National Beach Guidance

and Required Performance Criteria

for Grants

June 2002

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency
National Beach Guidance

and Required Performance

Criteria for Grants

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4305T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-823-B-02-004

June 2002

Acknowledgments

The National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants was prepared by

the Office of Science and Technology within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office

of Water. Close cooperation with other EPA offices and other partners at the federal, state, and

local levels helped us fully develop and improve the document. 

The principal coauthors are Thomas Armitage, Rick Hoffmann, and Charles Kovatch within

OST. EPA was supported in the development of the document by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax,

Virginia, under EPA Contract 68-C-169, with assistance from James Collins, Amy Cosgrove,

Esther Peters, Martha Martin, and Jonathan Simpson. 

They were greatly assisted, from concept to completion of the document, by the internal Beach

Guidance Review Team members from EPA’s headquarters, regional offices, and other offices. 

Review team members from the Office of Water included Lisa Almodovar, Rod Frederick,

Latisha Parker, Jim Pendergast, Robert Shippen, Steve Schaub, Elizabeth Southerland, and

James Woodley. The individuals from the Office of General Counsel included Leslie Darman

and Carol Ann Siciliano. EPA regional beach coordinators included Terry Fleming, Helen

Grebe, Nancy Grundahl, Joel Hansel, Janet Hashimoto, Matt Liebman, Rob Petersen, Mike

Schaub, Holly Wirick, and Phil Woods. The representatives from the Office of Research and

Development included Kris Brenner, Mimi Dannel, and Alfred Dufour.

The authors especially acknowledge the many thoughtful comments received from the external

Beach Guidance Review Team. This group, composed of representatives from state and local

environmental and health agencies as well as various environmental groups (see appendix A),

contributed many hours and added significantly to the development and review of this document. 

Members included James Alamillo, Fred Banach, Bart Bibler, Kathy Brohan, Sarah Chasis, Jody

Connor, Fred Earnhardt, Linda Eichmiller, Richard Eskin, Suzanne Giles, Mark Gold, Darryl

Hatheway, Catherine Hazelwood, Mark Horton, Ramesh Kapur, Kerry Kehoe, Virginia Loftin,

Bob Masanado, Robin McCraw, Ray Montgomery, Bruce Moulton, Judy Nelson, Jan Newton,

Jack Pingree, Debbie Rouse, Dave Rosenblatt, Nancy Ross, Fun Shimabukuro, Susan Sylvester,

Sol Sussman, Mitzy Taggart, Blake Traudt, and Leslie Williams. 
Executive Summary

This document, the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants,

outlines the performance criteria that eligible coastal or Great Lakes state, tribal, or local

governments must meet to receive grants to implement coastal recreation water monitoring and

public notification programs under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health

Act (BEACH Act). This document also provides useful guidance for both coastal and inland

beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act, however, authorizes the award of

grant funds to support monitoring and notification programs for coastal recreation waters only. 

This document sets forth performance criteria for (1) monitoring and assessing coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches (or similar points of access used by the public) to determine

attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogen indicators and (2) promptly

notifying the public of any exceedance or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality

standards for pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters. EPA is required to publish such

performance criteria under Clean Water Act section 406(a). Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to

award grants to states and tribes to implement monitoring and notification programs, but only if

the programs meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is that the monitoring and

notification programs must be consistent with EPA’s performance criteria. The performance

criteria provide the basis for EPA’s evaluation of grant applications when deciding whether to

award monitoring and notification program implementation grants under section 406(b). This

document is intended to be used by potential grant recipients to implement effective monitoring

and notification programs that will be eligible for grants under section 406. This document also

includes EPA’s recommendations for implementing programs consistent with the performance

criteria. The general requirements of the nine performance criteria are summarized below;

specific requirements are discussed in the relevant chapters.

Category

Performance

Criterion General Requirements

Chapter

Where Discussed

Evaluation and

Classification

1 Develop risk-based beach evaluation and

classification plan

3

Monitoring 2 Develop tiered monitoring plan 4

3 Monitoring report submission and delegation 4

4 Methods and assessment procedures 4

Public Notification and

Prompt Risk

Communication

5 Public notification and risk communication plan 5

6 Measures to notify EPA and local governments 5

7 Measures to notify the public 5

8 Notification report submission and delegation 5

Public Evaluation 9 Public evaluation of program 2
In addition, this document also can serve as a reference guide for how and when to conduct

preliminary beach assessments because it outlines protocols for water sample collection, sample

handling, and laboratory analysis. It also provides information about using predictive models to

estimate indicator levels and includes procedures for notifying the public about beach advisories,

closings, and openings.

The document contains five chapters and accompanying appendices. Chapter 1 describes the

BEACH Act and summarizes human health concerns related to microbial contamination of

recreation waters. Chapter 2 outlines the performance criteria. Chapter 3 introduces the riskbased beach evaluation and classification process for prioritizing waters for monitoring and

notification. Chapter 4 gives the methodology for monitoring and assessing recreation waters,

and Chapter 5 explains risk communication and the process for notifying the public of health

hazards due to bacterial contamination. 

For more information on the performance criteria or implementation grants, please contact: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, BEACH Program (4305T), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. (See appendix B or the BEACH Watch

web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/contact.html).
ix

Contents

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1. Introduction

1.1 Program and Document Overview ......................................... 1-1

1.1.1 BEACH Act .................................................... 1-2

1.1.2 How This Document Should Be Used ................................ 1-3

1.1.3 Organization of Document ......................................... 1-3

1.2 Pathogen Groups ...................................................... 1-4

1.3 Health Concerns ....................................................... 1-5

1.4 Indicator Organisms .................................................... 1-8

1.5 Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Bacteria ............................ 1-9

1.6 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris ................................ 1-10

1.7 References .......................................................... 1-11

2. Grants and Performance Criteria

2.1 BEACH Act Conditions and Requirements Applicable to Section 406 Grants ...... 2-1

2.2 Performance Criteria ................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 Develop Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Plan (1) ......... 2-4

2.2.2 Develop Tiered Monitoring Plan (2) ................................. 2-4

2.2.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation (3) ...................... 2-5

2.2.4 Methods and Assessment Procedures (4) .............................. 2-5

2.2.5 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (5) ................... 2-5

2.2.6 Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (6) .................... 2-5

2.2.7 Measures to Notify the Public (7) ................................... 2-6

2.2.8 Notification Report Submission and Delegation (8) ..................... 2-6

2.2.9 Public Evaluation of Program (9) ................................... 2-6

2.3 Additional Grant Information ............................................ 2-7

2.3.1 Grant Program Phases ............................................ 2-7

2.3.2 Eligibility for Grants ............................................. 2-8

2.3.3 Funding ....................................................... 2-8

2.3.4 Selection Process ................................................ 2-9

2.3.5 Application Procedure ............................................ 2-9

2.4 References .......................................................... 2-10
x

3. Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process

3.1 Performance Criterion .................................................. 3-1

3.2 Step 1: Identify Coastal Recreation Waters .................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Designated Uses of Waterbodies .................................... 3-3

3.2.2 Recreational Uses of Waterbodies ................................... 3-3

3.2.3 Coastal Recreation Waters ......................................... 3-4

3.3 Step 2: Identify Bathing Beaches or Similar Points of Access Used by the Public

for Swimming, Bathing, Surfing, or Similar Water Contact Activities ............. 3-4

3.4 Step 3: Review of Available Information ................................... 3-6

3.4.1 Factors That Indicate the Potential for Fecal Contamination ............... 3-7

3.4.2 Use of the Beach ............................................... 3-11

3.4.3 Other Factors .................................................. 3-12

3.5 Step 4: Rank Beaches .................................................. 3-12

3.6 References .......................................................... 3-14

4. Beach Monitoring and Assessment

4.1 Performance Criteria ................................................... 4-1

4.2 Tiered Monitoring Plan ................................................. 4-2

4.2.1 Monitoring Design ............................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Other Elements of a Monitoring Plan ............................... 4-10

4.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation ............................. 4-13

4.4 Assessment Methods and Procedures ..................................... 4-13

4.4.1 Laboratory Analysis ............................................. 4-14

4.4.2 Analytical Procedures ........................................... 4-16

4.4.3 Recommended Sample Collection Techniques ........................ 4-19

4.4.4 Data Verification and Validation ................................... 4-20

4.5 Use of Predictive Tools in Beach Monitoring Programs ....................... 4-21

4.6 References .......................................................... 4-24

5. Public Notification and Risk Communication

5.1 Performance Criteria ................................................... 5-1

5.2 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan ............................ 5-3

5.3 Measures to Notify the Public, EPA and Local Governments .................... 5-4

5.3.1 Problem Assessment and Audience Identification ....................... 5-4

5.3.2 Types of Notification ............................................. 5-4

5.3.3 When to Notify .................................................. 5-7

5.3.4 How to Notify .................................................. 5-9

5.3.5 When to Remove Notification ..................................... 5-12

5.3.6 Evaluation of Notification Program Effectiveness ..................... 5-13

5.4 Notification Report Submission and Delegation ............................. 5-15

5.5 References .......................................................... 5-17
xi

Appendices

Appendix A: Beach Guidance Review Team

Appendix B: EPA Grant Coordinators

Appendix C: BEACH Act and Fact Sheet

Appendix D: Indicator Organisms

Appendix E: Data Elements

Appendix F: Beach Evaluation and Classification List

Appendix G: Conducting a Sanitary Survey

Appendix H: Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations

Appendix I: Training

Appendix J: Sample Collection

Appendix K: Predictive Tools
xii

Tables

Table 1-1 Waterborne Pathogens ........................................... 1-6

Table 2-1 Summary of BEACH Act Performance Criteria ........................ 2-4

Table 3-1 Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation and Classification Process 3-1

Performance Criterion ............................................ 3-1

Table 4-1 Summary of Monitoring Performance Criteria ......................... 4-1

Table 4-2 EPA Recommended Tiered Sampling Design for Beach Managers ......... 4-6

Table 5-1 Summary of Public Notification and Risk Communication Performance 5-9

Criteria ........................................................ 5-1

Table 5-2 Recommended Content for Advisories and Closings .................... 5-8

Table B-1 Regional Grant Coordinators ...................................... . B-1

Table D-1 Summary of Research Conducted Since 1986 ......................... D-3

Table E-1 Beaches Program Tracking Draft Data Element List .................... . E-1

Table F-1 Information to Consider When Ranking and Classifying Your Beaches ..... . F-1

Table J-1 Chain of Custody Review List ...................................... J-5

Table J-2 Sample Handling, Preparation, and Analysis List ....................... J-6

Table K-1 Evaluation of Model Capabilities and Applicability .................... K-4

Table K-2 Watershed-scale Loading Models .................................. K-8

Table K-3 Potential Pathogen Fate and Transport Models ....................... K-10

Figures

Figure 1-1 Relationship between bacterial indicator organisms ..................... 1-9

Figure 3-1 Step 1: Identify recreation waters.................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2 Examples of coastal and noncoastal recreation waters ................... 3-4

Figure 3-3 Step 2: Identify beaches and similar points of access ................... 3-5

Figure 3-4 Step 3: Review available information ............................... 3-7

Figure 3-5 Step 4: Rank beaches ........................................... 3-13

Figure H-1 Graphical representation of the relationship between bias and precision, and 

accuracy ..................................................... H-15

Figure K-1 Predictive tool summary ......................................... K-7
xiii

Acronyms

AFO Animal feeding operation

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists International

APHA American Public Health Association

ASQC American Society for Quality Control

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

ATP Alternate Test Procedure

AWWA American Water Works Association

BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act

CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operation

CFU Colony-forming units

COC Chain of custody

CSO Combined sewer overflow

CWA Clean Water Act

MF Membrane filtration

mL Milliliter

MPN Most probable number

MTF Multiple-tube fermentation

NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC National Research Council

ORD Office of Research and Development

PBMS Performance-based measurement system

POTW Publicly owned treatment works

QA Quality assurance

QAPP Quality assurance project plan 

QMP Quality management plan

SOP Standard operating procedure 

SSO Sanitary sewer overflow

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USGS United States Geological Survey

WEF Water Environment Federation
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This document outlines the performance criteria that an eligible coastal or Great Lakes state,

tribal, or local government must meet to receive grants to implement coastal recreation water

monitoring and public notification programs under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and

Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. The coastal recreation waters covered under the grant program are

defined in section 3.2.3 of this document. This document also provides useful guidance for both

coastal and inland beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act, however,

authorizes the award of grant funds to support monitoring and notification programs for coastal

recreation waters only. 

1.1 Program and Document Overview

Fecal contamination of our nation’s recreation waters originates from many sources, including

coastal and shoreline development, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, septic tanks, 

urban runoff, disposal of human waste from boats, bathers themselves, animal feeding

operations, and natural animal sources such as wildlife. People who swim and recreate in water

contaminated with fecal pollution are at an increased risk of becoming ill because of pathogens

from the fecal matter. For example, people could contract gastrointestinal diseases;

nongastrointestinal diseases, such as respiratory, ear, eye, and skin infections; or other illnesses

such as meningitis or hepatitis (Rose et al., 1999). 

In response to these concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its

BEACH Program in 1997. The goal of the program was to assist states, tribes, and local

government environmental and public health officials in reducing the risk of disease to users of

U.S. recreation waters. The BEACH Program focused on four key objectives: 

• Strengthening water quality standards for bathing beaches

• Improving state, tribal, and local government beach programs

• Providing better information regarding beach water quality to the public

• Promoting scientific research to better protect the health of beach users

EPA also started its annual voluntary survey of state and local agencies that monitor water

quality at beaches. The National Health Protection Survey of Beaches collects information to

determine which local beaches are monitored and what agencies are responsible for beach

programs. The survey also collects detailed information about advisories and closures at specific

beaches. In March 1999 EPA published the Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters

(Beach Action Plan), a multiyear strategy that describes the Agency’s programmatic and

scientific research efforts to improve beach programs and research. The Beach Action Plan was

published jointly by EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Research and Development (ORD),

and it can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/beaches . Printed copies of the

document (EPA 600/R-98-079) can be ordered through the National Service Center for
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

1-2 June 2002

Environmental Publications (NSCEP), at http://www.epa.gov/ncepi or by telephone at 1-800-

490-9198.

1.1.1 BEACH Act

The BEACH Act was passed on October 10, 2000, and amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) by

adding section 406. The BEACH Act addresses pathogens and pathogen indicators in coastal

recreation waters and contains three significant provisions, summarized as follows: 

1. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to add section 303(i), which requires states and tribes

that have coastal recreation waters to adopt new or revised water quality standards by 

April 10, 2004, for pathogens and pathogen indicators for which EPA has published criteria

under CWA section 304(a). The BEACH Act amendments further direct EPA to promulgate

standards for states and tribes that fail to adopt such standards for such pathogens and

pathogen indicators. 

2. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to include section 104(v), which requires EPA to study

issues associated with pathogens and human health and to publish (by 2005) new or revised

CWA section 304(a) criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on that study.

Within 3 years after EPA’s publication of the new or revised section 304(a) criteria, states

and tribes that have coastal recreation waters must adopt new or revised water quality

standards for all pathogens and pathogen indicators to which EPA’s new or revised section

304(a) criteria apply. 

3. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to add section 406, which authorizes EPA to award

grants to states and tribes to develop and implement a program to monitor and assess, for

pathogens and pathogen indicators, coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar

points of access that are used by the public and to notify the public if applicable water quality

standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators are exceeded. EPA may award an

implementation grant only if the applicant meets all of the statutory requirements for

implementation grants. One of these requirements is that the applicant must implement a

monitoring and public notification program that is consistent with performance criteria

published by EPA under the act. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to implement a

monitoring and notification program for coastal recreation waters for states and tribes that do

not have a program consistent with EPA’s performance criteria, using grant funds that would

otherwise have been available to those states and tribes. The BEACH Act and an associated

fact sheet are included in appendix C. In addition, a complete copy of the BEACH Act can

be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/technical.html. 
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-3

1.1.2 How This Document Should Be Used

This document sets forth performance criteria for (1) monitoring and assessing coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches (or similar points of access used by the public) to determine

attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogen indicators and (2) promptly

notifying the public of any exceedance or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality

standards for pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters. EPA is required to publish such

performance criteria under CWA section 406(a). Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to award grants

to states and tribes to implement a monitoring and notification program, but only if the program

meets certain requirements. (See CWA section 406(b)(2)(A)(i)-(v).) One of these requirements is

that the monitoring and notification programs must be consistent with EPA’s performance

criteria. Excerpts from section 406(b)(2)(A) are included in chapter 2.

The performance criteria provide the basis for EPA’s evaluation of grant applications when

deciding whether to award monitoring and notification program implementation grants under

section 406(b). This document is intended to be used by potential grant recipients to implement

effective monitoring and notification programs that will be eligible for grants under section 406.

This document also includes EPA’s recommendations for implementing programs consistent

with the performance criteria. In addition, this document can serve as a reference guide for how

and when to conduct preliminary beach assessments because it outlines protocols for water

sample collection, sample handling, and laboratory analysis. It also provides information about

using predictive models to estimate indicator levels and includes procedures for notifying the

public about beach advisories, closings, and openings.

1.1.3 Organization of Document

The chapters in this document cover the following topics:

• Chapter 1 discusses human health concerns associated with exposure to pathogens and

discusses the establishment of water quality standards for bacteria.

• Chapter 2 summarizes the basic requirements that an applicant must meet to receive a

program implementation grant. The chapter identifies relevant sections of the BEACH Act,

briefly describes the corresponding performance criteria that EPA has developed, and

provides additional grant-related information.

• Chapter 3 describes the risk-based evaluation process that EPA recommends for states and

tribes to classify and prioritize their recreation beaches. This step-by-step approach allows

states and tribes to assess the relative human health risks and usage of their beaches and to

assign an appropriate management ranking to each of them. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

1-4 June 2002

• Chapter 4 discusses the performance criteria related to monitoring and assessment and

provides detailed technical guidance. 

• Chapter 5 describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to the public

notification and risk communication portions of a beach program. 

The appendices include detailed technical information associated with the topics discussed in the

five chapters:

• Appendix A: Beach Guidance Review Team

• Appendix B: EPA Grant Coordinators

• Appendix C: BEACH Act and Fact Sheet

• Appendix D: Indicator Organisms

• Appendix E: Data Elements

• Appendix F: Beach Evaluation and Classification List

• Appendix G: Conducting a Sanitary Survey

• Appendix H: Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations

• Appendix I: Training

• Appendix J: Sample Collection

• Appendix K: Predictive Tools

1.2 Pathogen Groups

Pathogens are defined as disease-causing microorganisms. Microorganisms are ever-present in

all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Many types are beneficial, functioning as agents for

chemical decomposition, food sources for larger animals, and essential components of the

nitrogen cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. Some microorganisms reside in the bodies of

animals and aid in the digestion of food; others are used for medical purposes such as providing

antibiotics. The small subset of microorganisms that cause human diseases are known as human

pathogens. If taken into the body, such pathogens can cause gastrointestinal illness or even death.

The source of these microorganisms is usually the feces of humans and other warm-blooded

animals. The pathogens most commonly identified and associated with waterborne diseases can

be grouped into three general categories: bacteria, protozoans, and viruses.

Bacteria are unicellular organisms that lack an organized nucleus and contain no chlorophyll.

They contain a single chromosome and typically reproduce by binary fission, during which a

single cell divides to form two new cells. A primary source of concern to EPA is feces from

warm-blooded animals, including fecal waste associated with farming and the discharge of

domestic sewage. Feces can contain many types of bacteria found in waterbodies, including the

coliform group, streptococcus, lactobacillus, staphylococcus, and clostridia. It is important to

note, however, that most bacteria are not pathogenic. 
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-5

Protozoans are unicellular organisms that reproduce by fission and occur primarily in the aquatic

environment. Pathogenic protozoans, which constitute almost 30 percent of the 35,000 known

species of protozoans, originate in the feces of warm-blooded animals. They can exist in the

environment as cysts that hatch, grow, and multiply after ingestion, causing associated illness.

Encystation of protozoans facilitates their survival by protecting them from harsh conditions like

high temperature and salinity. Two protozoan species of major concern as waterborne pathogens

are Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum.

Viruses are a group of infectious agents that require a host in which to live. They are composed

of a sequence of nucleic acids—either DNA or RNA, depending on the virus—that is covered by

a protein shell for protection. The most significant virus group affecting water quality and human

health grows and reproduces in cells of the gastrointestinal tract of infected animals. These

enteric viruses are excreted in feces and include hepatitis A, rotaviruses, caliciviruses (Norwalklike viruses), adenoviruses, enteroviruses, and reoviruses. 

1.3 Health Concerns

The main route of exposure to disease-causing organisms in recreation waters is contact with

polluted water while swimming, including accidental ingestion of contaminated water. In waters

that contain fecal contamination, potentially all the waterborne diseases spread by the fecal-oral

route could be contracted by bathers. These illnesses include diseases resulting from the

following:

• Bacterial infection (such as cholera, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and gastroenteritis).

• Viral infection (such as infectious hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal diseases caused by

enteroviruses).

• Protozoan infections (such as amoebic dysentery and giardiasis). 

Swimming in contaminated water most frequently causes gastroenteritis. Gastroenteritis is the

inflamation of the gastrointestinal tract, usually caused by a microorganism. Symptoms include

chills, nausea, diarrhea, and fever. 

Although bathing in contaminated water most often results in contracting diseases that affect the

gastrointestinal tract, diseases affecting the eye, ear, skin, and upper respiratory tract can be

contracted as well. Infection often results when pathogenic microorganisms come into contact

with small breaks and tears in the skin or ruptures in delicate membranes in the ear or nose

resulting from the trauma associated with diving into the water. Table 1-1 provides a list of

diseases that can result from contact with water contaminated with anthropogenically introduced

or naturally occurring bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

1-6 June 2002

Table 1-1. Waterborne Pathogens 

Pathogen Disease Effects

Bacteria Escherichia coli

(enteropathogenic)

Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea, death in susceptible populations

Helicobacter pylori Gastritis Diarrhea. Peptic ulcers are a long-term sequela. 

Legionella pneumophila Legionellosis Acute respiratory illness

Leptospira Leptospirosis Jaundice, fever (Weil’s disease)

Pseudomonas Infections in

immunocompromised

individuals

Urinary tract infections, respiratory system infections,

dermatitis, soft tissue infections, bacteremia, and a variety

of systemic infections

Salmonella typhi Typhoid fever High fever, diarrhea, ulceration of the small intestine

Salmonella Salmonellosis Diarrhea, dehydration

Shigella Shigellosis Bacillary dysentery

Vibrio cholerae Cholera Extremely heavy diarrhea, dehydration

Yersinia enterolitica Yersinosis Diarrhea

Protozoans Balantidium coli Balantidiasis Diarrhea, dysentery

Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidiosis Diarrhea

Entamoeba histolytica Ameobiasis (amoebic

dysentery)

Prolonged diarrhea with bleeding, abscesses of the liver

and small intestine

Giardia lamblia Giardiasis Mild to severe diarrhea, nausea, indigestion

Naegleria fowleri Amoebic

meningoencephalitis

Fatal disease; inflammation of the brain

Viruses Adenovirus (31 types) Respiratory disease Eye infections, diarrhea

Astroviruses Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Enteroviruses (67 types,

e.g., polio, echo, and 

Coxsackie viruses)

Gastroenteritis Diarrhea. Heart anomalies and meningitis are long-term

sequela and are very rare. 

Hepatitis A and E Infectious hepatitis Jaundice, fever

Caliciviruses (Norwalk- and

Sapporo-like viruses)

Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Reovirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Rotavirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Source: USEPA, 2001.
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-7

People who acquire an illness from bathing in contaminated water do not always associate their

illness with swimming. As a result, disease outbreaks often are inconsistently recognized.

Because disease surveillance cannot determine the incidence of disease among bathers, several

studies have attempted to establish a link between the concentration of indicators of fecal

contamination in bathing waters and the incidence of swimming-associated disease symptoms.

Even at properly monitored beaches that have very low concentrations of fecal indicators, there is

a risk of contracting a swimming-related illness. 

EPA began to study the relationship between the quality of bathing water and the resultant health

effects in 1972. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s examined the differences in symptomatic illness

between swimming and nonswimming beachgoers at marine and freshwater bathing beaches. The

studies found the following (USEPA, 1999):

• Swimmers who bathe in water contaminated with sewage are at greater risk than

nonswimmers of contracting gastroenteritis.

• The swimming-associated illness rate increases as the quality of the bathing water degrades.

• The illness rate in marine swimmers is greater than that in freshwater swimmers when

indicator densities are equivalent in marine and fresh waters. 

• Most swimmer-related illnesses are of undetermined etiology (cause). 

In 1995 researchers launched a large-scale study in the Santa Monica Bay area to assess both the

effectiveness of bacterial indicators in predicting health risks to bathers and the relative health

risk associated with bathing near storm drains. In this study approximately 15,000 beachgoers

who bathed and immersed their heads were interviewed. Approximately 13,000 of the

beachgoers were contacted for follow-up interviews designed to assess the occurrence of

symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. The major findings of the study suggest that

there is a significant correlation between swimming in water with high densities of indicator

bacteria and the incidence of adverse health effects. In addition, the study confirmed that people

who swim in front of flowing storm drains are twice as likely to exhibit adverse health effects as

people who swim 400 yards away from storm drains (Haile et al., 1996). 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

1-8 June 2002

A review of studies conducted during the past several decades has provided the following overall

conclusions (Pruess, 1998):

• A causal dose-response relationship exists between bacterial indicator counts in recreational

waters and gastrointestinal symptoms in bathers.

• A strong relationship between bacterial indicator counts and symptoms not related to the

gastrointestinal tract could not be established.

• The relative risk of swimming in contaminated versus uncontaminated waters ranged from

one to three times above the risk associated with swimming in uncontaminated water.

• Symptom rates were usually higher in individuals with compromised immune systems.

• The indicators showing the best correlation with adverse health effects were enterococci

(marine and fresh water) and Escherichia coli (fresh water).

1.4 Indicator Organisms

Indicator organisms are a fundamental monitoring tool used to measure both changes in

environmental (water) quality or conditions and the potential presence of hard-to-detect target

pathogenic organisms. An indicator organism provides evidence of the presence or absence of a

pathogenic organism that survives under similar physical, chemical, and nutrient conditions.

Indicator organisms should have the following characteristics (Sloat and Ziel, 1992; Thomann

and Mueller, 1987):

• Be easily detected using simple laboratory tests.

• Generally not be present in unpolluted waters.

• Appear in concentrations that can be correlated with the extent of contamination.

• Have a die-off rate that is not faster than the die-off rate of the pathogens of concern.

Because it is difficult to directly detect the many different pathogens or parasites that may be

present in surface waters, the presence of fecal bacteria has long been used as an indicator of the

possible presence of disease-causing organisms. 

This document discusses the bacterial indicators that are used in current water quality criteria and

standards. The term “pathogens and pathogen indicators” (from the BEACH Act) can refer to

individual pathogens and a broad range of indicators. However, because bacterial indicators are

the only indicators adopted as water quality standards, this document generally refers to bacterial

indicators.
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-9

Indicator Organisms

Total Coliform

Bacteria

Fecal Enterococci/

Streptococci

Fecal Coliform

Bacteria

Escherichia coli

Enterococcus

E. faecalis E. faecium E. avium S. bovis S. equinus

Streptococcus

Figure 1-1. Relationship between bacterial indicator organisms.

Other potential indicators are the subject of ongoing research and will be addressed in future

updates to this guidance.

Figure 1-1 provides a summary of the relationships between bacterial indicator organisms for

fecal contamination. Appendix D provides additional information on the organisms that can

indicate fecal contamination and EPA’s review of epidemiology studies. 

1.5 Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Bacteria

Water quality standards define a designated use for a waterbody (e.g., primary contact recreation)

and set specific water quality criteria to achieve that use. They are the foundation of the nation’s

water quality management program and are the goals by which success is ultimately measured for

a given waterbody or watershed.

EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria–1986 was developed for the protection of

waters designated for recreational uses. Under CWA section 304(a), EPA is required to publish

water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge for the protection of

human health and aquatic life. The scientific foundation of the 1986 criteria is studies conducted

by EPA demonstrating that for fresh water, E. coli and enterococci are best suited for predicting

the presence of pathogens that cause illness, and that for marine waters, enterococci are most

appropriate. The transition to E. coli and enterococci bacterial indicators (from total and fecal

coliforms) continues to be an Agency priority for states’ triennial reviews of their water quality

standards. Further, the BEACH Act requires coastal and Great Lakes states to adopt, by April
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

1-10 June 2002

2004, EPA’s recommended water quality criteria for bacteria or other criteria demonstrated to be

as protective as EPA’s recommended water quality criteria for Great Lakes, marine, and estuarine

waters. The BEACH Act amendments further direct EPA to propose and promulgate such

standards for states that fail to do so.

Implementation Guidance

It is beyond the scope of this document to provide an in-depth discussion of water quality

standards and associated technical issues. However, EPA has released the document

Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria1986 regarding the

implementation of EPA’s recommended bacteriological criteria. The implementation guidance

provides extensive information about the 1986 criteria document and associated issues. It should

assist states, territories, and authorized tribes in adopting the most recent Ambient Water Quality

Criteria for Bacteria (1986) and making the transition to monitoring for EPA's recommended 

E. coli and enterococci indicators, rather than total or fecal coliforms. 

Readers are strongly encouraged to review this document because it addresses several issues that

are important to beach managers. Issues addressed in the guidance document include calculating

geometric mean densities from small data sets; implementing the geometric mean and 

single-sample maximum in various contexts, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits and CWA section 303(d) listing; options for application of criteria in

waters contaminated by human sources; and beach public notification. This document can be

found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience.

1.6 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

The BEACH Act also directs EPA to provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and local

governments in assessing and monitoring their floatable debris. It is beyond the scope of this

document to provide an in-depth discussion of these issues. To address this requirement,

however, EPA has published the guidance document Assessing and Monitoring Floatable

Debris. For more information on the document, please contact: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (4504T), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, or visit

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/debris/floatingdebris/. 
Chapter 1

June 2002 1-11

1.7 References

Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay

Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.

Pruess, A. 1998. Review of epidemiological studies on health effects from exposure to

recreational water. International Journal of Epidemiology 27:1-9. 

Rose, J.B., R.M. Atlas, C.P. Gerba, M.R. Gilchrist, M.W. LeChevallier, M.D. Sobsey, M.V.

Yates, G.H. Cassell, and J.M. Tiedje. 1999. Microbial Pollutants in Our Nation's Water:

Environmental and Public Health Issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.

Sloat, S., and C. Ziel. 1992. The Use of Indicator Organisms to Assess Public Water Safety. Hach

Company, Loveland, CO.

Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and

Control. Harper and Row, New York.

USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and

Toxicology Division and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards

Division, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1999. Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-98-079. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Bacteria 1986. Draft. January 2000. EPA 823/D-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. January 2001. EPA 84/R-00-002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Chapter 2

June 2002 2-1

Chapter 2: Grants and Performance Criteria

This chapter addresses the basic requirements that an applicant must meet to receive a program

implementation grant. The chapter identifies relevant sections of the BEACH Act, briefly

describes the corresponding performance criteria that EPA has developed, and provides

additional grant-related information.

2.1 BEACH Act Conditions and Requirements Applicable to Section 406 Grants

The BEACH Act establishes a series of conditions and requirements related to grants for

developing and implementing a BEACH monitoring and notification program. Section 406(c),

which addresses the content of state and local programs, applies to all grants awarded to states,

tribes, and local governments under the authority of section 406 regardless of whether the grant is

for development or implementation of a beach monitoring program. Section 406(b)(3)(A), which

addresses reporting, applies to all development and implementation grants awarded to states and

tribes under the authority of section 406. Section 406(b)(3)(B), which addresses delegation to

local governments, applies to development and implementation grants awarded to states only. 

The requirements set forth at section 406(b)(2)(A) apply only to implementation grants to states,

tribes, and local governments. Sections 406(a), (b), and (c) have been reproduced below:

• Section 406(a) Monitoring and Notification

(1)...the Administrator shall publish performance criteria for –

(A) monitoring and assessment (including specifying available methods for monitoring) of coastal

recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public for

attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and

(B) the prompt notification of the public, local governments, and the Administrator of any

exceeding, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable coastal recreation water quality standards

described in subparagraph (A).

• Section 406(b) Program Development and Implementation Grants

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to develop and

implement programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or

similar points of access that are used by the public.

(2) Limitations

(A) In General The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to implement

a monitoring and notification program if 

(i) the program is consistent with the performance criteria published by the Administrator

under subsection (a);
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

2-2 June 2002

(ii) the State or local government prioritizes the use of grant funds for particular coastal

recreation waters based on the use of the water and the risk to human health presented

by pathogens or pathogen indicators;

(iii) the State or local government makes available to the Administrator the factors used to

prioritize the use of funds under clause (ii);

(iv) The State or local government provides a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation

waters that are subject to the program for monitoring and notification for which the grant is

provided that specifies any coastal recreation waters for which fiscal constraints will

prevent consistency with the performance criteria under subsection (a); and 

(v) the public is provided an opportunity to review the program through a process that

provides for public notice and an opportunity for comment.

(2)(B) Grants to Local Governments The Administrator may make a grant to a local government

under this subsection for implementation of a monitoring and notification program only if, after the

1-year beginning on the date of publication of performance criteria under subsection (a)(1), the

Administrator determines that the State is not implementing a program that meets the

requirements of this subsection, regardless of whether the State has received a grant under this

subsection.

