Disclaimer: This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation of their use. 
EPA/625/R-02/017 

October 2002 

TIME-RELEVANT BEACH AND


RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY


MONITORING AND REPORTING


United States Environmental Protection Agency


Office of Research and Development


National Risk Management Research Laboratory


Cincinnati, OH 45268


250% Recycled/Recyclable 

Printed with vegetable-based ink on 

paper that contains a minimum of 

50% post-consumer fiber content 

processed chlorine free 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This handbook is the result of the efforts of many individuals. Linda Stein and Mary Willett 

of Eastern Research Group, Inc., an EPA contractor, served as co-authors. Daniel Murray and 

Carolyn Wieland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Research and 

Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, provided 

technical direction and contract management support, respectively. In addition, the efforts of 

the following people were invaluable during the development of this handbook and are deeply 

appreciated: 

Shannon Briggs, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

Mary Ellen Bruesch, City of Milwaukee Health Department 

David Burnett, Rhode Island Department of Health 

Mark Doolittle, Metropolitan District Commission (Massachusetts) 

Don Killinger, Cuyahoga County Board of Health (Ohio) 

Charles Kovatch, U.S. EPA, Office of Water 

Matthew Liebman, U.S. EPA, Region 1 

Jill Lis, Cuyahoga County Board of Health (Ohio) 

Jack Pingree, Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

David Turin, U.S. EPA, Region 1 

Gary White, Macomb County Health Department (Michigan) 

Ann Maire Fournier, Monmouth County Health Department (New Jersey) 
CONTENTS


Page 

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi


LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1


1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1


1.2 Regulations and Guidance for Beach and Recreational Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . 1-1


1.3 Introduction to the Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3


1.3.1 Real-Time Monitoring and Reporting of Water Quality for the


Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4


1.3.2 Cities of Milwaukee and Racine Health Departments


Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and


Public Outreach (Beachhealth) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4


1.3.3 Rhode Island Department of Health Narragansett Bay


Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project 1-4


CHAPTER 2 HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1


2.1 Road Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1


2.2 Frequently Asked Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2


CHAPTER 3 GETTING STARTED: PROGRAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . 3-1


3.1 Overview of Health Concerns and Water Quality Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1


3.1.1 Water-Related Health Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1


3.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1


3.1.3 Sources of Pathogen Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2


3.1.4 Why Time-Relevant Water Quality Monitoring Is Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3


3.2	 Factors To Consider in Designing a Time-Relevant Water


Quality Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3


3.3 Examples of Program Objectives and Program Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . 3-7


3.3.1 Real-Time Monitoring and Reporting of Water Quality


for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7


3.3.2 Cities of Milwaukee and Racine Health Departments


Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and


Public Outreach (Beachhealth) Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8


3.3.3 Rhode Island Department of Health Narragansett Bay


Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9


iii 
CHAPTER 4	 TIME-RELEVANT BEACH/RECREATIONAL WATER


QUALITY MONITORING AND MODELING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1


4.1 Overview of Monitoring and Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1


4.1.1 What Water Quality Parameters Should Be Monitored? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1


4.1.2 Where Should Monitoring Sites Be Located? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3


4.1.3 When Should Water Quality Monitoring Occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4


4.1.4 How Are Beach/Recreational Water Quality Samples Collected?. . . . . . 4-4


4.1.5 Who Should Conduct Water Quality Monitoring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6


4.2 Quality Control Plans and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6


4.2.1 Data Verification Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7


4.2.2 Data Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8


4.3 Sample Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8


4.3.1 Indicator Organism Analysis Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9


4.4 Predictive Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11


4.5 Interpretation and Use of Monitoring and Modeling Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12


CHAPTER 5 DATA MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1


5.1 Design Considerations for a Data Management System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1


5.1.1 Designing or Modifying a Data Management System To 

Meet Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2


5.1.2 Spatially Related Data (Such as GIS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3


5.1.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3


5.2 Data Management Systems Used by the Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3


5.2.1 Selecting a Data Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3


5.2.2 Altering Existing Systems To Meet Program Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4


5.2.3 System Use and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4


5.2.4 System Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6


5.3 Data Delivery via the Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7


5.3.1 Web Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7


5.3.2 Future Web Site Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8


iv 
CHAPTER 6	 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND RISK COMMUNICATION


FOR BEACH/RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1


6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1


6.2 Types of Information To Communicate to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1


6.3 Key Public Notification Methods for Beach/Recreational Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2


6.3.1 Warning Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2


6.3.2 Beach Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3


6.3.3 Telephone Hotline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3


6.3.4 Project Web Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3


6.3.5 News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4


6.4 Additional Public Notification and Outreach Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4


6.5 Developing an Outreach Plan for Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6


6.5.1 Step 1: Who Do You Want To Reach?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7


6.5.2 Step 2: What Questions Need To Be Answered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8


6.5.3 Step 3: What Are the Most Effective Ways To Reach Your Audience? . . 6-8


6.5.4 Step 4: How Will Your Outreach Products Reach Your Audience? . . . . 6-9


6.5.5 Step 5: What Follow-Up Mechanisms Will You Establish? . . . . . . . . . 6-10


6.5.6 Step 6: What Is the Schedule for Implementation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10


REFERENCES 

APPENDIX A SAMPLE BEACH SURVEY 

APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES 

v 
LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page 

4-1 Schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin, automated beach 

monitoring system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 

5-1 Data flow for beach/recreational water quality results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 

5-2 Sample data form available to the public on the 

Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth Web site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 

5-3 Colored flag icons used in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor 

Beaches Project to indicate water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 Time-Relevant Beach and Recreational Water Quality Monitoring 

Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 

3-1 Water Quality Criteria Recommended by EPA for Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 

3-2 Water Quality Criteria Used by Three Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 

4-1 Parameters Monitored in Three Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 

4-2 EPA-Approved and Other Acceptable Standard Methods for the 

Analysis of Bacterial Indicator Organisms in Ambient Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 

4-3 Analysis Methods Used by the Three Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 

4-4 Beach Closing and Reopening Procedures of the Three Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 

5-1 Changes Made to Existing Data Management Systems To Meet 

Program Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 

5-2 Web Content of the Three Case Study Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 

6-1 Public Notification and Outreach Initiatives Used by the Three 

Case Study Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 

6-2 Examples of Outreach Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 

6-3 Examples of Distribution Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 

vi 
1INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

Is it safe to swim at local beaches today? What are


the best ways to communicate current water quality


conditions to the public? This handbook provides


information on how to design and implement a time-


relevant water quality monitoring program for beaches


and other recreational waters. The handbook is


intended for people who are considering developing a


recreational water quality monitoring program for their


community or wish to enhance their existing program. 


The National Risk Management Research Laboratory


of EPA’s Office of Research and Development initiated


the development of this handbook to help interested


communities learn more about the beach monitoring


projects associated with EPA’s Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking


(EMPACT) Program, and to give communities the information they need to conduct their own projects.


Much of the information in this handbook is provided through case studies of three monitoring projects


that address the concerns of recreational swimmers, boaters, and other water users, primarily by:


• Monitoring recreational waters for indicators of waterborne pathogens (disease-causing organisms). 

• Collecting and managing water quality data in efficient ways. 

• Notifying the public in a timely fashion of water quality conditions. 

The handbook follows the three case study projects through the design and implementation of their timerelevant recreational water quality monitoring programs, the development of management and delivery 

systems for water quality data, and the creation and implementation of public notification and risk communication programs. 

The three beach/recreational water case study projects highlighted in this document were conducted before 

Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 

2000, and these projects may not necessarily reflect guidance associated with the BEACH Act. The EPA 

National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, or Beach Guidance Document 

(U.S. EPA, 2002), lists the beach program monitoring and notification criteria, as established in the 

BEACH Act, that a state must meet to obtain BEACH grants. To learn more about the BEACH Act, 

BEACH grants, and the Beach Guidance Document, visit http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches/ on the Internet. 

1.2 REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE FOR BEACH AND

RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY 

It is important for beach and recreational water quality managers to be familiar with the applicable statutes, 

regulations, and programs discussed below; they contain specific requirements and useful design and 

implementation guidance for developing and improving water quality monitoring and public notification 

programs. 

Introduction 1-1 
Beach and recreational water quality has been protected for over 30 years by the federal Clean Water Act 

(CWA). Water quality criteria developed under Section 304 of the CWA include Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986; see http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/bacteria/), which specifies 

levels of certain bacteria that should not be exceeded in marine and fresh recreational waters to protect 

public health/recreation and aquatic life. 

In 1997, EPA established the BEACH Program. Its goals were to improve public health and environmental 

protection programs for beachgoers and provide the public with information about the quality of their 

beach water. The BEACH Program has focused on strengthening beach standards and testing, providing 

faster laboratory test methods, predicting pollution, investing in health and methods research, and informing the public about water quality and any associated health risks. 

The 1999 EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters (U.S. EPA, 1999), developed as a strategy for 

accomplishing the goals of the BEACH Program, identified EPA activities that would enable consistent 

management of recreational water quality programs and improve the science that supports recreational 

water monitoring programs. The signing into law of the BEACH Act, in October 2000, established certain 

EPA BEACH Program activities as statutory requirements. The Act requires states and tribes that have 

coastal recreational waters to adopt new or revised water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators for which EPA has published water quality criteria, and requires that EPA promulgate new or revised 

standards for states and tribes that fail to do so. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to develop and publish 

new, improved criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators. In addition, the Act authorizes EPA to award 

grants to states and tribes to develop and implement programs to: 

• Monitor and assess, for pathogens and pathogen indicators, coastal recreational waters adjacent to 

beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public for swimming, bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact activities. 

• Notify the public when coastal recreational water quality standards are exceeded. 

EPA BEACH Program activities have included conducting conferences with federal, state, and local 

authorities to identify the needs of recreational water quality programs; helping states and tribes adopt 

updated water quality criteria for E. coli and/or enterococcus bacteria into their water quality standards; 

developing a new, faster laboratory test method for enterococcus bacteria (Method 1600); publishing a 

review of potential predictive modeling tools; conducting research on new methods and indicators to assess 

waterborne pathogens; establishing a grant program to provide support to states, territories, tribes, and local 

governments for coastal recreational water quality monitoring and public notification programs; conducting 

an ongoing National Health Protection Survey of Beaches to gather information on state and local monitoring and beach advisory actions; and establishing a “Beach Watch” Web site to improve public access to 

information about recreational water quality. Additional information on EPA’s BEACH Program can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches. 

1-2 Chapter 1 
EPA’s Beach Guidance Document 

As required under the BEACH Act, EPA has published National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002), also known as the Beach Guidance Document, 

to help states develop and implement their beach monitoring and public notification programs. 

The document lists grant performance criteria and gives guidance for states seeking to meet the 

criteria, including: 

• How to evaluate beaches for risk-based classification. 

• Beach monitoring and assessment procedures for water sample collection, sample handling, 

and laboratory analysis. 

• Using predictive models to estimate bacteria levels. 

• Developing procedures, such as beach advisories, closings, and openings, for public notification 

of beach conditions. 

This handbook is independent of the Beach Guidance Document and therefore does not necessarily 

reflect guidance associated with the BEACH Act. Readers are encouraged to refer to the Beach 

Guidance Document for more detailed information on the topics addressed in this handbook and 

for specific information related to the BEACH Act and BEACH grants. The Beach Guidance Document 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches/technical.html. 

1.3 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY PROJECTS 

The projects on which this handbook’s case studies are based are listed in Table 1-1 and summarized below. 

Table 1-1. Time-Relevant Beach and Recreational Water

Quality Monitoring Case Study Projects 

Project Title Location Web Site 

Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Boston, Massachusetts http://www.state.ma.us/mdc 

Beaches Project http://www.crwa.org 

http://www.mwra.state.ma.us 

Cities of Milwaukee and Racine 

Health Departments Community 

Recreational Water Risk Assessment 

and Public Outreach (Beachhealth) 

Milwaukee and Racine, Wisconsin http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth 

Rhode Island Department of Health 

Narragansett Bay Bathing Beaches 

Monitoring Project 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island http://www.healthri.org/environment/ 

beaches/index.html 

Introduction 1-3 
1.3.1 REAL-TIME MONITORING AND REPORTING OF WATER QUALITY FOR THE CHARLES RIVER BASIN/BOSTON

HARBOR BEACHES PROJECT 

Several groups—the Metropolitan District Commission, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the 

Boston Harbor Association, the Charles River Watershed Association, and others—have worked as partners 

for a number of years to improve the water quality of the Charles River and Boston Harbor in 

Massachusetts. In 1998, EPA’s EMPACT Program funded a project to enhance real-time monitoring and 

reporting of water quality for the Charles River and Boston Harbor. Through this project, the partner 

groups expanded their existing efforts to provide the public with timely information about water quality 

conditions in the Charles River and at Boston Harbor beaches. 

