply to

public or private swimming pools or water parks.

The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), released on

February 14, 1998, describes a series of actions needed

to strengthen clean water programs, including the release of a plan for federal, state, tribal, and local implementation of beach monitoring and notification programs. This Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational

Waters, referred to hereafter as the Beach Action Plan,

lays out EPA’s strategy to implement the BEACH Program as mandated by the CWAP.

The actions of the federal government are directly affected by the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which sets performance goals throughout the government. The BEACH

Program and this Beach Action Plan address, in part,

three of EPA’s performance goals. These GPRA goals

are:

• Clean and Safe Water

• Empowering people with information and expanding their right to know

• Provide sound science to improve understanding

of environmental risk and develop and implement

innovative approaches for current and future environmental problems

The Beach Action Plan furthers the three main themes

laid out in the BEACH Program:

• Strengthen beach programs and water quality standards;

2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview

• Inform the public about recreational water quality;

and

• Conduct research to improve the scientific basis

for beach programs.

The Beach Action Plan is a dynamic, multi-year strategy governing all EPA activities protecting the public’s

health from pathogens in recreational waters. This focus enables rapid progress on the issue and provides a

working point from which a broader plan, including

the contributions of other organizations and other recreational water health issues, can be developed.

Of course, the most desirable solution to protect public

health is to eliminate the need for beach closings through

the effective control of pollution sources. This need is

being addressed by several programs within EPA. The

Beach Action Plan focuses on identifying and reducing the risk of exposure to pathogens should they contaminate recreational waters. The Beach Action Plan

does not address the ecological impacts of pathogens

or the control of harmful algal blooms, because these

activities are planned or have begun in other programs

at EPA and other agencies.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, and

EPA’s Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children

mandate that EPA standards, rules, and risk assessments evaluate and characterize risks to children. Therefore, the elements of the Beach Action Plan address

specific issues that relate to children’s health.

Several organizations within EPA have principal roles

in implementing the Beach Action Plan. The Office of

Water (OW) is providing the overall leadership for

planning and developing the BEACH Program. OW’s

primary responsibility lies with developing and promulgating protective standards for recreational water

quality, and providing the tools and guidance necessary for implementing those standards. The Office of

Research and Development (ORD) is working closely

with scientists in OW and in other agencies to plan

and conduct the research necessary to support the sci-
3

entific needs of the Beach Action Plan. Both OW and

ORD will participate in training programs designed to

communicate the standards and underlying science to

environmental managers and stakeholders within and

outside of the EPA.

EPA’s ten Regional Offices are the Agency’s primary

contacts with state and local water quality managers,

public health professionals, and the general public. The

Regions will disseminate the tools and information that

state and local managers need to implement the recreational water standards and the science developed by

OW and ORD. They will also convey information to

the states and local governments that they, in turn, can

communicate to the beach-going public. The Regions

will also relay back the needs and problems identified

at the state and local levels, which will drive future

research and regulatory activities. Agency-wide contacts are provided in Appendix C.

The following sections discuss specific EPA activities

that meet the BEACH Program’s goal through improved recreational water quality programs, risk

communication, and scientific advances. These efforts

will improve local management of recreational water

quality programs through program development, training for beach monitoring program managers, and communication of risks to the public.

The schedule for completion of the activities that support this plan can be found in the table on Page 10.

EPA is committed to working with federal, state, and

local agencies on the implementation of this Plan and

has begun a dialogue with other federal agencies. EPA

will update the plan as needed to reflect the latest science, changes in policy, and progress. For an overview

of the science and regulatory history behind the Beach

Action Plan, please see Appendix A.

2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of

Recreational Water Quality Programs

EPA will implement activities to enable consistent management of recreational water quality programs across

the United States. These activities emphasize program

development and communication of risks to the public. The proposed program development activities result from EPA’s long involvement with water quality

criteria and state-adopted standards. The risk communication activities reflect the federal government’s support for the public’s “right to know” about pollution

problems. To identify other priorities, EPA reviewed

available information on existing local and state beach

programs and consulted other external reviews, such

as the “Testing the Waters” reports published by the

Natural Resources Defense Council.

After developing a preliminary list of activities, EPA

gave it a detailed public review at the first national

BEACH conference in October 1997, hosted by EPA

and the Association of State and Territorial Health

Officials. The conference was attended by representatives from federal, state, and local governments, as well

as from environmental, academic, and industry groups.

Participants were asked to identify needs for technical

assistance, assign priorities for short- and long-term

actions, and, where possible, recommend protocols and

procedures to encourage greater consistency among

jurisdictions.

Conference participants strongly supported EPA’s efforts to improve consistency and research, but asked

that more flexible implementation be allowed. They

stressed a need for guidance on water quality sampling

protocols, predictive modeling, and adequacy of monitoring programs. They also supported additional research to improve the science behind beach health issues (Section 2.2). Risk assessment and communication was another key area of consensus, and the conference supported consistent but flexible guidance on

risk assessment approaches; criteria for closing and

reopening beaches; assessing risks on human versus

nonhuman sources; and simplified forms of public risk

communication.