(3) Other Requirements

(A) REPORT A State recipient of a grant under this subsection shall submit to the Administrator,

in such format and at such intervals as the Administrator determines to be appropriate, a report

that describes 

(i) data collected as part of the program for monitoring and notification as described in

subsection (c); and 

(ii) actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded.

(B) DELEGATION A State recipient of a grant under this subsection shall identify each local

government to which the State has delegated or intends to delegate responsibility for

implementing a monitoring and notification program consistent with the performance criteria under

subsection (a). 

• Section 406(c) Content of State and Local Government Programs 

As a condition of receipt of a grant under subsection (b), a State or local government program shall

identify:

1. lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to

beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public;

2. in the case of a State program for monitoring and notification, the process by which the State may

delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring and notification

program;

3. the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters based on
Chapter 2

June 2002 2-3

(A) the periods of recreational use of the waters; 

(B) the nature and extent of use during certain periods; 

(C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution; and 

(D) any effect of storm events on the waters;

4. (A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are

harmful to human health; and 

(B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen

indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including increases in

relation to storm events);

5. measures for prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and

extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for

pathogens and pathogen indicators to 

(A) the Administrator, in such form as the Administrator determines to be appropriate; and 

(B) a designated official of the local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal

recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified;

6. measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent

communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation

waters are not meeting or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards for

pathogens and pathogen indicators; and

7. measures that inform the public of the potential risks associated with water contact activities in the

coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards. 

2.2 Performance Criteria

EPA has developed nine performance criteria for the implementation of monitoring, assessment,

and notification programs. To be eligible for a grant to implement a monitoring and notification

program, the state, tribal, or local government’s program must be consistent with these

performance criteria. The performance criteria also apply to federal agency programs and

programs directly implemented by EPA. These performance criteria are based on and incorporate

other requirements of the sections of the BEACH Act provided above. 

The general requirements of the performance criteria are listed in table 2-1 and summarized in

sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.9. The specific requirements associated with each of the performance

criteria, as well as more detailed discussions, are provided in subsequent chapters. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

2-4 June 2002

Table 2-1. Summary of BEACH Act Performance Criteria

Category

Performance

Criterion General Requirements

Chapter

Where

Discussed

Evaluation and

Classification

1 Develop risk-based beach evaluation and

classification plan

3

Monitoring 2 Develop tiered monitoring plan 4

3 Monitoring report submission and delegation 4

4 Methods and assessment procedures 4

Public Notification and

Prompt Risk

Communication

5 Public notification and risk communication

plan

5

6 Measures to notify EPA and local

governments

5

7 Measures to notify the public 5

8 Notification report submission and delegation 5

Public Evaluation 9 Public evaluation of program 2

2.2.1 Develop Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Plan (Performance

Criterion 1)

This performance criterion requires a state or tribe to develop a risk-based beach evaluation and

classification plan and apply it to state or tribal coastal recreation waters. A state or tribal

government program must describe the factors used in its evaluation and classification process

and explain how its coastal recreation waters are ranked as a result of the process. This process

must result in the identification of a list of coastal recreation waters, including coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. General and specific

requirements for this performance criterion are discussed in more detail in chapter 3. 

2.2.2 Develop Tiered Monitoring Plan (Performance Criterion 2)

The second performance criterion requires development of an adequate tiered monitoring plan.

This plan must adequately address the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of

coastal recreation waters based on the periods of recreational use of the waters, the nature and

extent of use during certain periods, the proximity of the waters to known point sources and

nonpoint sources of pollution, and any effect of storm events on the waters. General and specific

requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Chapter 2

June 2002 2-5

2.2.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation (Performance Criterion 3)

Performance Criterion 3 requires states, tribes, and local governments to develop a mechanism to

collect and report their monitoring data in timely reports and, in the case of states, to document

any delegation of monitoring responsibilities that might have been made to local governments.

General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. 

Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data to

the public, EPA, and other agencies in a timely manner. States are encouraged to coordinate

closely with local governments to ensure that monitoring information is submitted in a consistent

manner. Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix E

Delegation. If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant

recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments

responsibility for implementing the monitoring program.

2.2.4 Methods and Assessment Procedures (Performance Criterion 4)

Performance Criterion 4 requires the development of detailed methods and assessment

procedures. States, tribes, or local governments must adequately address and submit to EPA

methods for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human

health in coastal recreation areas; provide documentation to support the validity of methods other

than those currently recommended or approved by EPA; and identify and submit to EPA

assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators

that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas. General and specific requirements

for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.2.5 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (Performance Criterion 5) 

The state, tribe, or local government must develop an overall public notification and risk

communication plan. The plan must describe the state’s, tribe’s, or local government’s public

notification efforts and measures to inform the public of the potential risks associated with water

contact activities in the coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality

standards. General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in

Chapter 5.

2.2.6 Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (Performance Criterion 6)

The state, tribe, or local government must adequately identify measures for prompt

communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any

exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

2-6 June 2002

pathogen indicators. The state, tribe, or local government must identify how this information will

be promptly communicated to EPA. States only must identify how this information will be

promptly communicated to a designated official of the local government for the area adjoining

the coastal recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified. 

General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

2.2.7 Measures to Notify the Public (Performance Criterion 7)

A state, tribe, or local government program must adequately address the posting of signs at

beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent communication measures that are

sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not

expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators. 

General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

2.2.8 Notification Report Submission and Delegation (Performance Criterion 8)

States, tribes, and local governments must compile their notification plans in timely reports and,

in the case of states, describe any delegation of notification responsibilities that has been made,

or the state intends to make, to local governments. General and specific requirements for this

criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. 

Report Submission. The mechanism must provide that the states, tribes, and local governments

will report to EPA the actions they have taken to notify the public when water quality standards

are exceeded. 

Delegation. In the case of a state, if notification responsibilities are delegated to local

governments, the state must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local

governments responsibility for implementing the notification program.

2.2.9 Public Evaluation of Program (Performance Criterion 9)

The ninth performance criterion is to provide the public with an opportunity to review the

program through public notice, review, and an opportunity to comment.
Chapter 2

June 2002 2-7

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General requirement Specific requirements Section

Public Evaluation of Program (Performance

Criterion 9): This performance criterion

requires a state, tribe, or local government to

provide the public with an opportunity to review

the program through public notice, review, and an

opportunity to comment. 

Provide an opportunity for the public to

comment on the following components of a

beach monitoring and public notification

program:

1. Beach evaluation and classification

process, including a list of waters to be

monitored and beach ranking.

2. Sampling design and monitoring plan,

including sampling location and

sampling frequency.

3. Public notification and risk

communication plan, including methods

to notify the public of a swimming

advisory.

3.5

4.2

5.2

The public evaluation can be accomplished through public comments, meetings, forums, or

workshops. For example, when classifying and ranking beaches, it is beneficial to gather input

from members of the community regarding the recreation waters they would like to see

monitored. Annual public or community meetings, surveys of the users at the beach, local

newspaper articles, or other sources can provide insight into public opinion about the beach,

including why the beach is or is not used (e.g., for sunning, running, swimming, or surfing),

perceptions of water quality and health problems, and whether beach users desire a monitoring

and notification program (if none exists) or how satisfied they are with the program that has been

implemented.

2.3 Additional Grant Information

2.3.1 Grant Program Phases

The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to award grants for both developing and implementing

monitoring and notification programs. Accordingly, EPA has established a two-phase grant

program—an initial program development phase followed by a program implementation phase.

The initial phase of the grant program focuses on development of a state or tribal beach

monitoring and notification program. The second phase of the grant program focuses on

implementation of a state or tribal beach monitoring and notification program. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

2-8 June 2002

2.3.2 Eligibility for Grants

State Governments

Coastal and Great Lakes states are eligible to apply for grants to develop and implement

monitoring and notification programs. For the purposes of the BEACH Act, the term “state”

applies to 30 coastal and Great Lakes states and includes six coastal territories defined in CWA

section 502: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, however, no longer exists. The Marshall Islands, the

Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which were previously entities in the Trust Territory

of the Pacific Islands, have entered into Compacts of Free Association with the Government of

the United States. As a result, each is now a sovereign, self-governing entity and, as such, is no

longer eligible to receive grants as a territory or possession of the United States.

Local Governments

The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to make grants to local governments for developing and 

implementing a monitoring and notification program only if, after the 1-year period beginning on

the date of publication of this document, EPA determines that the state or tribe is not

implementing a program that meets the requirements of the statute.

Tribal Governments

Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as

states for the purpose of section 406. To receive BEACH Act grant funds, a tribe must have

coastal recreation waters for which water quality standards have been established under the

CWA. To date, no tribes have met this requirement.

2.3.3 Funding

CWA section 406(i) authorizes appropriations of up to $30 million per year through fiscal year

2005 to develop and implement beach programs. The actual amount of funding available to

individual states and tribes will depend on congressional appropriation levels and an allotment

formula for allocating funds among eligible entities. The BEACH Act grants are not intended to

replace a state’s or tribe’s funding for its beach monitoring and notification program. The grants

are intended to supplement existing funds and encourage states and tribes to invest in and support

their beach monitoring and notification program. 
Chapter 2

June 2002 2-9

2.3.4 Selection Process

The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to award BEACH Act program development

and implementation grants to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water and to the EPA

Regional Administrators. The EPA regional offices will award program development and

implementation grants through a noncompetitive process. 

EPA expects to award grants to all eligible state, territory, tribal, and local government applicants

that meet the performance criteria specified in this document and other applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements. 

2.3.5 Application Procedure

BEACH Act grants will be awarded and administered according to the regulations at 40 CFR

Part 31 (“Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State

and Local Governments”). The EPA regional offices have the lead responsibility for providing

grant application packages and advice. Refer to appendix B for a list of the current EPA Regional

Grant Coordinators or visit the BEACH Watch web site for information on specific grants, grant

coordinators, or other pertinent information at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

2-10 June 2002

2.4 References

USEPA. 2001. Notice of Availability of Grants for Development of Coastal Recreation Water

Monitoring and Public Notification under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal

Health Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Federal Register, May 30,

2001, 66(104):29308-29310.
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-1

Chapter 3: Risk-Based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process

This chapter describes the risk-based beach evaluation and classification process, including the

evaluation steps and recommended information that a state or tribe should consider when ranking

beaches.

3.1 Performance Criterion

Performance Criterion 1 addresses the risk-based beach evaluation process. The general and

specific requirements associated with this criterion are included in table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation and Classification Process Performance

Criterion

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General Requirements Specific Requirements Section

Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification

(Performance Criterion 1). This performance

criterion requires a state or tribe to develop a riskbased beach evaluation and classification plan and

apply it to state or tribal coastal recreation waters. A

state or tribal government program must describe the

factors used in its evaluation and classification process

and explain how its coastal recreation waters are

ranked as a result of the process. This process must

result in the identification of a list of coastal recreation

waters, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to

beaches or similar points of access used by the public.

• Identification of factors used to

evaluate and rank beaches.

• Identification of coastal recreation

waters in the state or tribe.

• Identification of beaches, or similar

points of access used by the public for

swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar

water contact activities, adjacent to

coastal recreation waters.

• Identification and review of available

information describing (1) the

potential risk to human health

presented by pathogens and (2) the use

of the beach. 

• Notification of EPA annually when

the ranking of beaches changes and

alters the sampling frequency at

beaches. 

3.2–3.5

Risk-based beach evaluation and classification is a means to identify the potential risk of disease

to swimmers and to protect public health. Although a state or tribe may develop its own riskbased approach, it must address both the general and specific requirements summarized in table

3-1. 

The goal of the evaluation process is for a grant recipient to use these requirements to evaluate its

coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access and classify those waters

in an appropriate tier based on the potential risk to human health presented by pathogens and the

use of the waters. EPA recommends establishing an evaluation and classification process that uses
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-2 June 2002

	

	


Coastal 

recreation

waters

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

 

Primary

contact

waters

Noncoastal 

recreation 

waters (e.g., 

freshwater 

exclusive of 

Great

Lakes)

Shoreline adjacent to 

coastal recreation 

waters that is not 

beach area or is not 

used by the public for 

swimming, bathing, 

surfing, or similar 

water contact 

activities

Available information

• Factors that indicate 

the potential risk to 

human health 

presented by 

pathogens

• Use of the beach

• Other factors

Beaches that are 

adjacent to coastal 

recreation waters and 

that are used by the 

public for swimming, 

bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact 

activities (bathing 

beaches or similar 

points of access)

Figure 3-1. Step 1: Identify recreation waters. 

a three-tiered process because this approach will enable beach managers to efficiently allocate

monitoring and public notification resources to waters on the basis of use and potential disease

risk. A classification of Tier 1, for example, could indicate that waters are of such high risk

and/or receive such high usage that significant resources should be devoted to more intensive

monitoring and public notification efforts for that area. EPA recommends this three-tiered model

program; however, it is recognized that state or tribal programs will vary. The program must,

however, ultimately result in a risk-based ranking. This classification can then be used to direct

appropriate resources toward monitoring and notification programs for coastal recreation waters

adjacent to beaches or similar points of access (see chapters 4 and 5).

3.2 Step 1: Identify Coastal Recreation Waters

According to the BEACH Act, coastal recreation waters are defined as the Great Lakes and

marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) designated under CWA section 303(c) by a

state or tribe for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities. The

BEACH Act explicitly excludes from the definition of coastal recreation waters both inland

waters and waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream that has an unimpaired natural

connection with the open sea. The first step in evaluating and classifying coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access is to make a list of all coastal recreation

waters (figure 3-1). 
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-3

3.2.1 Designated Uses of Waterbodies

Properly identifying coastal recreation waters requires identifying the designated use of a

waterbody. Under CWA section 303(c)(2)(A), each water quality standard adopted by a state

must consist of “designated uses” for the water to which the standard applies and criteria to

protect these uses. The state or tribe must then submit the new or revised water quality standards

to EPA for review. If EPA disapproves a water quality standard submission or if the EPA

Administrator determines that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to meet the

requirements of the CWA, EPA must adopt a new or revised water quality standard itself,

including designated uses, when appropriate. In other words, the applicable water quality

standards (including, in this instance, designated uses for the purpose of the BEACH Act) may be

adopted by states, tribes, or EPA, depending on the circumstances.

Most states and some tribes have established designations for their primary contact waters.

Assigning a designated use to a waterbody is a means of identifying and classifying that

waterbody’s intended use (e.g., aquatic life support, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting,

drinking water supply, primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation). Any change to

the designated use of a waterbody must be submitted to EPA for the Agency’s review and

approval or disapproval. Typically, states and tribes review their water quality standards every

three years and revise the standards as appropriate.

In designating a use for a waterbody and setting the appropriate water quality criteria to protect

that use, the state or tribe also must take downstream water quality into consideration and ensure

that its water quality standards provide for attaining and maintaining the water quality standards

for downstream waters. 

3.2.2 Recreational Uses of Waterbodies

Recreation occurs in many forms throughout the United States and frequently centers around

waterbodies and activities that take place in and on the water. Waters where people engage in or

are likely to engage in activities that could result in ingestion of the water or immersion are

designated for use in state and tribal water quality standards as “primary contact recreation”

waters. A primary contact recreation use should be adopted for any waterbody where people

engage in or are likely to engage in activities that could result in ingestion of the water or

immersion. These activities include swimming, water skiing, and kayaking. 

Often a state or tribe will designate most or all of its surface waters for primary contact

recreation. Those waters adjacent to bathing beaches typically constitute a subset of the waters

designated for primary contact recreation. 

Although most recreation waters are designated for year-round primary contact recreation to

protect people engaged in primary contact activities, for some waters a primary contact recreation
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-4 June 2002

Coastal 

Bay

River

River

Ocean

Figure 3-2. Examples of coastal and noncoastal

recreation waters.

use is designated on only a seasonal basis. These uses can include the designation of intermittent,

secondary, or seasonal recreation uses. For example, a state or tribe might choose to designate

waters for primary contact recreation use only during certain months of the year if climate

precludes such use at other times. Similarly, a state or tribe might designate waters for

nonprimary contact recreational use, often known as secondary contact use. Subject to the

provisions of 40 CFR 131.10, secondary contact recreation uses might be appropriate on a yearround basis, for example, where waters have been irreversibly affected by wet weather events or

where protecting a primary contact recreation use at all times would result in substantial and

widespread social and economic impact.

3.2.3 Coastal Recreation Waters

The requirements of the BEACH Act apply only to states and tribes that have “coastal recreation

waters.” As amended by the BEACH Act, CWA section 502(21) defines coastal recreation

waters as the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are

designated under section 303(c) by a state or tribe for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or

similar water contact activities. Coastal recreation waters do not include either inland waters or

waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream

having an unimpaired natural connection with the

open sea. Figure 3-2 illustrates what beaches and

similar points of access may or may not be

considered adjacent to coastal recreation waters

under the BEACH Act. The heavy lines indicate

areas that would be designated coastal recreation

waters; the thin lines indicate areas that would not be

designated coastal recreation waters. The decision to

identify and classify waters as coastal or noncoastal

should be made by an individual state or tribe in

consultation with EPA, taking site-specific

conditions into consideration.

3.3 Step 2: Identify Beaches or Similar Points

of Access Used by the Public for

Swimming, Bathing, Surfing, or Similar

Water Contact Activities

The second step in evaluating and classifying

beaches is to identify beaches and similar points of

access that are adjacent to coastal recreation waters

and used by the public for swimming, bathing,

surfing, or similar water contact activities (figure 3-3). After beaches and similar points of access

and adjacent waters used by the public are identified, the waters can be evaluated using the Beach
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-5

	
	
	
			

Coastal 

recreation

waters

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

 

Primary

contact

waters

Noncoastal 

recreation 

waters (e.g., 

freshwater 

exclusive of 

Great

Lakes)

Shoreline adjacent to 

coastal recreation 

waters that is not 

beach area or is not 

used by the public for 

swimming, bathing, 

surfing, or similar 

water contact 

activities

Available information

• Factors that indicate 

the potential risk to 

human health 

presented by 

pathogens

• Use of the beach

• Other factors

Beaches that are 

adjacent to coastal 

recreation waters and 

that are used by the 

public for swimming, 

bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact 

activities (bathing 

beaches or similar 

points of access)

Figure 3-3. Step 2: Identify beaches and similar points of access. 

Evaluation and Classification List (appendix F). Typically, waters used by the public for

swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities are:

• Not contained within a man-made structure or building.

• Under the control of a state, tribe, or local government.

• Used for swimming or other contact recreational activity (partial body contact with the

water). 

Beaches and similar points of access adjacent to these waters can include seashores, oceanfronts,

and shorelines associated with estuaries and bays. They also can include shorelines associated

with natural lakes, reservoirs, impoundments, ponds, rivers, streams, and creeks, but (except for

the Great Lakes) those beaches and similar points of access are not covered by the BEACH Act.

Beaches and similar points of access can be located in rural or urban areas. Privately owned

beaches and similar points of access adjacent to waters used by the public for swimming,

bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities are covered by the BEACH Act and therefore

must be included in the identification, evaluation, and classification of beaches to meet this

performance criterion. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-6 June 2002

Factors to consider when defining beaches and similar points of access include geography,

geology, the type of recreational use, and the type of access these areas provide. 

• Geography. A beach or similar point of access may be described by a jurisdictional boundary

(e.g., nation, state, region, county, township, municipality) or by location on an ocean, a

sound, a bay, an estuary, an inlet, or one of the Great Lakes.

• Geology. A beach or similar point of access may be defined as a gently sloping waterfront

area or the shoreline of an ocean, a sea, or a lake, covered by sand, gravel, or larger rock

fragments, possibly accompanied by mud. 

• Access. Access to the waterbody might be from a shoreline structure, or the beach might be

adjacent to a recreational waterbody.

• Designated use. (See section 3.2.1.)

3.4 Step 3: Review Available Information

The third step in evaluating and classifying a beach is to review all available information about

the beach, including historical knowledge of the beach, its uses, and possible sources of

microbial pathogens (figure 3-4). This information should help identify the most important issues

and data gaps. Source information may be located in state, tribal, or local government agency

files; literature and records in local libraries; beach management reports; community association

reports; public health records; papers and journals available at colleges and universities; and

work performed by local nonprofit organizations. The following factors must be used to rank

beaches:

• Factors that indicate the potential risk to human health presented by pathogens

• Use of the beach

Other factors, such as importance to the local economy or community, also can be considered, 

but the BEACH Act requires state, tribal, and local governments to prioritize the use of grant

funds for particular coastal recreation waters based on the use of the water and the risk to human

health presented by pathogens or pathogen indicators. Sources that might provide this

information are listed below under each factor in a suggested order of relevant importance. EPA

recognizes that some sources might be more important than others, depending on the conditions

and availability of information. Appendix F provides an additional list of information that might

help in classifying and ranking beaches. 
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-7


	

	


Coastal 

recreation

waters

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

 

Primary

contact

waters

Noncoastal 

recreation 

waters (e.g., 

freshwater 

exclusive of 

Great

Lakes)

Shoreline adjacent to 

coastal recreation 

waters that is not 

beach area or is not 

used by the public for 

swimming, bathing, 

surfing, or similar 

water contact 

activities

Available information

• Factors that indicate 

the potential risk to 

human health 

presented by 

pathogens

• Use of the beach

• Other factors

Beaches that are 

adjacent to coastal 

recreation waters and 

that are used by the 

public for swimming, 

bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact 

activities (bathing 

beaches or similar 

points of access)

Figure 3-4. Step 3: Review available information. 

3.4.1 Factors That Indicate the Potential for Fecal Contamination

Part of the process of evaluating potential health risks related to exposure to pathogens during

bathing or swimming activities is to compile available information about each beach indicating

the potential for contamination by microbial pathogens. This information can be found in reports

that include information on waterbodies that are or are not in attainment of their designated uses,

lists of impaired waterbodies, medical records, past advisory and closure reports, planning

reports, and actual discharge data. The following reports can be used to help classify and rank

beaches. 

Water Quality Monitoring Reports

Previous monitoring reports that contain actual bacterial concentrations might be helpful in

evaluating and classifying beaches. In addition, state or tribal water quality monitoring reports

that contain temperature, flow, and turbidity data might be helpful in identifying water quality

patterns. For example, Francy and Darner (1998) found a relationship between turbidity and

concentrations of E. coli at three Lake Erie beaches; as turbidity increased, E. coli concentrations

also increased. In that study, other environmental and water quality variables also were shown to

be related to E. coli concentrations. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-8 June 2002

Advisory Reports and Closings

Previously recorded advisories and closings can provide insight into problems associated with

maintaining beach water quality, links to closings caused by rain events, the frequency of

closings during the swimming season, causes of closings (preemptive, outfalls, increased

sampling, rain), and the number of swimming days affected by an advisory or a closing. 

Water Quality Modeling Reports

Water quality models also can assist in evaluating and classifying beaches. Models that predict

bacterial contamination during rainfall events can help reduce the risk of swimmer exposure to

contaminants between normal sampling periods (USEPA, 1999). Chapter 4 provides additional

information on these types of models.

Sanitary Surveys

A sanitary survey can be used to evaluate and document sources of contaminants that might

adversely affect public health. Although sanitary surveys are frequently associated with water

supply systems, they can be used to identify sources of pollution and to provide information on

source controls and identification, persistent problems such as exceeding of water quality

standards, magnitude of pollution from sources, and management actions and links to controls. A

Registered Sanitarian or professional with experience in these areas should perform the survey. A

sanitary survey can be an effective tool for protecting human health at bathing beaches and can

provide information that helps in designing monitoring programs and selecting sampling

locations, times, and frequencies. 

Additional information on sanitary surveys is provided in appendix G. The sanitary survey list

can be used to evaluate and identify the potential and existing microbiological hazards that could

affect the safe use of a particular stretch of recreational water or bathing beach. 

Point Source Discharge Data

Facilities authorized to discharge wastewater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) program, including combined sewer overflows (CSOs), concentrated animal

feeding operations (CAFOs), and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), provide

information on the contents and locations of their point source discharges. 

CSOs

CSOs consist of mixtures of domestic sewage, industrial and commercial wastewaters, and storm

water runoff. Untreated CSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic

microorganisms, toxic pollutants, organic compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants that

can cause water quality standards to be exceeded, posing risks to human health (USEPA, 1994). 
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-9

CAFOs

CAFOs and other animal feeding operations (AFOs) can pose a number of risks to water quality

and public health, mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate

(USEPA, 1998). Manure and wastewater from AFOs and CAFOs have the potential to contribute

pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), sediment, pathogens, heavy metals,

hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. 

POTWs

POTWs are waste treatment works owned by a state, unit of local government, or tribe; they are

usually designed to treat predominantly domestic wastewaters. 

State Water Quality Report (CWA Section 305(b) Report)

A state’s or tribe’s 305(b) report identifies assessed waterbodies that are in full attainment,

partial attainment, or nonattainment of their designated uses. One purpose of the report is to help

determine pollution control and management priorities at the state, tribal, and national levels. The

report indicates how the state or tribe measures waterbodies against its standards and lists known

problems, known or suspected causes, and proposed corrective actions. The 305(b) report is a

good source of information for locating potential problem areas in recreational waterbodies. EPA

also uses the reports to compile the National Water Quality Inventory (USEPA, 1998), a national

assessment of progress toward the nation’s clean water goals. The National Water Quality

Inventory state reports are available through state or tribal water quality management agencies or

at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/305b/.

List of Impaired Waters (CWA Section 303(d) List)

A state or tribe’s 303(d) list is a list of impaired waters that have been identified as not meeting

water quality standards and require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Each state or tribe

must develop TMDLs for each waterbody listed. A TMDL presents the maximum amount of a

pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and it includes an

allocation of that amount to the point and nonpoint sources. The 303(d) lists include a priority

ranking of the waters and an identification of the pollutant(s) causing the impairment.

Waterbodies on the 303(d) list must be reexamined periodically. Monitoring or sampling

performed by the state or tribe in support of its section 303(d) listing activities can sometimes

support monitoring or sampling efforts being conducted for beach programs; however, an

advisory or a closing should not be issued for a particular waterbody simply because it has been

placed on the 303(d) list. The BEACH Act addresses concerns about the health risks associated

with microbial pathogens. Section 303(d) lists, by contrast, reflect concerns about all types of

pollutants that might impair any designated use. Therefore, it is quite possible that a waterbody

might be listed for a pollutant or stressor that is harmful to aquatic species but does not threaten

public health. The 303(d) list for a state or tribe can be obtained from its water quality

management agency. Links to these agencies are provided at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-10 June 2002

Nonpoint Source (CWA Section 319)

Reports

In 1987 Congress enacted CWA section

319, which requires states to develop

management programs to reduce and

control nonpoint sources of pollution.

Nonpoint source pollution can be caused

by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and

through the ground and carrying natural

and human-made pollutants into lakes,

rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries,

other coastal waters, and ground water. 

Nonpoint source pollution also can

result from resuspension of bacteria-laden beach sands and hydrological modification. Section

319(h)(11) of the CWA requires states and tribes to report annually on their progress in meeting

nonpoint source management program milestones. They must also report available information

on reductions in nonpoint source pollution and on improvements in water quality resulting from

program implementation. States and tribes may wish to include a list of further actions necessary

to achieve CWA goals, including any recommendations for future EPA programs to control

nonpoint source pollution, as well as brief case studies of any particularly successful nonpoint

source control efforts. 

Swimmer Reports or Hospital Records

Medical records and epidemiological studies can provide information related to the historical risk

of swimming at a particular beach. Swimmer illness reports or complaints to a state or tribal

agency are also valuable sources of information and can answer the following questions: Have

any swimmers complained to the agency about illnesses believed to be related to the water

quality or debris at the beach? Have any hospitals or other medical facilities documented such

reports of illness? Have any epidemiological studies been conducted at the beach (Ferley et al.,

1989; Fleischer et al., 1996; Haile, 1996)? Have other government agencies described health

problems at this beach or adjacent shoreline areas? Approximately how many reports of illness

have occurred? How many have occurred within the past year? The frequency and severity of

reports of swimming-associated illnesses can provide important insights into the risks of bathing

at a particular beach. In many cases, however, people who contract diseases as a result of bathing

in contaminated water do not always associate their illness symptoms with swimming. As a

result, disease outbreaks are often inconsistently reported. On the other hand, people might

associate illnesses caused by other sources with contaminated water. Caution should therefore be

used in determining the significance of such data. Because interpretation of medical records and

epidemiological information can be a complex process, professionals trained in data

interpretation should perform this function.

Microbial Analysis of Storm Water

Coliforms, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses were detected

in both combined sewer flows and storm sewer flows in

Baltimore, Maryland. The levels of fecal coliforms found

in storm flows ranged from 200 to more than 2,000 most

probable number (MPN) per 100 milliliters (mL), and 123

of the 136 samples had fecal coliform bacteria counts of

greater than 2,000 MPN/100 mL. Of those 123 samples, 95

percent were positive for Salmonella. Six storm water

flows were examined for viruses, and all six tested positive

(USEPA, 1977).
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-11

Development Planning Reports 

Previous management plans or inspection reports can provide information on sewer lines,

outfalls, trash collection areas, septic systems, and other infrastructure and can help to answer

questions concerning the identification of potential sources of human pathogens at a beach (e.g.,

bathrooms, shower facilities). The types of bathroom facilities in the area should be known, as

well as any threats of sewage contamination nearby. Potential sources of microbiological

contamination of recreational waters might be associated with system failures in municipal

wastewater treatment facilities, leaking sewer lines, or rainfall and runoff. Other sources include

releases from boat and recreational vehicle holding tanks, pumping stations, portable toilets, and

leachate from poorly maintained or flooding septic systems (CADHS, 1998). The sources of

contamination listed in the example Beach Evaluation and Classification List (appendix F) could

increase the human health risk of using nearby recreational waters. 

Although these plans and reports are useful, it is important to keep in mind other factors affecting

contamination. For example, a study conducted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission found that the density and variability of fecal coliform bacteria appeared to be

strongly influenced by storm water runoff. Summer sampling over one 30-day period at six

stations (five or six samples were collected) demonstrated that substantial changes in density

were observed within as little as 24 to 48 hours. The range of densities around each station’s

geometric mean varied from 765 to 18,840 colony-forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of water.

Thus, infrequent sample collection did not provide an adequate measure of fecal coliform density

and variability, particularly in waters affected by storm events (McGinnis and Mummert, 1996).

Environmental Group Reports

Many environmental groups conduct studies and publish reports on local beaches and recreation

waters. These reports can be helpful in classifying beaches because they might evaluate levels of

pathogen indicators and identify potential sources of pollution that could pose a health risk to

swimmers. These environmental reports also might include historical information and report how

water quality conditions have changed over time. 

3.4.2 Use of the Beach

The frequency of use and thus exposure to pathogens can be measured by determining how many

people use a beach and when the peak periods of use occur. Exposure estimates can be refined by

considering the percentage of people visiting the beach who actually enter the water, beach use

during holidays, the length of the swimming season, and a number of other factors. 

The frequency of beach use can vary considerably from day to day or season to season. States and

tribes should consider this variability in assessing the frequency of use. When people who have a
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-12 June 2002

compromised immune system or otherwise are at high risk become infected with pathogens,

severe, life-threatening illness can occur (Ahmed, 1991). Thus, children, senior citizens, and

people with weakened immune systems (such as persons with AIDS or other immune system

diseases, cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and organ transplant recipients) are more likely

to become ill when they come into contact with contaminated water. Fattal et al. (1987) observed

a significant association between enteric disease symptoms and recreation waters with high levels

of bacterial indicators in children ages birth to 4 years. Alexander et al. (1992) found that

children between the ages of 6 and 11 who came into contact with seawater contaminated with

sewage were likely to suffer from vomiting, diarrhea, itchy skin, fever, lack of energy, and loss of

appetite. These effects can be more significant in waterbodies with restricted circulation. 

This increased risk is of particular significance during high-frequency use periods because

bacterial densities and the potential presence of pathogens are directly related to the number of

swimmers. Studies have demonstrated an association between high swimmer densities and an

increase in bacterial densities. Therefore, swimmers should pay special attention when swimming

during peak bathing hours, especially if they are immunocompromised or otherwise at high risk.

3.4.3 Other Factors

Additional factors, such as the importance to the local economy and community input, may be

used as secondary considerations in evaluating and classifying beaches. While the state, tribe, or

local government must prioritize its use of grant funds for particular coastal recreation waters

based on the use of the water and the risk to human health presented by pathogens or pathogen

indicator, there could be a need for a further ranking of beaches. For example, if there are more

beaches that present an equal level of risk to the same number of people than a state can monitor,

the state may use other considerations to determine which of those beaches to include in its

grant-funded monitoring and notification program. If available, other beach characterization data

describing such factors as nearshore flow dynamics, the presence of marinas and moored boats,

and surrounding land uses can be used to evaluate potential risk and rank beaches. 

Chambers of Commerce and other government agencies often publish reports on the economic

value of natural resources or beach recreation. These reports can be a resource for considering

how beaches and recreational waters contribute to the local economy. For example, NRDC

(1997) found that tourists spend billions of dollars annually visiting coastal and Great Lakes

counties and their beaches. California, Florida, and South Carolina estimated the value of their

coastal tourism to be more than $37 billion, $23 billion, and $4 billion, respectively (NRDC,

1997; 1999). 