1.3.2 CITIES OF MILWAUKEE AND RACINE HEALTH 

DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL WATER

RISK ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH (BEACHHEALTH) 

In 1998, EPA’s EMPACT Program funded the Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and Public 

Outreach project to enhance the public beach monitoring and associated health risk advisory efforts that the 

City of Milwaukee Health Department and the City of Racine Health Department had been conducting 

for several years. Through the “Beachhealth” project, people in Wisconsin can learn about daily water quality conditions at beaches in the Milwaukee and Racine areas throughout the swimming season. 

1.3.3 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

NARRAGANSETT BAY BATHING BEACHES MONITORING

PROJECT 

In 1999, EPA’s EMPACT Program helped to fund the Rhode Island Department of Health’s Bathing 

Beaches Monitoring Project. This project provides time-relevant water quality and safety information for 

seven licensed bathing facilities in the Upper Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Through effective management of these beaches, the Rhode Island Department of Health sought to develop a pilot project to 

minimize public health risks associated with swimming at all Rhode Island beaches. The Project sampled a 

number of other sites to determine whether water quality would support licensing additional beaches in the 

area in the future. 

1-4 Chapter 1 
gram. Section 2.1 provides a “road map” that directs you to chapters that may be of greatest inte

your particular program. Section 2.2 answers frequently asked questions regarding time-relevant 

recreational water quality monitoring. 

2.1 ROAD MAP 

Design a program 

that addresses 

water quality 

monitoring, data 

management, and 

public notification, 

based on specific 

program goals 

(Chapter 3). 

Implement a water 

quality monitoring 

program to collect 

and analyze timerelevant beach and 

recreational water 

quality data 

(Chapter 4). 

Develop and 

implement a data 

management 

system to manage 

and deliver timerelevant water 

quality data 

(Chapter 5). 

Create and im

ment a public 

notification an

risk communi

tion program 

inform the pu

of potential he

risks (Chapter 

Each chapter of this handbook provides general information about the particular topics being in

followed by case study examples from three EMPACT time-relevant beach/recreational water qu

toring projects. The examples include successful approaches that you might want to consider in 

your own programs, as well as references to additional sources of information such as Web sites a

ance documents. 

Specifically, the handbook provides the following information: 

• Chapter 3 discusses program design, beginning with an overview of health concerns and co

beach and recreational water quality monitoring. It then describes time-relevant water qual

toring and some key factors to consider when designing a time-relevant monitoring program

discusses the stated goals and objectives of each of the three case study projects. 

• Chapter 4 discusses water quality sampling and analysis, including information on sample c

sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control, predictive models, and interpretation 

of monitoring results. 

• Chapter 5 focuses on data management and data delivery, beginning with a discussion of th

considerations involved in developing or modifying a system to manage time-relevant data. 

of the case study programs, the chapter discusses the design, use, and maintenance of data 

ment systems and the mechanisms used to deliver data to the public via the Internet. 

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK 
yy pg pg, g fqy q

may be helpful. 

Q: How is a time-relevant water quality monitoring program different from a conventional beach monitoring 

program? 

A: A time-relevant water quality monitoring program seeks to reduce the time needed to analyze water 

quality samples as well as the time it takes to notify recreational water users of any health risks associa

with current water quality conditions. Alternative analysis methods, predictive modeling, and innova

and quick methods of distributing sample results to the public are some of the ways in which time-re

vant programs achieve their goals. In contrast, conventional water quality monitoring programs are o

driven by the (relatively long) time it takes to obtain results using traditional methods of sample anal

and may not emphasize new and quicker ways to get information to the public. 

Q: What are the benefits of designing and implementing a time-relevant recreational water quality monitorin

program? 

A: Exposure to recreational waters contaminated with bacteria, viruses, or other disease-causing organism

can result in a variety of illnesses (e.g., gastrointestinal problems) in people using these waters. Timerelevant water quality monitoring and reporting can help reduce the period of time in which people 

potentially exposed to high levels of these waterborne organisms. In addition, since bacteria exceedan

are often transient events, time-relevant monitoring allows water quality managers to reopen or unpo

these waters sooner. 

Q: Can my existing data management system be used for a time-relevant water quality monitoring program? 

A: Yes, most existing data management systems can be used for time-relevant monitoring projects. A sys

can be used if it includes the basic components needed to manage and communicate the data, includ

a data storage and retrieval system, a data delivery system, and procedures for quality assurance, quali

control, and data security. An information systems specialist can help you to determine what your ex

ing system can do and how to modify it, if necessary, to meet real-time project requirements. 

Q: What are some good ways to tell the public about recreational water quality and associated health risks? 

A: Some quick, effective methods are: placing flags at beaches and other key locations that indicate whe

the water quality on a particular day is acceptable for swimming, boating, etc.; training beach lifegua

to inform beachgoers of daily water quality conditions; developing water quality forecasts that are use

by local media (e.g., television, newspapers) to report daily or weekend recreational water quality con

tions; setting up a water quality information telephone “hotline”; and posting water quality results (e

daily or near-daily) on a well-publicized Web site. See Chapter 6 for more discussion of these and oth

methods. It is often useful to include several of these methods in your program to reach a larger num

of people. 

2-2 Chapter 
discusses factors to consider when designing a program (Section 3.2). Section 3.3 describes three 

study projects, focusing on examples of design factors that these projects considered important.1 

3.1 OVERVIEW OF HEALTH CONCERNS AND WAT

QUALITY MONITORING 

3.1.1 WATER-RELATED HEALTH CONCERNS 

People can be exposed to disease-causing organisms (such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) in b

recreational waters mainly through accidental ingestion of contaminated water or through skin c

These organisms, called pathogens, usually come from the feces of humans and other warm-bloo

animals. If taken into the body, pathogens can cause various illnesses and, on rare occasions, eve

Waterborne illnesses include diseases resulting from bacterial infection (such as cholera, salmone

and gastroenteritis), viral infection (such as infectious hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal dis

and protozoan infections (such as amoebic dysentery and giardiasis). 

3.1.2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

Conventional beach and recreational water quality monitoring often relies on the use of “indicat

isms” to measure the likelihood of the presence or absence of pathogens. The most commonly m

recreational water indicator organisms are fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci: 

• Fecal coliform. These bacteria are a subgroup of coliform bacteria that usually live in the in

tracts of warm-blooded animals, including humans. Fecal coliform was originally recomme

1968 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (the predecessor to EPA) as a

water quality indicator organism for beach and recreational waters. It is thought to be a be

tor than total coliform of human (or other warm-blooded species) pathogens. Studies cond

the 1970s and 1980s indicated that the presence of this organism showed less correlation t

associated with swimming than does the presence of some other indicator organisms, inclu

and enterococci. 

• Escherichia coli (E. coli). E. coli is an accurate indicator of fecal contamination because it c

greater than 90 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria found in human and animal waste. T

ria can become pathogenic when they contact tissues outside the intestinal tract, particular

urinary and biliary tracts, lungs, peritoneum, and meninges. EPA currently recommends E

(or enterococci) as an indicator organism for fresh waters (U.S. EPA, 1986). 

• Enterococci. Enterococci are a type of fecal streptococcus bacteria that live in the intestinal 

humans and some animals. The risk to swimmers of contracting gastrointestinal illness app

predicted better by enterococci than by fecal coliform; EPA currently recommends enteroc

indicator organism for both fresh and marine waters (U.S. EPA, 1986). 

1 This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH A

and the publication of National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the prac

in these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance 

see Chapter 1, Section 1.2. 

GETTING STARTED 
affecting water quality and human health originate in the gastrointestinal tracts of infected animals (including 

humans) and are then released to the environment in fecal wastes. Examples of some of the more common 

waterborne, disease-causing viruses include hepatitis A, rotaviruses, Norwalk-type viruses, adenoviruses, an

enteroviruses. Viruses are more resistant than bacteria to conventional water treatment such as chlorination. 

Treatments such as ultraviolet light and ozonation are more effective than chlorination in treating viruses. 

Protozoa are single-celled organisms that live primarily in the aquatic environment. Some disease-causing 

protozoa exist in the environment as cysts that hatch, grow, and multiply after ingestion, causing illness. 

Two disease-causing, waterborne protozoa of major concern are Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium. 

Like viruses, protozoa are more resistant to conventional treatment such as chlorination. 

Ingesting water containing bacteria, viruses, or protozoa is the most common route of human exposure to thes

microorganisms. A key factor in the successful treatment of these microbes is allowing adequate contact time 

with the disinfecting agent. Certain physical and chemical conditions (e.g., high suspended solids) can reduc

treatment effectiveness if not addressed. 

For more information on bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, visit http://www.epa.gov/microbes/. 

3.1.3 SOURCES OF PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION

Pathogens generally enter beach/recreational waters through rainfall runoff, which 

picks up pathogens as it moves through the environment (e.g., from failing septic 

systems, leaking sewers, wastes from wildlife such as birds or domestic animals)

or through point source discharges (i.e., sewage from a pipe or other specifi

source). Heavy rainfall (“wet weather”) events can elevate pathogen leve

in beach/recreational waters because rainfall can flush pathogens int

a water body from other areas of the watershed. Also, combined sew

overflow (CSO) pipes may discharge into a recreational water body 

during rainfall events, releasing excess discharges of storm water and 

sanitary wastewater into the environment with little or no treatmen

Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), which are occasional unintentiona

discharges of raw sewage, are another potential source of pathogens in recreational water bodies. In are

with separate storm-water and sanitary-sewer systems, both storm-water discharges and SSOs can carry 

high bacteria levels. Contamination from CSOs and SSOs is potentially a greater risk to swimmers tha

dry-weather discharges from other point sources because the raw human sewage in CSOs and SSOs of

contain elevated bacteria levels. Other point sources of potential water contamination include discharg

pipes from businesses that adjoin water bodies. Nonpoint-source discharges from poorly maintained 

or failing septic systems or other sources of groundwater contamination can also contribute to bacteria

contamination of beach water. 

3-2 Chapter 
.epa.gov/npdes/sso/. 

A sanitary sewer system is meant to collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into it to a publi

owned treatment works. Occasionally, though, raw sewage is unintentionally discharged from municip

tary sewers before it reaches the treatment works. These discharges, called sanitary sewer overflows 

occur in almost every system. SSOs have a variety of causes, including but not limited to infiltration a

of ground water and water from other sources, severe weather, improper system operation and mainte

and vandalism. These discharges contaminate our waters, causing serious water quality problems. Fo

information on SSOs, visit http://www

3.1.4 WHY TIME-RELEVANT WATER QUALITY MONITORING

IS NEEDED 

When elevated waterborne pathogen levels are found in an area, the public should be notified qu

the potential health risks in that area. One problem with conventional beach and recreational wat

monitoring is the time lag between collecting water samples and providing the public with results

due to the time it takes (from 24 to 72 hours) to analyze indicator organism levels. During this ti

pathogen levels, weather, and water conditions may change, and related health risks may also chan

authorities responsible for informing and protecting the public often must decide on beach and r

water postings, closings, and re-openings using indicator organism data that reflect conditions as 

to 3 days earlier. This delay could be particularly problematic after certain events, such as a signif

storm or a sewage spill. To address this time lag problem, time-relevant water quality monitoring st

to shorten analysis times, use quicker predictive methods, and communicate beach/recreational water qu

mation to the public on a timely (e.g., near-daily) basis so the public can make more informed decision

recreational water use. 

3.2 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DESIGNING A 

TIME-RELEVANT WATER QUALITY MONITORING

PROGRAM 

Program goals and objectives are key factors to identify when designing a time-relevant beach and 

ational water quality monitoring program. Regulatory requirements that protect water quality and 

health (e.g., state water quality standards, public health codes) must also be incorporated into the 

quality monitoring program. In addition, available resources and community involvement are imp

considerations for program design. These factors are discussed below. 