A complete report of the conference is available in

EPA’s publication National Beach Conference–Report

on Action Items, EPA/823/R-98/004. EPA incorporated

its main priorities into the following programmatic activities and into the scientific research activities described in Section 2.2.

2.1.1 Program Development Activities

Conferences and Meetings

EPA will arrange a series of technical conferences intended for state and local recreational water quality

managers. The first national conference in October

1997 defined current issues and activities related to

beach health; provided a forum for learning about

beach health initiatives across the country; identified

unaddressed beach health needs; assigned priorities to

short-term and long-term actions; and recommended

protocols and procedures to encourage greater consistency among jurisdictions in beach monitoring and

notification.
4

EPA is arranging four regional conferences and a second national conference with objectives similar to the

first. The regional conferences will emphasize regional

issues and implementation of national guidance.

Guidance Documents

EPA will coordinate the planning and issuance of

BEACH Program guidance documents addressing recreational water quality monitoring, risk assessment, risk

management, and risk communication and incorporating results of ORD’s research, input from OW, and

technical input from state and local participants. The

first integrated guidance document will be a national

overview of current beach advisory practices.

During Fiscal Years (FY) 1999 and 2000, EPA will

prepare and issue guidance that includes:

• Adjustments in the risk-based criteria to reflect recreational water use and acceptable risk;

• An evaluation and recommendation of scientifically valid tools for predicting health risks to recreational water users;

• Strategies for monitoring recreational waters and

conducting beach sanitary surveys (see Section 2.2,

Improving the Science that Supports Recreational

Water Monitoring Programs);

• Guidance on assessing and managing risk at recreational waters; and

• Case examples of effective recreational water management programs.

Strengthening Water Quality Standards and

Implementation Programs

Strong state and tribal water quality standards provide

the scientific and programmatic framework for enhancing protection of beaches and recreational waters. Water quality standards provide the legal basis for regulatory and water quality improvement programs. Attainment of beach and recreational water quality standards

provides a benchmark for measuring the success of EPA

and state programs in meeting the Government Performance and Results Act goal of reducing exposure to

microbial and other types of contaminants in recreational waters and increasing the percentage of waters

designated acceptable for recreational use. The water

quality standards program framework is flexible, allowing for revisions as new bacteriological indicators,

monitoring protocols, and models are developed.

To expedite the pace at which states and tribes

strengthen their beach and recreational water quality

standards, EPA will develop policy to ensure that states

and tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteria

for Bacteria–1986 and make the transition to monitoring for its recommended E. coli and enterococci indicators, rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms,

by FY2003. EPA intends to complete development and

publication of this policy as soon as possible but not

later than the end of FY1999. The policy will:

• Affirm the scientific validity of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria–1986.

• Supplement the criteria with a literature review of

studies since 1986.

• Outline an approach for monitoring the safety of

recreational waters in tropical climates where E.

coli and enterococci may occur in the soil environment.

• Identify appropriate approaches for managing risk

in non-primary contact recreational waters (e.g.,

boating waters).

By the end of FY1999 EPA also intends to propose, in

the Federal Register, microbiological methods for water ambient monitoring using E. coli and enterococci.

These methods will be proposed for promulgation of

40 CFR Part 136. By the end of FY1999, EPA also

intends to announce the availability of a training video

and manual for laboratory personnel using these methods.

The transition to E. coli and enterococci indicators will

be a priority for the triennial reviews of water quality

standards that will occur in FY2000-2002. Beginning

with FY2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices

will develop management agreements with the states

and tribes that will include commitments to have states

and tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteria

for Bacteria—1986. Where a state does not amend its

water quality standards to include the 1986 criteria,

EPA will act under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water

Act to promulgate the criteria with the goal of assuring that the 1986 criteria apply in all states not later

than 2003.

As the results of research studies become available,

EPA will prepare additional policy, guidance, and training to supplement the framework for managing risk at

beaches and in other recreational waters.
5

Training and Technology Transfer

EPA recognizes that the science and policies related to

the protection of recreational waters will constantly

evolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and support

training as needed. These efforts may involve training

on new methods, other technology transfer, and guidance implementation. Training will be provided to

Regional Offices and state and local agencies.

As noted earlier, in FY1999, EPA will produce a video

that demonstrates two indicator test methods for E. coli

and enterococci, which must be filtered out of water

samples and grown in culture. The video will compare methods and demonstrate the use of new growth

media—mEI for enterococci and modified mTEC for

E. coli species.

The video and accompanying manual will be distributed to local organizations through the partnership program.

2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities

Recreational water samples are generally collected by

local agencies, such as county health departments and

sanitation districts, which may perform all aspects of

sampling and analysis. These agencies are also responsible for notifying the public of water quality problems

through advisories or closures. Because of varying resources and diverse local circumstances, risk communication practices vary widely throughout the United

States. EPA is committed to improving the effectiveness of risk communication methods at national, regional, and local levels.