3.5 Step 4: Rank Beaches

The final step in evaluating and classifying beaches is to rank the beaches (figure 3-5). The beach

ranking must be based on factors indicating the potential risk to human health presented by
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-13



	


Coastal 

recreation

waters

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

 

Primary

contact

waters

Noncoastal 

recreation 

waters (e.g., 

freshwater 

exclusive of 

Great

Lakes)

Shoreline adjacent to 

coastal recreation 

waters that is not 

beach area or is not 

used by the public for 

swimming, bathing, 

surfing, or similar 

water contact 

activities

Available information

• Factors that indicate 

the potential risk to 

human health 

presented by 

pathogens

• Use of the beach

• Other factors

Beaches that are 

adjacent to coastal 

recreation waters and 

that are used by the 

public for swimming, 

bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact 

activities (bathing 

beaches or similar 

points of access)

Figure 3-5. Step 4: Rank beaches. 

pathogens, and use of the beach. Other factors such as importance to the local economy or

community also can be used when ranking beaches, but risk and use must be given the highest

priority. 

Public Comments

The BEACH Act requires that the public be provided an opportunity to review the ranking

program through a process that provides for public notice and an opportunity to comment (see

performance criterion 9, section 2.2.9). In particular, states and tribes should seek to gather input

from the community regarding the ranking of coastal recreation waters. An annual public or

community meeting, surveys of the users at the beach, local newspaper articles, or other sources

can provide insight into public opinion about the beach, including why the beach is or is not used

(e.g., for sunning, running, swimming, or surfing), perceptions of water quality and health

problems, and whether beach users desire a monitoring and notification program (if none exists)

or how satisfied they are with the program that has been implemented.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

3-14 June 2002

3.6 References

Ahmed, F.E. 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishery Products,

Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Alexander, L.M., A. Heaven, A. Tennant, and R. Morris. 1992. Symptomatology of children in

contact with sea water contaminated with sewage. Journal of Epidemiology and Community

Health 46:340-344.

CADHS. 1998. Beach Sanitation Guidance for Saltwater Beaches. California Department of

Health Services. <http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/saltwater.htm>.

Fattal, B., E. Peleg-Olevsky, T. Agursky, and H.I. Shuval. 1987. The association between 

seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers

at Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere 16:565-570.

Ferley, J.P., D. Zmirou, F. Balducci, B. Baleux, P. Fera, G. Larbaigt, E. Jacq, B. Moissonnier, 

A. Blineau, and J. Boudot. 1989. Epidemiological significance of microbiological pollution

criteria for river recreational waters. International Journal of Epidemiology 18(1):198-205.

Fleishcer, J.M., D. Kay, R.L. Salmon, F. Jones, M.D. Wyer, and A.F. Godfree. 1996. Marine 

waters contaminated with domestic sewage: Nonenteric illnesses associated with bather exposure

in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 86(9):1228-1234.

Francy, D.S., and R.A. Darner. 1998. Factors affecting Escherichia coli concentrations at Lake

Erie public bathing beaches. Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4241. U.S. Geological

Survey, Columbus, OH. 

Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. October 1996.

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.

Haile, R.W., J.S. White, M. Gold, R. Cressey, C. McGee, R.C. Millikan, A. Glasser, N. Harawa, 

C. Ervin, P. Harmon, J. Harper, J. Dermand, J. Alamillo, K. Barrett, M. Nides, and G. Wang.

1999. The health effects of swimming in ocean water contaminated by storm drain runoff.

Epidemiology 10(4):355-363.

McGinnis, A.E., and J.R. Mummert. 1996. Effect of Sampling Frequency on the Assessment of

Fecal Coliform Bacteria Densities in Streams. Texas Natural Resources Conservation

Commission, Field Operations Division, Region 4, Duncanville, TX.

NRDC. 1997. Testing the Waters Volume VII: How Does Your Vacation Beach Rate?

Natural Resources Defense Council, New York.
Chapter 3

June 2002 3-15

NRDC. 1999. Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Natural

Resources Defense Council, New York.

USEPA. 1977. Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater. EPA 600/2-77-087. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,

OH.

USEPA. 1994. Combined sewer overflows control program. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Federal Register, 59(75), April 19, 1994.

USEPA. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA 841/R-97-

008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1999. Review of Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the BEACH 

Program. Final draft. March 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and

Technology, Washington, DC.
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-1

Chapter 4: Beach Monitoring and Assessment

This chapter describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to monitoring and

assessment.

4.1 Performance Criteria

Table 4-1 summarizes the general and specific requirements of three performance criteria (2

through 4) related to monitoring and assessment activities.

Table 4-1. Summary of Monitoring Performance Criteria

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General Requirements Specific Requirements Section

Develop Tiered Monitoring

Plan (Performance

Criterion 2). Performance

Criterion 2 requires

development of an adequate

tiered monitoring plan.

• In the monitoring plan, address frequency and location of

monitoring and assessment of coastal water, based on a variety

of factors: 

- Periods of recreational use of the waters

- Nature and extent of use during certain periods

- The proximity to known point and nonpoint sources of

pollution

- Any effect of storm events on the waters

• In the monitoring plan, adequately address required

monitoring elements: public health; number of beaches;

existing monitoring data; public review; adaptive monitoring

approach; and quality control. Develop appropriate quality

control policies and procedures and submit adequate quality

management plans and quality assurance plans to EPA for

approval. 

4.2
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-2 June 2002

Table 4-1. (continued)

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General Requirements Specific Requirements Section

Monitoring Report

Submission and Delegation

(Performance Criterion 3). 

Performance Criterion 3

requires states, tribes, and

local governments to develop

a mechanism to collect and

report their monitoring data in

timely reports and, in the case

of states, to document any

delegation of monitoring

responsibilities that might

have been made to local

governments. 

• States, tribes, and local governments must report their

monitoring data to the public, EPA, and other agencies in a

timely manner. States should coordinate closely with local

governments to ensure that monitoring information is

submitted in a consistent fashion.

• States, tribes, and local governments must report their

monitoring data annually to EPA. Reported data must be

consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix

E. 

• If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local

governments, the state grant recipient must describe the

process by which the state may delegate to local governments

responsibility for implementing the monitoring program. 

4.3

Assessment Methods and

Procedures (Performance

Criterion 4). Performance

Criterion 4 requires the

development of detailed

methods and assessment

procedures.

• States, tribes, or local governments must:

- Adequately address and submit to EPA methods for

detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that

are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas. 

- Provide documentation to support the validity of methods

other than those currently recommended or approved by

EPA.

- Identify and submit to EPA assessment procedures for

identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen

indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal

recreation areas. 

4.4

4.2 Tiered Monitoring Plan

Once states and tribes have ranked their beaches, they are required to develop and submit an

adequate tiered monitoring plan. They can follow the requirements and recommendations in this

chapter to develop and implement the tiered monitoring plan based on the beach classification.

This section includes an example of a three-tiered plan as the recommended approach. A state,

tribe, or local government may develop a tiered approach different from that recommended, but it

must demonstrate how the plan meets the performance criterion for an adequate tiered

monitoring plan.
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-3

4.2.1 Monitoring Design

An adequate monitoring plan must address the required monitoring elements discussed below.

Other aspects discussed in this section also should be considered. 

Required Monitoring Elements

EPA recognizes that variation in bacterial densities is one of the main technical challenges that

beach managers face when designing effective monitoring programs and interpreting sampling

results. There is substantial site-specific variability (both spatial and temporal) in bacterial

counts. Accordingly, monitoring plans should be tailored to individual circumstances.

The monitoring plan must adequately address the following elements:

• Public health. Protection of public health is the primary objective in designing a beach

monitoring program. 

• Maximum number of beaches. As noted earlier, the BEACH Act requires states and tribes to

identify their beaches (“list of waters”) that may be subject to the program and identify the

factors used in prioritizing their monitoring and notification efforts. EPA’s strongly

encourages states and tribes to include the maximum number of beaches in their list of waters

and their monitoring program. Because of this, EPA recommends a tiered monitoring

approach. This policy allows flexibility to states and tribes, recognizing that there might not

be uniform monitoring requirements for all beaches. EPA believes this approach is preferable

to setting strict minimum requirements and risking omission of a large number of beaches

from the program.

• Public review. As a prerequisite for receiving an implementation grant, the BEACH Act

requires states, tribes, and local governments to provide the public with an opportunity to

review the monitoring and notification program through a process that provides for public

notice and an opportunity to comment. The monitoring plan is one aspect that must be

reviewed as part of the performance criterion for public review that is explained in section

2.2.9.

• Existing monitoring data. EPA recognizes that there is significant site-specific variability in

bacterial densities. Many states, tribes, and local governments have a well-established

monitoring program with detailed understanding of their water quality conditions. If reliable

monitoring information exists, it should be documented and used during the development of

the monitoring program.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-4 June 2002

• Adaptive sampling approach. Monitoring programs should be flexible enough to allow states

and tribes to increase their sampling frequency, locations, and other factors to accommodate

demands for new information as the need arises. 

• Quality Control. States, tribes, and local governments must develop appropriate quality

control policies and procedures and submit adequate quality management plans and quality

assurance plans to EPA for approval. This section describes data quality requirements for the

BEACHES program.

 

Quality Control

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 31.45 governing grants to states, tribes, and local governments

provide as follows:

If the grantee's project involves environmentally related measurements or data generation,

the grantee shall develop and implement quality assurance practices consisting of policies, 

procedures, specifications, standards, and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality

adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out-of-control

conditions or malfunctions. 

The work performed under the BEACH grants involves environmentally related measurements

and data generation. To comply with 40 CFR 31.45, states, tribes, and local governments must

develop and implement a quality management system that is sufficient to produce data of a quality

adequate to meet the Beaches project objectives.

EPA is committed to ensuring the quality of environmental data used in its decision-making

process and in activities supported by EPA. As a result, EPA has developed an Agency-wide

quality system to ensure that environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support 

the data's intended use. The Office of Water has in turn developed a Quality Management Plan for

OW activities (the OW QMP) that is consistent with the EPA quality system (USEPA, 2001c).

Three specific requirements must be met to comply with Performance Criterion 2: 

1. States, tribes, and local governments must submit quality system documentation that describes

the quality system implemented by the state, tribe, or local government. It may be in the form

of a QMP or equivalent documentation. 

2. States, tribes, and local governments must submit a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) or

equivalent documentation. A QAPP is a commonly used form of documentation for primary

data collection. It is a technical planning document that defines the objectives of a project or

continuing operation, as well as the methods, organization, and quality management activities

necessary to meet the goals of the project or operation. It serves as the blueprint for
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-5

implementing the data collection activity to ensure that the technical and quality goals of the

operation are met. It also provides the necessary link between the required data quality

constraints and the sampling and analysis activities to be conducted.

3. States, tribes, and local governments are responsible for submitting documentation of the

quality system and the QAPP for review and approval by the Quality Assurance Officer or his

designee before environmental measurements (primary or secondary) are taken. 

Each of these components is based on requirements previously established in the OW QMP.

Additional quality control information is available in Appendix H. Applicants should contact the

EPA Regional Quality Assurance Officer for more detailed guidance. 

Specific Monitoring Guidelines and Examples

The following sections provide EPA’s current recommended guidelines and examples that a state,

tribe, or local government should consider in its monitoring plan. (The letters A, B, C, and D

correspond to the parts of table 4-2 that summarize these recommendations.)

A. When to Conduct Basic Sampling

To evaluate compliance with water quality standards, EPA recommends that samples be taken at

least once per week during the swimming season. Sampling should begin 1 month before the start

of the swimming season. These sampling frequencies may be altered depending on the

circumstances.

For Tier 1 beaches, EPA recommends that water quality samples be taken one or more times per

week during the swimming season. Many agencies sample more frequently to minimize the

uncertainty in their sampling; EPA recommends more frequent sampling where circumstances

warrant. For Tier 2 beaches, EPA recommends that water quality samples be taken once per week

during the swimming season. However, less frequent sampling might be possible depending on

proximity to suspected pollution sources, beach use, historical water quality data, and other risk

factors. For Tier 3 beaches, a minimum sampling frequency consistent with other ambient water

quality sampling programs could be conducted for a limited time (one to two years). However,

these areas should be sampled to determine whether they should be reclassified as Tier 1 or Tier 2

beaches or dropped from the program. 

B. When to Conduct Additional Sampling

This section provides examples of some sampling approaches that could be used to address

several typical scenarios.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-6 June 2002

Table 4-2. EPA Recommended Tiered Sampling Design for Beach Managers

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

A. When to Conduct Basic

Sampling

At least 1 month before start of

swimming season until end of

swimming season.

Recommended sampling frequency

is one or more times per week

during the swimming season.

At least 1 month before start of

swimming season until end of

swimming season.

Recommended sampling frequency

is one time per week during the

swimming season. However, less

frequent sampling might be

adequate depending on proximity to

suspected sources, beach use,

historical water quality data, and

other risk factors.

At least 1 month before start of

swimming season until end of

swimming season.

A minimum sampling

frequency, consistent with

other ambient water quality

sampling programs, could be

used for a limited time. Areas

should be sampled to determine

whether they should be

reclassified or dropped from

the program

B. When to

Conduct

Additional

Sampling

After a water

quality standard

is exceeded

When a bacterial concentration exceeds a water quality standard, a state, tribe, or local government must

immediately either issue a public notification or resample. If a sample result is determined to be accurate and

standards are indeed being exceeded, the agency must issue its public notification. Resampling is acceptable

after exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard where there is reason to doubt the accuracy or

certainty of the first sample, based on predefined quality assurance measures. EPA recommends that additional

samples be taken as soon as possible if the first sample exceeds water quality standards.

After a sewage

spill or pollution

event

EPA recommends that additional sampling be conducted immediately after a sewage spill or a significant

pollution event where the potential exists that indicator levels may be expected to exceed standards. EPA

strongly recommends that states and tribes consider beach closures when a sewage spill or major leaks are

suspected. 

Reopening after

advisory or

closure

Additional sampling should be conducted to determine whether a public notification can be discontinued (beach

advisory, posting, or closure). Since an advisory should not be lifted without sample results that show the

applicable water quality standards have been met, an agency may want to complete accelerated sampling to

remove a health advisory sooner rather than waiting until the next routine sampling results are received. 

After a heavy

rainfall event 

EPA recommends that samples be taken after a heavy rainfall, particularly if

a valid preemptive standard is not in place. 

NA

C. Where to Collect Samples Middle of typical bathing area.

Near known and potential pollution

sources.

For short beaches, one sample at a

point corresponding to each

lifeguard chair, or one for every 500

m of beach.

For long beaches (> 8 km [5

miles]), sample at most highly used

areas, and spread out samples along

the entire beach.

Middle of typical bathing area.

Near known and potential pollution

sources.

Middle of typical bathing area.

Near potential pollution

sources. 

D. What Depth to Sample Knee depth. Knee depth. Knee depth.

B1. After a water quality standard is exceeded

When a bacterial concentration exceeds a water quality standard, a state, tribe, or local

government must immediately either issue a public notification or resample, if there is reason to

doubt the accuracy or certainty of the first sample. Public notification procedures (beach

advisories, postings, and closings) are discussed more fully in chapter 5. 
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-7

• If a sample result is determined to be accurate and standards are indeed being exceeded, the

agency must issue its public notification. Notification should remain in effect until resampling

indicates that water quality standards are no longer being exceeded and approved QA/QC

requirements are being met for sample accuracy. When standards are no longer being

exceeded, the basic sampling approach may be resumed, provided no heavy rainfall or other

pollution events have occurred.

• Resampling is acceptable after a state or tribal water quality standard has been exceeded if

there is reason to doubt the accuracy or certainty of the first sample, based on predefined QA

measures. EPA recommends that additional samples be taken as soon as possible if the first

sample exceeds water quality standards. 

• If possible, the resampling should be completed immediately after a water quality

“exceedance” is detected, with results obtained no more than 48 hours after the

routine monitoring results indicate an exceedance. 

• If the second sample indicates that a water quality standard has been exceeded, then

states, tribes, and local governments must provide prompt public notification. 

• Resampling policies should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the program is still

protective of public health by limiting public exposure to poor water quality.

Resampling is more reasonable when (1) sampling results at the beach have shown

that, historically, water quality has consistently met water quality standards and (2) no

known or potential sources of fecal contamination affect beach water quality. 

B2. After a sewage spill or pollution event

For all beaches, EPA recommends that additional sampling be conducted immediately after a

sewage spill or a significant pollution event where the potential exists that indicator levels may be

expected to exceed standards. EPA strongly recommends that states, tribes, and local governments

consider beach closure when a sewage spill or major leaks are suspected. (Beach closures are

discussed more fully in chapter 5.)

Additional sampling should be conducted before a beach is reopened after a closure because of a

known sewage spill. Since a beach should not be reopened without sampling results showing that

health standards are being met, an agency should complete additional sampling of a beach to

ensure the spill has been mitigated before reopening the beach. 

B3. Reopening after an advisory or a closure

Additional sampling should be conducted to determine whether a public notification (beach

advisory, posting, or closure) can be discontinued. Since an advisory should not be lifted without

sample results showing that the applicable water quality standards have been met, an agency

might want to complete accelerated sampling to remove a health advisory sooner rather than
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-8 June 2002

waiting until the next routine sampling results are received. (Additional sampling might not be

necessary if a preemptive advisory or closing already exists. Preemptive advisories are discussed

more fully in section 5.3.2.) 

B4. After a heavy rainfall event

At Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches, EPA recommends that additional samples be taken after a heavy

rainfall, particularly if a state, tribe, or local government does not have a preemptive standard in

place. 

B5. Other circumstances

Additional sampling should be conducted to determine the extent to which a beach is affected by

bacterial densities that are above the applicable water quality standards. When routine monitoring

at a sample location indicates elevated bacterial densities, additional sampling may be conducted

to determine the extent of the water quality problem. A good example of this practice was the

adaptive sampling strategy completed by the local health agency in Huntington Beach, California,

in 1999. By adding sampling stations and increasing the frequency of sampling, the health agency

was able to define the extent of poor water quality and the portion of the beach that could remain

open for swimming. Defining the extent of the poor water quality more effectively protects public

health and might provide valuable information for source identification and mitigation.

C. Where to Collect Samples

During the Data Quality Objective (DQO) Process, agencies should consider spatial and temporal

variation as well as resource constraints in setting forth optimal sampling locations. EPA’s

recommendation for all beaches is that samples be taken in the middle of a typical bathing area.

At Tier 1 beaches, agencies should consider the following:

• If the beach is short, samples should be taken at a point corresponding to each lifeguard chair,

or one for every 500 meters of beach. 

• If the beach is long (more than 5 miles), samples should be taken at the most highly used areas

and spread out along the entire beach. 

In addition, all Tier 1 and 2 beaches should be sampled near known and potential pollution

sources, whereas Tier 3 beaches should be sampled near potential pollution sources. 

D. What Depth to Sample

EPA’s recommendation for all beaches is that samples be taken at knee depth. States and tribes

are encouraged to sample at the same depth for all beaches to ensure consistency and

comparability among samples. For example, if beach classification changes over time, the samples
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-9

would remain comparable because of the consistency in sample depth. At Tier 1 beaches,

additional samples may be taken as necessary at a particular beach (e.g., waist depth, ankle).

Table 4-2 presents examples of monitoring options based on the beach classification (chapter 3).

The table includes suggestions for Tier 1, 2, and 3 beaches on when to conduct basic sampling,

when to conduct additional sampling, where to collect samples, and at what depth to sample.

Current Research

Monitoring program design is an essential part of any sampling program. Ongoing beach-related

research efforts are being conducted by EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state and local

agencies, tribes, and other scientists and organizations. For example, EPA’s Office of Research

and Development (ORD) is undertaking a study at marine, estuarine, and freshwater beaches to

develop a statistically valid monitoring protocol that takes into account elements that contribute to

the uncertainty associated with sampling bathing beach waters, such as tides, wind, solar

radiation, bather density, temporal and spatial factors, rainfall, and the proximity of point and

nonpoint sources of pollution. New data collected during the summer of 2000 are being evaluated

to recommend a monitoring protocol that minimizes uncertainty about the quality of bathing

waters while requiring the fewest number of samples possible. When published, this protocol will

provide additional information to assist in determining when, where, and how many samples

should be taken and how the monitoring data should be analyzed. The data quality objectives of

this study are provided at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/bch_dqo.pdf. The guidance will be

updated periodically to reflect the results of ongoing research. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-10 June 2002

4.2.2 Other Elements of a Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Design Considerations

Information Sources

One information source for monitoring recommendations is a National Research Council (NCR)

report that recommended ways to improve the usefulness of monitoring information. It is

contained in appendix H. The NRC report addresses such topics as monitoring objectives, testing

hypotheses and statistical methods, analytical methods and sampling designs, evaluation of

monitoring program performance, and data analysis.

Another information source is EPA’s Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology

(CALM). During the monitoring design process, states and tribes should consider how the beach

water quality monitoring results will be used in conjunction with other state monitoring efforts.

For example, the information might also be used to help characterize ambient waters for activities

such as 305(b) reports or watershed assessments. Although such considerations are beyond the

scope of this document, these topics are addressed in EPA's draft CALM document (USEPA,

2002).

DQO Process

When monitoring data are being used in making a decision by selecting between two clear

alternatives (e.g., close a swimming beach or not close it), EPA recommends that states and tribes

consider using the systematic planning tool called the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process.

The DQO Process is an iterative process used to develop qualitative and quantitative statements

that

• Clarify study objectives.

• Define the appropriate types of data.

• Specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for

establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions (USEPA, 2000a).

The final outcome of the monitoring design process is a design for collecting data (e.g., the

number of samples to collect; when, where, and how to collect samples; variables to be measured;

and quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities needed to manage sampling design

and measurement errors), together with limits on the probabilities of making decision errors. The

design and oversight activities that will be used during the beach monitoring program to ensure

that the samples are collected and analyzed appropriately to meet the acceptance or performance
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-11

criteria are then written down in one or more planning documents. These materials form the

quality system documentation to be submitted for consideration of a grant award. 

Staffing Monitoring Programs

A monitoring plan should include an adequate staffing plan for the beach monitoring program.

EPA recommends that professional staff from state, tribal, and local agencies maintain primary

responsibility for design and oversight of beach monitoring. Citizen volunteers may also be used

to perform supplemental beach monitoring program functions. For example, volunteers could be

used to provide more intensive monitoring at high-priority beaches or to help with monitoring at

lower-priority beach areas where regular staff might not be available. Appendix I provides

additional information on volunteer monitoring programs. 

Training Monitoring Staff

Once the monitoring plan has been developed, the staff who will implement the program should

receive specific training. Whether drawn from the ranks of professional staff or volunteers, the

personnel responsible for sample collection and environmental measurements at the beach, as well

as those performing the bacterial indicator analyses, should be trained for those activities. The

quality of information produced by a monitoring program depends on the quality of the work

undertaken by field and laboratory staff. Separate training programs should be developed for field

staff, laboratory staff, and others involved in the monitoring program. Training should continue

for as long as the monitoring program is in action. Additional information on training is provided

in appendix I.

Managing Data

One of the most important aspects of a monitoring program is management of the data, from the

collection process through the data analysis. Data management activities include documenting the

nature of the data and subsequent analyses in a manner that permits the data in one set to be

compared with those in other data sets. Data management also includes handling and storing both

hard copies and electronic files containing field and laboratory data. A data management system

that will address the multiple needs of data users should be designed at the beginning of the

monitoring program. It is important to understand and comply with all state or tribal agency

policies and standards regarding data collection and generation.

Providing data to update national ambient water quality databases with the results of local beach

monitoring is an example of the need to transfer data between states and EPA. EPA strongly

encourages beach managers (and volunteer monitors) to add their data to the Agency’s storage

and retrieval (STORET) database. States, tribes, and local governments can add their data to an

existing “state STORET” database, create a “state or local STORET” database, or create a data

system to store data. EPA maintains two data management systems containing water quality
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-12 June 2002

information for the nation’s waters: the Legacy Data Center and STORET. The Legacy Data

Center, or LDC, contains historical water quality data dating back to the early part of the 20th

century and collected up to the end of 1998. STORET contains data collected beginning in 1999,

along with older data that have been properly documented and migrated from the LDC. Both

systems contain raw biological, chemical, and physical data on surface water and ground water

collected by federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; volunteer groups; academics; and

others. Each sampling result in the LDC and in STORET is accompanied by information on

where the sample was taken (latitude, longitude, state, county, Hydrologic Unit Code, and brief

site identification), when the sample was gathered, the medium sampled (e.g., water, sediment,

fish tissue), and the name of the organization that sponsored the monitoring. Staff working with

the database should have expertise and training in the software, as well as in the procedures for

data transport, file transfer, and system maintenance. Additional information on STORET can be

found at http://www.epa.gov/storet/.

The operation of the data management system should include QA oversight and QC procedures.

If changes in hardware or software become necessary during the course of the project, the data

manager should obtain the most appropriate equipment and test it to verify that the equipment

can perform the necessary jobs. Appropriate user instructions and system documentation should

be available to all staff using the database system. The development of spreadsheet, database, and

other software applications involves performing QC reviews of input data to ensure the validity

of computed data.

Program Implementation and Oversight

The monitoring program should be implemented and its effectiveness assessed at regular

intervals. The purpose of assessments (such as surveillance, readiness reviews, technical system

audits, performance evaluations, and audits of data quality) is to determine whether the

established QC procedures are being used and how the program is operating. Checklists or

reviews of program documentation and reports can be used to evaluate different aspects of the

program. The types and number of assessments to be performed can be documented in the

monitoring program oversight plan. In addition, the program should clearly provide for the

authority of the assessor (e.g., a QA officer) to stop work and should identify under what

conditions this may occur.

The QA program should include procedures for identifying and defining a problem, assigning

responsibility for investigating the problem, determining the cause of the problem, assigning

responsibility for implementing corrective action, and assigning responsibility for determining

the effectiveness of the corrective action and verifying that the corrective action has eliminated

the problem. Supervision is important during the program. To provide advice and identify

problems when they occur, personnel providing oversight to technical staff should be well versed

in the procedures they are performing. This proficiency is needed whether in the field performing

the sampling or in the laboratory performing the microbiological analyses.
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-13

Public Comment

Public review of the monitoring plan is part of the overall public review and comment criterion

described in section 2.2.9. States, tribes, or local governments must submit documentation of this

public review to EPA.

4.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation

The third performance criterion is to develop a mechanism to collect relevant monitoring

information and submit timely reports to EPA and in the case of a state, document any delegation

of monitoring responsibilities to local governments. 

Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data to

the public, EPA, and other agencies in a timely manner. States should coordinate closely with

local governments to ensure that monitoring information is submitted in a consistent manner.

States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data annually to EPA.

Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix E. The data

elements include one-time beach description data, one-time beach program data, one-time station

and method identification data, and reoccurring monitoring data. Visit the BEACH Watch web

site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches and refer to the Beach Guidance document for

updates on data submission. 

Delegation. If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant

recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments

responsibility for implementing the monitoring program and document any specific delegated

responsibilities. States must notify EPA annually if there are any changes in delegated

responsibilities.

4.4 Assessment Methods and Procedures

Performance Criterion 4 requires the development of detailed methods and assessment

procedures. States, tribes, and local governments must 

• Adequately address and submit to EPA methods for detecting levels of pathogens and

pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas. They must

provide documentation to support the validity of methods other than those currently

recommended or approved by EPA.

• Identify and submit to EPA assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in

pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation

areas. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-14 June 2002

Adherence to specific procedures for sampling is very important for a successful beach

monitoring program. Collection, preservation, and storage of water samples are critical to the

results of water quality analyses for bacterial indicators at swimming beaches. 

This section and appendix J include a general discussion of basic equipment and techniques that

may be used to obtain water samples. The most appropriate sampling procedures should be

determined for the beach monitoring program based on the sampling design, the availability of

facilities and equipment, and how the samples will be processed. In any case, it is important to

develop a written plan or standard operating procedures (SOPs) that document the materials used

and the steps performed to obtain the samples and submit them to a laboratory for analysis.

Appendix J outlines the EPA-recommended SOPs for sample collection, handling, and

subsequent analysis. See also, Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures

(USEPA, 2001d).

4.4.1 Laboratory Analysis

An important component of the beach monitoring program is selection of a laboratory

experienced in performing microbiological techniques, including methods for detecting E. coli

and enterococci, that can provide results that conform with the established standards for precision

and bias (accuracy). It is recommended that an accredited laboratory be used to obtain data when

beach advisory or closing decisions are to be made.

Policies and procedures for obtaining necessary laboratory and analytical services should be

developed as part of this performance criterion. Analytical laboratories should have the capability

to analyze the quantity of samples requested within the required time period, the

instrumentation/technique expertise to perform the required analyses, and qualified staff to

perform the analyses (USEPA, 1998c). Not only do microbiological techniques call for strict

adherence to specified methods, but staff also should avoid introducing unwanted

microorganisms into media and thereby producing incorrect results. Facilities should be equipped

with proper ventilation and equipment, and surfaces should be kept clean and disinfected 

regularly. Staff should have received extensive training in a variety of techniques for the

detection of heterotrophic bacteria and other microorganisms and should be able to meet the

standards set for preparation of sterile media, inoculation procedures, colony counts, and other

aspects involved in the analysis of bacterial densities in surface water samples.

The laboratory QA officer should issue and approve SOPs covering general laboratory

operations, as well as specific procedures. Copies of all approved laboratory operations SOPs

should be kept on file. Such SOPs usually include a discussion of responsibilities for performing

and overseeing the work; possible interferences that might affect the analyses; safety

considerations; QC activities, equipment, materials, reagents, and standards needed for the

analyses; the steps of the procedure in chronological order; an explanation of how data should be
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-15

analyzed and reported; references; and associated documents and forms. The laboratory should

maintain log books for sample receipt, preparation of standards and media, sample analysis,

instrument runs, and instrument maintenance. The laboratory should have an established quality

management plan that specifies the quality policy, staff responsibilities, record management,

types of assessments performed to evaluate the analyses, and how corrective actions are

addressed.

Further discussions of good laboratory practices, requirements for equipment and supplies,

training programs for staff, QA/QC issues, and health and safety considerations for

microbiological laboratories are provided by Cross-Smiecinski and Stetzenbach (1994), Csuros

and Csuros (1999), and Eaton et al. (1995). A capable laboratory should be accredited.

Accreditation means that the laboratory has been investigated and found to meet the standards

and criteria set by an appropriate accrediting agency, including having qualified personnel,

appropriate instrumentation, SOPs, and demonstrated proficiency in the analysis of samples for

particular bacterial indicators. Laboratory accreditation is available through state agencies or

EPA’s National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP), which oversees

state accrediting authorities. Further information on NELAP is available from the National

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nelac.

NELAC is a voluntary association of state and federal agencies that was formed to establish and

promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental

laboratories.

Agency policies and procedures for purchasing analytical services should be reviewed to

determine their suitability for implementing the beach monitoring program. Of particular

importance are the specification of method requirements that will be used to identify bacterial

indicator levels in the water samples, the number of samples that will be submitted for analysis,

the frequency of submittals, the schedule and turnaround time for results, deliverables and

reporting format, and contractual requirements, including penalty or damage clauses to reduce

laboratory default, late data submittals, and improperly performed analyses. Further guidance on

soliciting and awarding contracts for analytical services is provided in EPA’s Guide to

Laboratory Contracting (USEPA, 1998c). 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-16 June 2002

4.4.2 Analytical Procedures

This section discusses currently recommended analytical procedures for assessing ambient

waters. 

For several years EPA has recommended a number of EPA-developed methods for use in testing

ambient waters. These methods are described below.

In addition, EPA has proposed to amend the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the

Analysis of Pollutants under section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act, by adding several analytical

procedures for enumerating Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enterococci to the list of EPAapproved methods at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 136. If EPA has

“approved” (i.e., promulgated through rulemaking) standardized testing procedures for a given

pollutant, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must specify one

of the approved testing procedures or an approved alternative test procedure. These methods also

can be used in nonregulatory applications.

In August 2001 EPA proposed these new testing procedures in Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in

Ambient Water; Proposed Rule. These procedures were developed by the voluntary consensus

bodies (the American Public Health Association [APHA], American Water Works Association

[AWWA], and Water Environment Foundation [WEF]) that jointly publish Standard Methods

for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, referred to as “Standard Methods: American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),” Association of Official Analytical Chemists

International (AOAC), and commercial vendors with methods submitted to the EPA Office of

Water’s Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) program. 

The proposed rule would revise 40 CFR Part 136 to add analytical methods for E. coli,

enterococci, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia in ambient waters. The rule includes methods

published in the 1995 Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, the 20th edition of

Standard Methods, and the 2000 Edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards (Vols. 11.01

and 11.02). It also includes methods that EPA and commercial vendors, including Hach

Company and IDEXX Laboratories and others, have developed. 

For beach testing, EPA recommends that states, tribes, and local governments use the EPArecommended methods described below. The methods identified in the Part 136 rule also would

be acceptable. In addition to the methods proposed in Part 136, entities that want to use methods

other than the approved ones need to go through the EPA’s ATP program, where they should

submit their method with validation data. Such documentation supporting the validity of methods

other than those currently recommended by EPA must be provided in order to meet performance

criterion 4. 
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-17

Description of Methods

Membrane filtration (MF) and most probable number (MPN) are two types of methods that are

currently used for enumerating E. coli and enterococci in ambient water. MF is a direct-plating

method in which sample dilutions/volumes are filtered through membrane filters that are

subsequently transferred to petri plates containing selective primary isolation agar. A second

substrate medium is used in the two-step MF procedures to differentiate the target organisms. In

MPN tests, the number of tubes or wells producing a positive reaction provides an estimate of the

original, undiluted density (concentration) of target organisms in the sample. This estimate of

target organisms, based on probability formulas, is termed the most probable number. MPN tests

can be conducted in multiple-tube fermentation (MTF), multiple-tube enzyme substrate, or

multiple-well enzyme substrate formats. 