• Program objectives. Your program objectives should support your goals of public health prot

public notification of health risks. Thus objectives should identify how to effectively and qu

monitor beaches and other recreational waters to determine whether water quality is sufficie

protect public health and (2) communicate health risks to those people who use or are other

impacted by area beach and recreational waters (e.g., swimmers, boaters, fishermen, water sk

GETTING STARTED 
goals—that, wherever possible, waters provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish

wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water. These use goals are usually referred to by t

expression “fishable/swimmable.” Examples of designated uses most relevant to beach and recreatio

waters include primary contact recreation (i.e., swimming and other recreational activities that can 

result in ingestion of or immersion in the water) and secondary contact recreation (e.g., boating an

fishing, in which minimal body contact with or ingestion of the water is expected). Another poten

tially important designated use relevant to public health is shellfish harvesting, which would result 

direct human consumption of the shellfish. Some states designate uses through a class system (Cla

B, or C), while other states specify the use (e.g., primary contact recreation, drinking water). 

A second key element of water quality standards is the adoption of water quality criteria that must 

met to support the designated uses. EPA publishes water quality criteria that guide the states in set

their own criteria, as required by the CWA (Section 304). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 

Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986) recommended the use of E. coli and enterococci as indicator 

organisms for bacteria for the designated use of swimming. In that document, EPA recommended 

water quality criteria be based on geometric mean (i.e., drawn from a statistically sufficient numbe

samples) densities of bacteria and on maximum single-sample bacteria densities, neither of which a

to be exceeded in marine and fresh recreational waters. The criteria that EPA recommended for 

bacteria are shown in Table 3-1. Check with your state environmental or public health agency to f

out what water quality criteria your state has adopted. A state’s water quality criteria are used as th

basis to close (or post) and reopen a beach. As discussed below, while many states still use fecal or 

coliform as the basis for their water quality criteria, the BEACH Act requires that coastal states ad

criteria consistent with the EPA 1986 guidance by 2004. For example, Rhode Island’s state standa

currently is 50 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (50 CFU/100 ml) of fecal coliform, as sho

in Table 3-2; however, Rhode Island anticipates switching to enterococci. The water quality criteri

used by the three projects highlighted in this handbook are discussed in Chapter 4, Table 4-4. 

3-4 Chapter 
E. coli 126 235 

Marine Water (in CFU/100 ml)4 

Enterococci 35 104 

1 For an explanation of “geometric mean” and “single-sample maximum allowable density,” see the box entitled “EPA Water Quality 

Health Risks and Recreational Water Uses.” For single samples, the “Designated Beach Area” criteria listed above are usually used. O

sample densities (included in EPA’s list of recommended criteria but not shown here) may be selected if a reason exists to do so (e.g

due to an area being less frequently used for swimming). See Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986 on EPA’s Beaches W

(http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/bacteria/) for other single-sample density values for other levels of water use. 

2 CL = confidence level. A confidence level (or interval) is an estimate of the probability that an interval around the mean value cont

mean value. A 95% CL is larger than a 75% CL because there is a higher likelihood that this interval will capture the true mean. 

3 Freshwater densities are based on a risk of eight illnesses per thousand swimmers. CFU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters. 

4 Marine water densities are based on a risk of 19 illnesses per thousand swimmers. CFU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters. 

Source: U.S. EPA, 1986. 

Table 3-2. Water Quality Criteria Used by Three Case

Study Projects1 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Charles River (Boston area, 

fresh water):

1,000 CFU/100 ml FC (secondary 

contact waters, e.g., boating) - geometric mean; also 2,000 CFU/100 ml 

FC (<10% of single samples)2 

200 CFU/100 ml FC (Class B waters 

for swimming/fishing) - geometric 

mean; also 400 CFU/100 ml FC 

(<10% of single samples)

Boston Harbor (marine water): 

35 CFU/100 ml 

enterococci - geometric mean 

104 CFU/100 ml enterococci - single

samples 

Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin 

235 CFU/100 ml 

E. coli - single samples

(general recreational water use)

Narragansett Bay, Rhode 

Salt water: 

50 MPN/100 ml FC - geom

mean; also 500 MPN/100 m

(<10% of single samples)

(swimming/boating)2 

Fresh water: 

200 MPN/100 ml FC (swim

geometric mean 

1 All of the programs listed anticipate switching to E. coli or enterococci by 2004 or sooner. 

2 CFU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters; FC = fecal coliform; MPN = most probable number. 

GETTING STARTED 
EPA Water Quality Criteria Reflect Health Risks and Recreational Water Uses 

The EPA water quality criteria listed in Table 3-1 reflect specific health risks and water uses, as 

described below (U.S. EPA, 1986). 

Geometric mean. The geometric mean values summarized in Table 3-1 are based on specific levels of 

risk of acute gastrointestinal illness: no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for fresh water an

no more than 19 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for marine water (U.S. EPA, 1986). EPA has determine

that, when these water quality criteria are implemented in a conservative manner, they are protective 

for prevention of gastrointestinal illness resulting from primary contact recreation. EPA recommends 

that at least five samples over a 30-day period be taken to calculate the geometric mean. 

Single-sample maximum. Noncompliance can also be indicated by unacceptably high single-sample 

measurements. Single-sample maximum values can help determine whether to close or post a beach 

when a single-sample measurement shows a value that exceeds the single-sample maximum. The 

maximum for single samples is set higher than the geometric mean to prevent unnecessary closures 

based on a single sample. Use of a single-sample maximum is also important because it is assumed 

that environmental conditions that can affect bacteria levels in water (such as rainfall, wind, currents

tides, and temperature) will vary temporally and spatially. Like the geometric mean, these singlesample maximums, summarized in Table 3-1, are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastrointestinal illness: again, no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for fresh waters and no more 

than 19 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for marine waters. 

• Availability of resources. Funding and staffing constraints can limit the design of a water quality mon

ing program. These resource limitations can impact when, where, and how often you monitor water 

quality and can also impact your public notification process. If resources are a limiting factor, conside

having program partners administer your monitoring, data management, or notification program. 

Other agencies or organizations involved in recreational water quality issues (e.g., watershed associati

community groups, other state and local agencies) may be interested in contributing funds and/or sta

support a time-relevant water quality monitoring program. See the latter part of this chapter and 

Chapters 5 and 6 for more information on program partners. 

• Community input. The design of a successful time-relevant water quality monitoring program should 

include public input regarding what people want and need to know about beach and recreational wa

quality and related health risks, as well as how they prefer to receive this information (e.g., the Intern

beach flags, newspaper notices). Also, community members are often a valuable source of informatio

about an area (e.g., possible sources of contamination). 

3-6 Chapter 
QUALITY FOR THE CHARLES RIVER BASIN/BOSTON

HARBOR BEACHES PROJECT 

Boston Harbor is adjacent to Boston, Massachusetts, and influenced by a prominent, densely sett

recreational watershed. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project is a key initiative 

the EPA–New England goal of making the Charles River fishable and swimmable by Earth Day 2

overall project objectives are: 

• To help reduce public health risks associated with pathogen contamination in the Charles Riv

and at Boston Harbor area beaches. 

• To enhance existing monitoring efforts by the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), 

Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (M

the Charles River Basin and at Boston Harbor area beaches. 

• To enable the public to make more informed decisions related to river and beach use and pub

• To evaluate two different analytical methods for enterococci, one of which provides results m

within 24 hours. 

Two key design factors for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project were the use o

partners to enhance the resources available to the project and the importance of community inpu

reach, as discussed below.


Project partners. The project was designed to expand the efforts of several


partner organizations that have been working for a number of years to


improve the water quality of Boston-area beaches and the Charles River.


The project enhanced these partners’ ability to provide the public with time-


relevant information about water quality conditions. The project design


maximized the use of program partners for both monitoring and public noti­


fication efforts. Wherever possible, The Boston Harbor Association (TBHA)


collaborated with the CRWA to conduct public outreach aimed at enabling a


diverse, multi-cultural public to make more informed decisions related to the


use of both the Boston Harbor beaches and the Charles River. Additional


partners included the MWRA, the MDC, members of the Wollaston Beach


Task Force, and members of the Boston Harbor Water Quality Task Force.


Outreach to the community and public input. The Charles River


Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project uses several different types of public


outreach to collect feedback on the water quality notification system and to


build community awareness of recreational water quality issues. One example


of this process is a public meeting, hosted by TBHA, that included a discussion by the program p

water quality conditions during the beach season and efforts to provide the public with “real-time

tion. Another example is another TBHA-hosted public workshop, during which comments were 

from workshop participants.


GETTING STARTED 
• Participation in annual beach water quality monitoring symposia organized with Massachusetts 

Coastal Zone Management, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, and local boards of health. 

• Posters, water bottles, and brochures that explain and highlight the beach flagging program. 

• “Back to the Beaches” events to promote use of the beaches by neighbors and visitors to Boston 

Harbor. During these events, staff from TBHA and the MDC provide the public with in-depth in

mation on water quality issues, the notification system, and access to online information on water 

quality conditions. 

• Notification and other communications with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and 

local boards of health. 

See Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of the public notification and risk communication efforts 

undertaken by all three of the case study projects. 

3.3.2 CITIES OF MILWAUKEE AND RACINE HEALTH 

DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL 

WATER RISK ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 

(BEACHHEALTH) PROJECT 

For approximately the past 30 years, the City of Milwaukee Health Department (MHD) has monitored 

Milwaukee public beaches for contamination that could negatively affect public health. MHD has partn

with the City of Racine Health Department, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of 

Wisconsin–Milwaukee Great Lakes Water Institute, and other organizations to study the beaches in 

Milwaukee and Racine, Wisconsin. The objectives of the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project are: 

• To improve documentation and dissemination of environmental data related to health risks associa

with the recreational use of public beaches. 

• To improve the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data collected at and around public 

beaches in both Milwaukee and Racine Counties for development of a public health risk model. 

• To standardize and improve coordination and collaboration of environmental data collected betwe

local public health agencies (LPHAs), community stakeholders, and other organizations. 

• To build community awareness of surface-water pollution prevention. 

Three key design factors for the Milwaukee/Racine project included consideration of beach classification 

issues, the use of project partners to enhance the resources available to the project, and community inpu

and outreach, as discussed below. 

3-8 Chapter 
quality. Other near-shore data are collected by the City of Milwaukee from the watershed twice w

three recreational sites. In addition, volunteer environmental monitoring is conducted at designat

Project partners. To improve coordination and collaboration in the collection of environmental dat

LPHAs, community stakeholders, and other organizations, MHD partnered with community envi

education organizations to form a near-shore volunteer monitoring program. Nearly 50 volunteers 

involved in the onsite water quality testing of 13 sites for nine scheduled monitoring events, as wel

events during the summers of 1999 and 2000. In addition, MHD formalized agreements with oth

to share near-shore data and enter the data into a Web site (http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth/

Community input and outreach. The Milwaukee/Racine project has used several types of public o

to collect feedback on new advisory postings at Milwaukee and Racine beaches and to build comm

awareness of surface-water pollution prevention. For example, beachgoers at Milwaukee’s South S

completed surveys, and the beach was posted with large advisory signs providing daily water qual

during the course of the project. Other public outreach components of this project included: 

• Development of a Web site for the project, in both English and Spanish, that includes a tech

page with all of the Milwaukee and Racine county and volunteer monitoring data. These da

queried and downloaded. 

• A beach water quality telephone hotline, which includes recorded advisories, updated daily, 

Milwaukee beaches. 

• Outreach materials such as two brochures on beach pollution. These were handed out at com

events, including the 1999 Wisconsin Beach Sweep and at an EMPACT booth at the Enviro

Expo, held in Milwaukee as part of the International Joint Commission’s biennial meeting. 

3.3.3 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

NARRAGANSETT BAY BATHING BEACHES MONITOR

PROJECT 

Rhode Island’s project is designed to address bacteriological water quality and swimmer safety issu

beaches in the Providence metropolitan area. Its four main objectives are: 

• To develop a comprehensive beach management program through frequent water quality mo

swimming beaches and other potential recreational sites in the upper Narragansett Bay. 

• To communicate monitoring information to the public in a time-relevant, easily accessible, 

effective format so the public can make informed decisions regarding environmental health 

their daily activities. 

• To investigate faster methods and alternative indicators for evaluating water quality. 

• To collect specific wet weather data for use in developing a predictive beach closure model b

rainfall/sewage discharge volume. 