Beach Watch Website

EPA will maintain a national Internet-based “information hub” to communicate timely recreational waterquality information to the public and to local authorities. Regional managers will be able to provide this

information to the public in a format deemed locally

feasible. The website will incorporate innovative national, regional, and local efforts. The current “BEACH

Watch” website (http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches) will

become a real-time electronic database for all beach

health-related information and will provide recreational

water users with national and local details on advisories and closings. The website will also provide information identifying those beaches where monitoring and

assessment activities are conducted in a manner consistent with EPA’s national guidance. Survey information collection, digitized map development, and

innovative delivery of information will be expedited

at “BEACH Watch” and will link to other websites

such as “BASINS” and “Surf Your Watershed” (http:/

/www.epa.gov/surf). EPA regularly updates the

“BEACH Watch” website to include new beach information and links to regional projects. Other EPA programs, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects will

be consulted to develop the information and make it

available to selected areas.

National Beach Health Survey

The only practical way to assess practices and track

improvements is to conduct a national survey. EPA will

conduct an annual National Beach Health Survey to

collect detailed national data on state and local beach

monitoring efforts, applicable standards, beach water

quality communication methods, the nature and extent

of beach contamination problems, and any protection

activities. Results will be made available to local water

quality managers and the public via the Internet and

through regional and local information outlets.

Beach Maps

An important part of EPA’s efforts to make beach information available to the public is to develop a national inventory of digitized beach maps. EPA will

develop protocol for mapping beaches and start mapping in priority areas. These easy-to-read maps will

ultimately be linked with locations of pollution sources,

such as combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls,

through a Geographic Information System (GIS) available to local organizations and over the Internet to the

general public. EPA recognizes the need to ensure that

the information be as up-to-date as possible. Once

interlinked, beach maps are expected to become an invaluable source of information to local organizations

and the general public. Research activities associated

with CSOs are described in Section 2.2.3, on Page 8.

Regional and Local Partnerships

To explore innovative Risk Communication methods,

among other things, EPA will develop and support

strong regional and local partnerships. The Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community

Tracking Program (EMPACT) is a relatively new

Agency-wide initiative to work with communities to

collect, manage, and present real-time environmental

information. EMPACT and the BEACH Program share

the mutual goal of enhanced public access to environmental monitoring information.

In addition to experimenting with novel public risk

communication methods, current beach-specific
6

EMPACT projects in EPA Regions 1 (New England),

3 (Mid-Atlantic), 4 (Southeast), 5 (Great Lakes), 6

(South Central), 9 (Pacific Coast) and the Gulf Coast

Program Office are investigating better indicators, genetic fingerprinting of bacteria, improved monitoring

methods, and site-specific predictive tools in order to

make time-relevant beach information available to the

public.

Risk Communication Guidance

Guidance on how to interpret data consistently and

communicate water quality risks effectively is essential. As noted in Section 2.1.1 (Guidance Documents),

EPA will develop guidance and provide technical training as methodology is developed. For the risk communication portion of the effort, EPA will provide stateof-the-art guidance. EPA will compile information on

current risk communication efforts, evaluate current

and emerging practices, and present recommendations

as part of the overall beach guidance series.

2.2 Improving the Science that Supports

Recreational Water Monitoring Programs

The research activities described in this section will

be conducted to improve the science supporting recreational water monitoring programs and will serve as a

framework from which a logical sequence of research

can be implemented. Toward this end, a workgroup of

ORD and OW scientists outlined and conducted a peer

review of the research identified to progress from outdated water quality monitoring methods to truer measures of health risk. Relative priorities and estimated

timing of research activities were based on scientific

need and projected availability of resources and are

charted in the table on Page 11. Initial sampling and

monitoring improvements will be concentrated on existing indicator methods, i.e., enterococci.

Development of improved water quality indicator analytical methods was identified as a critical early step

because they are an integral part of subsequent research.

Another near-term priority is a scientifically defensible

marine and fresh water sampling protocol. An appropriate sampling protocol is essential if recreational

waters are to be precisely monitored using currently

recommended methods. Work has already begun in this

area, as well as in predictive modeling, and will continue as new methods are developed. Defining the nature of exposures and associated health effects requires

that these studies be done subsequent to methods development. Research results stemming from all of the

above will be field tested to validate their use by environmental risk managers in assessing the safety of recreational waters.

2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research

Recreational water quality indicators are biological or

chemical agents whose presence in water stems from,

or is a surrogate for, contamination by sewage. The

historical use of indicators in protecting the quality of

bathing beach waters in the United States is described

in Appendix A.

Rapid Indicators of Fecal Pollution

Rapid analytical methods are needed to identify risk

before exposure takes place. Current microbial testing

methods for indication of possible pathogen presence

require 24 to 48 hours of incubation before problems

can be detected, leaving ample time for exposure to

occur.

Real-time or near-time analytical methods, such as a

simple “dipstick” color-change test for detecting human fecal contamination, must be developed to provide an immediate identification of potential problems.

In using a real-time or near-time indicator, the measurement of certain levels of fecal pollution would either trigger warnings or closures or set in motion a more

rigorous monitoring protocol.

Enhanced Analytical Methods for Detecting

Presence of Intestinal Pathogens

Better indicators of the potential presence of enteric

pathogens must be developed and evaluated for confirming the risks associated with recreational waters.