EPA-Recommended Methods

EPA currently recommends four membrane filter methods for assessing ambient waters and for

making decisions concerning the protection of human health at beaches.

Membrane Filter Tests for Enterococci

EPA Method 1600 (mEI media). Method 1600 is a single-step MF procedure that provides a

direct count of enterococci in water based on the development of colonies on the surface of a

filter when placed on selective mEI agar (USEPA, 1997). This medium, a modification of the mE

agar in EPA Method 1106.1, contains a reduced amount of 2-3-5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride,

and an added chromogen, indoxyl--D-glucoside. This change in ingredients allows for results in

24 hours rather than 48 hours, and it eliminates the second filter transfer step from mE to EIA. In

this method, a water sample is filtered, and the filter is placed on mEI agar and incubated at 41 ±

0.5 °C for 24 hours. Following incubation all colonies with a blue halo, regardless of colony

color, are counted as enterococci. Results are reported as enterococci per 100 mL.

EPA Method 1106.1 (mE media): EPA Method 1106.1 is a two-step MF procedure that provides

a direct count of enterococci in water, based on the development of colonies on the surface of a

membrane filter when placed on a selective medium (USEPA, 1985b). A water sample is filtered

through a 0.45-m membrane filter, and the filter is placed on a plate containing selective mE

agar. After the plate is incubated at 41 ± 0.5 °C for 48 hours, the filter is transferred to an Esculin

Iron Agar (EIA) plate and incubated at 41 ± 0.5 °C for 20 to 30 minutes. After incubation, all

pink to red colonies on the mE agar that form a black or reddish-brown precipitate on the

underside of the filter when placed on EIA are counted as enterococci. The organism density is

reported as enterococci per 100 mL.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-18 June 2002

Membrane Filter Tests for E. coli

Modified EPA Method 1103.1 (Modified mTEC Media): Modified EPA Method 1103.1 is a

single-step MF procedure that provides a direct count of E. coli in water, based on the

development of colonies on the surface of a filter when placed on a selective modified mTEC

medium (USEPA, 1985a). This is a modification of the standard mTEC media that eliminates

bromcresol purple and bromphenol red from the medium, adds the chromogen

5-bromo-6-chloro-3-indolyl--D-glucuronide, and eliminates the transfer of the filter to a second

substrate medium. In this method, a water sample is filtered through a 0.45-m membrane filter.

The filter is placed on modified mTEC agar, incubated at 35 ± 0.5 °C for 2 hours to resuscitate

injured or stressed bacteria, and then incubated for 23 ± 1 hours in a 44.5 ± 0.2 °C water bath.

Following incubation, all red or magenta colonies are counted as E. coli.

EPA Method 1103.1 (mTEC Agar): EPA Method 1103.1 is a two-step procedure that provides a

direct count of E. coli in water based on the development of colonies on the surface of a

membrane filter when placed on a selective nutrient and substrate medium (USEPA, 1985a).

EPA originally developed this method to monitor the quality of recreation waters. This method

also was used in health studies to develop the bacteriological ambient water quality criteria for E.

coli. In this method, a water sample is filtered through a 0.45-m membrane filter, the filter is

placed on mTEC agar (a selective primary isolation medium), and the plate is incubated first at

35 ± 0.5 °C for 2 hours to resuscitate injured or stressed bacteria and then at 44.5 ± 0.2 °C for 23

± 1 hours in a water bath. Following incubation the filter is transferred to a filter pad saturated

with urea substrate medium. After 15 minutes all yellow or yellow-brown colonies (occasionally

yellow-green) are counted as positive for E. coli.

An EPA video, “Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:

Enterococci and Escherichia coli,” demonstrates the four methods currently recommended by

EPA, including the mEI and the mE agar methods for enterococci and the modified mTEC and

mTEC agar methods for E. coli. The purpose of the video is to introduce and demonstrate the

improved methods. Accompanying the video is a laboratory manual having the same name that

explains all four methods in a step-by-step format (USEPA, 2000b). The laboratory manual also

contains color photographs of the target colonies on all media to aid in identification. The video

and methods manual are now available to all interested laboratories. Requests for copies of the

manual (EPA 821R-97-004) or videotape (EPA 822V-99-001) should be directed to EPA’s

National Service Center for Environmental Publications (http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ or

phone 513-489-8190). The manual is also available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches

or http://www.epa.gov/microbes.

Other Methods Proposed in Part 136 Rule

In the Part 136 proposed rule (Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of

Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water; Proposed Rule),
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-19

EPA has outlined several additional methods to be used to enumerate E. coli and enterococci.

Additional information on these methods can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/.

Most probable number tests for E. coli:

• LTB EC-MUG (Standard Methods 9221B.1/9221F)

• ONPG-MUG (Standard Methods 9223B, AOAC 991.15, Colilert, Colilert-18, and

Autoanalysis Colilert)

• CPRG-MUG (Standard Methods 9223B, ColisureTM)

Membrane filter tests for E. coli:

• mEndo, LES-Endo, or mFC followed by transfer to NA-MUG media (Standard Methods

9222B/9222G or 9222D/9222G)

• MI agar

• m-ColiBlue24 broth

Most probable number tests for Enterooccci:

• Azide Dextrose/PSE/BHI (Standard Methods 9230B)

• MUG media (ASTM D6503-99, Enterolert)

Beach managers should be aware of the methods that may be used for analyzing the water

samples from beaches to meet particular monitoring program objectives. In addition, they should

be prepared to advise the laboratory of the intended use of the data and the data quality needs of

the project when seeking laboratory services. Otherwise, the laboratory cannot implement

performance-based measurement systems (PBMS) effectively or know when it is appropriate to

rely on the published methods.

4.4.3 Recommended Sample Collection Techniques

Strict adherence to specific procedures for sampling is critically important for a successful beach

monitoring program. This can be accomplished through a detailed plan or SOP for obtaining

samples and submitting them for analysis. Proper collection, preservation, and storage of water

samples are critical to ensuring the accuracy of the results of water quality analyses for bacterial

indicators at swimming beaches. This section and appendix J discuss the basic equipment and

techniques that may be used to obtain water samples. Appropriate sampling procedures should be

determined for the beach monitoring program based on the sampling design, the availability of

facilities and equipment, and how the samples will be processed. For example, sample containers

might be sterilized locally before each beach sampling event by the laboratory performing the

analyses. These containers also may be provided through a contractor, or an agency might

purchase sterile containers from a scientific supply company. In any case, it is important to

develop a written plan or SOP that documents the materials used and the steps performed to
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-20 June 2002

obtain the samples and submit them to a laboratory for analysis. Appendix J outlines the EPArecommended SOPs for sample collection, handling, and subsequent analysis. 

4.4.4 Data Verification and Validation

Certain procedures should be used to verify whether the microbiological analyses have correctly

estimated the densities of indicator bacteria, to ascertain whether particular requirements for a

specified use of the results have been fulfilled, and to determine how the data should be

interpreted for decision making. This section discusses some of the important aspects of these

procedures, which should be included in the monitoring program design to ensure that the data

obtained are usable and defensible. Several iterations through these activities might be necessary

to ensure that the data and their interpretation are correct.

Validation Methods

Single laboratory validation refers to the confirmation that particular DQOs for a specified

intended use have been fulfilled. Thus, once the data have been confirmed to meet standards and

contract requirements, they may be systematically examined to determine their technical usability

with respect to the planned objectives. This activity also can provide a level of overall confidence

in the reporting of the data based on the methods used. For example, if the wrong medium was

used or the incubation temperature limit was exceeded, the data would be assigned a qualifier

indicating their uncertainty and would be rejected from further analyses. A report that provides

an assessment of the usability of the data, a summary of environmental sample results, and a

summary of QC and QA results should be prepared. The report should discuss any discrepancies

between the DQOs and the data collected and any effects such discrepancies might have on the

ability to meet the DQOs.

Finally, an assessment of data quality should be performed to evaluate whether the data are of the

right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. This assessment may include

reviewing the DQOs and sampling design, conducting a preliminary data review, selecting the

statistical test, verifying the assumptions of the statistical test, and drawing conclusions from the

data. 

Verification Methods

Procedures to verify whether the bacterial indicators were correctly determined should be

provided for any method used. Verification involves performing additional tests to identify those

colonies found on the membrane filter that provided information. A false positive rate is

calculated as the percent of colonies that reacted (were identified as the indicator) but were not

actually the indicator. A false negative rate is calculated as the percent of colonies that did not

react as anticipated (and so were not identified as the indicator) but were in fact that indicator.

False positive and false negative rates for the media used in EPA Methods 1600 and 1103.1 are
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-21

provided in those methods. Verification procedures should be used in establishing QC limits on

initial use of the procedure, when using a new technician to perform the procedure to ensure that

method requirements can be met, whenever any changes are made in how the procedure is

performed or in the materials used in the procedure, and always when the results are to be used in

evidence for legal proceedings.

Sample records, chain of custody records, and sample tracking records should be reviewed to

verify that all the samples collected were analyzed so that the data set will be complete. Data

entries and analyses also should be verified. For large quantities of data, spot-checking to detect

potential data entry errors should be performed. Additional checks may include graphically

displaying data to visually inspect for potential errors, using statistical methods to detect invalid

data, and checking for duplicate data entries. Input data may be reviewed for accuracy, bias,

completeness, precision, representativeness, or uncertainty. In addition, data reductions and

transformations should be reviewed (audited) to ensure that they have been correctly performed.

Review of calculations may include rechecking the computations, reviewing the assumptions

used and the selection of input data, and checking the input data against the original sources to be

sure transcription errors have not occurred. The types of calculations that might be performed on

bacterial indicator filter counts to estimate bacterial densities per sample are provided in the EPA

methods. Further examples are shown in Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water

Collection and Analysis of E. coli in Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater (IITF, 1999).

The reviewer should document the results and report them to the beach monitoring program

management staff. To verify conformance of the data collection effort with the plan, data should

pass the specified numerical QC tests (precision and bias limits); the plans should be followed

and calculations should be performed correctly; all samples should be treated consistently; and

the necessary quantity of data and information relative to the stated DQOs should be obtained

(completeness). Any components requiring correction should be corrected if possible, or the data

should be rejected and not used to make the decision. 

4.5 Use of Predictive Tools in Beach Monitoring Programs

The primary objective of any beach monitoring program is to minimize beachgoers’ health risk

associated with infectious diseases caused by exposure to pathogenic microbial organisms.

Notifications of elevated levels of indicator bacteria are usually based on monitoring of beach

waters. Under this system, however, users of recreational waters can be exposed to waterborne

pathogens because of inadequate monitoring or delayed notification of monitoring results during

periods of poor water quality. The laboratory methods commonly used to detect potentially

harmful microorganisms take 24 to 48 hours. During this period, beachgoers might be exposed to

harmful pathogens. 

To reduce exposure to pathogens, government agencies need tools that can provide a quick,

reliable indication of the water quality conditions. Predictive models are one means to provide
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-22 June 2002

these rapid indications. Modeling tools are used to supplement, not replace, monitoring and

provide conservative estimates when there is a lag time between sampling the water quality and

obtaining results.

A wide range of models are available that could be adapted to support beach advisory decisions.

If a beach manager chooses to use a predictive model, the model chosen should be supported by

identified selection criteria. Selection of the appropriate model for helping to determine beach

advisories and closings depends on the site conditions of the waterbody of concern. Some of the

site-specific considerations include the types of sources (point source/nonpoint source),

waterbody types, transport and circulation patterns, severity of impairment, and frequency of

indicator criteria exceedances. Other issues to consider are the model development and

application cost, the accuracy required, the use of the system, the training of staff, userfriendliness, and public outreach and education requirements. In some cases economies of scale

can be identified when related analysis and modeling efforts have been initiated in the waterbody

of concern. The methodology and screening factors for selecting a model can and should be

described in the QA project plan. The selection of the appropriate model may be based on the

following screening factors:

• Combined point and nonpoint sources

• Pathogen source characterization

• Dominant mixing and transport processes

• Pathogen concentration prediction

• Ability to provide time-relevant analysis, decision making, and guideline establishment

• Time-relevant use

• Evaluation of unplanned and localized spills

• Documented application to beach and shellfish closures

• Ease of use

• Input data requirements

• Calibration requirements

• Pollutant routing

• Kinetics of pathogen decay

If models are properly developed and applied, simple models for dilution and mixing zone

evaluations can be used in making beach advisory or closing decisions. More complex models

also can be considered in light of their ability to assess dynamic loading and transport processes.

Detailed models can be used in developing a range of decision rules for categories of loading or

environmental conditions. These decision rules can be used to address day-to-day operations in a

cost-effective and timely manner.

The predictive models currently in use by local agencies vary in their complexity and approach 

but are generally simple, reliable tools. An example of a commonly-used model is the rainfallbased alert curve, which is a statistical relationship between the amount of rainfall at
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-23

representative rainfall gauges in the watershed and the observed bacterial indicator concentration

at a specific beach area. This relationship is based on simple regression methods and the

frequency of exceeding simultaneous and representative observations of bacterial indicator

concentrations and rainfall events. Pathogen data supporting the development of rainfall-based

alert curves are generated from the water column concentrations obtained from ambient or

targeted monitoring programs. Although these models do not explicitly account for point and

nonpoint sources or fate and transport processes, they rely on a direct statistical relationship and

provide simple, easy-to-use tools with reasonable accuracy.

In some cases objectives can best be met by using one model, whereas in others a combination of

models might be needed. Models are often developed for a particular waterbody type, including

rivers and streams, lakes, and offshore ocean waters. When determining the type of model to use,

factors such as data needs, application cost, pollutant type, and required accuracy are important to

consider. 

Appendix K provides examples of currently used models and other predictive tools that could be

used to determine the need for a beach closing. The models are divided into two

categories—watershed pathogen loading models and pathogen concentration prediction models.

The latter category is divided into two additional groups to reflect different waterbody types: (1)

rivers and streams and (2) lakes and estuaries. Currently, there is a lack of readily available

models that address the coastal nearshore environment; therefore, no models that study the surf

zone are included in appendix K. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

4-24 June 2002

4.6 References

APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. 

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

Cross-Smiecinski, A., and L.D. Stetzenbach. 1994. Quality Planning for the Life Science

Researcher: Meeting Quality Assurance Requirements. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Csuros, M., and S. Csuros. 1999. Microbiological Examination of Water and Wastewater. 

Lewis Publishers, Washington, DC.

Eaton, A.D., L.S. Clesceri, and A.E. Greenberg, eds. 1995. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed. American Public Health Association, American

Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC.

IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of

E. coli in Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coli.

LaPorte County Health Department, LaPorte, IN.

USEPA. 1985a. Test Method 1103.1: Escherichia coli in water by the membrane filter

procedure. In Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in water by the membrane filter

procedure. EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development, Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA. 1985b. Test Method 1106.1: Enterococci in water by the membrane filter procedure. In

Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in water by the membrane filter procedure.

EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development, Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA. 1997. Method 1600: Membrane Filter Test Method for Enterococci in Water. EPA

821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1998a. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. EPA

600/R-98-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998b. The EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs. EPA Manual 5360. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1998c. Guide to Laboratory Contracting. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Chapter 4

June 2002 4-25

USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA 600/R96-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000b. Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:

Enterococci and Escherichia coli. EPA 821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001a. EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans, EPA QA/R-2. EPA

240/B-01-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001b. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5. EPA

240/B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001c. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. EPA 800/R-95-001. July, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2001d. Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures, QS/G-6. 

EPA 240/B-01/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental

Information, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Version 1: Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Unpublished; anticipate

publication by fall 2002. 
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-1

Chapter 5: Public Notification and Risk Communication

This chapter describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to the public

notification and risk communication portions of a beach program. 

5.1 Performance Criteria

Performance Criteria 5 through 8 describe the four requirements for an overall public notification

and risk communication plan (communication plan). The general and specific requirements are

summarized below and in table 5-1. 

• Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (5)

• Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (6)

• Measures to Notify the Public (7)

• Notification Report Submission and Delegation (8)

Table 5-1. Summary of Public Notification and Risk Communication Performance Criteria

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General Requirements Specific Requirements Section

Public Notification and Risk

Communication Plan (Performance

Criterion 5). The state, tribe, or local

government must develop an overall public

notification and risk communication plan.

The plan must describe the state’s, tribe’s,

or local government’s public notification

efforts and measures to inform the public

of the potential risks associated with water

contact activities in the coastal recreation

waters that do not meet applicable water

quality standards. 

• Identify measures to notify EPA and local governments

when indicator bacteria levels exceed a water quality

standard.

• Identify measures to notify the public when indicator

bacteria levels exceed a water quality standard.

• Identify notification report submission and delegation

process.

5.2
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-2 June 2002

Table 5-1. (continued)

Performance Criteria

Chapter

General Requirements Specific Requirements Section

Measures to Notify EPA and Local

Governments (Performance Criterion 6).

The state, tribe, or local government must

adequately identify measures for prompt

communication of the occurrence, nature,

location, pollutants involved, and extent of

any exceeding of, or likelihood of

exceeding, applicable water quality

standards for pathogens and pathogen

indicators. The state, tribe, or local

government must identify how this

information will be promptly

communicated to EPA. States only must

identify how this information will be

promptly communicated to a designated

official of the local government for the area

adjoining the coastal recreation waters for

which the failure to meet applicable

standards is identified. 

• Identify measures to notify EPA when a state water

quality standard is exceeded.

• For states, identify measures to notify local governments

when a water quality standard is exceeded.

• States, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA

annually of exceedances of water quality standards and

actions taken to notify the public. 

• States only must notify local governments promptly of

exceedances of water quality standards and actions taken

to notify the public.

5.3

Measures to Notify the Public

(Performance Criterion 7). A state, tribe,

or local government program must

adequately address the posting of signs at

beaches or similar points of access, or

functionally equivalent communication

measures that are sufficient to give notice

to the public that the coastal recreation

waters are not meeting or are not expected

to meet applicable water quality standards

for pathogens and pathogen indicators. 

• States, tribes, and local governments, as delegated must:

 Identify measures to notify the public when a water

quality standard has been exceeded. 

 Immediately issue a public notification or resample

for bacterial exceedance of a water quality standard.

 Promptly notify the public of a water quality

standard exceedance when there is no reason to

doubt the accuracy of the sample. 

 Post a sign or functional equivalent when a water

quality standard is exceeded.

5.3

Notification Report Submission and

Delegation (Performance Criterion 8).

States, tribes, and local governments must

compile their notification plans in timely

reports and in the case of states, to describe

any delegation of notification

responsibilities that has been made, or

intends to make to local governments. 

• State, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA

and in the case of states, local governments must be

notified annually of notification plan changes and any

delegation of responsibilities. 

• States, tribes, and local governments, as delegated, must:

 Report the actions taken to notify the public when

water quality standards are exceeded.

 Promptly report notification data to the public.

 Annually submit required notification data elements

such as advisory date, location, duration, cause to

EPA (see appendix E for a list of the required data

elements).

5.4
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-3

5.2 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan

The public notification and risk communication plan, or communication plan (Performance

Criterion 5), should contain the following elements:

• Measures to notify the public, EPA, and local governments (Performance Criteria 6 and 7)

 Problem assessment and audience identification

 Types of notification

 When to notify

 How to notify

 When to remove notification

 Evaluation of notification program effectiveness

• Notification report submission and delegation (Performance Criterion 8)

• Identify opportunity for the public to review and comment on the notification plan (see

performance criteria 9, section 2.2.9)
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-4 June 2002

5.3 Measures to Notify the Public, EPA, and Local Governments

5.3.1 Problem Assessment and Audience Identification

The communication plan should provide a clear sense of what the state, tribal, or local agency

hopes to accomplish and how it plans to accomplish it. One of the first steps is to identify any

communication problems and determine the appropriate target audience. 

Problem assessment. The state or tribe should identify specific objectives to be accomplished by

a beach notification and risk communication program. The objectives should include identifying

audiences and determining the best way to inform the public of swimming advisories. 

Audience identification. The state or tribe should identify and characterize the potential target

audiences for beach advisories or closings and determine what types of information and

communication styles are appropriate for each audience. A state or tribe should consider the

range of behavioral and sociodemographic groups of people that might be affected by that

program and determine the best communication methods for those audiences. For example, a

sign posted at the beach entrance could be used for local beach users, whereas a message on an

Internet web site or telephone hotline could be used to notify tourists who live farther away.

Also, if the beach population has a diverse makeup or the beach receives international visitors, it

may be important to include advisories in both English and other languages.

5.3.2 Types of Notification

Measures such as beach advisories or closings should be used to inform the public of the

potential risks associated with water contact activities in waters that exceed applicable state or

Example of Notice in Spanish

Aviso! Corriente de agua/agua del drenaje de tormenta puede causar enfermedades evite contacto con

agua de desague que este estancada o corriendo y el area donde desemboca al oceano.

English Translation

Warning! Runoff/storm drain water may cause illness avoid contact with ponded or flowing runoff

and the area where runoff enters the ocean. 

Orange County Environmental Health Division, For Further Information, Call 714-667-3752
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-5

tribal water quality standards. Advisories or closings, as appropriate, must be issued when

indicator bacteria levels exceed the state or tribal water quality standard and there is no reason to

doubt the accuracy of the sample. (More detailed guidance explaining when to resample is

provided in section 4.2.1, and guidance on when to issue an advisory or closing is presented in

section 5.3.3.)

Beach Closings and Advisories

Beach Closings

The term “beach closing” typically means that the beach area is officially closed to the public.

The closing of a beach is a local decision; EPA does not set beach closure requirements or

conditions. States, tribes, and local governments have the flexibility to close the entire beach or

just the recreation water adjacent to the beach. EPA recommends, however, that a closing be

issued if there is an imminent public health hazard such as a sewage line break or other high-risk

contamination source. During a closing, no one should be in the water. Lifeguards may or may

not be present at the beach. The beach could be closed to the public temporarily or for an

extended period (for the remainder of the swimming season). 

Beach Advisories

An advisory (or “posting” as defined in California) does not officially close a beach to the public.

Advisories are recommendations to the public to avoid swimming in water that has exceeded

applicable water quality standards to reduce the potential of contracting a swimming related

illness. There are several types of advisories. 

• A water quality exceedance advisory notifies the public of an exceedance of applicable water

quality standards after a water quality monitoring test. 

• A permanent advisory notifies the public of a constant potential human health risk associated

with use of the water. A permanent advisory can be issued under conditions such as naturally

occurring organisms that are present in the water or human influences that cause a continuous

or reoccurring water quality standard exceedance. 

• A preemptive advisory notifies the public of the likelihood of higher levels of

microorganisms at certain times, such as after significant rainfall, during high temperatures,

with a particular wind direction, and in other situations. For example, a preemptive advisory

sign could be issued and posted following any rainy period because rainfall can cause an

elevation of bacteria levels due to runoff from the land.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-6 June 2002

Practical Applications of Closings Versus Advisories

The state, tribal, or local beach agency could distinguish between voluntary and involuntary risk

when implementing a notification program. A state, tribal, or local beach agency may not

necessarily have the ability to keep people from swimming. Therefore, the delegated authority

might choose to issue advisories and let people use their own discretion. It is important to make

the advisory or closing message as clear and effective as possible for the public to understand.

Content of Advisories and Closings

The most important information to include in a public notification is that swimming is not

advisable because of high levels of a microbial indicator detected in the water. When a sign is

posted to notify the public, the content should simply state that an advisory or closing is being

issued because of high levels of bacterial indicators. When issuing public notices or press

releases or notifying the public through a newspaper, however, additional information can be

included because there are fewer space limitations. 

An advisory or closing should include the following information: 

• General heading: Words such as “WARNING,” “ADVISORY,” or “BEACH CLOSED.”

• Reason for the advisory or closing: Exceedance of water quality criteria (if known) and risk

of potential health effects (nausea, diarrhea, headaches, cramps, or other symptoms).

An advisory or closing should briefly explain that the water is routinely tested and that the most

recent samples indicate an exceedance of the applicable water quality standards. Appropriate

language might be as follows: “We routinely monitor for the presence of bacteria in the water.

Our most recent sampling results indicated an exceedance of our action level.” The notice also

could explain whether the exceedance is based on an instantaneous criterion or on a rolling

average criterion. It might be helpful to explain the lag time associated with sample results,

noting that the sample might have been taken 24 hours before the advisory or closing. Finally,

listing the source of the contamination reassures the public that the problem has been

investigated and steps are being taken to address it (USEPA, 2000).

• Time and duration of the advisory or closing: It is important to identify when the sampling

was performed. In addition, it might be helpful to report when the advisory or closing is

expected to be removed and identify whether the advisory or closing will be in effect until

further notice or until the samples obtained meet a certain criterion. 

• Location involved: Beach(es), county, park, or miles affected.

• Agency name and contact number.
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-7

Table 5-2 provides suggestions for the content of advisories and closings. 

5.3.3 When to Notify

As soon as the data reviews and data quality assessment are completed, concentrations for the

specified bacterial indicators should be reported to the beach manager. If a sample indicates that

there is an exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard for pathogens or pathogen

indicators, the state, tribe, or local government agency must either immediately issue a public

notification or, if there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the first sample, the agency may

resample. If there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the first sample, states, tribes, and local

governments must provide prompt public notification. Resampling is acceptable after

exceeedance of a state or tribal water quality standard where there is reason to doubt the accuracy

or certainty of the first sample, based on predefined quality assurance measures. The

interpretation of the bacterial indicator densities with respect to notifying the public of an

advisory or beach closing should be clear and based on the decision rules established during the

planning process. 

If the decision is to resample, the resampling should be done in accordance with the discussion in

section 4.2.1, When to Conduct Additional Sampling. If the decision is to notify the public EPA

recommends the following two approaches: 

• Prompt notification of the owner, manager, or operator and/or the lifeguards. When sample

results indicate an exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard, the appropriate

agency must promptly notify the beach manager/operator and appropriate staff members (e.g.,

lifeguards). This approach ensures that the responsible authorities know that action should be

taken to ensure the safety of the beach employees, and reduce liability. 

• Prompt public notification. The appropriate agency must promptly notify the public of an

exceedance of applicable water quality standards by either a sign or functional equivalent (see

section 5.3.4). For Tier 1 and 2 beaches, notification should occur at the point of beach

access. For rainfall advisories, states and tribes may choose not to notify at the point of

access, but could notify the public using alternative methods. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-8 June 2002

Table 5-2. Recommended Content for Advisories and Closings

Exceedance of Water Quality Criteria, Preemptive Advisory or Closing, Permanent Advisory or Closing

Sign

• Warning,” “Advisory,” “Beach Closed,” or similar language

• Reason for advisory or closing

 - For preemptive advisory or closing: “Heavy rainfall has occurred. Beach is closed/under advisory for the 

 next 24 hours due to predicted elevated bacteria levels”

• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected 

• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen

• Agency’s name and contact number

Press Release or Public Notice

• Attention-getting title

• Reason for advisory or closing

 - For preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels

• What is the health risk and why

• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected 

• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen

• Agency’s name and contact number, for both readers and journalists

Hotline

• “An advisory has been issued for...”

• Reason for advisory or closing

 - Preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels

• What is the health risk and why 

• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected 

• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen

• Agency’s name and contact number

Internet

• A list of beaches, cities, and counties, along with their respective status (open, closed, or under advisory)

• Reason for advisory or closing

 - Preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels

• What is the health risk and why

• Miles or area affected 

• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen

• Agency’s name and contact number

• Description of monitoring and notification program

• Links to beach and environmental agencies and the health department 

• Maps, photographs, graphics

• Opportunities for volunteer involvement in beach program

• Reference list of materials and guides for beach users
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-9

The following additional steps should be taken to issue an advisory when a beach has a high

level of human health risk or when a sign posted on the beach is not the most effective means of

communicating human health risk. For example, if the beach is frequently visited by tourists or

users who do not live in the vicinity of the beach, notification of advisories or closings might

need to be made through additional methods, such as news media, telephone hotlines, or an

Internet web site. (See section 5.3.4)

• Discuss the situation with other agencies. State, tribal, or local agencies, as well as appropriate

organizations involved with the beach monitoring and notification program, should be

contacted.

• Provide results on a telephone hotline. 

• Issue a press release. 

• Provide information on the local beach web site. 

5.3.4 How to Notify

The needs of the target audience(s) determine the most appropriate method of notification when

communicating a water quality exceedance. 

The BEACH Act allows states and tribes to develop signs or functionally equivalent

communication measures when notifying recreational water users. Functionally equivalent

communication measures are those that effectively (1) communicate to the target audience and

(2) communicate the potential health risk in a timely manner (at least as timely as posting signs at

the beach).

A functional equivalent at the point of access could be a visual notice or personal interaction

such as a flag at a beach or interaction with beach or park personnel. Other functionally

equivalent measures not provided at the point of access include mass media (newspapers,

television, radio), Internet web sites, telephone hotlines, and technical reports.

Beach Signs

A sign is one of the most useful ways to notify beach users of potential health risks associated

with using the water. Signs should state the type of advisory or closing and the reason it was

issued—an exceedance of water quality criteria, heavy rainfall and the high levels of bacteria
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-10 June 2002

associated with it, or another reason as

deemed appropriate. 

Signs should be located where they are

most likely to be noticed by beach users.

They should be placed at beach entrances,

on bulletin boards, or in the general

vicinity of the common swimming areas. 

It is important to keep the signs simple.

The signs should be consistent throughout

the state or tribe to avoid confusion. The

signs should also be large enough to be

noticed, legible, and easily understood.

They should not contain small print or

technical language that might be hard to

understand. The signs should be a bright

color, such as red or yellow, to attract

attention. Graphics (such as a no

swimming symbol) are a good way to get

attention and easily convey a risk

associated with swimming. The words

“WARNING,” “ADVISORY,” or

“BEACH CLOSED” should be written in

large letters at the top of the signs so that

they can be read from a distance.

Additional information may be written in

easily read smaller print. The advantage of

signs is that they provide a visual notice at

the point of access. 

Mass Media

Newspapers, television, and radio are an

effective means to communicate an

advisory because they provide more

detailed information to the public than a

sign. For example, a press release can inform the public of the area affected and the anticipated

duration of the advisory or closing. Notifying the public through mass media also targets a larger

audience than a beach sign. Mass media messages are particularly effective because they inform

the public of beach advisories before people arrive at the beach. The Public Notification Plan

should include an effective plan for ensuring sufficient and timely media coverage. The plan

AB411 - California’s Requirements for Signs 

Sign information: For public beaches or ocean water

contact sports areas closed because of a release or

spill of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or

for failure to meet microbiological indicator

organism standards, warning signs shall be visible

from each legal primary beach access point, as

identified in the coastal access inventory prepared

and updated...and any additional access points

identified by the health officer. 

Example: WARNING! CLOSED TO SWIMMING

AND OTHER WATER CONTACT. 

BEACH/SWIMMING AREA IS

CONTAMINATED AND MAY CAUSE ILLNESS. 

For a portion of a public beach or ocean water

contact sports area with a storm drain, warning signs

should be placed at the affected area and at other

locations determined by the local health officer (for

example, along walkways to the beach, park

entrances) where they are likely to be read. 

Language should be similar to the following: 

Example: WARNING! NO SWIMMING OR

OTHER WATER CONTACT. STORM DRAIN

WATER MAY CAUSE ILLNESS. 

Signs should be large enough to be clearly visible

and legible. They should be posted in English and a

second language, as deemed appropriate by the local

health officer, if a large percentage of users of the

public beach or water contact sports area understand

only that language. For example, a variation of the

international sign, with a graphic depiction of a

swimmer in a red circle with a diagonal hash mark,

may be appropriate. 
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-11

should explain how the mass media will be used—through public service announcements, paid

media, free media, newspapers, or a radio or television station.

Press Release

Public notification of a beach advisory or closing can be provided in the form of a press release

issued by the local health officer or beach manager. A press release is more effective if it comes

from the public health authority. The press release should indicate whether an advisory or closing

is being issued, the reason for the advisory or closing, the area affected, and the anticipated

duration of the advisory or closing. The press release should include both the name of the agency

and a contact number. It might be helpful to issue a press release at the beginning of the

swimming season to warn the public not to swim 24 hours after a heavy rain. Any notice or press

release issued for beach advisories and closings should be formatted to get the reader’s attention

and communicate the information effectively. Consider the following suggestions (USEPA,

2000):

• Place the most important information on the top half of the notice in large print because

people often read only the first half of the notice.

• Limit the length of the notice and use bullets and bold text when appropriate.

• In a press release given to a newspaper reporter, provide a list of the required information

components and tell the press that these must be included in the press release.

• When the notice is sent to TV and radio stations, as well as newspapers, write “PRESS

RELEASE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY” at the top of the notice to emphasize its importance.

• Include a name, title, and telephone and fax numbers or e-mail address for the press to

contact for additional information or clarification. 

Internet Web Sites

Internet web sites can be used to report advisories and closings to the public. The message can

and should be updated as the status of the advisory or closing changes.