GETTING STARTED 
primary contact activities in areas with use restrictions is a public health concern and demonstrates the n

to consider historical sources of contamination and spatial and temporal factors in a beach management 

program. 

To address this public health issue, the Rhode Island Beaches Monitoring Project chose sampling sites tha

provided spatial coverage of the upper bay, including sites that were not licensed beaches; sampling at the

unlicensed areas could help to determine whether water quality in these areas would support efforts to pu

beach licenses. The results of the project sampling were used to confirm that the unlicensed sampling site

upper Narragansett Bay are not suitable for becoming licensed public beach facilities at this time. Many o

these sites display consistently poor water quality, exceeding the state standard more than 50 percent of th

time. (Standards and criteria used by the three case study projects are listed in Table 3-2 and Table 4-4). 

The water quality sampling conducted at licensed facilities in the northernmost regions of the bay found 

fluctuating water quality. While these areas frequently displayed acceptable water quality and are suitable 

primary use, the fluctuation demonstrates the need for frequent sampling at these sites. 

Information on historical water contamination at sites can contribute to the design and proper managem

of a water quality monitoring program by helping to determine where and how frequently monitoring is 

needed. More frequent monitoring may be needed at certain areas, even at some licensed beaches, based 

prior history. 

3-10 Chapter 
• Establish a monitoring plan that addresses what, where, when, and how water quality mon

occur (Section 4.1). 

• Develop plans that specify quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures to 

during sample collection and analysis and data interpretation (Section 4.2). 

• Conduct analyses of water quality samples (Section 4.3). 

• Determine whether it is feasible to develop predictive modeling to provide quicker estimate

quality (Section 4.4). 

• Interpret the monitoring and modeling results, including information on water quality exc

and beach closing and reopening procedures (Section 4.5). 

• Notify the public of the monitoring and modeling results and any associated public health 

(see Chapter 6). 

Also, beach program managers should check with state and local authorities to identify the regul

requirements that apply to your program. See Chapter 3, Section 3.2, for potentially applicable 

state, and local requirements.2 

4.1 OVERVIEW OF MONITORING AND SAMPLE 

COLLECTION 

This section discusses what should be monitored and where, when and how monitoring should 

conducted, and who should conduct it. Each of these considerations should be addressed ahead 

in a monitoring plan, which can be revised if needed. This section also provides examples of mo

considerations addressed by three case study projects. 

4.1.1 WHAT WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS SHOULD BE

MONITORED? 

Decisions about what to monitor should be based on the uses of your beach and recreational wa

applicable regulatory standards, and the questions and concerns raised by recreational water user

example, are people primarily interested in whether it is safe to swim at a particular beach? Are t

interested in whether it is safe to boat, fish, or dig clams in the area? The parameters to be moni

their levels of acceptable health risk should be chosen to answer such questions. As described in 

water bodies need to meet criteria set by state water quality standards, which apply to existing an

nated uses for specific waters, such as primary contact recreation (e.g, swimming) and secondary 

recreation (e.g., boating). See Chapter 3 for a discussion of designated uses and state water quali

2 This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH A

the publication of National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the practices 

these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance inf

Section 1.2. 

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
outfall discharge through a water body. Lake circulation patterns can also be influenced by wind and 

rainfall. These parameters may also be used as inputs for predictive models that supplement monitoring

as discussed in Section 4.4. Table 4-1 summarizes the indicator organisms and supporting measurement

currently evaluated by each of three case study projects. Appendix A includes a survey form used by Rho

Island to record information on some of these parameters, as well as others. (Note that the Rhode Island 

project also observes whether storm-water pipes or other flows across beach areas are present.) 

Water quality samples can also be analyzed for nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. These parameter

may provide information regarding certain contamination sources (e.g., farm runoff or animal feeding 

operation discharges). Elevated nutrient concentrations may cause increased algae or aquatic weed 

growth, which can reduce recreational water use, especially if the algae or weed growth is severe. 

Table 4-1. Parameters Monitored in Three Case Study

Projects 

Indicator Organisms 

Charles River 

Basin/Boston Harbor 

Beaches Project 

Fecal coliform 

Enterococci 

Milwaukee/Racine

Beachhealth Project 

E. coli 

Rhode Island Beach 

Monitoring Project 

Fecal coliform

Enterococci

Other Environmental 

Measurements 

Rainfall 

Temperature 

Conductivity/salinity 

Weather conditions 

Rainfall 

Water and air temperature 

Turbidity 

Fluorescence 

Conductivity 

Oxidation/reduction potential 

Wind speed/direction 

Chlorophyll 

Nitrate 

Phosphate 

Rainfall 

Water temperature 

Turbidity 

Weather conditions 

Prevailing wind 

4-2 Chapter 
Some municipalities monitor all beaches in their area (regardless of proximity to pollutant sources

for example), while others select monitoring locations based on some or all of the following factor

• Designated and existing use of the water body, including whether the water body supports p

contact recreation, secondary contract recreation, shellfishing, drinking water, or other desig

uses. Under the CWA, each state, territory, or tribe is required to designate a use or uses for 

water body within its jurisdiction. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of designated uses.) 

• Frequency and density of use. Monitoring sites should also be selected based on the frequenc

sity of use of a beach/recreational water body. Samples should be collected where many peop

typically swim or otherwise use the water often, since these areas often pose the highest pote

public exposure to pathogens. 

• Potential pollution sources and storm-water discharges. The condition of the watershed feed

a recreational water body, including the number and location of point and nonpoint polluti

sources and storm-water discharges, is an important factor in where pathogen contamination 

occur. Common sources of pathogen pollution include wastewater treatment (e.g., publicly 

treatment works) outfall pipes, CSOs, SSOs, storm-water pipes, and malfunctioning septic s

Recreational waters near such sources should be considered as potential monitoring sites. 

To minimize unwarranted variation among sampling results, collect water samples from the same 

within a site (e.g., in front of a lifeguard station or another clearly defined area) each time samplin

Choosing Monitoring Sites 

The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project in Massachusetts monitors water quality at 13 

along four historically contaminated beaches daily and other beaches weekly. Some of the sampling sit

lifeguard stations where people typically swim. These beaches were also selected because they are loc

or near heavily populated and/or industrial areas that are directly impacted by sewer system overflows 

contaminated storm drains. Combined sewer overflows have been a major source of pollution to the be

and the harbor in general. Research by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority indicates that be

water quality is highly variable in response to rainfall, even among different locations along the same 

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
It is important to monitor after exceedances of water quality criteria (which in some cases may be after 

rainfall events) to ensure that bacteria concentrations have returned to acceptable levels. Such monitoring 

can help you determine when beaches that have been closed because of high bacteria levels may be reopen

Deciding When To Monitor 

Rhode Island’s Beaches Monitoring Project conducts beach monitoring from mid-May through mid-September t

coincide with the summer beach season. Samples are collected weekly at each of 23 sites. If a beach is closed 

because of an exceedance, it is resampled daily until bacteria densities fall back below the threshold. Rainfal

event samples are collected in place of weekly sampling when it rains prior to a scheduled sampling date. Mo

samples are collected between 8:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. and delivered to the laboratory for analysis within 4 

hours of collection. 

In deciding when to monitor, consider when the monitoring results will be received, since this may have impor

tant public notification implications. For example, consider organizing your monitoring program so that enough 

time is allocated for sample results to be received and any associated health risks communicated to the public 

before the weekend, when beach and recreational waters are typically used the most. 

4.1.4 HOW ARE BEACH/RECREATIONAL

WATER QUALITY SAMPLES

COLLECTED? 

It is important to develop, in advance, specific written procedures for the 

collection, preservation, and storage of water samples and to adhere to those 

procedures. The reference text Standard Methods for the Examination of Water 

and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998) provides general guidelines for water 

sampling. The text covers such matters as obtaining representative samples 

and avoiding sample contamination, both of which are critical to the 

accuracy of your results. Many states have developed their own protocols. 

A typical sample collection protocol for recreational waters might incorporate the following guidelines, among others: 

• Collect samples in areas of greatest use by swimmers (or other relevant 

recreational water users), where the water is about 3 feet deep, at about 

knee-depth or 1 foot below the water surface. 

• The sample analysis method to be used3 will specify appropriate 

sample containers, identify whether any preservation is required (such 

as storing samples on ice until analysis) and indicate acceptable holding times. 

3 See Section 4.3. 

4-4 Chapter 
receiving water body.) 

Environmental data can be collected manually or automatically. Manual collection of environmental 

usually occurs at the time of water quality sampling and involves meters, monitors, and test kits. The 

Boston installed three stationary rainfall gauges that automatically monitor rainfall every 15 minutes. 

Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project uses two automated environmental monitoring stations that p

physical and chemical data to MHD using a call-in system. The system monitors water temperature, 

fluorescence, conductivity, oxidation/reduction potential, wind speed and direction, and air temperatu

continual basis. These data are relayed to on-shore computers via radio at predetermined intervals and 

demand. Figure 4-1 shows a schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine automated monitoring system. 

Note that other water quality monitoring programs (e.g., volunteer monitoring programs) may alread

collecting environmental data. 

Figure 4-1. Schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin, automated beach monitoring system

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
• The availability of staff and funding for monitoring. The use of volunteer personnel can allow you

agency to increase the amount of monitoring performed, although you will need resources for train

volunteers if you use them. 

• Program partners, such as other public agencies, community-based environmental groups, or resea

and educational entities (such as colleges and universities). These can sometimes be a source of 

monitoring or public outreach personnel. 

Monitoring Personnel 

In the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project, both professional staff from local public health agencies and 

volunteer personnel conduct water quality monitoring. The agencies’ environmental health specialists and 

environmental hygienists are responsible for collecting samples on which health advisories are based. 

Additional near-shore data are collected by other agencies and community-based environmental groups made 

up of volunteer personnel. The City of Milwaukee Health Department coordinates the volunteer environmental 

monitoring events. Training for the volunteers is provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Environmental Center, the University of Wisconsin–Extension, and the Riverside Urban Environmental Center. 

4.2 QUALITY CONTROL PLANS AND PROCEDURES 

To ensure data quality, create good QC documentation for all beach and recreational water quality mon

ing and analysis programs. Develop a quality assurance project plan (QAPP), which should include data 

quality objectives (DQOs) and standard operating procedures (SOPs). 

A QAPP is a formal document that specifies in detail what sampling and analysis procedures are to be u

how and when sampling will be done, what QA and QC activities are necessary to ensure that the data 

collected meet specified standards, and how the data will be analyzed and reported. DQOs are qualitativ

and quantitative statements that clarify monitoring program objectives, define the appropriate types of d

and specify tolerable error levels. DQOs are used as bases for establishing the quality and quantity of da

needed to support decisions. 

SOPs describe in detail the method for a given operation, analysis, or action. They are used for technica

activities that need to be performed the same way every time (i.e., standardized). Among such activities 

are field sampling, laboratory analysis, and database management. It is often helpful to present an SOP 

sequential steps that reflect the stages of the actual work to be done; it is also helpful to include specific 

facilities, equipment, materials and methods, QA and QC procedures, and other factors required to 

perform the operation, analysis, or action. An SOP’s format and content requirements are flexible 

because its content and level of detail will depend on the nature of the procedure being performed. 

4-6 Chapter 
qualified personnel, appropriate instrumentation, and standard operating procedures, and has demonst

proficiency in the analysis of samples, for example for particular bacterial indicators. 

Some states have established accreditation processes for environmental analyses and require the use o

accredited laboratories. This is often true for drinking water analysis. The use of an accredited laborato

recommended for recreational water analyses as well, especially when beach advisory or closure decis

to be based on the analytical results. Check with your state regarding its requirements and recommend

the use of accredited laboratories. 

4.2.1 DATA VERIFICATION METHODS 

Data verification provides the confirmation that specified requirements have been fulfilled. For w

quality sampling and analysis, this is done by evaluating whether data have been collected in acco

with the specifications of the QAPP and whether the DQOs specified in your QC plan have been 

verification also includes a review of the sampling data obtained and QC sample data (e.g., sampl

duplicates). Examples of data verification procedures for bacterial indicator samples include: 

• Additional tests on samples to identify false positives or false negatives. A false positive rate i

calculated as the percent of colonies that were falsely identified as being made up of indicato

ganisms. A false negative rate is calculated as the percent of colonies that were made up of in

microorganisms but were not identified as such. EPA-approved methods specify acceptable f

tive and false negative rates for the relevant media. 