They should indicate the presence of pathogens that

may have longer incubation times, lower infective doses,

and/or cause more serious disease than pathogens currently identified with swimming-associated illness.

This study may require the use of novel techniques for

sampling and characterizing pathogens of concern.

Indicators that Distinguish Between Human and

Animal Fecal Contamination

Forest, pastureland, and urban storm water runoff,

which carry fecal material of domestic and feral animals, often flow into recreational waters. Another more

direct source of fecal contamination is from aquatic

birds.

Analytical methods currently available for measuring

water quality are unable to distinguish between human

and animal fecal contamination. Therefore, risk associated with exposure to animal contaminants is treated

the same as that from human contaminants. Methods

able to discriminate between human and animal fecal

contamination would provide a valuable tool to improve risk assessments of health effects associated with
7

polluted recreational water. Although risk of exposure

to recreational waters affected by point sources of pollution is well characterized, the risk associated with

animal contaminated waters is unknown. New methods would enable more-informed health studies to be

conducted. They also would provide instructive monitoring data as well as a potential means of tracking

water pollutants to their sources.

Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing NonEnteric Diseases

Current indicator microbes of non-enteric illnesses are

based on fecal contamination and may not accurately

assess the potential for disease from a myriad of other

potential pathogens that may cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases. A number of these other pathogens may be associated with

non-fecal bodily wastes, as well as household wastes,

certain types of industrial wastes, and animal wastes.

Bacteria such as staphylococcus and Pseudomonas

aeruginosa may indicate the presence of some of these

pathogens in areas impacted by wastewater. These and

other potential indicators should be evaluated for their

effectiveness in indicating other sources of pollution

including storm sewers, storm water runoff, industrial

wastewater, animal wastes, as well as human recreational contributions. The presence of specific pathogen groups, including those causing skin infections

such as leptospirosis, should be well-represented by

the selected indicators.

Tropical Indicators

Currently recommended fecal indicators may not be

suitable for assessing human health risks in the tropics. Studies have suggested that at tropical locales such

as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam, E. coli and enterococci can be detected in waters where there is no apparent warm-blooded animal source of contamination.

Whether or not current indicator bacteria proliferate

naturally in soil and water under tropical conditions

must be determined. If so, the range of conditions (such

as nutrients, temperature, pH, and salinity) under which

the bacteria proliferate will be characterized and their

geographical boundaries defined. If the phenomenon

is widespread under tropical conditions, additional research will be conducted to modify approaches for

monitoring, or to develop new tropics-specific indicators. Further evaluation of Clostridium perfringens and

other microbial indicators (including coliphages) that

do not flourish naturally in the tropics will be conducted to determine their usefulness as alternative indicators.

2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research

Improvement of Predictive Models

Although some local water quality managers estimate

impending beach pollution through computer models

or other tools, most must wait for laboratory test results before they can make a determination of health

risk. In the meantime, the public is left with a potential exposure to pathogens. A number of mathematical

models have been or are being developed to assess the

migration of pollution near recreational waters. EPA

will assess the utility of these models; those that provide acceptable assessments of water quality would

be recommended to local authorities.

EPA is working with interested parties to catalogue

the full range of predictive tools in current use and to

evaluate and improve them. These may range from

“rules of thumb” for predicting risks, such as the occurrence of intense rainfall, to complex hydrodynamic

models.

Experimental Validation of Models

Predictive models are available or being designed to

assess the migration of pollution near recreational waters. Many of them are based on stream hydrology or

tracing certain chemical and physical parameters downstream of pollution sources.

In conjunction with the implementation of a monitoring strategy, EPA will assess and validate the utility of

these models for tracking pathogens or their indicators

to downstream recreational waters under various hydraulic, tidal, and atmospheric conditions. Models that

provide acceptable assessments of microbial travel

would be recommended to state and local authorities to

assess when upstream conditions may adversely impact recreational waters. Such models could be used to

preemptively post or close a beach.

Monitoring Strategy

The monitoring approach recommended by EPA in

1987 uses the geometric mean of five samples taken

over a 30-day period as a water quality limit. The rationale for using this approach was never published in
8

regulatory guidance manuals nor in open scientific literature, and is widely considered outdated. There is a

great interest in monitoring approaches that use the

analytical results of single samples, rather than five

samples, to make risk management decisions. The

uncertainty associated with both approaches, however,

must be thoroughly defined before EPA can recommend refined monitoring guidance to the states and

regions.

To this end, EPA will assemble an expert international

workgroup whose members are involved with representative problems associated with monitoring recreational waters, determining the risks associated with

indicator levels (and the statistical basis for such), and

determining the needs for public health controls at

beaches.

After appropriate peer review, the workgroup’s recommendations will be used as guidelines in developing a testing protocol. The protocol will address the

timing and locations of samples, and other factors influencing the levels and types of fecal indicators in

recreational water samples. Intensive field sampling

studies will be conducted at a selected number of fresh

and marine water sites, and the significance of indicator density (which varies with water depth and distance to the shore, sunlight, tides, other currents, wind,

waves, bather load, and rainfall) on indicator levels

during typical beach days will be determined. Guidance will be developed for public health professionals

on when, where, and how to establish an appropriate

monitoring program for typical beaches.