A web site is a good way to reach many people in a community where the Internet is highly

accessible. States, tribes, and local governments are encouraged to develop web sites and

establish links between their web sites and EPA’s BEACH Watch site at

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches. EPA’s BEACH Program coordinates the BEACH

Watch site to inform the public of trends in water quality at beaches, as well as local information

for beaches nationwide. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-12 June 2002

The contents of a web site can be as simple as a current update of water quality conditions or a

list of advisories and closings. If desired, a web site can show previous advisories and closings,

water quality sampling results, maps of the area, photographs of the beach, names and agency

telephone numbers to enable the public to comment or ask questions, and tips for swimming

safety to reduce the human health risk of water use.

Telephone Hotlines 

A telephone hotline can be established to inform the public about all beaches that are currently

closed, posted with an advisory, or otherwise restricted in a given area. The hotline message

should state whether there is an advisory or closing, what area is involved (beach, city, county, or

number of miles), the reason for the closing or advisory, the time frame involved, and the date of

removal, if known. The name of the responsible agency and a contact telephone number should

be included as well. The hotline should be updated as needed to convey changes in the status of

beach closings and advisories. Hotlines should follow the same general format as written

advisories. The most important information should be stated first, in clear, nontechnical language

because many people will listen to only the beginning of the message. The message needs to be

updated as the status of the advisory or closing changes.

Technical Reports

To assess the health of the beaches monitored, a state, tribe, or local government might want to

compile a monthly or an annual report of the beach advisories and closings after the beach season

has ended. This report could include the number of times criteria were exceeded, the number of

days beaches were under an advisory or closed, the number of beaches affected by an advisory or

closing, a compilation of all the sampling results, or other measures of beach advisories or

closings such as “beach mile-days.” 

5.3.5 When to Remove Notification

It is important to establish a procedure for removing an issued or expired advisory or reopening a

closed beach. The procedure might vary depending on whether the beach was closed or an

advisory was issued. This is an important step in risk communication. The public should know

when the water meets applicable standards and should be able to recognize the established

procedures for reopening the beach or removing an advisory.

EPA recommends that the following procedure be performed at all beaches:

• Resample and compare the bacterial concentrations with the applicable water quality

standards to determine whether the levels exceed the standards. This procedure should be

performed unless the advisory or closing was preemptive due to rain.
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-13

• Remove advisories or reopen a beach after a set number of hours or days after a rainfall. This

should be done only if significant monitoring has previously been conducted to support the

assumption that bacterial densities are below criteria after a set period of time. Best

professional judgment also could be used to supplement the decision to reopen a beach;

however, the monitoring data should be the primary basis of the decision. 

Beach managers can use the following additional procedures to remove advisories and reopen

beaches:

• Notify the owner/manager/operator and lifeguards of the test results.

• Provide an announcement to agency staff or local government staff.

• Remove the advisory or closing sign.

• Provide the sampling results on a hotline, water quality information/result phone line, or local

radio or TV station or in a local newspaper.

• Remove any physical barriers. 

 

5.3.6 Evaluation of Notification Program’s Effectiveness 

The public notification and risk communication program should be evaluated at various times

throughout the risk communication process. This step is an important element that helps to

ensure that a notification program has been designed to meet the needs of the public and the

objectives of the agency. Throughout the risk communication and notification process, it is

important to include activities, benchmarks, and milestones that require formative, process, and

summary evaluation data to be collected and used. An evaluation of program effectiveness

should consider the factors described below.

Whether the notification program meets the needs of the audiences and the objectives of the

agency

Notification program evaluations should be conducted to assess the likelihood of attaining

program objectives and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative communication strategies.

An example of this type of assessment is determining how many people pay attention to

communication methods such as beach signs and physical barriers or assessing how many people

actually contact a telephone hotline or Internet web site to obtain water quality information for a

particular beach. 

To conduct informative evaluations, staff members as well as members of the target audience

should be used. The time required can range from several hours of staff time spent on
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-14 June 2002

brainstorming and reviewing activities to a considerable amount of time spent interviewing the

target audience (USDHHS, 1993). 

Whether the process evaluations occur as the communication strategy is implemented

Process evaluations are useful in both new and established risk communication programs. These

evaluations can be used to determine whether communication strategies are being implemented

as planned, to evaluate the communication strategy steps, and to assess the adequacy of

administrative, personnel, or other resources necessary to keep the communication program on

track. An example is an assessment of whether the appropriate people are always notified when

an advisory is issued, a beach is closed, or a water quality standard is exceeded. Also, a state or

tribe should determine whether the water quality has been resampled as required by the

procedures for issuing advisories and closing beaches. Are signs, press releases, and web sites

presenting appropriate and accurate information? Is the program being conducted on the

intended time schedule, with the intended information dissemination mechanisms, within budget,

and using the intended staff and other resources? 

Process evaluations can be conducted during the course of the communication program and used

to modify the communication strategy during implementation. There is no need to wait until the

end of the program to evaluate its implementation. Evaluation activities can include regular

contacts with communication partners (media personnel, web site owner, target audience) to

evaluate the timing and adequacy of advisory information. Interviews with target audience

members or focus groups are also useful to assess how well the advisory information is reaching

the target audience and how receptive they are to that information.

Whether the needs of the public and the agency’s objectives have been met

Summary evaluations are designed to document the short- or long-term results of risk

communication programs and to evaluate whether objectives were achieved. These evaluations

determine whether the beach advisories and closings have been effective in communicating

health risks to the public. Did people receive enough information to make an informed decision? 

Were people protected from bacterial contamination? Did the public respond positively to the

advisory and closing program? These questions and others should be considered as part of the

evaluation process.

Summary evaluations should occur at the end of the risk communication program. They can

include focus groups, mail surveys, and telephone surveys. A large sample size is often needed

for the program evaluators to measure statistically significant program outcomes and impacts in

large regions (e.g., statewide). A focus group could be composed of all staff involved in the

beach risk communication program. Examples of questions to ask include the following:

• What agency objectives did the advisory help achieve?
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-15

• What objectives were not accomplished?

• What positive reactions have you heard from or observed in target audiences? 

• What is working in the advisory materials?

• What negative reactions have you heard from or observed in target audiences? Which

methods of communication need improvement?

• What changes do we need to make in our advisory communication program?

Before developing of a risk communication plan, surveys can be mailed or conducted over the

telephone to gain feedback from a subset of the target audience. These surveys can be used to

determine the public’s knowledge about the following:

• Human health risks of swimming in contaminated water

• Specific advisory recommendations

• The advisory process

In addition, the surveys could be designed to assess the following:

• The public’s reaction to advisories and closings

• The public’s willingness to adhere to advisory and closing recommendations

• The public’s suggestions for better communication methods

5.4 Notification Report Submission and Delegation

As discussed earlier in chapter 2, Performance Criterion 8 requires grant recipients to compile

and report their notification activities in timely reports and describe any delegation of notification

responsibilities to local governments that might have been made.

Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their notification data to

EPA, and for states only, to local governments agencies in a timely manner. States, tribes, and

local governments also must report to EPA the actions they have taken to notify the public when

water quality standards are exceeded. To meet this criterion, states should coordinate closely with

local governments to acquire information and ensure that it is submitted in a consistent fashion.

States, tribes, and local governments must report their notification data annually to EPA.

Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements, such as advisory date,

location, duration, cause, etc. The complete list of notification data elements is listed in appendix

E. The data elements include one-time beach description data, one-time beach program data, onetime station and method identification data, and reoccurring beach advisories and closings data.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

5-16 June 2002

Visit the BEACH web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches and refer the Beach

Guidance Document for updates on data submission. 

Delegation. State, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA, in an annual report, the

changes in the notification plan and any delegation of responsibilities. EPA encourages states to

coordinate with local governments and to delegate to local governments, as appropriate,

responsibilities for notification programs. Local governments have traditionally played the lead

role in administering beach protection programs. There are many reasons for the local level to

take responsibility for protecting recreation waters. For example, local citizens and officials often

are more familiar with local problems and needs and may be in a better position to address local

issues and formulate solutions. Also, many of the benefits of protecting natural resources—in this

case coastal recreation waters—accrue at the local level.
Chapter 5

June 2002 5-17

5.5 References

USDHHS, 1993. Recommendations to Improve Health Risk Communication: A Report on Case

Studies in Health Risk Communication. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Public Notification Handbook. Draft for comment. EPA 816/R-00-010. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 
Appendix A

June 2002 A-1

Appendix A: Beach Guidance Review Team

The authors gratefully acknowledge the many comments received from the state and local

environmental and health agency members and the environmental group members of the external

Beach Guidance Review Team. These members include:

James Alamillo, Heal The Bay

Fred Banach, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Public Health

Bart Bibler, Florida Department of Health

Kathy Brohan, Maryland Department of the Environment

Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council

Jody Connor, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Fred Earnhardt, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Linda Eichmiller, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators

Richard Eskin, Maryland Department of the Environment

Suzanne Giles, OCEANA, (formerly with American Oceans Campaign)

Mark Gold, Heal the Bay

Darryl Hatheway, Surfrider Foundation

Catherine Hazelwood, The Ocean Conservancy

Mark Horton, Orange County California

Ramesh Kapur, New York Department of Health

Kerry Kehoe, Coastal States Organization

Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Bob Masanado, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Robin McCraw, California State Water Resources Control Board

Ray Montgomery, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Bruce Moulton, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Judy Nelson, Westport, Connecticut, Health District

Jan Newton, Washington State Department of Ecology

Jack Pingree, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Debbie Rouse, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Dave Rosenblatt, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Nancy Ross, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Fun Shimabukuro, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials

Susan Sylvester, WI Department of Natural Resources

Sol Sussman, Texas General Land Office

Mitzy Taggart, Heal the Bay

Blake Traudt, Texas General Land Office

Leslie Williams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Appendix B

June 2002 B-1

Appendix B: EPA Grant Coordinators

Table B-1 provides the names of the EPA headquarters and regional Grant Coordinators and

corresponding contact information. 

Table B-1. Regional Grant Coordinators

Region Name Address Telephone/Fax E-mail

Headquarters

Washington, DC

Charles

Kovatch

USEPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW Mail code: 4305 

Washington, DC 20460

202-566-0399

202-566-0409

kovatch.charles@epa.gov

Region 1

Connecticut,

Maine,

Massachusetts,

New Hampshire,

Rhode Island

Matt

Liebman

USEPA Region 1 

One Congress Street

Suite 1100-CWQ

Boston, MA 02114-2023

617-918-1626

617-918-1505

liebman.matt@epa.gov

Region 2

New Jersey,

New York,

Puerto Rico,

U.S. Virgin

Islands

Helen 

Grebe 

USEPA Region 2

2890 Woodbridge Ave.

(MS220) Edison, NJ

08837-3679

732-321-6797

732-321-6616

grebe.helen@epa.gov

Region 3

Delaware,

Maryland,

Pennsylvania,

Virginia

Nancy

Grundahl 

USEPA Region 3 

1650 Arch Street (3ES10)

Philadelphia, PA

19103-2029

215-814-2729

215-814-2782

grundahl.nancy@epa.gov

Region 4

Alabama,

Florida, Georgia,

Mississippi,

North Carolina,

South Carolina

Joel

Hansel

USEPA Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, 15th

Floor Atlanta, GA

30303-3415

404-562-9274

404-562-9224

hansel.joel@epa.gov

Region 5

Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan,

Minnesota,

Ohio, Wisconsin

Holly

Wirick

USEPA Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd.

(WQ-16J) 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-353-6704

312-886-0168

wirick.holiday@epa.gov

Region 6

Louisiana, Texas

Mike

Schaub

USEPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Ave. (6WQ-EW) 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

214-665-7314

214-665-6689

schaub.mike@epa.gov
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

B-2 June 2002

Table B-1. (continued)

Region Name Address Telephone/Fax E-mail

Region 9

American

Samoa,

California,

Commonwealth

of the Northern

Mariana Islands,

Guam, Hawaii

Terry

Fleming

USEPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street

(WTR-2) 

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-972-3462

415-947-3537

fleming.terrence@epa.gov

Region 10

Alaska, Oregon,

Washington

Rob

Pedersen

USEPA Region 10 

120 Sixth Ave. (OW-134) 

Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-1646

206-553-1065

pedersen.rob@epa.gov
Appendix C

June 2002 C-1

Appendix C: BEACH Act and BEACH Act Fact Sheet
PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000

BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND COASTAL HEALTH ACT OF 2000

114 STAT. 870 PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000

Public Law 106–284

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality of coastal

recreation waters, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS BY STATES.

Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(i) COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.—

‘‘(1) ADOPTION BY STATES.—

‘‘(A) INITIAL CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.—Not later than

42 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, each State having coastal recreation waters shall

adopt and submit to the Administrator water quality criteria and standards for the coastal recreation waters of

the State for those pathogens and pathogen indicators for

which the Administrator has published criteria under section 304(a).

‘‘(B) NEW OR REVISED CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.—Not

later than 36 months after the date of publication by the

Administrator of new or revised water quality criteria

under section 304(a)(9), each State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit to the Administrator

new or revised water quality standards for the coastal

recreation waters of the State for all pathogens and

pathogen indicators to which the new or revised water

quality criteria are applicable.

‘‘(2) FAILURE OF STATES TO ADOPT.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If a State fails to adopt water

quality criteria and standards in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) that are as protective of human health as

the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators for

coastal recreation waters published by the Administrator,

the Administrator shall promptly propose regulations for

the State setting forth revised or new water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators described in

paragraph (1)(A) for coastal recreation waters of the State.

Deadlines.

Beaches

Environmental

Assessment and

Coastal Health

Act of 2000.

Intergovernmental

relations.

Public health and

safety.

33 USC 1251

note.

Oct. 10, 2000

[H.R. 999]

PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 871

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—If the Administrator proposes regulations for a State described in subparagraph (A) under subsection (c)(4)(B), the Administrator shall publish any

revised or new standard under this subsection not later

than 42 months after the date of the enactment of this

subsection.

‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—Except as expressly provided by this

subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c)

apply to this subsection, including the requirement in subsection (c)(2)(A) that the criteria protect public health and

welfare.’’.

SEC. 3. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.

(a) STUDIES CONCERNING PATHOGEN INDICATORS IN COASTAL

RECREATION WATERS.—Section 104 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(v) STUDIES CONCERNING PATHOGEN INDICATORS IN COASTAL

RECREATION WATERS.—Not later than 18 months after the date

of the enactment of this subsection, after consultation and in

cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local officials (including local health officials), the Administrator shall initiate, and, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment

of this subsection, shall complete, in cooperation with the heads

of other Federal agencies, studies to provide additional information

for use in developing—

‘‘(1) an assessment of potential human health risks

resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal recreation

waters, including nongastrointestinal effects;

‘‘(2) appropriate and effective indicators for improving

detection in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters of

the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human health;

‘‘(3) appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-effective

methods (including predictive models) for detecting in a timely

manner in coastal recreation waters the presence of pathogens

that are harmful to human health; and

‘‘(4) guidance for State application of the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators to be published under section

304(a)(9) to account for the diversity of geographic and aquatic

conditions.’’.

(b) REVISED CRITERIA.—Section 304(a) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(9) REVISED CRITERIA FOR COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the

date of the enactment of this paragraph, after consultation

and in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal,

and local officials (including local health officials), the

Administrator shall publish new or revised water quality

criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including

a revised list of testing methods, as appropriate), based

on the results of the studies conducted under section 104(v),

for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters.

‘‘(B) REVIEWS.—Not later than the date that is 5 years

after the date of publication of water quality criteria under

this paragraph, and at least once every 5 years thereafter,

Publication.

Deadlines.

Deadlines.

Publication.

114 STAT. 872 PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000

the Administrator shall review and, as necessary, revise

the water quality criteria.’’.

SEC. 4. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND

NOTIFICATION.

Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

1341 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND

NOTIFICATION.

‘‘(a) MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date

of the enactment of this section, after consultation and in

cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local

officials (including local health officials), and after providing

public notice and an opportunity for comment, the Administrator shall publish performance criteria for—

‘‘(A) monitoring and assessment (including specifying

available methods for monitoring) of coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that

are used by the public for attainment of applicable water

quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators;

and

‘‘(B) the prompt notification of the public, local governments, and the Administrator of any exceeding of or likelihood of exceeding applicable water quality standards for

coastal recreation waters described in subparagraph (A).

‘‘(2) LEVEL OF PROTECTION.—The performance criteria

referred to in paragraph (1) shall provide that the activities

described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph shall

be carried out as necessary for the protection of public health

and safety.

‘‘(b) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may make grants

to States and local governments to develop and implement

programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that

are used by the public.

‘‘(2) LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may award a

grant to a State or a local government to implement a

monitoring and notification program if—

‘‘(i) the program is consistent with the performance

criteria published by the Administrator under subsection (a);

‘‘(ii) the State or local government prioritizes the

use of grant funds for particular coastal recreation

waters based on the use of the water and the risk

to human health presented by pathogens or pathogen

indicators;

‘‘(iii) the State or local government makes available

to the Administrator the factors used to prioritize the

use of funds under clause (ii);

‘‘(iv) the State or local government provides a list

of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters that are

subject to the program for monitoring and notification

for which the grant is provided that specifies any

coastal recreation waters for which fiscal constraints

Deadline.

Publication.

33 USC 1346.

PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 873

will prevent consistency with the performance criteria

under subsection (a); and

‘‘(v) the public is provided an opportunity to review

the program through a process that provides for public

notice and an opportunity for comment.

‘‘(B) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—The Administrator may make a grant to a local government under

this subsection for implementation of a monitoring and

notification program only if, after the 1-year period beginning on the date of publication of performance criteria

under subsection (a)(1), the Administrator determines that

the State is not implementing a program that meets the

requirements of this subsection, regardless of whether the

State has received a grant under this subsection.

‘‘(3) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) REPORT.—A State recipient of a grant under this

subsection shall submit to the Administrator, in such format and at such intervals as the Administrator determines

to be appropriate, a report that describes—

‘‘(i) data collected as part of the program for monitoring and notification as described in subsection (c);

and

‘‘(ii) actions taken to notify the public when water

quality standards are exceeded.

‘‘(B) DELEGATION.—A State recipient of a grant under

this subsection shall identify each local government to

which the State has delegated or intends to delegate

responsibility for implementing a monitoring and notification program consistent with the performance criteria published under subsection (a) (including any coastal recreation waters for which the authority to implement a monitoring and notification program would be subject to the

delegation).

‘‘(4) FEDERAL SHARE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, through grants

awarded under this section, may pay up to 100 percent

of the costs of developing and implementing a program

for monitoring and notification under this subsection.

‘‘(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of

the costs of developing and implementing a monitoring

and notification program may be—

‘‘(i) in an amount not to exceed 50 percent, as

determined by the Administrator in consultation with

State, tribal, and local government representatives;

and

‘‘(ii) provided in cash or in kind.

‘‘(c) CONTENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.—

As a condition of receipt of a grant under subsection (b), a State

or local government program for monitoring and notification under

this section shall identify—

‘‘(1) lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including

coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points

of access that are used by the public;

‘‘(2) in the case of a State program for monitoring and

notification, the process by which the State may delegate to

local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring and notification program;

114 STAT. 874 PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000

‘‘(3) the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters based on—

‘‘(A) the periods of recreational use of the waters;

‘‘(B) the nature and extent of use during certain

periods;

‘‘(C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources

and nonpoint sources of pollution; and

‘‘(D) any effect of storm events on the waters;

‘‘(4)(A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human

health; and

‘‘(B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term

increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including

increases in relation to storm events);

‘‘(5) measures for prompt communication of the occurrence,

nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any

exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality

standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators to—

‘‘(A) the Administrator, in such form as the Administrator determines to be appropriate; and

‘‘(B) a designated official of a local government having

jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation

waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards

is identified;

‘‘(6) measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar

points of access, or functionally equivalent communication

measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that

the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not

expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and

‘‘(7) measures that inform the public of the potential risks

associated with water contact activities in the coastal recreation

waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.

‘‘(d) FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS.—Not later than 3 years after

the date of the enactment of this section, each Federal agency

that has jurisdiction over coastal recreation waters adjacent to

beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public

shall develop and implement, through a process that provides for

public notice and an opportunity for comment, a monitoring and

notification program for the coastal recreation waters that—

‘‘(1) protects the public health and safety;

‘‘(2) is consistent with the performance criteria published

under subsection (a);

‘‘(3) includes a completed report on the information specified in subsection (b)(3)(A), to be submitted to the Administrator; and

‘‘(4) addresses the matters specified in subsection (c) .

‘‘(e) DATABASE.—The Administrator shall establish, maintain,

and make available to the public by electronic and other means

a national coastal recreation water pollution occurrence database

that provides—

‘‘(1) the data reported to the Administrator under subsections (b)(3)(A)(i) and (d)(3); and

‘‘(2) other information concerning pathogens and pathogen

indicators in coastal recreation waters that—

Public

information.

Reports.

Deadline.

PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 875

‘‘(A) is made available to the Administrator by a State

or local government, from a coastal water quality monitoring program of the State or local government; and

‘‘(B) the Administrator determines should be included.

‘‘(f ) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MONITORING FLOATABLE MATERIAL.—The Administrator shall provide technical assistance to

States and local governments for the development of assessment

and monitoring procedures for floatable material to protect public

health and safety in coastal recreation waters.

‘‘(g) LIST OF WATERS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning not later than 18 months

after the date of publication of performance criteria under

subsection (a), based on information made available to the

Administrator, the Administrator shall identify, and maintain

a list of, discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches

or similar points of access that are used by the public that—

‘‘(A) specifies any waters described in this paragraph

that are subject to a monitoring and notification program

consistent with the performance criteria established under

subsection (a); and

‘‘(B) specifies any waters described in this paragraph

for which there is no monitoring and notification program

(including waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent

the State or the Administrator from performing monitoring

and notification consistent with the performance criteria

established under subsection (a)).

‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY.—The Administrator shall make the list

described in paragraph (1) available to the public through—

‘‘(A) publication in the Federal Register; and

‘‘(B) electronic media.

‘‘(3) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall update the list

described in paragraph (1) periodically as new information

becomes available.

‘‘(h) EPA IMPLEMENTATION.—In the case of a State that has

no program for monitoring and notification that is consistent with

the performance criteria published under subsection (a) after the

last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which

the Administrator lists waters in the State under subsection

(g)(1)(B), the Administrator shall conduct a monitoring and notification program for the listed waters based on a priority ranking

established by the Administrator using funds appropriated for

grants under subsection (i)—

‘‘(1) to conduct monitoring and notification; and

‘‘(2) for related salaries, expenses, and travel.

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b), including

implementation of monitoring and notification programs by the

Administrator under subsection (h), $30,000,000 for each of fiscal

years 2001 through 2005.’’.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(21) COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘coastal recreation waters’

means—

‘‘(i) the Great Lakes; and

Federal Register,

publication.

Public

information.

Deadline.

114 STAT. 876 PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000

‘‘(ii) marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) by a

State for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar

water contact activities.

‘‘(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘coastal recreation waters’

does not include—

‘‘(i) inland waters; or

‘‘(ii) waters upstream of the mouth of a river or

stream having an unimpaired natural connection with

the open sea.

‘‘(22) FLOATABLE MATERIAL.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘floatable material’ means

any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended

in the water column.

‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘floatable material’

includes—

‘‘(i) plastic;

‘‘(ii) aluminum cans;

‘‘(iii) wood products;

‘‘(iv) bottles; and

‘‘(v) paper products.

‘‘(23) PATHOGEN INDICATOR.—The term ‘pathogen indicator’

means a substance that indicates the potential for human infectious disease.’’.

SEC. 6. INDIAN TRIBES.

Section 518(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1377(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 404’’ and inserting

‘‘404, and 406’’.

SEC. 7. REPORT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act, and every 4 years thereafter, the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit

to Congress a report that includes—

(1) recommendations concerning the need for additional

water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators

and other actions that should be taken to improve the quality

of coastal recreation waters;

(2) an evaluation of Federal, State, and local efforts to

implement this Act, including the amendments made by this

Act; and

(3) recommendations on improvements to methodologies

and techniques for monitoring of coastal recreation waters.

(b) COORDINATION.—The Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency may coordinate the report under this section

with other reporting requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

Deadline.

33 USC 1375a.

PUBLIC LAW 106–284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 877

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 999 (S. 522):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–98 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–366 accompanying S. 522 (Comm. on Environment

and Public Works).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 145 (1999): Apr. 22, considered and passed House.

Vol. 146 (2000): Sept. 21, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Sept. 26, House concurred in Senate amendment.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):

Oct. 10, Presidential statement.

Æ

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act,

for which amounts are not otherwise specifically authorized to

be appropriated, such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal

years 2001 through 2005.

Approved October 10, 2000.

Purpose and Title

This legislation amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water

Act, or CWA) to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters and attain other objectives. The

following summary is provided for the convenience of the reader. It does not substitute for the

statute. Grant applicants should consult the statute and applicable grant regulations prior to filing

such applications.

Section 1. Short Title

“Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000”

Water Quality Standards and Criteria

Section 2. Adoption of Coastal Recreation Water Quality Criteria and Standards by States

The provisions of this section amend section 303 of the CWA with respect to the following:

• Initial Criteria and Standards: [By April 10, 2004], states having coastal recreation waters

are required to adopt water quality criteria and standards for pathogens and pathogen

indicators for which the EPA Administrator has published criteria under the act. [This refers

to EPA’s 1986 Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria.]

• New or Revised Criteria and Standards: Requires states to adopt new or revised standards

for coastal recreation waters not later than 36 months after the EPA Administrator publishes

new or revised criteria guidance for pathogens and pathogen indicators.

• Failure to Adopt: If a state fails to adopt criteria and standards for pathogens and pathogen

indicators that are “as protective of human health as EPA criteria [by April 10, 2004],” the

EPA Administrator shall promptly propose regulations setting forth revised criteria and

standards.

Section 3. Revisions to Water Quality Criteria

This section adds the following to section 104 of the CWA as “Studies Concerning Pathogen

Indicators In Coastal Recreation Waters”:

• New Studies: [By October 10, 2003], the EPA Administrator shall complete studies for use

in developing: (1) an assessment of potential health risks from exposure to pathogens in

coastal recreation waters; (2) appropriate and effective indicators and appropriate, accurate,

and expeditious methods for detecting or predicting the presence of pathogens in coastal

recreational waters; and (3) guidance for state

application of EPA’s criteria guidance for

pathogens to account for the diversity of

geographic and aquatic conditions.

• Revised Criteria: Requires the EPA Administrator to publish new or revised water quality

criteria guidance for pathogens in such

waters not later than October 10, 2005.

Criteria is to be reviewed at least once every

five years thereafter.

United States Office of Water EPA 823-F-01-06

Environmental Protection (4305) January 2001

Agency

Overview

On October 10, 2000,

the Beaches Environmental Assessment and

Coastal Health Act was

signed into law. This

new law authorizes a

national grant program

to assist state, tribal,

and local governments

in developing and

implementing monitoring and public

notification programs

for their coastal

recreation waters. It

also requires states to

adopt improved water

quality standards for

pathogens and pathogen indicators and

requires EPA to

conduct studies and

develop improved

microbiological water

quality criteria guidance. In addition, the

law requires EPA to

develop performance

criteria for monitoring,

notification, and public

information databases

and requires other

federal agencies to

establish certain

programs.

Beaches Environmental Assessment

and Coastal Health Act of 2000

Public Law 106-284

Overview

A copy of the Beaches Environmental

Assessment and Coastal Health Act

can be found on the BEACH Watch

website at <www.epa/ost/beaches>.
Monitoring and Notification

Section 4. Coastal Recreation Water Quality Monitoring and Notification

The provisions of this section amend Title IV of the CWA to add section 406, “Coastal Recreation Water Quality Monitoring and

Notification.” This section includes the following provisions:

• Monitoring and Notification Performance Criteria: Directs the EPA Administrator, by April 10, 2002, to publish “performance criteria” for a monitoring and notification grants program. The criteria will address the following topics: (1) the

monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches for attainment of water quality standards for

pathogens, including methods for such monitoring and assessment; and (2) prompt notification of local governments, the

public, and the EPA Administrator of exceedances, or the likelihood of exceedances, of standards for such waters so that

public health and safety can be maintained.

• Program Development and Implementation Grants: Authorizes the EPA Administrator to make grants to states, tribes, and

local governments to develop and implement monitoring and notification programs. To qualify for an implementation grant,

a grantee would need to: (1) be consistent with EPA’s performance criteria; (2) prioritize use of grant funds based on use of

the water and risk to human health, and identify factors considered in setting priorities; (3) develop a list of waters not

subject to the monitoring and notification program due to fiscal constraints; and (4) provide an opportunity for public

comment. States may delegate responsibilities and provide funding to local governments to implement a program. Local

agencies may also apply for a grant under certain circumstances.

• Content of State, Tribal, and Local Programs: As a condition of the grant, a state, tribe, or local government shall: (1) list

coastal recreational waters adjacent to beaches used by the public; (2) identify the delegation process; (3) identify monitoring and assessment methods including frequency and location of monitoring; and (4) identify communication procedures

and measures.

• Federal Agency Programs: Requires Federal agencies to develop programs for certain coastal recreation waters within three

years. These programs should be designed to: (1) protect public health and safety; (2) meet EPA’s performance criteria; and

(3) address certain other matters required for state and local programs.

• EPA Database and Technical Assistance: Directs the EPA Administrator to: (1) establish a national coastal recreation water

pollution occurrence database; and (2) provide technical assistance for development of assessment and monitoring procedures for floatable materials in those waters.

• List of Waters: EPA is required to maintain a publicly available “list of waters” that are subject to a monitoring and notification program, as well as those not subject to a program because of fiscal constraints.

• EPA Implementation: In states that do not have a program consistent with EPA’s performance criteria, EPA is required to

conduct such a program for listed priority waters using grant funds that otherwise would have been awarded to those

states. This “backstop” would commence three years after EPA lists waters in such states.

 • Authorization of Appropriations: Authorizes annual appropriations of $30 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

[Actual funding levels depend on specific appropriations enacted annually by Congress.]

Other Provisions

Section 5. Definitions

• Defines “Coastal Recreation Waters”: This term includes: “(i) the Great Lakes and (ii) marine coastal waters (including

coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) by a State for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water

contact activities.” The term does not include “(i) inland waters or (ii) waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream

having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea.”

Section 6. Indian Tribes

• Tribes Are Treated Like States: Adds language which allows EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states for

purposes of section 406 of the act, which include coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification programs and

grants. EPA already had authority to treat tribes in a manner similar to states for purposes of section 303 of the act.

Section 7. Report

• Reporting Schedule: Requires that EPA report to Congress every four years.

Section 8. Authorization of Appropriations

• Appropriation Authority: Authorizes appropriations to carry out the act.
Appendix D

June 2002 D-1

Appendix D: Indicator Organisms 

This appendix provides further background information about indicator organisms and EPA’s

review of epidemiological studies. For a more complete discussion, refer to EPA’s

Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (USEPA, 2000). 

D.1 Organisms That Can Indicate Fecal Contamination

Because many pathogens are not easily detected, indicator organisms are a fundamental

monitoring tool used to measure both changes in environmental (water) quality or conditions and

the potential presence of hard-to-detect target pathogenic organisms. An indicator organism

provides evidence of the presence or absence of a pathogenic organism surviving under similar

physical, chemical, and nutrient conditions. For fecal contamination, indicator organisms should

(Sloat and Ziel, 1992; Thomann and Mueller, 1987): 

• Be easily detected using simple laboratory tests.

• Generally not be present in unpolluted waters.

• Appear in concentrations that can be correlated with the extent of contamination.

• Have a die-off rate that is not faster than the die-off rate of the pathogens of concern.

Indicator bacteria are usually harmless, more plentiful, and easier to detect than pathogens

(Wilhelm and Maluk, 1999). Methods are not currently available to culture or enumerate all the

disease-causing organisms that might be present in natural waters. For example, viruses and

protozoans are generally not used as indicators because of difficulties associated with isolating

them and detecting their presence in environmental samples. The bacteria species chosen as

indicators are indigenous to the intestines of warm-blooded animals and indicate the potential

presence of dangerous pathogens that can cause human illnesses. 

Use and reliability are two factors that states and tribes should consider when selecting a

pathogen indicator. The lack of correlation between certain indicators and pathogen-caused

diseases in humans, as well as the uncertain relationship between indicators and different sources

of pathogens, is a limitation of bacterial indicators. A positive result for the indicator organism

means that the indicator is present in the waterbody, not necessarily that waterborne pathogens

are also present. The presence of an indicator might not indicate whether those pathogens (if

present) are viable or capable of causing disease and whether the source of the contamination is

humans or other animals. 

Indicators vary in their ability to reliably predict potential risks to human health. Some indicators

have been shown to have a greater statistical relationship to disease than others. Also, current
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

D-2 June 2002

indicators are based on fecal contamination and might not accurately assess the potential for

disease from other pathogens that can cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and

throat disease (USEPA, 1999). More research on the use of other bacteria and viruses as

indicators is being conducted at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite variability in the

ability of indicators to reliably predict potential risks to human health, EPA studies indicate that

enterococci and E. coli are the most effective available primary indicators for predicting the

presence of gastrointestinal illness-causing pathogens,

and for marine waters, enterococci is most appropriate. 

One area of current scientific debate is whether indicator bacteria react differently under various

climatic and environmental conditions. Preliminary evidence suggests that E. coli and

enterococci can be detected at tropical locales such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam in waters

where there is no apparent source of contamination from warm-blooded animals (USEPA, 1999).

EPA and others are evaluating whether the current indicator bacteria grow and persist in natural

tropical environments. If E. coli and enterococci are determined to propagate naturally in tropical

conditions, EPA will conduct additional research to identify alternative indicators for tropical

areas. 