• Review of sample records, chain of custody records, and sample tracking records to verify th

samples collected were analyzed and that the data set results will be complete. 

• Data entry checks to detect any potential data entry errors. 

• Other types of check, such as graphing data to visually inspect for any potential errors and u

statistical methods to detect invalid data. 

• Review of data reductions, transformations, and calculations by rechecking computations an

reviewing the assumptions used. 

Verifying that a data collection effort conforms with the QAPP requires confirming that the data 

specified QC tests, calculations were performed correctly, all samples were treated consistently, an

are complete and comply with all plans, DQOs, and SOPs. Data verification should always be fol

data validation, as described below. 

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
p

bacterial indicator organisms as part of an assessment


of beach and recreational water quality. This section


briefly discusses EPA-approved and other standard


methods and describes the methods used by the three


case study projects, including new analysis methods


that are under investigation. 


Many government agencies, universities, and other


organizations develop analytical methods. EPA evalu­


ates these methods and approves those methods that


meet its requirements for monitoring organic, inor­


ganic, or microbiological contaminants. The purpose


of developing and using EPA-approved and other


acceptable standard methods is to ensure consistency and quality of analytical results. Furthermore, only

certain methods may be used for compliance monitoring (e.g., of wastewater or drinking water); require

ments for recreational water monitoring may not be as strict, but some states may have requirements or

preferences for the use of certain methods for recreational water quality monitoring in some situations.


Check with your state to identify any such requirements.


EPA-approved and other standard methods for the analysis of bacterial indicator organisms are listed in


Table 4-2. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/.


Table 4-2. EPA-Approved and Other Acceptable Standard

Methods for the Analysis of Bacterial Indicat

Organisms in Ambient Waters 

Bacterial Indicator EPA-Approved and Other Type of Analysis2 

Acceptable Standard Methods1 

E. coli EPA Method 1103.1 MF 

(same as Standard Method 9213D (m-TEC) 

Modified EPA Method 1103.1 

(modified m-TEC method) 

MF 

Enterococci EPA Method 1106.1 

(same as Standard Method 9230C) 

MF 

EPA Method 1600 MF 

1 Standard Methods are from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998). In 2002, EPA intends to p

a revised rule for EPA-approved methods in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 136). The proposed rule, published on August 3

2001, in 66FR45811, included the EnterolertTM and multiple tube fermentation methods discussed later in this chapter. Also, while some s

still use fecal coliform or total coliform as indicator organisms, EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986) re

mends using E. coli or enterococci instead and the BEACH Act requires that all coastal and Great Lakes states switch to E. coli or enterococc

2004. Therefore, approved methods for fecal or total coliform are not listed here. 

2 MF = Membrane filtration, described below. 

4-8 Chapter 
ppyg 

also used in some methods for measuring E. coli, e.g., ColilertTM, and enterococci, e.g., Ente

The time required for some of the most commonly available and used sample analysis techniques 

from 24 to 72 hours. This relatively long analysis time is a disadvantage: it can lead to a situation 

the public is exposed to high bacteria levels for the 1 to 3 days it takes to obtain sample results. T

lem, which is particularly pronounced for the methods with the longest analysis times, can hinder 

decisions on advisories or closures of recreational water areas and delay public notification. Metho

require 24 hours of analysis time are an improvement over methods requiring even more time, bu

24-hour turn-around time is not ideal; researchers are working on identifying even quicker, valid 

sample analysis for recreational water quality. 

The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor, Milwaukee/Racine, and Rhode Island projects all use on

of the methods listed in Table 4-2. Some of the projects involved evaluations of alternative metho

require 24 hours or less for sample analysis; the projects sought to determine whether use of these 

could reduce sample analysis time and provide more time-relevant information to the public. 

Table 4-3 lists the bacterial indicator organism analysis methods used by each of the three case stu

ects, including required analysis times. The following subsections discuss the alternative methods 

Table 4-3. Analysis Methods Used by the Three Case 

Projects 

Project Bacterial Indicator Test Method Ana

Charles River Basin/ Fecal coliform Standard Method 9222D 24 h

Boston Harbor Beaches Project 

Enterococci EPA Method 1106.1 48 h

EPA Method 1600 24 h

Milwaukee/Racine Community E. coli EPA Method 1103.1 24 h

Recreational Water Risk (Standard Method 9213D [m-TEC])

Assessment and Public Outreach 

(Beachhealth) Pilot study method 

(not recommended by 6 ho

Milwaukee/Racine program) 

Rhode Island Beach Fecal coliform Standard Method 9221B 48–7

Monitoring Project and E (with EC broth) 

Standard Method 9221E (A-1) 24 h

E. coli EPA Method 1103.1 24 h

(Standard Method 9213D [m-TEC]) 

Enterococci EPA Method 1600 24 h

EnterolertTM 24 h

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
Method 1600. False negative rates were 8 percent for Method 1106.1 and 7 percent for Method 1600. T

precision rate for Method 1106.1 was 38.7 average relative percent difference (RPD), while Method 160

had a similar precision rate of 45.2 average RPD. MDC concluded that Method 1600 may result in a 

slight, but probably insignificant, increase in beach postings. Method 1600 has the advantage of enablin

the MDC to sample area beaches one day closer to the weekend, which is when the greatest beach use 

occurs. Because of the advantages and relative accuracy of Method 1600, MDC has switched from Meth

1106.1 to Method 1600. 

4.3.1.2 MILWAUKEE/RACINE BEACHHEALTH PROJECT 

For the Beachhealth project, a 6-hour method was compared to traditional analysis methods. The data 

collected from the 6-hour alternative method were found to be inconsistent, and the test often took mu

longer than was predicted, requiring a 7.5-hour incubation instead of the expected 6 hours. This test 

method also took longer than expected for the filtering of turbid samples. The Milwaukee/Racine 

Beachhealth Project concluded that this 6-hour method was not a satisfactory solution to reducing the 

time needed for sample analysis. 

4.3.1.3 RHODE ISLAND BEACH MONITORING PROJECT 

The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project evaluated and compared several analytical methods to 

determine whether the state could switch to a faster method. The project compared two methods for fec

coliform analysis, including the Standard 48-hour MPN Method (9221B and E, with EC broth) it had 

been using and a 24-hour method (9221E [A-1]). Seeking to find faster methods that might also meet 

BEACH Act requirements, the Project also tested two analytical methods for enterococci: the 24-hour E

Method 1600 and another 24-hour method, called EnterolertTM. In addition, Rhode Island tested an E

method (EPA Method 1103.1, which is the same as Standard Method 9213D [m-TEC]). In some cases 

results varied among the different methods tested, but, for the majority of samples, all of the methods u

would result in the same action taken. Rhode Island concluded that: 

• Standard Method 9221E (A-1), with its 24-hour reporting time, is quicker but requires the most 

man-hours. This method underestimates bacteria counts at higher densities, but as long as Rhode 

Island continues to use a (very protective) 50 CFU/100 ml (fecal coliform) water quality standard, 

this underestimation does not change the acceptability of the method’s results for this state. Since 

concluding this project, Rhode Island has switched to using Standard Method 9221E (A-1) in 

monitoring recreational waters. 

• In anticipation of a switch to using enterococci as an indicator organism, Rhode Island concluded 

the EnterolertTM method was its preferred method for beach water quality analyses. EPA is current

considering this alternative method for inclusion as an EPA-approved method. EPA Method 1600 

problematic in Rhode Island’s comparative tests because it resulted in filter clogging and poor verif

tion of positive colonies. 

4-10 Chapter 
water quality standard will be exceeded. An equation (algorithm or calculation) is developed that defi

tionships between the different variables (e.g., bacteria density, rainfall, etc.). The model is then verifie

plugging actual monitoring results into its equation to see if the model reflects actual conditions. If it 

is adjusted until a fully calibrated and verified model is developed. 

Predictive models for beach/recreational water quality often correlate elevated levels of bacterial indica

isms with environmental factors that can influence bacteria levels, such as rainfall or the number of ba

a beach. While elevated bacteria counts often correlate with rainfall events, defining a relationship can 

cult. Rhode Island, for example, was not comfortable enough with the relationship between bacteria l

3-day cumulative rainfall to adopt a rainfall-based predictive model. Other factors, such as fecal conta

from large concentrations of waterfowl, decaying beach vegetation, and water conditions, may also im

ria levels; these factors can be used in a model. Any validated predictive model needs to address progr

conditions and elements. 

The Milwaukee Health Department uses a rainfall-based model in conjunction with monitoring of E

at South Shore Beach in decisions regarding beach advisories. Water quality at South Shore Beach ma

enced by several environmental factors affecting the Milwaukee River watershed, which contains hun

storm-water outfalls and several CSOs. The watershed drains to Lake Michigan just north of South S

where a southward current is generally present. South Shore Beach water quality may also be affected 

from a sewage treatment plant, sewage treatment bypass, and other sources, including waterfowl, dom

and litter from bathers. The Racine Health Department does not use a rainfall-based model at this tim

the objectives of the Beachhealth project was to collect data to explore the possibility of using a rainfa

Racine. 

One of the monitoring objectives of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project was to d

predictive model relating rainfall and CSO operations to bacterial indicators at four Boston Harbor b

four beaches were sampled seven times per week and analyzed for fecal coliform and enterococcus. Ra

gauges were also installed close to these beaches. 

A simple rainfall model for each individual Boston Harbor beach was developed. Data analysis showe

that previous day’s rainfall predicted water quality better than the previous 24-hour enterococcus mea

A combined rainfall and bacteria protocol was implemented for beach postings. 

For the Charles River, the Charles River Watershed Associaton developed a conservative in-house mo

protocol, based on historical data to predict whether bacteria levels would exceed the boating standard 

fecal coliform of 1,000 CFU/100 ml. CRWA then modified the protocol for the four sites monitored 

the EMPACT project, and modified it again for the 2000 monitoring season. The model determined 

appropriate water quality notification level based on antecedent rainfall data and CSO activation. 

CRWA analyzed the success and accuracy of the model by determining whether a strong or weak rela

existed between fecal coliform and total rainfall over a certain period of days and by assessing whether 

dicted water quality was the same as that indicated by sample analysis. Overall, the model was found 

water quality conditions fairly accurately, and CRWA determined that the correct water quality notifi

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 
p, pg, g; ppp

determine whether a health risk exists and what appropriate action, if any, should be taken. Possible actions 

range from a posting, warning, or advisory to closing the beach and prohibiting people from using the recre

ational water there until further testing or model predictions indicate that bacterial indicator levels no longe

exceed water quality criteria. 

EPA recommends closing or posting a beach when there is an exceedance of water quality standards or when 

predictive model indicates a likelihood of an exceedance. However a state chooses to respond to exceedances

is important that authorities responsible for interpretation of water quality monitoring results develop policies and 

cedures that are clear and specific (i.e. specify what actions are to be taken). For example, a policy could state th

a single monitoring result exceeds the single-sample criterion value listed in the state’s recreational water qua

standard, an advisory will be issued and an additional sample will be taken from that location within 24 hou

If the second sample still exceeds water quality criteria, a beach closing will be issued. 

Likewise, clear procedures should be established for the lifting of an advisory or closing and the reopening o

beach. For example, one aspect of a reopening policy could state that a closed beach is to be resampled with

specified time period. The decision to either issue or remove an advisory or closing should be based on statis

cally valid data and an assessment of risks to potential swimmers and other water users. The beach closing a

reopening procedures used by the three case study projects are summarized in Table 4-4. 

The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project’s procedures for beach closures, for example, specify that decisi

makers must consider (1) whether a direct sewage discharge has been identified in the immediate bathing ar

and (2) whether any relevant regulations have been violated, as well as other factors, in determining whether 

take action that could result in closure. After a single high bacteria count is found, the procedures specify, de

sion-makers must review the beach profile (e.g., history) of the site. If the site is located near a CSO or if th

are recent reports of a discharge from a nearby wastewater treatment plant, the beach is closed immediately 

resampled. Other area beaches are also resampled. If a second sample exceeds the criteria, the beach is closed 

using the following procedures: 

• Notify appropriate municipal and state officials. 

• Post advisory or closure notices (e.g., change the flag posted at the beach) as needed. 

• Issue a press release and update the Web site and hotline with current conditions. 

On beaches with more than one sampling location, the beach is closed immediately if measurements from t

majority of the sampling stations exceed the criteria. 