2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research

Combined Sewer Overflows

CSOs discharge a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system is

exceeded during rainstorms. Due to the presence of

untreated sewage in CSO discharges, they are potentially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather discharges from other point sources.

The effects of CSO discharges to recreational waters

need to be quantified. Research is proposed to determine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationships

associated with wet-weather flows.

Increased pathogen exposure at recreational areas may

also occur due to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) or

watershed runoff during heavy rainfall. While it is

known that CSOs are capable of contributing excessive enteric pathogens to surface waters, the contributions of SSOs and watershed runoff have not been wellcharacterized with respect to their contribution of enteric or other human pathogens or indicators.

Non-point contamination components, such as septic

systems, domestic and wild animals, and livestock, may

contribute different pathogen types, numbers of pathogens, and human health risks. EPA will characterize

and quantify the pathogen types, concentrations, and

relationships with indicator organisms for comparison

during dry-weather and wet-weather events under various geographical and watershed conditions.

Shoreline Interstitial Water

The zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed by

waves or tides is simultaneously an attractive recreational area and a possible habitat for microbial pathogens. This “swash zone,” as it is called by coastal scientists, has not received the research attention it deserves. The interstices, or spaces between the sand

grains, offer micro-habitats where organic matter may

be filtered out, and where warm, moist sand may be

conducive to the growth of certain bacterial pathogens

protected from dilution with open waters. When storms

or increased wave energy resuspend sand and trapped

particles, these pathogens are released into the environment.

These interstitial waters may pose an increased risk

for toddlers and young children who play, wade, and

swim in the swash zone. Research is needed to determine if special consideration of interstitial water and

its impact on sensitive populations is warranted.

Human Exposure Factors

A significant uncertainty in recreational water risk assessments is the actual exposure level associated with

ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contaminated water and the corresponding level of illness. Although the frequency of illness or infections can be determined through epidemiological studies, the factors

that contribute to these adverse health effects—other

than entering the water—are largely unknown.

Behavioral patterns, such as time spent in the water

and the volume of water swallowed, have not been

well-defined. Skin abrasions or cuts also may contribute to swimming-associated infections, but are seldom

documented. The personal hygiene of swimmers while

in the water also is poorly documented for natural rec-
9

reational waters. However, there is evidence from

swimming pool studies that accidental fecal releases

are not uncommon.

Another uncertain situation is the crowding together

of swimmers at smaller recreational areas (bather load)

during hot weather, weekends, and holidays. The increased proximity of people within an area may promote swimmer-to-swimmer transmission of disease.

All of these factors can be correlated to swimming activities, especially those of children. More definitive

assessments of health risks associated with swimming

will be possible with a better understanding of the exposure-effect process. The following research projects

are proposed:

• Characterize swimmer behavioral patterns that

may affect risk characterization activities and risk

management practices with regard to recreational

water safety.

• Characterize typical exposures that may be experienced through recreational water use and determine the exposure-response and mode of infection during these events. For instance, do skin infections occur predominantly if sores or abrasions

are present? It has been estimated that only 100

mL of water enters the mouth and nasopharynx

during a typical swimming episode. Although this

amount is considered sufficient to cause gastrointestinal disease, it is not known whether it is

adequate to cause other types of infections, given

the expected pathogen density, their mode of action, and the disease threshold levels. The mode

of action in upper respiratory tract infections needs

to be investigated. Studies will be conducted to

determine the mechanisms of infection from these

types of exposures and determine the effective dose

of enteric and non-enteric waterborne pathogens.

• Evaluate the relationship between water quality

and diseases associated with bather load. Research

will be conducted at well-characterized marine and

freshwater beaches having low exposure risks from

contaminant sources such as CSOs, but having

high bather loads. The study approach will allow

the differentiation of health risks due to bather load

from other pollution risks. The study will also attempt to detect and quantify specific bather contribution of pathogens of concern at the exposure

locations.

Epidemiological Studies

There will likely be a critical need for additional epidemiological studies in the future. They would be targeted at ensuring that improved or new indicator methods or procedures are well-grounded in their relationships to health effects for the various types of diseases

related to recreational exposure. To fully address this

research need, it may be necessary for EPA to partner

with other agencies and organizations to ensure an adequate level of financial and scientific support.

EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establish

the link between water quality indicators and disease

endpoints so that the level of exposure demonstrates a

specific level of risk for disease. Epidemiological studies will be conducted at selected marine, estuarine, and

fresh- water recreational locations. Cohort studies will

be conducted on populations of recreational water users having full-body exposures to waters known to have

specified levels of fecal contamination (or contamination causing non-enteric illnesses). New and innovative potential indicator methods will be used to sample

the waters at representative locations in the exposure

area during the exposure periods to assess or validate

their efficiency for determining health risks. The relative risks of exposure to animal and human fecal

contamination also will be evaluated.
10

Beach Action Plan Implementation Table

FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

12341234123412

Activity

2.1Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Programs

2.1.1 Program Development Activities

Conferences and Meetings:

National conferences ◆ ◆

Regional conferences ◆ ◆

Guidance Documents ◆ ◆

Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs:

Develop and issue policy memorandum ◆ ◆

Reiterate policy at next triennial review ◆

Prepare and issue guidance ◆ ◆

Training & Technology Transfer:

Prepare new video and manual ◆ ◆

Distribute video ◆ ◆

2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities

Beach Watch Website ◆ ◆

National Beach Health Survey:

Initiate survey (Great Lakes and ◆ ◆

coastal areas)

Update and expand survey ◆ ✒

Beach Maps:

Develop consistent protocol for mapping ◆ ◆

beaches. Begin mapping in priority areas

Continue beach maps and identify

sources ◆ ✒

Regional & Local Partnerships:

Boston Harbor/Charles River: Real-Time ◆ ◆

Monitoring and Reporting of Water

Quality (EMPACT)

Providence, RI: Improved Management of ◆ ◆

beaches (EMPACT)

Coastal Virginia: genetic “fingerprinting” ◆ ◆

& testing of E. coli

Florida: Develop Predictive Wet Weather ◆ ◆

Model for Beach Closure and Real-Time

Monitoring for Public Notification

(EMPACT)

NW Indiana: Develop Publicly Accessible ◆ ◆

GIS database for the E. coli Monitoring

Network (EMPACT)

Lake Ponchartrain, New Orleans, ◆ ◆

Louisiana: Predictive Modeling of

Bacterial Indicators (EMPACT)

Mississippi Gulf Coast: Beach Water ◆ ◆

Quality Monitoring (EMPACT)

So. California/Hawaii: Public Access to ◆ ◆

Bacteriology Data (EMPACT)

Risk Communication Guidance ◆ ◆

(Continued )
11

Beach Action Plan Implementation Table

FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

12341234123412

Activity

2.2. Improving the Science that Supports Beach Programs

2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research

Rapid indicators of fecal pollution ◆ ✒

Enhanced analytical methods for detecting ◆ ✒

intestinal pathogens

New or modified indicators that distinguish ◆ ◆

between human and animal fecal contamination

Indicator microbes for pathogens causing ◆ ◆

non-enteric diseases

Tropical indicators ◆ ◆

2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research

Improvement of predictive models ◆ ◆

Experimental validation of models ◆ ✒

Monitoring Strategy:

Primary workshop: Identify problems ◆ ◆

and issues

Pilot beach sampling study ◆ ◆

Workshop: Establish DQOs and design ◆ ◆

comprehensive sampling plan

Conduct comprehensive sampling study ◆ ◆

multi-environments with partner cities

Workshop: Statistical analysis of data ◆ ◆

Workshop: Translate technical data and ◆ ✒

design communication plan

2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research

Combined Sewer Overflows ◆ ◆

Shoreline Interstitial Water ◆ ◆

Human Exposure Factors:

Characterize typical exposures and ◆ ✒

swimmer behavioral patterns

Evaluate the types and incidence of ◆ ◆

diseases associated with bather load

Epidemiological Studies ◆ ✒

NOTE: The timelines projected in this table are subject to change based on scheduling of priorities and

availability of resources.
12

Regulations for protecting the quality of bathing beach

waters in the United States were first considered in 1924

by the American Public Health Association’s Committee on Bathing Places. They decided not to propose standards because of the lack of solid epidemiological data

and their reluctance to alarm the public about dangers

of outdoor bathing places without good evidence. The

Committee maintained this position until 1936 when it

proposed that bathing water quality was unacceptable

if the total coliform density was greater than 1,000 per

100 mL. This decision was based on the belief that

total coliforms are intimately associated with fecal

material from the gut of warm-blooded animals and

that their presence in water implies the potential presence of enteric pathogens. Similar legal standards were

soon proposed in California, Connecticut, and by the

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission in

Ohio.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the U.S. Public Health

Service conducted a series of epidemiological studies

at bathing places in Chicago, Kentucky, and Long Island, New York to determine the health effects associated with swimming. These studies showed that there

was a detectable health effect (e.g., diarrhea) when total coliform densities were about 2,000 coliforms per

100 mL of water. Based on this and the finding that the

fecal subset of coliforms were better indicators for contact recreation, the National Technical Advisory Committee of the Federal Water Pollution Administration

(Department of the Interior) made criteria recommendations in its 1968 Report to the Committee on Water

Quality Criteria (the “Green Book”). For evaluating

the microbiological suitability of primary-contact waters, the committee proposed that fecal coliforms not

exceed an average density of 200/100 mL, nor should

more than 10% of the samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400/100 mL.

In 1972, EPA’s Water Quality Criteria (“Blue Book”)

summarized the state of the science on microbiological

considerations for recreational waters; however, no

specific recommendations concerning the microbiological content of recreational waters were presented.

In the 1976 Quality Criteria for Water (“Red Book”),

EPA proposed the criteria for fecal coliforms recommended previously in the Green Book.