D.2 EPA’s Review of Recent Epidemiological Studies

Since the publication of EPA’s 1986 criteria, a number of studies related to bacterial indicators

have been completed. Therefore, EPA reviewed relevant recent studies to determine whether the

studies continue to support EPA’s recommendation to use E. coli and enterococci as bacterial

water quality indicators. EPA’s review focused on the epidemiological studies that related

swimming-associated health effects to marine and freshwater bacterial water quality using

studies performed after 1984. (For a complete discussion of these studies, see EPA’s

Implementation Guidance on Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, USEPA, 2000). 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) concluded:

The epidemiological studies conducted since 1984, which examined the

relationships between water quality and swimming-associated health effects, have

not established any new or unique principles that might significantly affect the

current guidance EPA recommends for maintaining the microbiological safety of

marine and freshwater bathing beaches. Many of the studies have, in fact,

confirmed and validated the findings of the U.S. EPA studies. There would appear

to be no good reason for modifying the Agency’s current guidance for recreational

waters at this time (Dufour, 1999).
Appendix D

June 2002 D-3

The new studies added an additional body of evidence that supports EPA’s 1986 criteria. As a

result of this examination, EPA determined that its 1986 water quality criteria for bacteria

continue to represent the best available science and serve as a defensible foundation for

protecting public health from gastroenteritis in recreational waters. EPA found no reason to

undertake a revision of the criteria at that time (USEPA, 2000). 

The following table includes the relevant findings of the research EPA reviewed that has been

conducted on indicator organisms since 1986. 

Table D-1. Summary of Research Conducted Since 1986

Researcher/Year/

Location

Type of

Water Microorganisms Evaluated Relevant Findings

Fattal et al. 

(1987)

Israel

Marine Fecal coliforms

Enterococci

Escherichia coli

Of the indicators tested, enterococci were the

most predictive indicator for enteric disease

symptoms.

Cheung et al.

(1990)

Hong Kong

Marine Fecal coliforms

E. coli

Klebsiella spp.

Enterococci

Fecal streptococci

Staphylococci

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Candida albicans

Total fungi

Of the indicators tested, E. coli showed the

highest significant correlation with combined

swimming-associated gastroenteritis and skin

symptom rates.

Balarajan et al.

(1991)

United Kingdom

Marine Unknown Risk of illness increased with degree of

exposure.

Von Schirnding et

al.

(1992)

South Africa

(Atlantic Coast)

Marine Enterococci

Fecal coliforms

Coliphages

Staphylococci

F-male-specific

 bacteriophages

Uncertainty about the sources of fecal

contamination may explain the lack of

statistically significant relationship rates of

illness between swimmers and nonswimmers.

Corbett et al.

(1993)

Sydney,

Australia

Marine Fecal coliforms

Fecal steptococci

Gastrointestinal symptoms in swimmers did

not increase with increasing counts of fecal

bacteria.

Counts of fecal coliforms were better

predictors of swimming-associated illness

than streptococci.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

D-4 June 2002

Table D-1. (continued)

Researcher/Year/

Location

Type of

Water Microorganisms Evaluated Relevant Findings

Kay et al.

(1994)

United Kingdom

Marine Total coliforms

Fecal coliforms

Fecal streptococci

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Total staphylococci

Compared to the other indicators tested,

fecal streptococci were the best indicator of

gastrointestinal symptoms.

Kueh et al.

(1995)

Hong Kong

Marine E. coli

Fecal coliforms

Staphylococci

Aeromonas spp.

Clostridium perfringens

Vibrio cholera

Vibrio parahemotylicus

Salmonella spp.

Shigella spp.

No statistical relationship between E. coli

and swimming-associated illness was found

(possibly because only two beaches were

sampled).

Fleisher et al.

(1996)

United Kingdom

Marine Total coliform

Fecal coliform

Fecal streptococci

Total staphylococci

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Nonenteric illness can be transmitted through

recreational contact with marine waters

contaminated with sewage. 

Haile et al.

(1996)

California, USA

Marine Total coliforms

Fecal coliforms

Enterococci

E. coli

The association of symptoms with both 

E. coli and fecal coliforms was very weak

McBride et al.

(1998)

New Zealand

Marine Fecal coliforms

E. coli

Enterococci

Enterococci were most strongly and

consistently associated with illness risk for

the exposed groups.

If swimmers remained in the water for more

than 30 minutes, the risk differences were

significantly greater between swimmers and

nonswimmers.

Seyfried et al.

(1985)

Canada

Fresh Fecal coliforms

Fecal streptococci

Heterotrophic bacteria

Pseudomonas aeroginosa

Total staphylococci

A small correlation was observed between

fecal streptococci and gastrointestinal illness.

Ferley et al.

(1989)

France

Fresh Fecal coliforms

Fecal streptococci

The best relationship is between fecal

streptococci and gastrointestinal illness.
Appendix D

June 2002 D-5

Table D-1. (continued)

Researcher/Year/

Location

Type of

Water Microorganisms Evaluated Relevant Findings

Francy et al. 

(1993)

Ohio, USA

Fresh E. coli

Fecal coliforms

In this study, the relationship between 

E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria was found

to be statistically significant. This

relationship can differ from one data source

to another.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

D-6 June 2002

D.3 References

Balarajan, R., V. Soni Raleigh, P. Yuen, D. Wheeler, D. Machin, and R. Cartwright. 1991.

Health risks associated with bathing in sea water. British Medical Journal 303:1444-1445.

Cheung, W.H.S., K.C.K. Chang, R.P.S. Hung, and J.W.L. Kleevens. 1990. Health effects of

beach water pollution in Hong Kong. Epidemiological Infections 105:139-162.

Corbett, S.J., G.L. Rubin, G.K. Curry, D.G. Kleinbaub, and Sydney Beach Users Study Advisory

Group. 1993. The health effects of swimming at Sydney beaches. American Journal of Public

Health 83(12):1701-1706.

Dufour, A.P. 1999. Memo from A. Dufour to Elizabeth Sutherland, Acting Director, Standards

and Applied Science Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and

Technology.

Fattal, B., E. Peleg-Olevsky, T. Agursky, and H.I. Shuval. 1987. The association between

seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers at

Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere 16:565-570.

Ferley, J.P., D. Zmirou, F. Balducci, B. Baleux, P. Fera, G. Larbaigt, E. Jacq, B. Moissonnier, 

A. Blineau, and J. Boudot. 1989. Epidemiological significance of microbiological pollution

criteria for river recreational waters. International Journal of Epidemiology 18(1):198-205.

Fleisher, J.M., D.Kay, R.L. Salmon, F.Jones, M.D. Wyer, and A.F. Godfree. 1996. Marine waters

contaminated with domestic sewage: Nonenteric illnesses associated with bather exposure in the

United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 86(9):1228-1234.

Francy, D.S., D.N. Myers, and K.D. Metzker. 1993. Escherichia coli and Fecal-Coliform

Bacteria as Indicators of Recreational Water Quality. Water Resources Investigations Report

93-4083.U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus, OH.

Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay

Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.

Kay, D., J.M. Fleisher, R.L. Salmon, F. Jones, M.D. Wyer, A.F. Godfree, Z. Zelenauch-Jacqotte,

and R. Shore. 1994. Predicting likelihood of gastroenteritis from sea bathing: Results from

randomised exposure. The Lancet 344(October 1):905-909.

Kueh, C.S.W., T-Y Tam, T.W. Lee, S.L. Wang, O.L. Lloyd, I.T.S. Yu, T.W. Wang, J.S. 

Tam, and D.C.J. Bassett. 1995. Epidemiological study of swimming-associated 

illnesses relating to bathing-beach water quality. Water Science Technology 31:1-4.
Appendix D

June 2002 D-7

McBride, G.B., C.E. Salmond, D.R. Bandaranayake, S.J. Turner, S.J. G.D. Lewis, and 

D.G. Till. 1998. Health effects of marine bathing in New Zealand. International 

Journal of Environmental Health Research 8:173-189.

Seyfried, P.L., R.S. Tobin, N.E. Brown, and P.F. Ness. 1985. A prospective study of swimmingrelated illness: II. Morbidity and the microbiological quality of water. American Journal of

Public Health 75(9):1071-1075.

Sloat, S., and C. Ziel. 1992. The Use of Indicator Organisms to Assess Public Water Safety.

Hach Company, Loveland, CO.

Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and

Control. Harper and Row, New York.

USEPA. 1999. Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-98-079. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria

1986. Draft. January 2000. EPA 823/D-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Von Schirnding, Y.E.R., R. Kfir, V. Cabelli, L. Franklin, and G. Joubert. 1992. Morbidity among

bathers exposed to polluted seawater. South African Medical Journal 81(6):543-546.

Wilhelm, L.J. and T.L. Maluk. 1999. Fecal-Indicator Bacteria in Surface Waters of the Santee

River Basin and Coastal Drainage, North and South Carolina, 1995-1998.
Appendix E

June 2002 E-1

Appendix E: Draft Data Elements

The following is a draft list of data elements for states, territories, and tribes to use when

developing their databases and electronic data reporting systems. The data elements cover

general program information, beach monitoring data fields, swimming advisory fields, and

location data which may be submitted to EPA to meet the grant requirements.

Table E-1. Beaches Program Tracking Draft Data Element List

Table Description Type of User Entry

Beach Tracking One-time Submissions

Beach

Name Typical beach name (e.g., Jones beach) Free-text entry

Description Beach descriptive information (e.g., relative location,

season length) Free-text entry

Comment Text Additional descriptive information about a beach Free-text entry

Organization

Organization Type Grouping of organizations (e.g., state agency, local agency,

public interest group)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Organization Role Grouping of possible organization roles for a beach (e.g.,

sampling agency, lead beach agency, laboratory)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Name Typical organization name or an organization affiliated with

a beach (e.g., x state Dept. of Environmental Protection) Free-text entry

Description Descriptive information about an organization affiliated

with a beach Free-text entry

Short

Name/Abbreviation

Typical abbreviation of an organization’s name (e.g., state

DEP) Free-text entry

State Lead Contact

First Name The first name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Last Name The last name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Middle Initial The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Suffix The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD) Free-text entry

Title

The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's

official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's

role with respect to the beach)

Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

First Line

First line of a street address, suite name, or Post Office (PO)

box for an organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Second Line

Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an

organization or person Free-text entry
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

E-2 June 2002

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Third Line

Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

City Name Name of the city in an address for an organization or person Free-text entry

State Two-character representation of the state for an organization

or person

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

ZIP Code The ZIP Code for an organization or person Free-text entry

Nonelectronic

Address Type

Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of

nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

mailing address)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry

Beach Lead Contact

First Name The first name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Last Name The last name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Middle Initial The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Suffix The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD) Free-text entry

Title

The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person’s

official title in his/her job or organization, not that person’s

role with respect to the beach)

Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

First Line

First line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Second Line

Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Third Line

Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

City Name Name of the city in an address for an organization or person Free-text entry

State Two-character representation of the state for an organization

or person

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

ZIP Code The ZIP code for an organization or person Free-text entry

Nonelectronic

Address Type

Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of

nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

mailing address)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry
Appendix E

June 2002 E-3

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry

Notification Lead Contact

First Name The first name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Last Name The last name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Middle Initial The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Suffix The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD) Free-text entry

Title

The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person’s

official title in his/her job or organization, not that person’s

role with respect to the beach)

Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

First Line

First line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Second Line

Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for

an organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Third Line

Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

City Name Name of the city in an address for an organization or person Free-text entry

State Two-character representation of the state for an organization

or person

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

ZIP Code Number of the ZIP code for an organization or person Free-text entry

Nonelectronic

Address Type

Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of

nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

mailing address)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry

Electronic Address (to be included for all contacts)

Description Description of the electronic address for an organization or

person Free-text entry

Electronic Address

Type

Grouping of electronic addresses used to indicate what type

of electronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

URL, e-mail)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

E-4 June 2002

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Telephone (to be included for all contacts)

Number Numeric representation of the phone number for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Number Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Number Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is

no longer used Free-text entry

Phone Type

Grouping of phone numbers used to indicate what type of

phone number an organization or person uses (e.g., fax,

voice)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Advisory/Closing/ Posting Procedure

Organization Role Grouping of possible organization roles for a beach-specific

procedure (e.g., issuance authority, notification authority)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Procedure Type

Grouping of procedures used to indicate what type of

procedure is being performed by the beach for advisories,

closings, and postings (e.g., issuance method, determination

method)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Procedure Name Typical name used for the beach-specific advisory, closing,

or posting procedure Free-text entry

Procedure

Description

Description of the beach-specific advisory, closing, or

posting procedure Free-text entry

Beach Tracking Continuous Submissions

Beach Activity

Activity Type Grouping of beach activities that indicates what type of

activity is being performed (e.g., closure, advisory, posting)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Name Name of the specific beach activity being performed Free-text entry

Actual Start Date Start date of the specific beach activity being performed

(e.g., beach closure begin date) Free-text entry

Actual End Date Stop date of the specific beach activity being performed

(e.g., beach closure end date) Free-text entry

Description Description of the specific beach activity being performed Free-text entry

Comment Text Comments about the specific beach activity being

performed Free-text entry

Activity Status Status of the specific activity being performed (e.g., active,

rescinded)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Reason The specific reason why the beach activity is being

performed (e.g., criteria exceeded)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements
Appendix E

June 2002 E-5

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Reason

Description/Source

Additional descriptive information regarding the reason that

a beach activity is being performed, including specific

source information

Free-text entry

Monitoring One-time Submissions

Sampling Station

Station Identifier User-defined identifier for beach sampling location Free-text entry

Station Name Common name for beach sampling location Free-text entry

Station Description Text describing the sampling station and/or beach

monitoring area Free-text entry

Water Level Measure Water depth at sampling site Free-text entry

Water Level Unit

Code Unit code associated with water level measure Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Sampling Location Point

Absolute Location

Point Type Type of location point (e.g., point of record, sampling) Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Geopositioning

Datum Code

The code that represents the reference datum used in

determining latitude and longitude coordinates

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Geopositioning

Method Code

The method used to determine the latitude and longitude

coordinates for a point on earth

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Latitude Direction North or South Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Latitude Measure -

Degrees Degree component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Latitude Measure -

Minutes Minute component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Latitude Measure -

Seconds Second component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Direction East or West Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Longitude Measure -

Degrees Degree component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Measure -

Minutes Minute component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Measure -

Seconds Second component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Associated Estuary Name of estuary associated with the location point Free-text entry
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

E-6 June 2002

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Great Lake

Waterbody Name

Name of Great Lake waterbody associated with the location

point

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Ocean Waterbody

Name Name of ocean waterbody associated with the location point Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Shore Relation Indicates if the station is nearshore or offshore Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Pollution Source Location Point

Geopositioning

Datum Code

The code that represents the reference datum used in

determining latitude and longitude coordinates

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Geopositioning

Method Code

The method used to determine the latitude and longitude

coordinates for a point on earth

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Latitude Direction North or South Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Latitude Measure -

Degrees Degree component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Latitude Measure -

Minutes Minute component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Latitude Measure -

Seconds Second component of latitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Direction East or West Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Longitude Measure -

Degrees Degree component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Measure -

Minutes Minute component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Longitude Measure -

Seconds Second component of longitude measure Free-text entry

Associated Estuary Name of estuary associated with the location point Free-text entry

Waterbody Name Name of Great Lake waterbody associated with the location

point

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Waterbody Name Name of ocean waterbody associated with the location point Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Shore Relation Indicates if the station is nearshore or offshore Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Beach Station Assignment

Beach/Project Name Name of beach associated with sampling station Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements
Appendix E

June 2002 E-7

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Station Identification

Code Station identification code for sampling station Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Beach Program Assignment

Beach/Project Name Name of beach associated with federal program Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Program

Identification Code Program code associated with federal program Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Monitoring Lead Contact

First Name The first name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Last Name The last name of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Middle Initial The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach Free-text entry

Suffix The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD) Free-text entry

Title

The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's

official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's

role with regards to the beach)

Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

First Line

First line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Second Line

Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for

an organization or person Free-text entry

Suite/POBox/Street

Third Line

Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an

organization or person Free-text entry

City Name Name of the city in an address for an organization or person Free-text entry

State Two-character representation of the state for an organization

or person

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

ZIP Code The ZIP Code for an organization or person Free-text entry

Nonelectronic

Address Type

Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of

nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

mailing address)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry

Electronic Address

Description Description of the electronic address for an organization or

person Free-text entry
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

E-8 June 2002

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Electronic Address

Type

Grouping of electronic addresses used to indicate what type

of electronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,

URL, e-mail)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Address Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Address Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is

no longer used Free-text entry

Telephone 

Number Numeric representation of the phone number for an

organization or person Free-text entry

Number Start Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is

entered or will begin being used Free-text entry

Number Stop Date Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is

no longer used Free-text entry

Phone Type

Grouping of phone numbers used to indicate what type of

phone number an organization or person uses (e.g., fax,

voice)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Monitoring Continuous Submissions

Field Activity

Field Activity

Category

Type of sample collected during field activity (e.g.,

composite, routine sample, observation)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Identification Code User-defined identifier for field activity Free-text entry

Start Date/Time Start date and time of sampling activity Free-text entry

Field Activity Beach Assignment

Field Activity

Identification Code Field activity identification code Free-text entry

Beach/Project Name Name of beach associated with field activity Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Sample

Associated Field

Activity Field activity associated with this sample. Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Total Volume Total volume of collected sample Free-text entry

Total Volume Unit

Code Unit code associated with total volume Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Container Color Color of sample collection container Free-text entry

Container Type Type of sample collection container Free-text entry

Container Size Size of sample collection container Free-text entry
Appendix E

June 2002 E-9

Table E-1. (continued)

Table Description Type of User Entry

Container Size Unit

Code Unit code associated with container size Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Result 

Result Sequence

Number Result identification number Free-text entry

Completion Indicator

Code Indicates whether the result is completely described Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Result Value Value of the result for the specified sample and

characteristic Free-text entry

Result Characteristic

Characteristic with which the result is associated. This

includes both biological characteristics (e.g., 

E. coli, fecal coliform bacteria), as well as observation

characteristics (e.g., weather conditions, air temperature,

water temperature)

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Result Unit of

Measure Unit code associated with result value Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Result Status Indicates if the result is preliminary or final Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Analysis Date Date on which the analysis was performed Free-text Entry

Associated Field

Activity Identification code of the associated field activity Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Analytical Procedure

ID Analytical procedure used in determining of the result Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Result Lab Remark Assignment

Associated Result Result with which the remark is associated Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements

Associated Lab

Remark

Lab remark (e.g., "Sample or extract held beyond

acceptable holding time.")

Chosen from List of

Possible Data Elements
Appendix F

June 2002 F-1

Appendix F: Beach Evaluation and Classification List 

This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may

be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in

the main guidance document. 

Table F-1 provides an example of information describing (1) the potential for risk to human

health presented by pathogens, (2) use of the beach, and (3) other factors that can be used to rank

and classify beaches. As indicated in chapter 3, coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or

similar points of access should be classified in an appropriate tier based on the potential risk to

human health presented by pathogens, and the use of the beach. Further ranking of waters that

present an equal level of risk may be accomplished by considering information grouped in the

category of “other factors” in the following table. The Beach Act also requires that the public be

provided an opportunity to review the ranking program through a process that provides for public

notice and an opportunity to comment.

Table F-1. Information to Consider When Ranking and Classifying Your Beaches

Category Information

Potential Risk

to Human

Health

Presented by

Pathogens

(Available

Information)

State water quality reports

Swimmers report health effects from this beach

Advisories issued at this beach last year during the bathing season because of exceedance of

water quality standard or preemptive standard

Beach closed to bathing during the season last year because of health concerns or exceedance

of water quality standard or preemptive standard

Suspected sources of human pathogen contamination of the water at this beach

Potential Risk

to Human

Health

Presented by

Pathogens

(Pollution

Threats)

Industrial point sources

Urban point sources: Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

Urban nonpoint sources: Oil, pesticides, other toxics

Urban nonpoint sources: Sewage, pathogens

Urban nonpoint sources: Plastics and other floatables

Agricultural nonpoint sources: Pesticides and other toxics

Agricultural nonpoint sources: Nutrients/animal wastes
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

F-2 June 2002

Table F-1. (continued)

Category Information

Potential Risk

to Human

Health

Presented by

Pathogens

(Sanitary

Survey)

Annual rainfall for this area

Number of significant rainfall events during the past year (e.g., more than 1 inch in 24 hours)

that were known to contribute to pathogen contamination)

Type of terrain within 5 miles of the beach

Average high temperature during the swimming season

Average temperature during the past 30 days 

Average flow if beach is on a river or an estuary with a flow

Flow during past 30 days if beach is on a river or an estuary with a flow

Nearshore water movement if beach is on an ocean, a lake, or other nonflowing waterbody

with or without a tide

Number of point source dischargers within 1 mile of this area (include outfalls)

Area subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or storm sewer overflows (SSOs)

Area subject to agricultural runoff during storms

Location of nearest POTW 

Number of POTWs within 5 miles of beach

Approximate number of septic systems within 5 miles of beach

Water treatment level in the area

Number of animal feeding operations (AFOs, feedlots) or concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFOs) within 5 miles of beach

Number of aquaculture facilities within 5 miles of beach

Nature of discharges from AFOs, CAFOs, and aquaculture facilities to a waterbody adjacent

to this beach

Availability of sanitary facilities for the bathing public during the bathing season

Number of marinas or pleasure craft with toilets

Wild animals present on or near the beach

Domesticated animals present on or near the beach

Approximate number of birds per hour that frequent a typical 50-meter length of this beach or

nearshore waters

Pollution prevention and abatement efforts in this area
Appendix F

June 2002 F-3

Table F-1. (continued)

Category Information

Potential risk to

Human Health

Presented by

Pathogens

(Monitoring

Data)

Number of exceedances of water quality standard per sampling station at a beach per month

Use of the

Beach

(Exposure

Considerations)

Approximate area of beach open to bathers (length × width at high tide)

Average number of days in the bathing season

Percentage of beach visitors who go in the water

Average density of bathers at peak season (include weekends and holidays)

Average density of bathers during off-peak season

Average density of bathers from the susceptible population (children, elderly) 

Other Factors Importance of the beach to the local economy

If a program is not now in place at this beach, resources are available for developing a beach

monitoring and notification program

If a program is in place or planned, resources are available for maintaining a beach

monitoring and notification program
Appendix G

June 2002 G-1

Using Sanitary Surveys

In the past several years, Delaware has become increasingly

concerned about having to close its beaches to swimming for

extended periods because of bacterial contamination. Lake water

quality and designated uses, such as public swimming, are

threatened primarily by high levels of bacteria.

Trap Pond is one of Delaware's most important freshwater

recreational resources. Located in the Nanticoke watershed, a Trap

Pond is a priority watershed that drains into the Chesapeake Bay.

Trap Pond is the recreational focus for Trap Pond State Park.

Although the watershed has no point source discharges and little

developmental pressure, erosion, pollution transport, and

increased nutrient influx were contributing to the lake's surface

water and ground water pollution. Increasing bacteria

contamination and symptoms of accelerated eutrophication such

as algal blooms were becoming increasingly obvious each season. 

A comparative study found that Saunders Branch, the major

tributary to Trap Pond, had elevated bacteria and phosphorus

levels. 

Sanitary surveys revealed the two probable causesa direct

discharge from an underground septic system and livestock with

direct access to the stream. Property owners were notified of the

leaking septic systems and corrected the problem, and the bacteria

levels decreased immediately in the affected area of Saunders

Branch. Livestock accessibility, the second cause, was addressed

with a 1-year section 319 grant of $84,419. This grant funded a

conservation planner through the Sussex Conservation District

and Soil Conservation Service. The planner provided technical

assistance to implement animal waste management systems and

nutrient management plans on farms throughout the watershed.

Some 98 percent of the producers installed manure storage

facilities, buffer strips, and other best management practices, and

all producers fenced their livestock out of the streams.

 (USEPA, 1999a)

Appendix G: Conducting a Sanitary

Survey

This appendix provides supplemental

discussions, examples, and additional

references that may be helpful to beach

program managers. It does not create

additional requirements beyond those in

the main guidance document. 

Sanitary surveys are frequently associated

with water supply systems. They are used

to identify sources of pollution and

provide information on source controls

and identification, persistent problems,

and management actions and links to

controls. Thus, a sanitary survey can be

an effective tool for protecting human

health at bathing beaches and can provide

information that helps in designing

monitoring programs and selecting

sampling locations, times, and

frequencies.

 

G.1 When to Conduct a Sanitary

Survey

A sanitary survey should be conducted in

suspected high-risk situations to identify

or confirm the presence or absence of

contamination sources and to aid in beach

classification. In addition, sanitary surveys

may be performed periodically during a

swimming season, when a bacterial exceedance is measured, or more frequently depending on

the length of the bathing season (CTDEP, 1992; Figueras et al., 2000; Great Lakes-Upper

Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 1990). A sanitary survey also should be

conducted as part of any proposal to expand or develop a recreational beach area or when a

newly proposed activity would significantly alter the water quality in an existing recreational

beach area. The findings of the survey should receive prime consideration in any decision to

proceed with development. In some states, such as Maryland, a permit for operation of a bathing

beach may not be issued if a detailed sanitary survey reveals sources of pollution that affect or

might affect the bathing beach (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1978). If a
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

G-2 June 2002

significant pollution event occurs during the bathing season, a source identification should be

conducted rather than a comprehensive sanitary survey. 

G.2 Who Conducts a Sanitary Survey 

The EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary Surveys recommends that a Registered Sanitarian or a

Registered Environmental Health Specialist conduct or supervise the sanitary survey. The

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection recommends that the local health

department conduct a sanitary survey of any watershed that drains to a public bathing area

(CTDEP, 1992). The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers

suggests that the official agency regulating the bathing beach or a person or persons acceptable to

that agency should conduct the sanitary survey (Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of

State Sanitary Engineers, 1990). 

G.3 Steps for Performing a Sanitary Survey

The survey should identify new sources of microbiological hazards and evaluate the adequacy of

the existing sampling program and the corrective measures in place to deal with existing hazards. 

The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems: Surface Water

and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water (USEPA, 1999)

established four steps for conducting a comprehensive sanitary survey: 

1. Plan the survey 

2. Conduct the survey and site visit

3. Compile the sanitary survey report

4. Review and respond to the report 

Examples of how to conduct a sanitary survey are also provided in the Guidance Manual for

Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems (USEPA, 1999), the National Shellfish

Sanitation Program Model Ordinance (NSSP, 1997), California’s Draft Guidance for Saltwater

Beaches (CADHS, 2000), California’s Draft Guidance for Freshwater Beaches (CADHS, 2001). 

A brief description of the process is provided in the following paragraphs.

G.3.1 Planning the Survey

Before new survey activities are initiated, the previous sanitary survey report as well as any

existing data or reports on the area should be reviewed. These materials will help design a

thorough and efficient on-site evaluation. Data such as historical data on tides, currents,

prevailing winds, rainfall, discharges of wastewater treatment plant effluent, storm water outfalls,

combined sewer overflows, and urban and agricultural effluents could be collected. It is

important to compile a checklist to ensure that all potential sources of pathogen contamination or
Appendix G

June 2002 G-3

other hazards that need to be identified are assessed during an on-site visit. The purpose of an onsite visit is to identify and evaluate all existing and potential sources of microbiological

contamination that could affect the safe use of the area. The checklist in appendix F can help

target areas to examine as part of the on-site evaluation.

G.3.2 Conducting the Sanitary Survey

For the purposes of this guidance, the significance of rainfall, climate, terrain, flow, and sources

of pollution in the watershed and at the beach should be determined to aid in the beach

evaluation process.

• Rainfall and climate. Pollution can typically be expected to reach a peak after rainfall when

storm water runoff washes fecal material into receiving waters (Jagals, 1997). As part of the

beach evaluation process, therefore, it can be helpful to identify the annual rainfall for the

area, the pattern of rainfall in the 30 days before the survey (has it been below normal,

normal, or above normal?), and the number of significant rainfall events (e.g., more than 1

inch in 24 hours) in the past year. The type of terrain, the permeability of the soils, and the

storage characteristics of the watershed also can affect the rate at which runoff reaches the

beach (Novotny and Olem, 1994). Very hilly or mountainous terrain increases the amount of

runoff and the rate at which it reaches the beach. The average high temperature during the

swimming season and the temperature pattern during the past 30 days can affect pathogen

survival. Microbial growth rates tend to increase as temperatures rise (Auer and Niehaus,

1993).

• Water flow. The average flow and the flow during the last 30 days are important factors to

consider for beaches on rivers or estuaries. For nonflowing waterbodies (lakes, oceans) with

or without a tide, nearshore water movement is important to consider. Water movement

affects the concentration of pathogens; waterbodies with little or no flow or water movement

usually have higher pathogen concentrations.

• Sources of pollution in the watershed. Determining the location and impact of pollution

sources in the watershed can also aid in the beach evaluation process. Pollution sources that

are closer to the beach or that occur more frequently have a greater effect on the beach than

pollution sources that are farther away and occur less frequently. These sources all have the

potential to contribute to the bacterial and pathogen load affecting the recreational beach, and

therefore it is important to identify them during a sanitary survey. Once the sources have been

identified, public health can be protected by enforcing proper discharge levels (Thomann and

Mueller, 1987; USEPA, 1994).

• Water treatment level. The water treatment level and pollution prevention and abatement

efforts in the area also play an important role in beach evaluation. Tertiary treatment removes

more pathogens than primary, secondary, or no treatment; therefore, areas where tertiary
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

G-4 June 2002

treatment occurs are at lower risk than areas where primary, secondary, or no treatment

occurs (Thomann and Mueller, 1983). Pollution prevention and abatement efforts can help to

minimize health risks to bathers. Areas that have excellent pollution prevention and

abatement efforts can be of lower risk than areas where few such efforts occur.

• Sources of pollution at the beach. Human and animal fecal pollution that occurs at the

beach is an important source of pollution. The adequacy of the sanitary facilities for the

bathing public should be evaluated. Marinas, pleasure craft with toilets, wild or domestic

animals and birds, and failing septic drainfields or tanks also can be direct sources of fecal

pollution to recreational waters and the beaches adjacent to them (NRDC, 1999; USDHHS,

1994).

G.3.3 Compiling the Sanitary Survey Report

Final written reports for every sanitary survey should be prepared in a format that is consistent

statewide (USEPA, 1999) or that meets the criteria of the particular program for which the

sanitary survey is being conducted. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (USFDA, 1997)

recommends that the following components be included in sanitary survey reports for shellfish

growing areas: 

• An executive summary that includes a description of the area, a location map, and the history

of the water quality of the area (if known). 

• A pollution source survey, including a summary of the sources, a map or chart documenting

the location of the major sources, and an evaluation of the pollution sources and the

magnitude of the pollutants they produce.

• Information about physical factors that can affect the distribution and concentration of

microorganisms and microbial water quality.

• A description of the hydrographic and meteorological characteristics, including tides, rainfall,

winds, and river dischargers, and a summary discussion concerning the actual or potential

effect of transport of pollution to the area.

• Water quality studies, including a map of the sampling stations; the sampling plan and

justification; the sample data analysis; and presentation and interpretation of the data,

including the effects of meteorological and hydrographic conditions on bacterial loading and

the variability of the data.

• A conclusion section that includes recommendations for improvement. 
Appendix G

June 2002 G-5

The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems (USEPA, 1999)

suggests that the survey report include the date and time of the survey, the names of survey

inspectors, a summary of survey findings with the signatures of survey personnel, a listing of

deficiencies based on a regulatory reference, recommendations for improvement in order of

priority, and a copy of the survey form. For examples of a sanitary survey report, refer to Bartram

and Rees (2000) and NSSP (1997).

With a completed sanitary survey report, a more accurate assessment of public health risk at a

beach can be made. Also, informed decisions on how to improve public health at the beach and

the implementation of new or improved sampling locations and frequencies can be discussed.

Evaluation criteria contained in the sanitary survey checklist in appendix F include the following:

• Annual rainfall for the area

• Amount of rainfall in the past 30 days

• Number of significant rainfall events (e.g., more than 1 inch in 24 hours during the past year)

that might have contributed to pathogen contamination

• Average high water temperature during the swimming season

• Water temperature during the past 30 days

• Average flow of beach if the beach is on a river or an estuary

• Average flow during the past 30 days if the beach is on a river or estuary

• Water movement if the beach is on an ocean, a lake, or other nonflowing waterbody with or

without a tide

• Number of point source dischargers within 1 mile of this area (include offshore outfalls)

• Area subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) 

• Area subject to agricultural runoff during storms

• Nearest publicly owned treatment works (POTW)

• Number of POTWs within 5 miles of the beach

• Approximate number of septic systems within 5 miles of the beach; estimated age of systems

• Water treatment level in the area

• Number of animal feeding operations (AFOs, feedlots) or concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFOs) within 5 miles of the beach

• Number of aquaculture facilities within 5 miles of the beach

• Nature of discharges from AFOs, CAFOs, and aquaculture facilities to the waterbody

adjacent to this beach

• Sanitary facilities during peak season

• Presence of a marina or pleasure craft with toilets

• Wild animals present on or near the beach

• Domesticated animals present on or near the beach

• Approximate number of birds per hour that frequent a typical 50-meter length of this beach or

nearshore waters

• Pollution prevention and abatement efforts in this area
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

G-6 June 2002

G.4 References

Auer, M.T., and S.L. Niehaus. 1993. Modeling fecal coliform bacteria—I. Field and 

laboratory determination of loss kinetics. Water Resources 27(4):693-701.