Beaches are resampled daily until testing shows that bacteria levels have dropped below the criteria. Rhode 

Island’s reopening procedures involve: 

• Notifying town and state officials of the reopening, including flag changes needed. 

• Updating the Web site and hotline with new test results and an indication of the reopening. 

• Resuming normal sampling procedures. 

Chapter 6 of this document discusses techniques for the posting and public notification of water quality res

4-12 Chapter 
Table 4-4. Beach Closing and Reopening Procedures of the Three 

TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING Water Quality Criteria Used (If criteria are exceeded, action is taken, e.g., an advisory/posting or a closing) Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Marine water, single samples: enterococci < 104 CFU/100 ml Marine water, geometric mean of most recent five samples within the same bathing season: entero­ cocci < 35 CFU/100 ml (Criteria are based on state water quality criteria and state public health code.) Charles River, Massachusetts Fresh water, secondary contact waters (e.g., boating), geometric mean: FC < 1,000 CFU/100 ml; also FC < 2,000 CFU/100 ml (<10% single samples)1 Class B waters for swimming/fishing, geometric mean: FC < 200 CFU/100 ml; also FC < 400 CFU/100 ml (< 10% single samples) (Criteria are based on state water quality standards. Note that Massachusetts is considering chang­ ing from fecal coliform to E. coli or enterococci.) Milwaukee/Racine, Wisco

Fresh water, single sampleE. coli < 235 CFU/100 ml recreational water use) 

Beach Advisory/Closing Procedures Posting of water quality flags (blue = suitable boating condi ­ tions; red = potential health risks associated with elevated bacteria counts) are based on estimates of the previous day’s fecal coliform concentrations, 24-hour rainfall levels, and/or combined sewer overflow. To be conservative, boathouses are posted with red flags if a single sample exceeds the geometric mean of 1,000 CFU/100 ml FC. Whenever water contamination exceeds criteria, or after any sig - nificant rainstorm (particularly at beaches with a history of viola ­ tions of water quality requirements), a swimming advi ­ sory sign is posted at the entrance to each parking lot and beach. Flags are changed from “blue” (indicating good swimming conditions) to “red” (indicating potential health risks associated with elevated bacteria counts). Milwaukee Health Departm

uses E. coli and rainfall dathe past 24 to 90 hours in model, and Racine Health Department uses E. coli dissuing advisories. The stissues advisories to counwhich decide whether to cbeach. (Counties almost afollow state advisories). A “good” rating = yesterdaE. coli < 235 CFU/100 ml; “poor” rating = yesterday’> 235 CFU/100 ml if there recent rainfall or > 500 CFml if not; other environmeconditions are also consid(e.g., high wave action maclear bacteria from an are

Beach Reopening Procedures River areas reopen based on 

either monitoring results indicat ­ing that criteria are no longer exceeded, or on 4th or 5th day 

(depending on the amount of rainfall) after a significant rainfall event. 

The beach is resampled on the sameday of exceedance; if it still exceeds criteria, or if a significant rainfall has occurred, it remains closed for the next 6 days. It is then reopened if monitoring results indicate that its water meets criteria. 

The beach reopens if the preday’s E. coli level < 235 CFU

ml, or if the level has droppno recent rainfall and a furthis expected to result in a levCFU/100 ml, based on histoexperience. 

4-13 

1 CFU = colony-forming units; ml = mililiters; FC=fecal coliform; MPN= most probable number. 
5 DATA MANAGEMENT 

Managing data efficiently can contribute to quicker dissemination of water quality results and 

reduce potential public exposure to contaminated waters. The key elements of data management 

for beach and recreational water quality programs are shown in Figure 5-1. Data management 

can be broadly defined as the handling of sample data results (e.g., recording and analyzing laboratory 

results) as well as the delivery of the results to the public (e.g., through Web sites, telephone hotlines, onsite warning flags). This chapter presents some design considerations for data management systems, 

provides examples of the data management approaches used by three beach and recreational water quality 

monitoring projects, and focuses on one aspect of data delivery to the public—Web site development. 

Additional methods for public notification and risk communication, as well as more information on using 

Web sites for these purposes, are discussed in Chapter 6. 

Collect 

samples 

(see 

Chapter 4) 

Send 

samples to 

qualified 

laboratory 

(see 

Chapter 4) 

Receive 

results 

from lab 

via 

computer 

or hardcopy, 

perform 

QA/QC 

Enter and 

store data

in database 

(electronically or 

manually if 

hardcopy) 

Analyze 

data (e.g., 

compare to 

state water 

quality 

standards, 

other 

requirements)–see 

Chapter 4 

Notify the 

public of 

results and 

any health 

risks (see 

also 

Chapter 6) 

Figure 5-1. Data flow for beach/recreational water quality results. Highlighted steps are covered in this chapter. 

As Figure 5-1 shows, water quality samples are collected (as described in Chapter 4), then taken or sent 

(e.g., via courier), using proper QC procedures, to a qualified laboratory. The laboratory determines the 

densities of indicator organisms of pathogenic bacteria present. The laboratory then communicates the results 

to water quality authorities via hardcopy reports, fax, or electronic transfer of results from the laboratory database system. Methods for sending these results as soon as they become available should be included as SOPs 

in your program. Your program staff then enters these laboratory data into your database (via electronic data 

transfer, or manually for hardcopy data) for analysis, comparing them to state water quality criteria (see 

Chapter 3) and any other requirements that might trigger certain actions. The results are then delivered to the 

public, e.g., via the Internet (see Section 5.3) and other communication methods (see Chapter 6). 

5.1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

This section describes some of the important considerations for designing a data management system, the use 

of spatially related data (such as geographic information systems, or GIS), considerations for enhancing an 

existing system for a time-relevant beach/recreational water quality monitoring program, and QC and data 

security considerations. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 5-1 
5.1.1 DESIGNING OR MODIFYING A DATA MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM TO MEET PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 

The best design for a data management system depends on the needs and objectives of your program. 

An information systems expert can help you identify the best system design based on your answers to the 

following questions: 

• What are the program’s data needs? 

• How are the data results received (manually or electronically)? 

• What hardware and software infrastructure is currently available? 

• What personnel are available to maintain the data management system? 

When designing a data management system, consider the following factors: 

• Data storage and retrieval system. You will need a central repository, such as an electronic database, 

within which to organize and store laboratory results. For bacterial indicator organisms, laboratory data 

results are often entered into a central database from hardcopy result reports, although electronic transfer 

may be an option. The central database can be as simple as a collection of spreadsheets or as complex as a 

full-scale relational database. 

• Data delivery system. A data delivery system is a method of distributing data to your audience.Examples 

of data delivery systems include Web sites, newspaper and television forecasts, and signs. Software and 

Web sites are increasingly used for data delivery. An effective electronic data delivery system includes a 

method to convert database files into an easily understood format for the Web and open-access formats 

that allow the public to make secondary use of data. Database files can be converted for use on the Web 

using a variety of software, both off-the-shelf and customized. 

• QA, QC, and data security procedures. These include processes used to ensure accurate transfer of data 

from the laboratory to the central database; provide timely maintenance, backup, and archiving of the 

central database; and protect the database and Web site from unauthorized access. 

For guidance on QA/QC and security planning, see EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans at 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf. 

Important questions to ask your information systems expert are: 

• How will the data management system preserve data quality, assurance, and integrity? 

• How will data be maintained (back-ups or archives)? 

• How will the data be delivered to the public via the Web? What are the system’s software and 

personnel needs? 

• How will Web content be updated and maintained? 

An existing data management system can be used for a time-relevant water quality monitoring program if it 

meets the following fundamental objectives: 

• To collect and manage microbiological data, as well as handle predictive model data if such a model 

is used. 

• To communicate the data results as quickly as possible to the public. 

If your existing data management system cannot accomplish these tasks, you can probably modify it with 

the assistance of an information systems specialist. 

5-2 Chapter 5 
5.1.2 SPATIALLY RELATED DATA (SUCH AS GIS) 

A spatially related data system relates data to a physical location that then can be shown visually—for


example, in the form of maps. A popular medium for spatially related data is the Geographic Information


System (GIS), which can display, analyze, and model spatially related information. GIS technology allows


users to quickly overlay several data layers (such as water resources and land uses) and view them at once;


a GIS can be designed so that its users can view and compare different future scenarios and their possible


impacts. Often a GIS is set up so that users can retrieve information, generate maps (including customized


maps), and query data simply by clicking on a map feature. Some GIS maps are useful only for particular


geographic locations. GIS has been used by state agencies for watershed protection, Total Maximum Daily


Loads development, and implementation of other water quality programs.


To generate and display spatially related data, data management systems must include specific location infor­

mation such as latitude and longitude or street addresses. Detailed data usually need to be input


into the system by skilled staff; this process can be labor-intensive and fairly expensive. Once developed, GIS

maps are relatively easy to use and understand by local officials and the public. State environmental agencies


and private organizations are increasingly developing GIS maps that include a variety of environmental fea­


tures relevant to water quality; these maps may be readily available at no cost for display and use, including


through the Internet. 


Software applications available for spatially related data range from simple and free software applications


to customizable data management systems designed specifically for integrating GIS data with the Internet.


For communicating beach water quality data to the public, only simple applications are usually needed.


5.1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 

All water quality monitoring projects should have QA/QC plans that include SOPs for data entry, QA/QC 

protocols to check and validate the data, and protocols for system tests/audits to verify that the system is 

producing expected results. See Section 4.2 for more information on QA/QC plans. 

5.2 DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USED BY THE CASE STUDY PROJECTS 

5.2.1 SELECTING A DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

The three case study projects discussed in this handbook developed their data management systems after 

considering the following factors: 

• Data needs: factors such as the number of water quality monitoring stations, sampling frequency, 

and data retrieval and storage needs. 

• Technical and human resources: the software, hardware, and human expertise available to maintain and 

operate the data management system. 

• The existing database structure: the need to ensure that existing (historical) data as well as new 

data can be incorporated in the system to provide a complete historical context for the monitoring project. 

• The ease of use and flexibility of the system: factors, for example, that impact the software/hardware, 

training costs, and longevity of the system. 

All three case study projects use off-the-shelf technologies to store monitoring data and update Web 

content. The software selected was based on ease-of-use considerations and experience with particular software already used for data storage. Using these software platforms, project staff constructed (or modified) 

databases to accommodate any new data to be collected and to communicate these data to the public in 

meaningful ways. They based the design of their databases and Web sites on the factors mentioned above. 

Information technology specialists helped project staff design and implement the systems. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 5-3 
5.2.2 ALTERING EXISTING SYSTEMS TO MEET PROJECT

OBJECTIVES 

All three case study projects enhanced their existing data management systems to meet project objectives. 

Table 5-1 describes how the projects altered their systems to meet new project objectives. 

Table 5-1. Changes Made to Existing Data Management

Systems To Meet Project Objectives 

Project Web Site Management Changes Made to Existing Data

Management Systems

Charles River Basin/Boston Some project partners host their own • Added a Web site with daily, monthly, and 

Harbor Beaches Project Web sites, while others use an outside historical data. 

Internet service provider/vendor. 

Rhode Island Beach 

Monitoring Project 

The Rhode Island Department of 

Health hosts its own server. 

• Created a Web site with beach closure 

information and access to daily, monthly, 

and historical data. 

Milwaukee/Racine Community 

Recreational Water Risk 

Assessment and Public 

Outreach (Beachhealth) 

The U.S. Geological Survey hosts 

the Web site. 

• Automated monitoring equipment and 

Web-based data entry forms. 

• Added a Web site with beach closure 

information and access to daily and 

historical data. 

In some cases (e.g., for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor and Rhode Island projects), an increase 

in the frequency of monitoring contributed to the need to alter or expand data management systems. 

Table 5-1 shows the changes these projects made. The decision to host your own Web site or use an 

Internet service provider will depend on your program’s priorities and available resources. For example, 

you may be able to convey data more quickly if you host your own server, but achieving this quicker 

delivery may incur additional costs, including more labor for Web site maintenance, quality control, etc. 

In addition, keep in mind that there are ways other than Web sites to communicate your data, such as 

telephone hotlines, signs, and the media, as discussed in Chapter 6. 