New recommendations for maintaining the quality of

bathing beach waters were issued by the EPA in 1986;

the geometric mean density of enterococci could not

exceed 35 per 100 mL in marine recreational waters or

33 per 100 mL in fresh waters. In addition, it was recommended that the density of E. coli should not exceed

126 per 100 mL in fresh water. The densities of these

two bacteria in recreational waters, which occur in high

numbers in the feces of warm-blooded animals and humans, had been shown epidemiologically to cause

gastrointestinal symptoms in swimmers in marine or

fresh waters. About one-third of all states have adopted

either E. coli or enterococci for monitoring fresh and

marine waters. Other states continue to use fecal

coliforms, and a small number still use total coliforms.

The relationship between the quality of bathing water

and health effects was established in a series of studies

which examined differences in symptomatic illness between swimming and non-swimming beach-goers at

marine bathing beaches in 1972-1978 and freshwater

bathing beaches in 1978-1982. These studies showed

that: (1) swimmers who bathe in water contaminated

with sewage are at greater risk of contracting gastroenteritis; (2) as the quality of bathing water degrades, the

swimming-associated illness rate increases; and (3) at

equivalent indicator densities in marine and fresh waters, the illness rate in swimmers was greater in marine

swimmers than in freshwater swimmers. Other studies suggest that activities such as wind surfing, snorkeling, and canoeing are also associated with an increased risk of contracting gastrointestinal disease.

Many other studies of recreational water quality and

health effects have been conducted since these EPA studies were completed. Two of these studies were conducted

Appendix A

Overview of the Science and Regulatory History
13

in freshwater environments in Canada and in France.

Both studies used a prospective cohort design. In

Canada, significant associations were found between

all symptomatic illnesses and the water quality indicators, Staphylococcus and fecal coliforms. In France,

significant relationships between gastroenteritis and the

water quality as measured with fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci were also found; streptococci appeared

to show a much stronger relationship to gastrointestinal illness than did fecal coliforms.

Additional studies in marine environments were conducted in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Israel,

Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and South

Africa. Water quality was usually measured using multiple microbial indicators. Fecal streptococci, fecal

coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were the indicator

bacteria most commonly used.

All of the recreational water quality studies showed that

there was a risk of gastrointestinal illness associated

with swimming water contaminated by feces. Some of

the studies also showed a dose-response type relationship—the illness rate increased as the water quality decreased. Several of them indicated that enterococci or

fecal streptococci have a stronger correlation with the

incidence of illness than coliforms or fecal coliforms.

In the many studies conducted since, there have been

no new principles defined beyond those developed by

the EPA studies in the 1970s and early 1980s.

While epidemiology studies in the United States and

abroad have consistently found a surfeit of disease

burden associated with natural recreational water exposures, there is no adequate estimate of the true magnitude of disease because of limitations in past efforts

to quantify the extent of the problem. Past studies generally considered acute gastrointestinal (AGI) illness

and did not look for serious disease sequelae or skin,

upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, or throat infections.

Based on studies conducted so far, it is evident that

the resulting human illnesses would be substantial if

even a small percentage of the millions of U.S. recreational water users became ill with AGIs caused by

exposure to those waters. It is unlikely over the short

term that the Agency will have the resources to conduct costly large-scale epidemiology studies similar

to those being done for food and drinking water, in

order to assess the national magnitude of the problem.

Research projects have been delineated in seven general areas: monitoring strategy, improved indicators,

modeling, combined sewer overflows, interstitial beach

zones, exposure, and epidemiology studies. Other research needs will be identified as work and coordination progress.
14

Clostridium perfringens: A species of anaerobic (oxygen intolerant), spore-forming bacteria present in the

intestinal tract of humans and animals. Since it does

not flourish naturally in the tropics, it may be an appropriate indicator to detect possible fecal contamination.

Coliforms: Group of bacteria that inhabits the intestinal tract of humans and animals. Their presence in water

indicates fecal contamination and the possible presence

of pathogens. Coliform bacteria may be found in water, plants, air, or soil. (See Fecal coliform, below)

Coliphage: (or bacteriophage) A virus that infects

coliform bacteria. Studies have shown that counts of

coliphage may give a useful estimate of numbers of

pathogens in sewage-polluted water.

Combined sewer overflow (CSO): Discharge to waterways of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste

that occurs when the flow capacity of combined storm

drains and sewer systems are exceeded during rainstorms. Normally, the entire flow of a combined sewer

goes to a wastewater treatment plant, but during heavy

storms the higher volume may cause overflows of untreated mixtures of storm water and sewage into waterways. About 900 cities in the U.S. continue to use these

combined sewer systems.

Contamination: General term referring to the introduction of undesirable materials (e.g., microorganisms,

chemicals, toxic substances, wastes, or wastewater) into

an environment (e.g., water, air, soil, biota, or surface

of solid objects).

Criteria: Measurable physical, chemical, or biological characteristic used to assess water quality. Commonly used as a basis for setting legally enforceable

standards.

E. coli: Escherichia coli, a subset of the coliform group

that is part of the normal intestinal flora in humans and

Appendix B

Glossary

animals and is, therefore, a direct indicator of fecal

contamination of the water.

Enteric: Of or within the intestine.