Bartram, J., and G. Rees. 2000. Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design

and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes. E & FN SPON, London.

CADHS. 2000. Draft Beach Sanitation Guidance for Freshwater Beaches. California

Department of Health Services. <http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/freshwater.htm>

CADHS. 2001. Draft Beach Sanitation Guidance for Saltwater Beaches. California Department

of Health Services. <http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/saltwater.htm>

CTDEP. 1992. Guidelines for Monitoring Bathing Waters and Closure Protocol. 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Hartford, CT. 

Figueras, M.J., J.J. Borego, E.B. Pike, W. Robertson, and N. Ashbolt. 2000. Sanitary inspection

and microbiological water quality. In Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the

Design and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes, ed J.B. a.G. Rees. E &

FN SPON, London.

Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. 1990. Recommended

Standards for Bathing Beaches. Health Education Service, Albany, NY.

Jagals, P. 1996. Stormwater runoff from typical developed and developing South African urban

developments: Definitely not for swimming. Presented at 8th International Symposium on

Health-Related Water Microbiology, October 6-10, 1996, in Mallorca, Spain. Water Science and

Technology 35(11-12):133-140.

Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality— Prevention, Identification, and Management

of Diffuse Pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

NRDC. 1999. Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Natural

Resources Defense Council, New York.

NSSP. 1997. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. National Shellfish

Sanitation Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC. 

Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and

Control. Harper and Row, New York.
Appendix G

June 2002 G-7

USEPA. 1994. Combined sewer overflows control program. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Federal Register. Apr. 19, 1994, 59(75).

USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems:

Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA

815/R-99-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USDHHS, 1994. Recommendations to Improve Health Risk Communication: A Report on Case

Studies in Health Risk Communication. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs,

Washington, DC.

USFDA. 1997. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. National Shellfish

Sanitation Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC. 
Appendix H

June 2002 H-1

Appendix H: Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations

This appendix provides additional information on basic data quality planning elements, as well as

sampling design considerations. It provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional

references that may be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional

requirements beyond those in the main guidance document.

H.1 Data Quality

H.1.1 General Considerations

In its Office of Water Quality Management Plan (USEPA, 2001c), EPA established a quality

policy for Office of Water (OW) Programs. Several key concepts from that document are

summarized below because they guide EPA’s review of its own quality programs and others.

• Goal: The goal of OW is as follows: “Environmental decisions shall be based on data of

known and documented quality, such that the decisions are scientifically, and where

necessary, legally defensible and able to withstand public scrutiny.”

• Basic tenet: A basic tenet of OW’s quality system is that “the level of effort needed to

manage the quality of any activity depends on:

 The importance of the activity,

 The risk of decision error,

 The schedule for completion, and

 The available resources.

• Quality policy: OW’s quality policy is based on the goal and basic tenet described above. The

OW Quality Management Plan provides a succinct statement of priorities and a detailed

guide to components of the quality approach. The quality policy stresses the need for

systematic, up-front planning and the use of a graded approach to quality management.

• Graded Approach: The graded approach to quality management might be the most important

part of OW’s policy. The basic philosophy behind the graded approach is to recognize that

“quality” is not an objective attribute that remains constant. Rather, quality is a subjective

attribute of a process or product that must be established in the context of that process or

product. Therefore, the quality of the data and the effort expended to manage the quality of

the data and the decisions should be based on the end goal of the decision. “Good” quality

data are those that enable the user to make the decision at hand with an acceptable risk of

error within the required time frame.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-2 June 2002

H.1.2 Quality System Documentation

An important part of the grant application process is documenting the monitoring program’s

quality management practices as they pertain to the collection and analysis of water samples. The

documentation should address the following:

• Who are the project manager, the sponsoring organization, the responsible individual within

that organization, the project personnel, the “customers,” and the “suppliers?” How are the

customers and suppliers involved?

• What are the project objectives, and what questions and issues will be addressed?

• What are the project schedule, resources, budget, and milestones? Are there any applicable

requirements such as regulatory or contractual requirements?

• What types of data does the project require? How will those data support the project

objectives?

• How was the quantity of data needed determined? How were the criteria for the quality of

the data determined?

• How, when, and from where were the data obtained, including existing data? What are the

constraints on the data collection process?

• What activities during data collection will provide the information used to assess data quality

(field or laboratory quality control operations, audits, technical assessments)?

• How will the data for the project will be analyzed and evaluated? How will they be assessed

to determine how well they serve their intended use and the performance criteria established?

H.1.3 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Typically, the written documentation takes the form of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP).

A QAPP typically details the technical activities and quality assurance (QA) and quality control

(QC) procedures that should be implemented to ensure the data meet the specified standards. The

QAPP should identify who will be involved in the project and their responsibilities; the nature of

the study or monitoring program; the questions to be addressed or decisions to be made based on

the data collected; where, how, and when samples will be taken and analyzed; the requirements

for data quality; the specific activities and procedures to be performed to obtain the requisite

level of quality, including QC checks and oversight; and how the data will be managed, analyzed,

checked to ensure that it meets the project goals, and reported. The QAPP should be

implemented to ensure that data collected and analytical data generated are complete, accurate,
Appendix H

June 2002 H-3

and suitable for the intended purpose. EPA has provided requirements and guidance for the

preparation of QAPPs in USEPA (1998, 2001b). 

H.1.4 Data Quality Objectives

EPA has published a planning tool to help develop DQOs that are included in the quality system

documentation. This tool, guidance on the DQO Process, recommends a process that usually

consists of the following three activities (USEPA, 2000):

• Define the decision to be made.

• Clarify the information needed for this decision.

• Design the data collection program on the basis of the decision rule and the tolerable limits of

decision error. 

This process should include preparing a clear statement of the problem, identifying the

decision(s) to be made using the data, identifying of the information needed to make the

decision(s) (e.g., previously collected data, new environmental measurements), defining the

spatial and temporal boundaries of the study, developing a decision rule that will describe a

logical basis for choosing an appropriate action based on study results, specifying the limits on

decision errors, and optimizing the design for obtaining data. Several iterations of this process

might be required to specify the DQOs for a project. Because DQOs are continually reviewed

during data collection activities, any needed corrective action can be planned and executed to

minimize problems before they become significant. General guidance and examples of planning

for monitoring programs are also provided in Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary

Program (USEPA, 1991) and Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of

Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997b). 

H.1.5 Standard Operating Procedures

Grant applicants should also document their methods and assessment procedures in the quality

system documentation they submit. For routine implementation of these methods, standard

operating procedures (SOPs), which can be referenced in and provided with the quality system

documentation, provide a tool to assist the person(s) performing the activities. An SOP typically

presents in detail the method for a given technical (not administrative) operation, analysis, or

action in sequential steps, and it includes specific facilities, equipment, materials and methods,

QA and QC procedures, and other factors necessary to perform the operation, analysis, or action.

By following the SOP, the operation should be performed the same way every time, that is, it is

standardized. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, field sampling, laboratory

analysis, software development, and database management. EPA presents examples of the format

and content of SOPs in (USEPA, 2001a). The format and content requirements for an SOP are

flexible because the content and level of detail in SOPs vary according to the nature of the

procedure. SOPs should be revised when new equipment is used, when comments by personnel
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-4 June 2002

indicate that the directions are not clear, or when a problem occurs. The grantee should ensure

that obsolete documents are removed and that the revised SOPs are used in subsequent tasks. 

H.2 Sampling and Monitoring Design Considerations

H.2.1 Improving Usefulness of Monitoring Information

The National Research Council (NRC, 1990a, 1990b) has evaluated marine monitoring programs

and practices and has made a series of recommendations to improve the usefulness of monitoring

information. EPA (USEPA, 1991) suggested the following steps based on the NRC’s findings for

designing successful monitoring programs. These steps can be used to develop a beach

monitoring program. 

Step 1. Develop monitoring objectives

Clear objectives should be developed for each component of the monitoring program. The

objectives should include detecting exceedances and notifying the public when an exceedance is

detected. Microbiological monitoring of recreational waters, in most cases, is undertaken to

establish the degree of allowable microbiological pollution to protect public health and the

environment. For beach management programs, recreational waters should attain criteria as

protective as those EPA established in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria1986

(USEPA, 1986). Although an advisory should be considered when a sample exceeds water

quality standards, it is ultimately a state or local decision to determine when to issue an advisory

or closing.

Step 2. Establish testable hypotheses and select statistical methods

Monitoring program objectives should be translated into statistically testable hypotheses.

Establishing testable hypotheses ensures that the results of the monitoring program will be

unambiguous and that the objectives of the program can be met. This approach results in the

creation of a threshold level for determining when to record an exceedance and notify the public. 

Step 3. Select analytical methods and alternative sampling designs

Detailed specifications for the analysis of each environmental variable of the monitoring program

should be developed, including field and laboratory protocols and quality assurance/quality

control procedures. In addition, alternative spatial and temporal sampling designs should be

devised. The sampling designs should specify the number and location of sampling points,

sample frequency, and level of sample replication. This information should then be used in the

next step to evaluate expected monitoring program performance and to select the most efficient

sampling design among the alternatives. 
Appendix H

June 2002 H-5

Step 4. Evaluate expected monitoring program performance

Evaluating monitoring program performance might be the most important step in the design and

review process (USEPA, 1991). Before the program begins, an evaluation of alternative sampling

designs assists in the selection of the most appropriate design for cost-effective sampling that

meets the program objectives. During the course of the monitoring effort, performance

evaluations provide a systematic procedure for measuring success in terms of the ability to

continue to meet program goals. The periodic evaluation process should also identify the need to

modify the sampling design and methods. Without this evaluation, there is a risk of collecting

and analyzing too few or too many samples. The results of this evaluation should be used to

identify the modifications to the initial design necessary to increase monitoring program

effectiveness.

Step 5. Implement data analysis

The development of a data management system is an essential task in the design of monitoring

programs, and sufficient funds should be provided to cover data analysis. The data management

system should be operational before the monitoring program is implemented. In addition to

specifying data analysis methods, an expeditious timetable for analyzing the data, and the

procedures for reporting and communicating the results, the data management system should be

used to assess implementation progress and monitoring program performance. The results of the

performance assessment can be used to refine the program objectives and to modify individual

study elements to satisfy those objectives.

H.2.2 Sampling Design Considerations

Sampling design considerations that might be helpful when establishing a monitoring program

include the following:

• Identify the decision maker and program personnel.

• Clarify monitoring program goals and objectives.

• Describe the monitoring program.

• Identify the type of data needed and the sampling design.

• Establish quality objectives and criteria.

Identify the Decision Maker and Program Personnel

A beach water quality monitoring program requires the efforts of program managers, technical

staff, and potentially other interested parties or stakeholders. The team involved in planning and

implementing the program might include senior government officials from offices established to

protect health or environmental quality; technical experts familiar with the issues and methods to

be used; data analysts; data users, including risk assessors and the manager or program leader
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-6 June 2002

who will make the advisory or closing decision; and quality assurance specialists. Individuals or

organizations that might be directly affected by the decision also should be involved in planning

the monitoring program to improve communication and build consensus. The members of this

group will be able to offer different perspectives and assist in solving problems. They might be

involved in development of the plan at different stages and participate in meetings or other

activities.

Some personnel manage or perform the work of the monitoring program, while other personnel

who do not actually do the work are needed to provide oversight and ensure the quality of the

work being performed. Quality control (QC) is a system of technical procedures and activities

developed and implemented to produce measurements of requisite quality. Quality assurance

(QA) is an integrated system of management procedures and activities used to verify that the QC

system is operating within acceptable limits. QA oversight is important to maintain the

credibility of a beach monitoring program. QA personnel should be identified at the planning

stage and included during program operation program to assess all aspects of data collection.

Clarify Monitoring Program Goals and Objectives

A clear statement of the purpose of the monitoring program and the program’s objectives

prevents confusion and the waste of resources. As noted in EPA’s monitoring guidance (USEPA,

1997b), monitoring programs can be undertaken for different reasons and to answer different

questions. The types, quantity, and quality of the data can vary considerably to meet different

goals. A conceptual model of the potential environmental hazard should be prepared. This model

can be in the form of a diagram illustrating known or suspected sites of contamination at one or

more beaches, sources of microorganisms, and exposure scenarios (e.g., children playing in sand

or shallow water, swimming, or surfing). The problem to be investigated needs to be defined.

The following are examples of monitoring program goals:

• Determine whether an impairment exists.

• Determine the spatial and temporal extent of the impairment.

• Determine the causes and sources of the impairment.

An example of the first type of program goal is routine monitoring to protect human health by

comparing levels of indicator bacteria to the ambient water quality criteria for bacteria (USEPA,

1986) during the swimming season. This information is used to determine whether an advisory

should be posted or the beach closed. The results from initial monitoring might spur intensive

monitoring involving the collection of water samples at different times (e.g., daily or only after

storm events) and from many locations (e.g., waterbodies downstream from the initial location).

Intensive monitoring might be needed while establishing a monitoring program to pinpoint the

most appropriate locations for the routine sampling effort and the depths, times, and procedures

needed to collect the samples. Such monitoring data might be needed during the program to

evaluate whether the sampling design continues to protect human health. Intensive monitoring
Appendix H

June 2002 H-7

can determine the most appropriate sampling frequency needed to assess standards. It might also

be desirable or necessary to identify the point and nonpoint sources that could be responsible for

waterbody impairment, or to evaluate the influence of rainfall on the bacterial load at a particular

beach. Extensive sampling is needed to develop predictive tools using statistical analysis or

mathematical models.

This guidance focuses on routine monitoring for beach advisory or closing decisions. An

example of a principal study question is

Could levels of bacteria in the water at Bayside Beach affect swimmers’ health?

Examples of alternative actions that might be considered if the answer to this question is “yes”

include the following:

Post an advisory at the beach to warn swimmers of the potential hazard.

Close the beach and do not permit swimming until further notice.

Conduct a sanitary survey to identify point and nonpoint sources of bacteria.

Take no action.

The following is an example of a decision statement for this type of program:

Determine whether bacterial indicator levels require taking action to protect human

health.

Decision rules developed for this program at a freshwater lake might include the following

examples:

If the density of enterococci in any one sample exceeds the EPA instantaneous (singlesample) criterion of 61 per 100 mL, the water is sampled again. 

If the density of enterococci in the second sample exceeds the EPA instantaneous

criterion, the beach is closed. 

If the running geometric mean of enterococcal densities from five sequential samples

taken during the previous 30 days is greater than the EPA averaging period criterion of

33 per 100 mL, the beach is closed. 

If the density of indicator bacteria does not exceed the criteria under the above

conditions, swimmers are not at risk and the beach remains open.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-8 June 2002

Describe the Monitoring Program

The planning team should discuss what information is needed to make the decision. In the above

example, bacterial densities lead to the decision. Also useful are measurements of other

environmental factors, such as temperature, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, or

water flow, which might provide evidence of a problem or show the seriousness of the

exceedance.

The regulatory basis for the decision—in this case, EPA’s ambient water quality criteria for

bacteria—should be documented. In addition, spatial and temporal boundaries for the monitoring

program should be examined. For example, a beach might extend for many miles along the

coastline of a jurisdiction, but swimmers have access to only a few hundred feet of shoreline at

the end of one road. In addition, the presence of a storm water outfall on the beach might be the

focus of sampling. 

One or more members of the planning team should document these elements of the program in

the monitoring plan. The team also should review available resources, relevant deadlines, the

budget, the availability of personnel, and schedule requirements to determine how they will affect

sampling at the beach(es) in question. This information should be evaluated along with the

proposed sampling design and the boundaries of the monitoring program (see below) to assess

how well the program objectives can be met within the various technical and cost limitations.

Identify the Type of Data Needed and the Sampling Design

Various sampling designs have been used for monitoring recreational waters adjacent to bathing

beaches. The sampling design specifies the number, location, and types of samples to be

collected. It provides the conditions under which they should be collected, the analyses to be

performed, and the QA and QC procedures necessary to ensure that the tolerable decision error

rates specified in the DQOs. 

Because enterococci and E. coli are commonly found in the feces of humans and other warmblooded animals, the presence of enterococci or E. coli in water is an indicator of fecal pollution

and the possible presence of enteric bacteria that pose a risk to human health. Epidemiological

studies have led to established recreational water standards based on the documented relationship

between health effects and water quality (chapter 1). According to studies of marine and

freshwater bathing beaches, the amount of enterococci or E. coli in the water is directly related to

the incidence of swimming-associated gastroenteritis (Cabelli, 1983; Dufour, 1984).

Although statistical or probabilistic sampling designs are highly desirable, not every sampling

problem can be solved with these designs. Moreover, local limitations in staff and funding might

lower the number of samples that can be analyzed during the swimming season. Basic sampling

design should address the following seven aspects (Bartram and Rees, 2000):
Appendix H

June 2002 H-9

A study was conducted at two beaches on Lake

Erie to evaluate the water sampling design for

the collection of several microbiological

indicator organisms in relation to day, time,

and location of collection. The concentrations

of these organisms were generally found to

vary significantly by the time and day that

collection took place. However, the

concentrations did not vary significantly at

various locations in the bathing area. Sampling

at different locations in the bathing area might

be considered for beaches that have poor

dispersion of fecal waste sources (Brenniman

et al., 1981).

1. Reasons to sample

2. What to sample

3. How to sample

4. When to sample

5. Where to sample

6. How many samples to take

7. Sampling evaluation

A sampling and analysis plan should include the location of sampling sites, frequency of

sampling, duration of the sampling period, and depth of sampling. For each recreational

waterbody, the plan also should include other pertinent information, such as the types of

containers to be used for sampling, how to package samples for transport, references for

analytical methods, how to report data, and requirements for repeat sampling. The plan should be

developed in conjunction with the local laboratory that will conduct the bacteriological analyses

(CADHS, 1999).

It is difficult to decide the optimum number of

samples to take and the most suitable

locations to characterize the water quality in

the most meaningful way. Sampling marine

and estuarine waters requires considering tidal

cycles, current patterns, bottom currents,

countercurrents, stratification, seasonal

fluctuations, dispersion of discharges,

multidepth sampling, and many other factors.

Sampling lakes and rivers adjacent to beaches

requires considering wind and flow and

whether the beach is upstream or downstream

of pollution sources, as well as time of day

(see box). Determining the most appropriate,

cost-effective use of the resources available

for a monitoring program is also difficult. The

following aspects of sampling are presented for consideration when developing a monitoring

plan. 

Location. Sampling locations are chosen based on historical records, usage, current situations,

concentration of bathers, pollution sources, accessibility, and other factors. Areas known to be

chronically contaminated, as well as areas that typically have the highest bather density, should

be included in the sampling plan. An area close to a storm water outfall might have high counts

of bacteria, but it might not be an area commonly used for swimming. Therefore, the priority

might be to sample in the area with more swimmers to obtain a better estimate of risk to human

health. Ultimately, these decisions are appropriate for the beach manager to make. Table 4-1 in
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-10 June 2002

chapter 4 should be consulted for guidance. In addition, other criteria for sampling might be

defined, such as obtaining the sample at a specified distance from swimmers and animals and not

in the “swash zone” area of low waves near the shore (IITF, 1999), as well as spacing samples at

specified intervals for lengthy stretches of beach.

Frequency. Ideally, when first establishing a recreational water quality monitoring program, the

optimum sampling frequency is daily and samples of estuarine or marine bathing waters should

be obtained at high tide, ebb tide, and low tide to determine the cyclic water quality and

deterioration that should be monitored during the swim season (Bordner et al., 1978; see box

below). Lakes and rivers might also be

sampled at different times, for example,

during calm versus windy days or during

low-flow versus storm-flow conditions. If

a beach monitoring program does not

have the resources to sample this often, a

minimum frequency of sampling should

be established based on historical

records, usage, current situations, the

potential for health hazards and the

number of samples required by the water

quality standards being used. Highly

populated or high-risk areas, require more

frequent sampling, as shown by the tiered

approach (Table 4-1). Sampling might be

needed under special circumstances, such

as at locations where no sanitary facilities

are provided at a beach or when toilets at

the beach are not open or not operational.

Subsequent sampling also might be

needed to determine when to reopen a

recreational area after a beach closing.

Sampling frequency can be related to the

peak bathing period, which is generally in

the afternoon, but preferably samples are

collected in both the morning and

afternoon (Bartram and Rees, 2000), at

least for beaches classified as Tier 1.

Weekends and holidays should be

considered in the sampling program. To

characterize the water quality at the beach

before the weekend crowd arrives, a

Water quality data for the years 1979 to 1981 were

obtained for a marginally polluted beach in New

York. A standard of 2,400 total coliform organisms

per 100 mL of sample was used. On a particular day

during May through September, one sample per hour

was taken for 7 hours. Analysis of the water quality at

this location with respect to intra-day variation

showed significantly higher mean densities during the

first 2 hours of sampling than during the last 2 hours

of sampling. During the 3 years studied (1979

1981), morning coliform densities tended to be

significantly greater than the standard, whereas

afternoon samples tended to be significantly lower

than the standard. These differences were likely due

to environmental factors such as wind and local

currents. Because such environmental factors vary

from location to location, the finding of significant

intra-day variation in indicator organism density at

this location strongly suggested a need for sampling

at different times of the day. 

Analysis of the inter-year variability of coliform

density at this location showed this variability to be

quite low. Analysis using only one-half of the 3 years

of data compiled by the New York City Health

Department gave a profile of water quality at this

location that showed little difference from the

analysis using the full data set. This fact, coupled

with the previous findings of the study, indicated that

sanitary surveys should maximize the number of

replicate determinations made per sampling date

instead of maximizing the number of days on which

samples are taken (Fleisher, 1990).
Appendix H

June 2002 H-11

sample also could be taken on Thursday so that the results are ready by Friday. To characterize

the water quality at the beach after the weekend crowd has left, a sample could be taken late

Sunday or on Monday. The frequency of sampling might change according to a beach

classification. 

Sampling Depth. The primary factor for determining the depth of sampling is the users at risk.

Samples of ankle- and/or knee-depth water might be more appropriate for children and infants,

whereas waist- and/or chest-depth samples might be more appropriate for adults (refer to Table

3-1). Sampling from boats is usually inadequate for beach monitoring because water depths

would exceed those common to beach-related recreational activities, especially for young

children (CADHS, 1999). Local health agencies, however, might desire to assess water quality

away from the shore in additional areas where surfing, windsurfing, or other activities occur.

Sampling Time. The most appropriate time of sampling is that which best estimates water

quality conditions during the highest periods of risk. Wave and tidal actions affect bacteria

levels, as do the number of bathers during sampling and before and after sampling; the water

temperature; and the recent, current, and predicted weather conditions (e.g., wind, rain). Bacteria

levels change frequently, based on these types of environmental conditions. This factor should be

taken into account when formulating a sampling design and when interpreting sampling results

and analyses. If information on the conditions of a beach when the most people are in the shallow

waters is of interest, sampling should be conducted during high tide when bacteria levels might

be higher near the shore (see Table 4-1). To estimate how water quality is affected by the number

of swimmers in the water, the water should be sampled during the time of day when there is the

highest bather density at a beach. 

In addition, sampling after the weekend might capture the conditions of the water after the

highest bather density. Samples could also be taken on Thursday to inform weekend visitors of

water quality before they swim on the weekend. (This type of sampling is recommended for use

only on a temporary basis if resources prevent routine daily sampling. It should be done only to

better understand indicator occurrence patterns, which are used to develop a more minimalistic

sampling approach that best represents those patterns.) Ideally, sampling should be done

throughout the day and week to look for patterns of bacteria levels. However, it is important to

remember that the results of the laboratory test will take about 24 hours. 

The final sampling design should be carefully documented in a sampling and analysis plan or

incorporated into a QAPP. (Refer to USEPA, 1998 and 2000, for further information on QAPP

preparation.) The plan should include a rationale and listing of the location of all sampling sites

and stations within a site, the frequency of sampling at each station, the depth of water sample

collection, and the duration of the sampling period (e.g., one time only, 2 weeks in July, during

the open swimming season). The plan should also include the procedures for obtaining the

samples and analyzing them for bacterial indicator(s), procedures for collecting other data from

the field, the schedule for repeat sampling, and how and to whom data will be reported. SOPs 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-12 June 2002

should be prepared for all activities that need to be performed the same way every time. Each

SOP should include details on the method for a given operation, analysis, or action in sequential

steps, as well as the facilities, equipment, materials and methods, QA and QC procedures, and

other factors required to perform the operation, analysis, or action. 

Establish Quality Objectives and Criteria

Data quality standards define the way the sample is collected and analyzed, and they provide

performance criteria that, if met, ensure that the data are acceptable and usable by the decision

maker. As part of the DQO process, the planning team should establish program and

measurement quality objectives to enable the data user to understand any errors or uncertainties

associated with the data. Two categories of errors are commonly recognizedsampling error and

measurement error. Sampling error is the difference between sample values and in situ “true”

values, and it results from unknown biases due to sampling design, including natural variability

due to spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in microorganism abundance and

distribution. Measurement error is the difference between sample values and in situ “true” values

associated with the measurement process, including bias and imprecision associated with

sampling methodology, specification of the sampling unit, sample handling, storage,

preservation, identification, instrumentation, and other factors.

The monitoring program should specify methods and procedures to reduce the magnitude and

frequency of measurement error. For example, using trained staff to perform the data collection

and analyses and following standardized, repeatable procedures for data and sample collection

can help eliminate sloppy, inconclusive work. Uncertainty in the data because of sampling and

measurement errors or errors introduced during data manipulation could result in identifying a

risk to human health when one does not exist (i.e., the true density of bacteria is not greater than

the criterion) or not identifying a risk when one does exist (i.e., the true density of bacteria

exceeds the criterion). Data entry, transfer, calculation, and reporting mistakes can compound

these issues. Data entries and the procedures for calculating results must be carefully checked for

accuracy and completeness.

Measurement performance criteria are qualitative and quantitative statements used to interpret

the degree of acceptability or utility of the data to the user. These criteria, also known as data

quality indicators (DQIs), include the following:

• Precision

• Bias

• Representativeness

• Completeness

• Comparability
Appendix H

June 2002 H-13

Sometimes DQIs for some parameters cannot be expressed in terms of precision and bias

(accuracy) or completeness. In these cases a full description of the method by which the data will

be obtained should be included in the plan. The various measurement performance criteria that

should be established for beach water quality monitoring parameters are discussed in the

following subsections.

Precision. Precision is defined as the degree of mutual agreement or consistency between

individual measurements or enumerated values of the same property of a sample. Obtaining an

estimate of precision provides information on the uncertainty due to natural variation, sampling

error, and analytical error. The precision of sampling methods is estimated by taking two or more

samples at the same sampling site at approximately 10 percent of the sites. The precision of

laboratory analyses is estimated by analyzing two or more aliquots of the same water sample.

This data quality indicator is obtained from two duplicate samples by calculating the relative

percent difference (RPD) as follows:

where C1 is the first of the two values and C2 is the second value. Because the absolute value of

the numerator is calculated, the RPD is always a positive number. If it is to be calculated from

three or more replicate samples, the relative standard deviation (RSD) is used and is calculated as 

where s is the standard deviation and  is the mean of repeated samples. The standard deviation

or the standard error of a sample mean(s) is calculated as

where X1 is the measured value of the replicate,  is the mean of repeated sample measurements,

and n is the number of replicates. Precision can also be expressed in terms of the range of

measurement values. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-14 June 2002

Because of the heterogeneity of populations of bacteria in surface waters, an RPD of less than or

equal to 50 percent between field duplicates for microbiological analyses might be considered

acceptable. In laboratory analyses, the precision among laboratories following EPA Method 1600

for detecting enterococci from separate aliquots of the same sample was determined to be 2.2

percent for marine water samples and 18.9 percent for fresh surface water samples (USEPA,

1997a). Analysts should be able to duplicate bacterial colony counts on the same membrane

within 5 percent and the counts of other analysts within 10 percent; otherwise, procedures should

be reviewed and corrected (IITF, 1999).

Accuracy. Accuracy is the degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted

reference or true value. Accuracy is a combination of random error (precision) and systematic

error (bias), both of which are due to sampling and analytical operations. Bias is the systematic

distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one direction so that the expected

sample measurement is always greater or lesser to the same degree than the sample’s true value.

Because accuracy is the measurement of a parameter and comparison to a “truth” and the true

values of environmental, physicochemical, and biological characteristics cannot be known, use of

a surrogate is required. 

The accuracy of field measurements is usually evaluated by analyzing samples prepared from

known concentrations of the pollutant(s) of interest or by adding known concentrations of the

pollutant(s) of interest to field-collected samples (known as “spiked” samples). In studies

following Method 1103.1 (USEPA, 1985) to estimate densities of E. coli, use of samples

prepared from known quantities of freeze-dried and cultured E. coli as a surrogate resulted in

97.9 percent recovery of the bacteria from water samples. Based on the mTEC medium, bias was

determined to be 2 percent of the true value. This information is helpful in establishing the

most appropriate methods to be followed. Accuracy, defined as the similarity of a repeated entity

to its original form, such as information, data entry, and calculations, can be controlled by

double-checking sources, manual data entries, or electronic data transfers and performing

recalculations. Figure H-1 is a graphical representation of the relationship between bias and

precision, and accuracy.

Representativeness. Data representativeness is defined as the degree to which data accurately

and precisely represent the characteristics of a population, and therefore it addresses the natural

variability or the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of a population. It is not quantitative but

descriptive in nature, and it can be assessed only by evaluating the sampling design with respect

to the particular features of the water at each beach. It is possible to quantitatively estimate

sample sizes using estimates of variance and selecting acceptable levels of false positive and

false negative error.

In the sampling design, care should be taken to define the area of sample collection and

determine whether it is typical and representative of each area of concern. For swimming beaches

less than 30 meters in length, a single sample taken from water at the midpoint of the beach site
Appendix H

June 2002 H-15

Figure H-1. Graphical representation of the relationship between bias and precision, and

accuracy (after Gilbert, 1987). (a): high bias + low precision = low accuracy; (b): low

bias + low precision = low accuracy; (c): high bias + high precision = low accuracy; and

(d): low bias + high precision = high accuracy.

might suffice. For lengthy beaches, establishing the correct number and location of samples is

more difficult, because the sampling needs to ensure that the estimated bacterial densities provide

a reasonable representation of the potential risk from waterborne pathogens. For example, the

monitoring program might decide to sample from the middle of the area where most swimmers

congregate and then 15 m on either side of that first sampling station to obtain an average value

of bacterial densities for comparison against the standard. Alternatively, each individual sample

result might be compared to the standard. At beaches where a known point source of pathogens,

such as a storm water outfall, enters the water, the sample might be drawn from stations within

15 m of the point source or where swimmers might be considered to be at greatest risk from

exposure. 

As noted above, an initial intensive sampling study might be necessary to help decide where and

how often samples need to be routinely collected to address bacterial heterogeneity. If sufficient

resources are not available to collect and analyze multiple samples along a beach, the monitoring
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-16 June 2002

program plan should justify the decision and note the extent of the area that might be affected by

an advisory or closing if bacterial densities at a single station exceed the standards. 

Completeness. Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements made that are judged

to be valid according to specific criteria and entered into the data management system.

Accidental or inadvertent loss of samples during transport or lab activities should be avoided

because the loss of the original samples will result in irreparable loss of data. Lack of data entry

into the database will reduce the ability to perform analyses, integrate results, and prepare

reports. Thus, controlling sample loss by using unbreakable containers, careful sample

management (e.g., assigning serial laboratory numbers, completing log books), and tracking

samples through analysis and data entry is important. Percent completeness (%C) for

measurement parameters can be defined as follows:

where v is the number of measurements judged valid and T is the total number of measurements.

Most monitoring programs should try to achieve a level of completeness in which no less than 95

percent of samples are judged to be valid.

Comparability. Two data sets are considered comparable when the two sets can be considered

equivalent with respect to the measurement of a specific variable or group of variables.

Comparability of data is not defined quantitatively; it is ensured by similarity in sampling based

on geographic, seasonal, and method characteristics; the uniform training and experience of field

sampling and laboratory personnel; and the use of standardized, repeatable methods for analysis

of bacterial indicator densities. This document should help improve comparability among beach

water quality monitoring programs by establishing comparable sampling and analysis procedures

so that the meaning of the results can be more easily understood by the public nationwide.

Additional Factors Affecting Sampling Design. By establishing the “rules” for data quality at

the planning stage, the number of samples that need to be collected and analyzed is adjusted to

obtain data that will be used to judge the quality of the data obtained. For example, a duplicate

water sample should be collected from at least 10 percent of the sites in the study to calculate

precision. Under some conditions, more frequent collection of duplicate samples might be

advised. Monitoring programs need to carefully balance their needs to sample from multiple

areas and their resource limitations with the need for data quality. If only one sample is collected

from every site for analysis, an agency might cover more territory, but it will not be able to detect

errors during sampling, inadvertently reducing the density of bacteria in the sample or showing

that the particular patch of water sampled contained an unusually high number of fecal bacteria,

but was not representative of the entire area. Thus, inappropriate decisions might be made based

on erroneous results. 
Appendix H

June 2002 H-17

For the same cost, the number of sites sampled could be reduced while including some QC

samples to provide a means to double check the results, both from the field sampling effort and

from analyses of duplicate aliquots of single samples in the laboratory. This approach can

increase the level of confidence in the data produced and help detect unusual conditions that

might lead to errors in decision making.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

H-18 June 2002

H.3 References

Bartram, J., and G. Rees. 2000. Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design

and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes. E & FN SPON, London.