5.2.3 SYSTEM USE AND MAINTENANCE 

Data entry, validation, and maintenance are critical to providing accurate data to the public. In the context 

of a data management system, this involves entering data into a central database, performing QA/QC procedures, updating Web content, and performing regular backup and archival operations. All programs must 

strike a balance between providing timely data and ensuring data quality. Addressing this challenge is an 

important part of the QA/QC plan. 

The project partners involved in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project use a variety of 

different software and data entry and validation procedures: 

• The MWRA laboratory enters sampling data into a Laboratory Information Management System for 

validation and QA/QC. After QA/QC, the MWRA uploads data to a database on a server on the 

MWRA’s internal network, then formats the data for the Web. 

• The MDC and CRWA receive data from the laboratory via fax, transcribe the data to a spreadsheet 

file, check the data for accuracy, and then update their Web sites with beach and boating postings. 

The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project follows procedures similar to those of the CRWA. The Rhode 

Island staff manually enter data into a spreadsheet, check the data for accuracy, and upload the data to their 

Web site. 

5-4 Chapter 5 
The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project uses a combination of automated and manual data entry procedures. Meteorological and lake condition data are retrieved via automated telephone modem transfer and 

uploaded directly to a database. Water quality information is entered directly into the database using customized Web-based input forms. Data validation occurs before the forms are submitted to the database. 

After submittal, these data are immediately available to the public via the Beachhealth Web site. Figure 5-2 

shows a data query form that the public can use on the Beachhealth Web site to obtain beach water quality 

information, based on which parameters they select. 

Maintenance procedures are typically based on those already in place for the project’s computer network. In all 

three case study projects, the network and data management database are routinely backed up and archived. 

Data Management Partners 

Beach/recreational water quality monitoring project staff and associated partners can learn from one 

another in developing a data management system, and can also share data management system 

responsibilities. For example, the Charles River Watershed Association’s Web site design for the 

Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project was used as a starting point for the Rhode Island 

Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project Web site. The Rhode Island project’s data management system is 

managed by the Rhode Island Department of Health, whereas the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor 

project’s three program partners maintain separate data management systems but share their data. 

For example, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority stores data for 17 beaches in a database, 

assists in analysis, and provides daily bacteria and rainfall data on its Web site for five of the beaches 

that have a history of being contaminated; the Metropolitan District Commission uses the monitoring 

results from the 17 beaches for a telephone hotline, to issue flags at the beaches, and to place flag 

icons on its Web site that advise the public on recreational water use. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 5-5 
Figure 5-2. Sample data form available to the public on the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth Web site. 

5.2.4 SYSTEM SECURITY 

At its most basic, ensuring the security of a data management system involves restricting access to the database and the software and processes used to update Web content. All three case study projects use password 

protection to limit access to their Web development software: to update Web content, a user must enter a 

valid user ID and password to access the appropriate files. The projects also use additional security steps, 

such as placing their databases behind firewalls with no connection to the Internet. 

5-6 Chapter 5 
The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project database is linked to the Web but has additional safeguards—for 

example, the general public may not modify the database (other than filling out a site feedback form), and 

the code that describes how the Web interface program is designed is hidden (in a package of procedures 

inside the software). The latter measure prevents unauthorized users from accessing database tables or passwords or otherwise disturbing database integrity. 

5.3 DATA DELIVERY VIA THE WEB 

5.3.1 WEB CONTENT 

All three case study projects use their Web sites to provide time-relevant water quality information to the 

public. Table 5-2 describes the main content of each of the Web sites. 

Table 5-2. Web Content of the Three Case Study Projects 1 

Project 

Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project 

• CRWA 

http://www.crwa.org 

• MDC 

http://www.state.ma.us/mdc 

• MWRA 

http://www.mwra.state.ma.us 

Rhode Island Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project 

http://www.healthri.org/environment/beaches/index.html 

• Latest available beach closure information. 

• Tables of beach water quality data for over 100 beaches 

from 1995 to present. 

• Additional beach- and bather-related information. 

Milwaukee/Racine Community Recreational Water Risk 

Assessment and Public Outreach (Beachhealth) 

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth 

• Latest available beach water quality conditions for 

11 Milwaukee/Racine-area 

beaches/recreational waters. 

• Real-time meteorological and lake conditions. 

• Dynamic query access to beach, river, and harbor water 

quality data for the 1999–2001 swimming season. 

• Dynamic query access to meteorological data for the 

1999–2001 swimming season. 

Web Content 

• Color-coded maps of Charles River water quality for 

each month in the current year. 

• Tables of historical Charles River water quality data. 

• Latest available boating flag notice and sampling data 

for eight Charles River locations. 

• Results from 1998, 1999, and 2000 daily sampling. 

• Latest available water quality notices and water 

temperature for 17 Boston-area beaches. 

• Latest available water quality and rainfall data for five 

Boston-area beaches. 

1 These Web sites may be inactive when it is not beach season. 

The Web sites of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project and the Rhode Island Beach Monitoring 

Project display icons of the different-colored flags the projects use at beaches, as well as explanations of the 

flags (see Figure 5-3). These projects’ Web sites also provide access (via static tables or online query) to historical data for secondary analysis. Clicking on the beach name links the user to the historical water quality 

data profile. Summary tables for the 1999 and 2000 data are also available for all sampling sites. In addition, 

the Rhode Island Web site provides a list of current beach closures. The Milwaukee/Racine Web site provides links to static monthly sampling data and to a dynamic query interface through which a user can 

generate customized reports. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 5-7 
Colored flags posted at these boating centers indicate water quality conditions for boaters in the

Charles River Basin. 

Watch for Water Quality Flags 

Blue flags signal suitable boating conditions. Red flags signal potential health risks associated with 

elevated bacteria counts. 

Click on the flags at each site for recent water quality data. 

Figure 5-3. Colored flag icons used in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project to indicate 

water quality. Source: Charles River Watershed Association (http://www.crwa.org). 

5.3.2 FUTURE WEB SITE GOALS 

Developing a data management system is often an iterative process, in which a program begins with a relatively simple system and then enhances the system as program goals and technologies evolve. Taking this 

approach allows the program to get started in a reasonable time frame and to further improve service to the 

public over time. All three case study projects plan future enhancements to their Web sites, including: 

• Two of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project partners (the MWRA and MDC) plan 

to provide a tool for predicting water quality (see Chapter 4) based on rain gauge data. This, they 

believe, will help them better educate the public about water quality issues and provide data on a more 

real-time basis. 

• The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project intends to survey its Web audience to determine how to 

enhance its Web site, with the aim of giving the public a better context for understanding water quality information. Project staff expect to add more static maps and, possibly, customized dynamic GIS 

mapping capabilities. 

• The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project plans to include additional beaches on the Web site as 

funding becomes available to test the beaches and post the data. Recent enhancements to data input 

forms will facilitate smooth integration of additional water quality data. 

For more information about the future goals of these projects, please visit their Web sites (listed in Table 5-2). 

5-8 Chapter 5 
Chapters 4 and 5), a system must be in place to quickly communicate the results to the public so 

ple can make informed decisions about whether to use a particular beach or other recreational wa

a specific day.4 

A number of municipalities and organizations have developed effective public notification progra

recreational water quality. This chapter presents the general types of information that need to be 

cated to the public (Section 6.2), key methods used in selected public notification programs for b

other recreational waters (Section 6.3; use of the Internet is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5

tional types of public notification and outreach methods (Section 6.4), and step-by-step informat

how to develop an outreach plan for public notification (Section 6.5). 

6.2 TYPES OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNICATE T

THE PUBLIC 

Agencies and organizations that monitor recreational waters typically need to present one or mor

information to the members of the public who use those waters, including: 

• Public health information. Providing information about the potential public health risks of 

beaches and other recreational water areas is a key goal of any recreational water quality mo

agency or organization. Public health information should include an indication of the level 

associated with using (e.g., swimming, boating, or fishing in) the waters and a description o

potential health effects. 

• Monitoring information. It is important that water quality monitoring programs clearly con

significance of their monitoring results to the public. This means presenting a clear and sim

tion of current water quality and providing additional details for persons interested in more 

information. 

• Pollution prevention information. Monitoring agencies and organizations can provide inform

pollution prevention while providing public health information and water quality monitorin

Pollution prevention information often includes information on how pollutants enter the w

what individuals and businesses can do to prevent or reduce this pollution. 

• Self-promotional information. Members of the public cannot benefit from an information s

they do not know it exists. Therefore, a water quality monitoring organization must adverti

ices to the public so that they will think to consult the organization when they have questio

water quality. 

4 This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH Act 

the publication of National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the practices d

these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance info

Section 1.2. 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR WATER QUALITY 
g gpg ggg 

ent levels of health risk. For example, both the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project and 

Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project use flags to give the public a highly visible indication of recreational water quality. Boat houses along the lower Charles River in Boston and surrounding communiti

are marked with red flags when fecal coliform levels exceed 1,000 CFU/100 ml. Beaches along the Bost

Harbor are marked with red flags when enterococci levels exceed 104 CFU/100 ml. At other times, whe

water quality meets boating or swimming standards set by the Massachusetts Department of Environme

Protection, the river and harbor are marked with blue flags to indicate suitable conditions for these recre

ational pursuits. 

Health Risk Communication: Effective Methods 

Health risk communication. An educational brochure gives river users the following risk 

communication message about “red flag” days: 

“While it is always a good idea to wash after being on the river, it is particularly important on 

red flag days. Some boaters choose to stay off the river on red flag days because elevated 

bacterial levels pose a health risk.” 

Watch for Water Quality Flags, Charles River Watershed Association 

Effective methods. Boston’s Metropolitan District Commission drew the following conclusions about 

which public notification tools were the most valuable: 

“...it seems that the best medium for informing the public has been the flagging and web site. 

For example, prior to the flagging project many people visiting Wollaston Beach believed that 

the Beach was permanently closed for swimming [due] to pollution. Now beach goers look for 

the flags to see if it is safe to swim. Although there are more red flag days than we would like, 

at least the public is informed about the conditions. As evidence of the public’s cognizance of 

the postings, we haven’t had a reported illness as related to the water conditions in several 

years of which we know.” 

2000 Final EMPACT Report, Metropolitan District Commission 

6-2 Chapter 
than 500 CFU/100 ml if no recent rainfall occurred.)


During the summer beach season, the signs are posted at


eye level on the backs of lifeguard stands. The Charles River


Basin/Boston Harbor and Rhode Island projects use signs


to explain their colored flags: the signs explain that red flags indicate poor water quality and blue 

cate good water quality. If your program is considering using water quality/health risk signs, think 

providing them in more than one language—Spanish as well as English, for example. Other langu

be valuable as well, especially if your site is near communities where those languages are spoken.


6.3.3 TELEPHONE HOTLINE 

All three case study projects also use telephone hotlines that allow persons without Internet access to 

obtain timely information about local beaches (e.g., 

about beach closures). Some beach information hotlines are operational only during the beach season. 

The Milwaukee/Racine project advertises its bilingual 

(English/Spanish) hotline on television and postcards 

(see right). The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor 

and Rhode Island projects advertise their hotlines in 

brochures, Web sites, and newspapers. 

6.3.4 PROJECT WEB SITE 

Increasingly, beach and recreational water quality monitoring programs are maintaining Web sites 

their overall public notification and outreach strategies. All three case study projects provide timel

tion on water quality conditions at monitored locations on their Web sites (as discussed in Chapt

Section 5.3). This kind of online information allows people who are interested in swimming, boa

other water activities to find out if a particular area is closed or poses a potential health risk before 

going there. In addition to water quality results, some beach Web sites include: 

• Technical information about how water quality evaluations are conducted. 

• Educational information about how the public can prevent future pollution of recreational w

• Links to related Internet resources. 

• An option for the user to provide feedback to the Web site developers. 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR WATER QUALITY 
closings/openings; press releases can be faxed out minutes after the decision is made to close or reopen a 

beach area. 

6.4 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND 

OUTREACH METHODS 

In addition to using warning flags, signs, telephone hotlines, Web sites, and the media for public notific

tion (as discussed in Section 6.3), the Boston Harbor/Charles River, Milwaukee/Racine, and Rhode Isla

projects all have used a variety of other mechanisms. Table 6-1 summarizes these additional public notif

tion and outreach methods (those methods used by all three projects are emphasized with shading). The 

public notification and outreach initiatives listed in Table 6-1 are discussed below, except for those alrea

discussed as key methods in Section 6.3. 