Enterococci: Enteric streptococcal (round) bacteria

used to indicate fecal contamination and the possible

presence of pathogens.

Enteric bacteria: Bacterial species that normally inhabit the intestinal tract of humans and animals. Included in this group of organisms are some of the most

important intestinal pathogens of humans. Most enteric

bacteria do not cause disease when confined to the intestinal tract of a healthy host, but given a susceptible

host or an opportunity to invade other body sites, many

have the capability to produce disease in any tissue.

Epidemiology: Study of diseases or other health-related states and events as they affect populations.

Fecal coliform: Subgroup of coliform bacteria that has

a high correlation with fecal contamination associated

with warm-blooded animals.

Fecal streptococci: Enterococci

Gastrointestinal: Of or relating to the stomach and

intestines.

Guidance: Recommendations issued by EPA that do

not have the force of law.

Indicator: A biological or chemical agent whose presence indicates specific environmental conditions or contaminants. Indicators of bacterial contamination of recreational water currently in use are the coliforms and

enterococcus.

Infection: Introduction of a foreign organism into the

body that can multiply and result in a physiological

and immunological change from normal.
15

Interstitial water: The water contained in the spaces

between sand grains or other sediment particles.

Pathogen: Organism capable of eliciting disease symptoms. The identification of microorganisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites) pathogenic to humans can

be difficult. Therefore, the presence of coliforms in

water is usually determined as an indicator of the possible presence of fecal-derived pathogens.

Pollution: The presence of a harmful contaminant in

the environment.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Bacterial species found as

normal flora in the gut of humans.

Sequelae: Long-term effects and consequences of a

disease.

Standard: Legally binding limit on the amount of pollutant or emissions produced. EPA may establish minimum standards, but states are allowed to be stricter.

Staphylococcus: Type of bacteria commonly found

as normal flora in the gut and other areas of humans.

Swash Zone: The area at the water’s edge that is not

always fully submerged and is influenced by tides and

waves.

Tropical: In this document, refers to a hot and humid

climate characteristic of the zone between the tropic of

Cancer and the tropic of Capricorn.

Water quality criteria: Specific levels of pollutants

which, if reached or exceeded, are expected to render a

body of water unsuitable for its designated use. Commonly refers to criteria established by EPA.

Water quality guidelines: Specific levels of water

quality criteria which, if reached or exceeded, may adversely affect human health or aquatic life. These are

unenforceable guidelines issued by a governmental

agency or other institution.

Water quality standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved standards for water quality measures.
16

Appendix C

Agency Contacts

Lisa Almodovar

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology, Health

 and Ecological Criteria Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (4304)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-1310

Mimi Dannel

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology, Standards

 and Applied Science Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (4305)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-1897

Rick Hoffmann

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology, Standards

 and Applied Science Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (4305)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-0642

Robin Oshiro

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology, Health

 and Ecological Criteria Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (4304)

Washington, DC 20460

(202-260-7278)

Office of Water

Steve Schaub

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Health and Ecological Criteria Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (4304)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7571

Office of Research and Development

Barbara Klieforth

Office of Research and Development

Office of Science Policy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (8104R)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-6787

Rebecca Calderon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental Effects

 Research Laboratory

Mail Code MD-58A

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 966-0617

Al Dufour

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

National Exposure Research Laboratory

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(513) 569-7303
17

Agency Contacts (continued)

Office of Research and Development (continued)

Marie O’Shea

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development,

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(732) 321-4468

Bill Stelz

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

National Center for Environmental Research

 and Quality Assurance

401 M Street, SW (8701R)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-6834

Fred Kopfler

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Gulf of Mexico Program

Building 1103, Room 202

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000

(601) 688-1172

Regional Offices

Matthew Liebman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 1

JFK Federal Building CWQ

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-3590

(States: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)

Randall Young

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

(212) 637-3847

(States: NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

Randy Braun

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2

2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Building 10

Edison, NJ 08837-3679

(908) 321-6692

(States: NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

Brigitte Farren

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 566-2767

(States: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)

Joel Hansel

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

100 Alabama Street

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-9274

(States: AL, GA, FL, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN,)

David Pfeifer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 353-9024

(States: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)

Mike Schaub

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue (6WQ-EW)

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-7314

(States: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)

Jake Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7828

(States: IA, KS, MO, NE)

David Moon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 8

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2466

(303) 312-6833

(States: CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
18

Janet Hashimoto

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-1997

(States: AZ, CA, HI, NM, NV)

Agency Contacts (continued)

Regional Offices (continued)

Curry Jones

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-6912

(States: AR, ID, OR, WA)
19

Principal Authors

Thomas M. Armitage, PhD

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Standards and Applied Science Division

Alfred P. Dufour, PhD

Office of Research and Development

National Exposure Research Laboratory

Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment

 Research Division

William F. Hoffmann, MPH

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Standards and Applied Science Division

Barbara I. Klieforth, MSPH

Office of Research and Development

Office of Science Policy

Stephen A. Schaub, PhD

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Health and Ecological Criteria Division

Christopher S. Zarba

Office of Research and Development

Office of Science Policy

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input of personnel from offices and regions across the

Agency.