Table 6-1. Public Notification and Outreach Initiatives 

Used by the Three Case Study Projects 

Charles River Basin/ Milwaukee/Racine Rhode Island Be

Boston Harbor Project Beachhealth Project Monitoring Proje

Advertising and promotional items ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Annual water quality “Report Card” ✓ 

Beach signs ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Printed fact sheets/brochures ✓ ✓ 

School curriculum materials/teacher training ✓ ✓ 

Kiosks/information booths ✓ ✓ 

News media ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Project Web site ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Special public events ✓ ✓ 

Telephone hotline ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Visits to local industries/dischargers ✓ ✓ 

Volunteer program ✓ ✓ 

Warning flags ✓ ✓ 

6-4 Chapter 
places similar ads at no cost to the Beachhealth program.


Annual “Water Quality Report Card” 

Each year on Earth Day, the Charles River Watershed Association (a partner in the Charles Rive

Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project) publishes a “report card” that serves as a focal point for 

interest. The “grades” (A, B, C, D, and F) are based on the percentage of days on which the low

Charles River was fishable and swimmable during the preceding year and a comparison of bact

levels to swimming and boating standards. Three letter grades are assigned: one for wet weath

for dry weather, and one for overall conditions. The grades help provide an indication of the pro

being made in river and harbor water quality conditions toward the goal of having these waters 

fishable and swimmable by the year 2005. 

Fact sheets and brochures. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Project and the Milwaukee/Ra

Beachhealth project have developed educational brochures and fact sheets as part of their public e

efforts. Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth, for example, publishes two brochures to educate the publ

pollution prevention efforts. One brochure, It’s All Connected, describes the migration pathways o

water, drinking water, and wastewater. It also discusses sources of pollution and how target areas a

The other brochure, Simple Solution to Water Pollution: Making Your Home a Pollution Free Zone, 

how to improve water quality in urban environments. Both of these brochures have been posted o

ject’s Web site and distributed at festivals and expositions.


School activities and teacher training. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project has worked

with the Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/urbaneco/) t

a high-school curriculum based on the work that the CRWA is conducting in the lower Charles R

curriculum, intended for high schools near this geographic area, teaches basic watershed science a

and involves tracking the recovery of the Charles River using specially designed field studies that m

plant and animal activity. The Marine Programs project at the University of Rhode Island plans to 

an institute for 20 teachers (http://omp.gso.uri.edu). Any teacher from the communities of Rhode I

Massachusetts that


surround Narragansett Bay will be eligible to apply. The teacher institute will focus on a wide ran

environmental, historical, cultural, and economic factors affecting local health and the urban coas

ronment. Institute products will include materials for incorporation into the project Web site, act

for hands-on use in the classroom, and related resource materials. The Milwaukee/Racine project 

conducted teacher training. 


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR WATER QUALITY 
Volunteer programs. In 1999, the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project collaborated with community 

environmental educational organizations to create a near-shore volunteer monitoring program. Nearly 5

high-school volunteers tested water quality at 13 different sites throughout the summer. Students gained 

experience with scientific methods and learned about different kinds of field test kits, different sources o

Lake Michigan’s pollution, and how rain can alter water quality. This program is being continued on a 

limited basis. 

6.5 DEVELOPING AN OUTREACH PLAN FOR PUBLIC 

NOTIFICATION 

Outreach to the public is a key component of public notification, as discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 

above. It is important to define your outreach goals before you develop any outreach activities. It is usef

develop clear, simple, action-oriented statements about what you hope to accomplish through outreach. 

Once you have established your goals, every other element of the outreach plan should relate to those go

Answering the following questions can be helpful: 

• Who do you want to reach? (Step 1) 

• What questions need to be answered? (Step 2) 

• What are the most effective ways to reach your audience? (Step 3) 

These and additional questions are addressed in more detail below. Developing an outreach plan that


addresses these questions helps to ensure that the message of your public notification program is the righ

one and that it reaches its intended audience. 


Lifeguards and Risk Communication 

In addition to the more typical outreach activities described in this section, the training of lifeguards 

risk communication can be an important part of your outreach program. Lifeguards have a unique and 

important role in communicating with swimmers and other users of recreational waters and can help 

provide water quality and health risk information quickly to beachgoers. 

An outreach plan provides a blueprint for action and does not have to be lengthy or complicated.


An outreach plan is most effective when a variety of stakeholders and people with relevant expertise are


involved in its development, such as:


• A communications specialist or someone who has experience in developing and implementing an 

outreach plan. 

• Technical experts in the subject matter (both scientific and policy). 

6-6 Chapter 
Developing an outreach plan is a creative and iterative process involving a number of interrelated 

as described below. As you move through each of these steps, you might want to revisit and refine 

decisions you made in earlier steps until you have an integrated, comprehensive, and achievable p

6.5.1 STEP 1: WHO DO YOU WANT TO REACH? 

6.5.1.1 IDENTIFYING YOUR AUDIENCE(S) 

After you identify your goals and put together a development team for your outreach plan, as des

above, the next step is to clearly identify the target audience or audiences for your outreach effort

goals often define the target audiences. You might want to refine and add to your goals after you 

ically considered which audiences you want to reach. 

Your primary audience for public notification and outreach will be users of your beaches and othe

ational waters, including swimmers, boaters, water skiers, fishermen, and others. You must reach t

people to achieve your goals of public health protection and notification. Your secondary audienc

include local decision-makers, landowners, businesses, schools, and other members of the general 

may use the beaches and other recreational waters. Some audiences, such as educators and certain 

tions (e.g., fishing and boating clubs), may be willing to help disseminate information to other au

you have identified, such as the general public. 

Consider whether you should divide “the public” into two or more audience categories. For exam

you be providing different information to certain groups, such as citizens and businesses? Does a 

portion of the public you are trying to reach have a different cultural or language background fro

members? If so, it may be most effective to consider these groups as separate audiences. 

6.5.1.2 PROFILING YOUR AUDIENCE(S) 

Outreach will be most effective if you tailor the content, type, and distribution of outreach produ

target audiences. This tailoring can be accomplished by developing profiles of your audiences’ situ

interests, and concerns. Such profiles will help you identify the most effective ways of reaching th

For each target audience, consider: 

• What is their current level of knowledge about recreational water quality? 

• What do you want them to know about recreational water quality, and what actions would y

them to take? 

• What information is likely to be of greatest interest to them? 

• How much time are they likely to give to receiving and assimilating the information? 

• How do they generally receive information? 

• What professional, recreational, and domestic activities do they typically engage in that migh

avenues for distributing outreach products? Are there any organizations or centers that repre

serve them and might be avenues for disseminating your outreach products? 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR WATER QUALITY 
“Is it safe to swim here today?” 

Think about the key points, or “messages,” you want to communicate. Messages are the “bottom-line” 

information you want your audience to walk away with, even if they forget the details. Outreach produc

often have multiple related messages. You may have different messages for different audiences. 

6.5.3 STEP 3: WHAT ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO 

REACH YOUR AUDIENCE? 

The next step in developing an outreach plan is to consider what types of outreach product will best rea

each target audience. There are many types of useful outreach products: print, audiovisual, electronic, an

novelty items, as well as events, as shown in Table 6-2. 

The audience profile information you have already assembled will help you select appropriate outreach 

products. A communications professional can provide valuable guidance in choosing the most appropria

products to meet your goals within your resource and time constraints. Questions to consider when 

selecting outreach products include: 

• When does your audience need the information to make a timely decision on whether to use a 

particular beach or other recreational water area? 

• What and how much information does your audience really need to know? (The simplest, most 

straightforward product generally is most effective.) 

• Is the product likely to appeal to the target audience? Is the audience likely to take the time to read

view, attend, or purchase the product? 

• How easy and cost-effective will the product be to distribute or, in the case of an event, organize? 

• What time frame is needed to develop and distribute the product? 

• How much will it cost to develop the product? Do you have access to the resources needed for 

development? 

• What related products are already available? Can you build on existing products? 

• How newsworthy is the information? Information with inherent news value may be rapidly and 

widely disseminated by the media. 

6-8 Chapter 
6.5.4 STEP 4: HOW WILL YOUR OUTREACH PRODUCTS R

YOUR AUDIENCE? 

Effective distribution is essential to the success of an outreach strategy. There are many avenues fo

distribution, including those listed in Table 6-3. 

Consider how each product will be distributed and determine who will be responsible for distribu

some products, your organization might manage distribution. For others, you might rely on inter

(such as the media or educators) or organizational partners that are willing to participate in the ou

effort. Consult an experienced communications professional to obtain information about the reso

and time required for the various distribution options. Some points to consider in selecting distrib

channels include: 

• How does the audience typically receive information? 

• What distribution mechanisms has your organization used in the past for this audience? We

mechanisms effective? 

(

audience has access to 

and uses these products

daily or near-daily) 

Subscriber list servers 

Events 

Print 

(Timely) press conferences 

For Your Secondary Audience (less “time-relevant” methods) 

Brochures Newspaper and magazine artic

Editorials Posters 

Educational curricula Press releases 

Fact sheets Question-and-answer sheets 

Newsletters Utility bill inserts or stuffers 

Audiovisual Cable television programs Videos 

Events Briefings One-on-one meetings 

Community days Press conferences 

Fairs and festivals Public meetings 

Media interviews Speeches 

Novelty Items Banners Floating key chains for boaters 

Bumper stickers FrisbeeTM discs 

Buttons Magnets 

Coloring books Mouse pads 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR WATER QUALITY 
water users) 

Phone (including hotline)/fax Mailing lists (yours and those of partner organizations) 

E-mail (assuming that your audience has access) Journals or newsletters of partner organizations 

Web site (if timely updates are possible and your 

audience has access) 

TV and radio (for less time-dependent messages) 

TV/radio (if information can be aired timely) Print media 

Print media (for daily beach conditions, and for less 

timely information, e.g., pollution prevention education) 

Hotline that distributes products upon request 

Meetings, events, or locations (e.g., libraries, schools, 

marinas, public beaches, tackle shops, and sailing clubs

where products are made available 

6.5.5 STEP 5: WHAT FOLLOW-UP MECHANISMS WILL YOU 

ESTABLISH? 

Successful outreach may generate requests for further information or concern about issues of which you 

have made the audience aware. Consider whether and how you will handle this interest. The following 

questions can help you develop this part of your strategy: 

• What types of reaction or concern are audience members likely to have in response to the outreach 

information? 

• Who will handle requests for additional information? 

• Do you want to indicate on the outreach product where people can obtain further information 

(e.g., provide a contact name, number, or address)? 

6.5.6 STEP 6: WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATIO

Once you have decided on your goals, messages, audiences, products, and distribution channels, you wi

need to develop an implementation schedule. For each product, consider how much time will be needed 

for development and distribution. Be sure to factor in enough time for product review. Wherever possib

build in time for testing and evaluation by members or representatives of the target audience in focus 

groups or individual sessions so that you can get feedback on whether you have effectively targeted your 

material for your audience. 

6-10 Chapter 
U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria—1986. EPA/440/5-84/002. Washingt

U.S. EPA. 1998. EPA guidance for quality assurance project plans. EPA/600/R-98/018. Washington

U.S. EPA. 1999. EPA action plan for beaches and recreational waters. EPA/600/R-98/079. Washing

U.S. EPA. 2002. National beach guidance and required performance criteria for grants. EPA/823/B-

Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA Region 1 and Metropolitan District Commission. 1998. Boston Harbor Monitoring: Test

Enterococcus Method 1600. Revision No. 2, July 23. 
Source: Rhode Island Department of Health; EPA Region 1

• Fill pre-labeled, sterile, screw-capped 250 ml Nalgene bottles to 90% capacity. 

• Place samples in iced cooler (4°C). 

• Maximum holding time: 6 hours (for fecal coliform, enterococci). 

• Delivery to the [certified] laboratory within one hour of completion. 

Source: U.S. EPA Region 1 and Metropolitan District Commission, 1998 

Example 2: 

Procedure for Collection of Bathing Beach Water Samples for Bacteriological Analysis 

Arrangements with Laboratory: Testing must be performed by laboratories that are licensed by the 

for bacteriological testing of water. Because samples must be collected in sterile bottles and becaus

ratory may have special requirements for submissions of samples, be sure to contact the laboratory 

be analyzing the samples prior to collection. The samples must be kept in an iced cooler and mus

... following the procedures in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater..

Source: Rhode Island Department of Health, 2001