Bordner, R., J.A. Winter, and P.V. Scarpino, eds. 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring

the Environment, Water and Wastes. EPA 600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

Brenniman, G.R., S.H. Rosenberg, and R.L. Northrop. 1981. Microbial sampling variables and

recreational water quality standards. American Journal of Public Health 71(3):283-289.

Cabelli, V.J. 1983. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters. EPA 600/1-80-03.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

CADHS. 1999. Health and Safety Code Section 115875-115915. California Department of

Health Services, Sacramento, CA. 

Dufour, A.P. 1984. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters. EPA 600/1-84-004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Fleisher, J.M. 1990. The effects of measurement error on previously reported mathematical

relationships between indicator organism density and swimming-associated illness: A

quantitative estimate of the resulting bias. International Journal of Epidemiology 19(4):1100-

1106.

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand

Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 

IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of

E. coli on Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coli.

LaPorte County Health Department, Laporte, IN.

NRC. 1990a. Monitoring Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring. 

National Research Center. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NRC. 1990b. Monitoring Southern California’s Coastal Waters. National Research Center.

National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1985. Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Water by the Membrane

Filter Procedure. EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

DC.
Appendix H

June 2002 H-19

USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and Toxicology

Division, and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program. EPA 503/8-91-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997a. Method 1600: Membrane Filter Test Method for Enterococci in Water. 

EPA-821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997b. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source

Controls. EPA 841/B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1998. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. EPA/600-

R-98-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA 600/R96-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001a. Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), EPA QA/G6. EPA 240/B-01-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental

Information, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001b. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5. EPA

240/B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001c. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. EPA 800/R-95-001. July, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 
Appendix I

June 2002 I-1

Appendix I: Training

This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may

be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in

the main guidance document.

Training volunteers to do their jobs properly is an essential component of a successful

monitoring program. Training is a dynamic process and does not simply begin and end with a

kickoff classroom session. For example, follow-up training should occur to resolve specific

operating problems discovered in an ongoing program. Even experienced staff benefit from

occasional continuing education sessions, which help everyone stay in touch with the program

and foster the ideal of team effort. 

According to USEPA (1991), training should be planned from three basic perspectives:

1. Training new staff

2. Training experienced staff (teaching the use of new equipment or improved methods)

3. Solving specific operating problems

Each of the three training perspectives should include the presentation of unique material. The

training processes involved in presenting this material, however, are similar and consist of the

following components: 

• Creating a job analysis

• Planning the training

• Presenting the training

• Evaluating the training

• Providing follow-up coaching, motivation, and feedback

I.1 Creating a Job Analysis

The job analysis phase can be the hardest but most important part of training development. The

outcome of the job analysis is a list of all the tasks staff should accomplish when sampling a

parameter. The tasks should be identified to ensure that procedures are performed consistently

throughout the program. This list should include a list of sampling tasks, the required quality

level for each task, the job elements that compose each task, and a sampling protocol (standard

operating procedure) or job description handout that will be referred to and followed by staff

members each time they collect water samples or perform laboratory analyses.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

I-2 June 2002

I.2 Planning the Training

Once the job analysis has been completed and the job description prepared, the actual training

session should be planned. Training might take place in a group setting or individually. Group

training saves money and time, especially when many staff are trained simultaneously. For

extensive water sampling efforts throughout a county, however, this approach has drawbacks.

Each beach has unique characteristics, and certain circumstances or problems can be addressed

only on an individual basis. In practice, it is often best to structure the training program so that

there are group sessions as well as individual follow-up sessions.

The training should stress the importance of samples being representative of the waterbody from

which they are taken, including the theory behind indicator organisms and quality samples,

QA/QC activities and following the protocols specified in SOPs and the monitoring program

plan. Ensuring that staff understand how to carry out the protocols to meet those requirements is

the primary concern. Training to collect water samples, for example, should also include how to

plan sampling activities, how to make field notes describing the sampling site and station, and

how to perform on-site inspections. The safety aspects of field sampling and laboratory analysis

are an important component as well.

I.3 Presenting the Training

A well-organized, well-paced training session is essential to facilitate understanding and

motivate staff. The lesson planning phase provides the trainer with the basic agenda for the

session. The trainer, however, is responsible for adapting the lesson to the expectations,

knowledge, and experience of the audience. The person presenting the training should know the

material and should be organized. Lectures, activities, and discussions should be planned and

kept to a timetable. Similarly, demonstration materials, audiovisual equipment, and handouts

should be accessible and easily incorporated into the presentation. The trainer should be able to

anticipate and respond to problems and questions that might occur during an actual training

session. A relaxed presentation that fulfills the education objectives is the basic goal. Although

trainers will bring their own styles to the training session, they should incorporate basic public

speaking techniques, such as establishing rapport with the audience, enunciating clearly and

distinctly, using effective body language and eye contact, and encouraging questions and

comments.

Whether in the classroom or in the field, staff should be allowed to demonstrate what they have

learned. The trainer should observe closely and offer immediate feedback in the form of positive

reinforcement or corrective assistance. This portion of the session is usually when the real

learning takes place. During the review portion of the training session, the trainer should

summarize what was learned and the staff have an opportunity to ask questions. The session

should close with the reassurance that staff will continue to receive training throughout their

tenure with the monitoring program.
Appendix I

June 2002 I-3

I.4 Evaluating the Training

Training evaluation should encompass the entire training process. It includes the trainee’s

perspective, as well as that of the training program designer and trainer, on how effective the

session has been. To gain immediate feedback about training, staff should fill out evaluation

forms at the end of the session. If possible, it is often effective if a ‘hands-on’ session can be

Volunteer Beach Monitoring Programs Across the Nation

Alabama Coastal Foundation volunteers data are used for trend research by the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, and Mobile Bay National Estuary Program.

Alabama Water Watch is a statewide citizen volunteer water quality monitoring program. More than 50 active groups

monitor about 250 sites on 100 waterbodies in 20 to 30 counties in Alabama and Georgia. Six chemical parameters

are measured, and several groups are beginning to test for pathogen indicators. The program is coordinated from

Auburn University, where the central database is maintained.

The Surfrider Foundation is an environmental organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the world's

waves and beaches through conservation, research, education, and local activism. The Blue Water Task Force,

particularly chapters from Southern California coastal counties, analyzes water samples collected at beaches for

bacteria and posts results on the Internet. 

The Citizen Stewards Program trains volunteers to assist the Casco Bay Keeper in monitoring the water quality of

Casco Bay, Maine. Volunteers gather data at more than 100 selected sites along the 500-mile shoreline, collecting

surface water and performing tests monthly from April through October. The data are entered into a comprehensive

computer database for management and interpretation. Water column profile data are also collected from the

BayKeeper’s boat at offshore sites, and water is sampled at closed clam flats to test for bacteria.

The Environmental Quality Laboratory at Coastal Carolina University monitors water and sediment quality in the

Waccamaw River and 45 sites from the North Carolina state line to Bucksports, South Carolina, using EPA-approved

methods. Monthly physical, chemical, and biological analyses are performed, and occasional measurements of

nutrients and heavy metals are taken. Results are interpreted using in situ instantaneous U.S. Geological Survey data

on water stage and flow. The sampling plan is designed to identify nonpoint pollution sources. Results are shared with

South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control.

The Salt Pond Watchers currently monitor fecal coliform bacteria levels in approximately 30 stations in seven coastal

salt ponds on Rhode Island's Atlantic coast. Data are provided to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management and local communities to help determine areas unsuitable for fishing and swimming.

In Maine the Clean Water/Partners in Monitoring program provides coordination, information, support, and technical

assistance to groups of volunteers and students who want to monitor their local waters. Active programs include water

quality, phytoplankton, and marine intertidal diversity monitoring. Training is also provided to certify volunteers to

monitor water quality in shellfish-growing areas.

In Hawaii the Hanalei Heritage River Program uses volunteers from the community help take a "snapshot" of the

Hanalei's waters by simultaneous sampling all along the bay, up the river, and in its tributaries. This sampling has

identified "hotspots" where bacteria counts far exceed standards. The volunteer program provides these data to the

Department of Health, which then conducts its own bacterial sampling. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

I-4 June 2002

included where trainees can observe staff in action as they collect or process samples. If there are

problems or if techniques are not performed according to the desired protocol, trainers might

need to apply new methods in subsequent training sessions.

I.5 Providing Follow-up Coaching, Motivation, and Feedback 

As stated previously, training should be conducted throughout the life of the monitoring program.

Follow-up coaching is an integral part of the training process. Coaching usually occurs on a oneon-one basis to maintain communication between team members, resolve problems, instill

motivation, and implement new or improved techniques. The key to follow-up coaching is

personal contact to increase staff satisfaction. That personal contact should be maintained

throughout the life of the program.

I.6 Volunteer Monitoring Programs

EPA acknowledges that citizen volunteers often can be used to perform some beach monitoring

program functions. Using volunteers to collect water samples and transport them to a laboratory

for analysis is one way to save on program monitoring costs and, at the same time, establish a

partnership with local citizens. Some citizen monitoring programs also perform water quality

analyses, and a few determine bacterial indicator levels. Program planning officials, however,

need to be aware that establishing a volunteer monitoring program requires a commitment of

time and resources to ensure that volunteers are properly trained and managed and that data

quality objectives are met. Officials should not view citizen volunteers as unpaid adjunct staff.

Typically, their motivation to participate in a monitoring program is not based on a desire to help

reduce agency costs; rather, they donate their time and energy to serve as guardians and stewards

of their local waters. This recognition should be considered in every aspect of the volunteer

monitoring program development process.

The EPA document Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers (USEPA, 1990)

lists seven “basic ingredients” for developing a successful volunteer program:

1. Develop and articulate a clear purpose for the use of the data.

2. Produce “data of known quality” that meet the stated data quality objectives.

3. Be aware that volunteer monitoring is cost-effective, but not free.

4. Thoroughly train and retrain volunteers.

5. Give the volunteers praise and feedback (the psychological equivalent of a salary).

6. Use the data volunteers collect.

7. Be flexible, open, and realistic with volunteers.

Including these seven basic ingredients in the development of a volunteer monitoring program

has produced many success stories across the United States. The latest edition of the National

Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs (RISG and USEPA, 1994)
Appendix I

June 2002 I-5

documents a total of 772 programs currently in operation. The National Directory also provides a

list of volunteer organizations around the country engaged in monitoring rivers, lakes, estuaries,

beaches, wetlands, and ground water. The National Directory can be found at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf. In addition, EPA’s Volunteer Monitoring web site

provides information on various monitoring programs as newsletters that contain information on

bacterial methods and how they are used by various volunteer groups. This information is

currently available at http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/.

A frequent criticism of volunteer monitoring programs is that using the services of volunteers

yields data of less certainty than the data obtained when professionals do the job. In general,

however, if the seven “basic ingredients” of a successful program are included, data quality

should be the same for both groups. Putting this theory to the test for any particular program

includes running parallel water sampling tests that compare data collected by professionals those

collected by volunteers. Periodic parallel testing serves two purposes. First, it assures the

sponsoring agency that volunteers’ data are reliable and can be used for the program’s purposes.

Second, it helps identify areas where the volunteer program can be improved, especially if the

results indicate there is a difference in quality between the volunteers’ data and the professionals’

data.

EPA’s volunteer monitoring guide also discusses several other ways to maintain volunteers’

interest:

• Sending volunteers regular data reports.

• Keeping volunteers informed about all uses of their data. 

• Preparing a regular newsletter.

• Making program officials easily accessible for questions and requests. 

• Providing volunteers with educational opportunities. 

• Keeping the local media informed of the goals and findings of the monitoring effort.

• Recognizing the efforts of volunteers through certificates, awards, or other means. 

• Providing volunteers with opportunities to grow with the program through additional

training, learning opportunities, and changing responsibilities.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

I-6 June 2002

I.7 References

RISG and USEPA. 1994. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring

Programs, 4th ed. EPA 841-B-94-001. Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,

Narragansett, RI, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1990. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010.

U.S. Environmental Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 
Appendix J

June 2002 J-1

Appendix J: Sample Collection

This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may

be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in

the main guidance document.

J.1 Sample Containers

The sample bottles used to collect water for bacterial density analyses should be able to

withstand sterilizing conditions and the solvent action of water. USEPA (1978) suggested widemouth borosilicate glass bottles with screw caps or ground-glass stoppers; however, glass bottles

can break, causing loss of the sample. Heat-resistant polypropylene bottles may be used if they

can be sterilized without producing toxic materials when autoclaved.

Sample bottles should be at least 125-milliliter (mL) volume for adequate sampling and for good

mixing. Bottles of 250-mL, 500-mL, and 1,000-mL volume are often used for multiple analyses,

such as when determining the density of two or more bacterial indicators. Discard bottles that

have chips, cracks, or etched surfaces. Bottle closures should be watertight. Before use, bottles

and closures should be cleaned with detergent and hot water, followed by a hot water rinse to

remove all traces of detergent. Then rinse three times with laboratory-pure water.

Autoclave glass or heat-resistant polypropylene bottles at 121 °C for 15 minutes. Alternatively,

dry glassware may be sterilized in a hot air oven at 170 °C for not less than 2 hours. Ethylene

oxide gas sterilization should be acceptable for plastic containers that are not heat-resistant.

Sample bottles should be stored overnight before they are used to allow the last traces of gas to

dissipate.

Commercially available sterile plastic sampling bags (Whirl-pak) are a practical substitute for

polypropylene or glass sample bottles when sampling soil or sediment. The bags are sealed by the

manufacturer and opened only at the time of sampling.

If water samples are being collected for the determination of other environmental parameters

(e.g., temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), nonsterile containers may be used. It is

important that the sterile and nonsterile containers are clearly labeled and used for the particular

sample for which they were intended.

J.2 Sampling Method

A grab sample of water is obtained using a sample bottle that has been prepared as described

above. The basic steps for this procedure, derived from Bordner et al. (1978) and IITF (1999),

are as follows. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

J-2 June 2002

1. Identify the sampling site on a chain of custody tag, if required, or on the bottle label and on a

field log sheet.

2. Remove the bottle covering and closure just before obtaining each sample and protect them

from contamination. Be careful not to touch the inside of the bottle itself or the inside of the

cover.

3. The first sample to be prepared is the trip or field blank (at least one per sampling day for

routine sampling is recommended). Open one of the sampling bottles and fill it with 100 mL

of sterile buffered dilution solution (see EPA Method 1103.1) when collecting freshwater,

estuarine, or marine water samples. Cap the bottle and place it in a cooler.

4. To collect the surface water samples, carefully move to the first sampling location. If wading

in the water, try to avoid kicking up bottom material at the sampling station. The sampler

should be positioned downstream of any water current to take the sample from the incoming

flow.

5. Open a sampling bottle and grasp it at the base with one hand and plunge the bottle mouth

downward into the water to avoid introducing surface scum. Position the mouth of the bottle

into the current away from the hand of the sampler and away from the side of the sampling

platform or boat. The sampling depth should be 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) below

the water surface, depending on the depth from which the sample must be taken. If the

waterbody is static, an artificial current can be created by moving the bottle horizontally with

the direction of the bottle pointed away from the sampler. Tip the bottle slightly upward to

allow air to exit and the bottle to fill.

6. Remove the bottle from the waterbody.

7. Pour out a small portion of the sample to allow an air space of 2.5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches)

above each sample for proper mixing of the sample before analysis.

8. Tightly close the stopper and label the bottle.

9. Enter specific details to identify the sample on a permanent label. Take care in transcribing

sampling information to the label. The label should be clean, waterproof, nonsmearing, and

large enough for the necessary information. The label must be securely attached to the sample

bottle but removable when necessary. Preprinting standard information on the label can save

time in the field. The marking pen or other device must be nonsmearing and maintain a

permanent legible mark. 

10. Complete a field record for each sample to record the full details on sampling and other

pertinent remarks, such as flooding, rain, or extreme temperature, that are relevant to
Appendix J

June 2002 J-3

interpretation of the results. This record also provides a back-up record of sample

identification. 

11. Place the samples in a suitable container and transport them to the laboratory as soon as

possible. Adhering to sample preservation and holding time limits is critical to the

production of valid data. Bacteriological samples should be iced or refrigerated at 1 to 4 °C

during transit to the laboratory. Use insulated containers such as plastic or styrofoam coolers,

if possible, to ensure proper maintenance of storage temperature. Take care to ensure that

sample bottles are not totally immersed in water during transit or storage. Examine samples

as soon as possible after collection. Do not hold samples longer than 6 hours between

collection and initiation of analysis (USEPA, 2000). Do not analyze samples that exceed

holding time limits.

12. Collect water samples for analyses of other parameters in separate appropriate containers at

the same time and perform analyses as specified in the particular methods.

13. After collecting samples from a station, wash hands and arms with alcohol wipes, a

disinfectant lotion, or soap and water, and dry to reduce exposure to potentially harmful

bacteria or other microorganisms.

J.3 Sample Handling

In cases where an agency must demonstrate the reliability of its evidence in legal cases involving

pollution, it is important to document the chain of possession and custody of samples that are

offered for evidence or that form the basis of analytical results introduced into evidence (Bordner

et al., 1978). Although the analytical results of the water samples collected at a swimming beach

are being used to make a decision for the protection of human health, a decision to close the

beach might be unpopular with local businesses and could be contested. It is thus important that

the agency collecting the samples and the laboratory performing the analysis prepare written

procedures to be followed whenever evidence samples are collected, transferred, stored,

analyzed, or destroyed. These are known as “chain of custody” (COC) procedures. 

The sampling agency should have procedures to ensure the custody and integrity of the samples

beginning at the time of sampling and continuing through transport and sample receipt. The

laboratory should have procedures for sample receipt, preparation, analysis and storage, data

generation and reporting, and sample disposal. 

A COC form filled out by the person conducting the sampling should provide information such

as the following: sampling location (site ID), time of collection, date of collection, time of near

or high tide, air temperature, water temperature, rainfall history, collector’s name and signature,

agency, and other notes or comments. A Chain-of-Custody Review List and a Sample Handling,

Preparation, and Analysis List are provided at the end of this appendix.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

J-4 June 2002

Samples are usually transported to the laboratory by the person collecting the sample or picked

up by laboratory personnel. Because of the 6-hour holding time limitation, the laboratory should

be conveniently located near the sampling site and should be notified a few days in advance of

the sampling effort so that it will be ready to process the samples promptly. COC procedures

should be followed at the laboratory for all samples. Laboratory personnel receiving samples

should do the following:

1. Check the shipping container for damage and a custody seal. Note whether the custody seal is

intact and record any anomalies on the sample log-in form.

2. Open the container and inspect the sample containers, noting any damage or breakage.

Immediately take the temperature of the samples. Place a calibrated thermometer or

temperature probe in the cooler in a representative location (not directly touching any ice or

cold packs and not inside a sample bottle). Record the temperature on the sample log-in form

and the COC form enclosed with the sample.

3. Remove the individual containers from the shipping container and inspect each one for

damage, leakage, or any other problem. Note the condition of each container, the date

received, the project number, the batch number, and the airbill or shipping identification

number on the sample log-in form and the COC form.

4. Compare each sample container to those listed on the COC form to ascertain whether all the

samples are present and whether all the labels on the sample containers match those on the

COC form.

5. If no COC form accompanies the samples, complete a COC form and confirm all sample

information with the agency that collected the samples. Document any contact with the

agency regarding problems or confirmation on the sample log-in and COC forms.

6. Notify the laboratory manager if any problems with the samples are noted. Sign and date the

COC form upon completion of the sample inspection.

7. Assign each sample a sample ID code. For example, the sample ID code should include a

sequential log-in number, a sample type code (e.g., U for upstream, S for site, L for

laboratory), a code to identify the collecting agency, the sampling date, and the analysis

required. Assign replicate samples from the same site the same code with a suffix such as -

A,- B, or -C to indicate their replicate status.

8. Record each sample’s code on the sample log-in form, the COC form, and the corresponding

sample container. Indicate on the form where the samples will be held (e.g., which room in

the laboratory). When samples are removed for final disposition, the removal should be

documented on the sample log-in form.
Appendix J

June 2002 J-5

9. Record additional information on the sample log-in form, including the collecting agency

contact, sample analyses required, and due dates of analyses.

10. Store samples not used immediately at 4 °C.

Table J-1. Chain-of-Custody Review List

Task

Sample custodian designated

Name of sample custodian

Sample custodian’s procedures and responsibilities documented

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed for receipt of samples

Where are the SOPs documented (laboratory manual, written instructions...)?

Receipt of chain-of-custody record(s) with samples documented

Nonreceipt of chain-of-custody record(s) with samples documented

Integrity of the shipping container(s) documented

Where is security documented?

Lack of integrity of the shipping container(s) documented

Where is nonsecurity documented?

Agreement between chain-of-custody records and sample tags verified and documented

Source of verification and location of documentation

Sample tag numbers recorded by the sample custodian

Where are they located?

Samples stored in a secure area

Where are they stored?

Sample identification maintained

Sample extract (or inorganics concentrate) identification

Samples maintained. How?
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

J-6 June 2002

Table J-2. Sample Handling, Preparation, and Analysis List

Category Task

Field Logs Project name/ID and location

Sampling personnel identified

Map

Geological observations

Atmospheric conditions

Field measurements

Sample dates, times, and locations

Sample identifications noted

Sample matrix identified

Sample descriptions (e.g., odors, colors)

Number of samples taken per location

Sampling method/equipment

Description of any QC samples

Deviations from the sampling plan

Difficulties or unusual circumstances

Chain-of-Custody

Records

Project name/ID and location

Sample custodian’s procedures and responsibilities documented

Sample custodians’ signatures verified and on file

Date and time of each transfer

Carrier ID number

Integrity of shipping container and seals verified

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for receipt on file

Samples stored in same area

Holding time protocol verified

SOPs for sample preservation on file

Identification of proposed analytical method verified

Proposed analytical method documentation verified
Appendix J

June 2002 J-7

Table J-2. (continued)

Category Task

Chain-of-Custody

Records

QA plan for proposed analytical method on file

Sample Labels Sample ID

Date and time of collection

Sampler’s signature

Characteristic or parameter investigated

Preservative used

Sample Receipt Log Date and time of receipt

Sample collection date

Client sample ID

Number of samples

Sample matrices

Requested analysis, including method number(s)

Signature of the sample custodian or designee

Sampling kit code (if applicable)

Sampling condition

Chain-of-custody violations and identities

Sample Preparation

Logs

Parameter/analyte of investigation

Method number

Date and time of preparation

Analyst’s initials or signature

Initial sample volume or weight

Final sample volume

Concentration and amount of spiking solutions used

QC samples included with the sample batch

ID for reagents, standards, and spiking solutions used

Sample Analysis

Logs

Parameter/analyte of investigation
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

J-8 June 2002

Table J-2. (continued)

Category Task

Method number/reference

Date and time of analysis

Analyst’s initials or signature

Laboratory sample ID

Sample aliquot

Dilution factors and final sample volumes (if applicable)

Absorbance values, peak heights, or initial concentrations reading

Final analyte concentration

Calibration data (if applicable)

Correlation coefficient (including parameters)

Calculations of key quantities available

Comments on interferences or unusual observations

QC information, including percent recovery

Instrument Run

Logs

Name/type of instrument

Instrument manufacturer and model number

Serial number

Date received and date placed in service

Instrument ID assigned by the laboratory (if used)

Service contract information, including service 

representative details

Description of each maintenance or repair activity performed

Date and time of each maintenance or repair activity

Initials of maintenance or repair technicians

Chemical/Standard

Receipt Logs

Laboratory control number

Date of receipt

Initials or signature of person receiving chemical

Chemical name and catalog number
Appendix J

June 2002 J-9

Table J-2. (continued)

Category Task

Vendor name and log number

Concentration or purity of standard

Expiration date

Standards/Reagent

Preparation Log

Date of preparation

Initials of analyst preparing the standard solution or reagent

Concentration or purity of standard or reagent

Volume or weight of the stock solution

Final volume of the solution being prepared

Laboratory ID/control number assigned to the new solution

Name of standard reagent

Standardization of reagents, titrants, etc. (if applicable)

Expiration date
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

J-10 June 2002

J.4 References

Bordner, R., J.A. Winter, and P.V. Scarpino, eds. 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring

the Environment, Water and Wastes. EPA-600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of

E. coli on Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coli.

LaPorte County Health Department, LaPorte, IN.

USEPA. 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment, Water and Wastes.

EPA 600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:

Enterococci and Escherichia coli. EPA 821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. 
Appendix K

June 2002 K-1

Appendix K: Predictive Tools

This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may

be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in

the main guidance document.

K.1 Screening Factors for Model Selection

Selection of an appropriate water quality model for helping to determine beach advisories and

closings depends on the site conditions of the waterbody of concern. The selection of the

appropriate model can be based on the following screening factors:

• Combined point and nonpoint sources. An important screening factor is how the model

handles the loadings from point and nonpoint sources. Models based on water quality data

implicitly take the point and nonpoint sources into account, whereas models that use

continuous simulation of the water quality directly account for the sources. Typically, the

sources are part of the input parameters. For example, the rainfall-based alert curves

discussed later in this chapter are models based on water quality conditions. Those models do

not explicitly account for point and nonpoint sources; instead, the sources affect the water

quality parameters used in the model. In the case of the CORMIX and PLUME models

(described below), point sources are a component of the model input; the flow and

concentration also must be included.

• Pathogen source characterization. Pathogens found at a beach site of interest might be from

point sources, including sewage treatment plants, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined

sewer overflows (CSOs), septic systems, and storm water outfalls, or nonpoint sources. 

Accounting for the different sources of pathogens might require the use and integration of a

variety of models. Once pathogen loads from point and nonpoint sources are determined, the

next step is the routing of the pathogen through the system using a representative model of

the dominant mixing and transport processes to estimate the pathogen concentration at the

location of interest.

• Dominant mixing and transport processes. The waterbody type dictates the dominant

mixing and transport processes of a pollutant. In rivers and streams the dominant processes

are advection and dispersion. In estuaries these processes are influenced by tidal cycles and

flows. Waterbody size and net freshwater flow are also important in determining the

dominant processes. For discharges in the ocean surf zone, dominant dispersion processes

include mixture due to breaking waves and transport from nearshore currents. 

• Pathogen concentration prediction. This factor describes the ability of the model to predict

the pathogen concentration in the receiving water at the location of interest, which in this
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-2 June 2002

case is a beach site. Transformation processes such as bacterial kinetics must also be

accounted for in the model to allow for a realistic prediction.

• Ability to provide time-relevant analysis, decisionmaking, and guideline establishment. 

Timely or time-relevant analysis is needed for an effective advisory. Models applied to

predict water quality conditions can be used as a basis for decision making and as

management tools. For example, a beach authority can use such tools as a basis for beach

advisories following a rainfall event or an accidental sewage spill.

• Time-relevant use. Under this category the input data needed, processing time, and

postprocessing abilities of the model are evaluated. Potential predictive tools for beach

advisories must be able to predict pathogen concentration at the site of interest in a relatively

short. This means that the data input requirements and processing time need to be minimal.

Also crucial to the success of the predictive tool is the postprocessing of the output data.

Tabular or graphical representation of the output data provides a quick, easy way to interpret

results and might serve as a basis for making time-relevant decisions concerning beach

advisories.

• Evaluation of unplanned and localized spills. Spills of a pollutant can be caused

accidentally by equipment failure or rainfall. In either case, this factor describes how the

model handles the additional loading. Models based on water quality data do not account for

this increased loading unless samples were collected during rainfall or a spill event and

analyzed, and the data were then entered into the model database. Models that account for

point sources can easily account for the increased loading by including the spill as an input

parameter.

• Documented application to beach and shellfish closure. This factor describes the ability of

the model to predict the water quality condition surrounding swimming and shellfish areas.

Models can be used as water quality predictive tools and as a basis for decisionmaking. For

example, several communities use rainfall models, and the New York City metropolitan area

uses the Regional Bypass Model (discussed later in this chapter). These models have proven

to be effective tools to protect people from exposure to pathogens following rainfall events or

sewage spills.

• Ease of use. The level of user experience is an important factor in determining whether a

model is easy to use. Some complex models require a great deal of training and experience;

simple methods require only a conceptual understanding of the processes, and results can be

readily obtained.

• Input data requirements. Input data requirements are a function of a model’s complexity. In

general, complex models require more specific and complex input data than simple models.

Some of these data might not be readily available, and acquiring such data might require
Appendix K

June 2002 K-3

expending resources. Therefore, the objective of the model application can be very important

in this step.

• Calibration requirements. Decision making and management alternatives based on modeling

results require that the model outcome be acceptable and reliable. Not all models can be

calibrated. Models that simulate water quality conditions are calibrated against in-stream

monitoring stations. Simple models such as the rainfall alert curves are continuously updated

to provide accurate results. This is done by continually updating the model’s database.

• Pollutant routing. Pollutant routing addresses how a model deals with the fate and

transformation of pollutants. Simpler models might not include processes that describe

pollutant transformation. More complex models vary in their description of the processes.

The range can be from a gross or a net estimate of the process to a detailed mechanism of the

process. The focus is on bacterial processes. In general, most environmental models use the

first-order decay rate to represent microbial die-off rate.

• Kinetics of pathogen decay. The survival of pathogens (and pathogen indicators) in the

environment is influenced by many variables, such as age of the fecal deposit, temperature,

sunlight, pH, soil type, salinity, and moisture conditions. In general, the death rate of

pathogens can be estimated as a first-order rate, which is incorporated into water quality

models.

Predictive models are effective tools to supplement actual sampling. It is important, however, to

consider that models do not provide perfect predictions of actual conditions but instead provide

estimates of current conditions. A public health manager should account for inaccuracies in

models when making decisions related to public health.

K.2 Predictive Methods Currently Used by Beach Managers

Two approaches were used to identify the predictive tools currently in use by local agencies.

First, EPA’s National Health Protection Survey of Beaches was used to identify local agencies

that currently base their beach advisories on water quality model prediction. Those agencies were

contacted regarding the types of models they use and information about the extent of use, model

development, and availability.

The second approach was a review of literature and information from previous EPA programs.

This approach included reviewing the models and guidelines provided in the CWA section

301(h) program, identifying tools used in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, and

reviewing other EPA publications that relate to water quality modeling. The beach closure

predictive tools identified were characterized based on modeling or prediction application

techniques and on modeling components. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-4 June 2002

The tools currently in use by local and state agencies vary in their complexity and approach to

minimizing exposure to pathogens. The cities of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Stamford,

Connecticut, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

(DNREC) used regression analysis to relate rainfall to pathogen concentration. Models developed

using this approach are site-specific because they are derived from locally observed water quality

and rainfall data.

Simulation of water quality conditions under a variety of scenarios of untreated or partially

treated sewage also can be used. Comparison of the simulated water quality conditions to the

established criteria can serve as the basis for a beach closure. The metropolitan Boston area in

Massachusetts is undertaking such a project. A predictive model that can predict water quality

conditions resulting from bypasses of sewage at preselected locations was developed for the New

York-New Jersey Harbor. Beaches surrounding the discharge locations are closed whenever the

predicted pathogen concentrations exceed the water quality criteria.

Closure of beaches based on water quality modeling is also practiced in Virginia and

Washington. Computer models that predict pathogen concentration by simulating the dominant

mixing and transport processes in the receiving water range from simple to very complex. The

Virginia Department of Health uses a simple mixing and transport model to predict water quality

conditions surrounding wastewater treatment plant outfalls. The state of Washington uses a more

complex model, CORMIX, to predict water quality conditions surrounding wastewater treatment

plant outfalls. Rhode Island is also developing predictive models for its beaches. Review of

Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the Beach Program (USEPA, 1999)

provides a detailed description of these tools and their attributes, limitations, data requirements,

and availability. A summary of the capabilities and applicability of these models is provided in

table K-1.

Table K-1. Evaluation of Model Capabilities and Applicability

Model Combined

PS/NPS a

Real Time

and

Decision

Making

Spills Application to

Beach or

Shellfish

Closure

Ease of

Use

Input Data

Required

Calib. Developing 

Guidelines

Pollutant

Routing

Rainfallbased xxx xxx 0 xxx xxx x xx xx 0

Bypass x (PS) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx x xx xxx

SMTM x (PS) xx xx xx xx x x 0 x

PLUMES x (PS) x xx xx xx x x x x

CORMIX x (PS) x x x xx x x x x

JPEFDC xx

(NPS/PS)

x xxx xxx x xxx xx x xxx

0 Not applicable. x Low applicability.

xx Medium applicability. xxx High applicability. a

 Point Source/Nonpoint Source.
Appendix K

June 2002 K-5

K.3 Rainfall-Based Alert Curves

K.3.1 Objectives

The objective of a rainfall-based alert curve model is to establish a statistical relationship

between rainfall events and bacterial indicator concentrations. This relationship can then serve as

a management tool for developing operating (advisory and closures) guidelines based on

predicted pathogen concentrations that suggest the need to restrict or prohibit contact uses of

recreation waters. Several agencies have developed beach operating rules based on analysis of

site-specific relationships between rainfall and water quality monitoring data. Delaware

(DNREC, 1997) and Connecticut (Kuntz, 1998) have successfully used this approach (USEPA,

1999).

K.3.2 Benefits

The use of rainfall-based alert curves are highly recommended as predictive tools to determine

the need for beach advisories or closings. They are recommended because of their simplicity,

ease of development and use, economic feasibility, and virtually instantaneous run time. A great

advantage of rainfall-based alert curves is that they can be easily translated to decision logic that

a beach manager can use without prior advanced training or a high level of technical skill.

K.3.3 Limitations

It is important to update these models with changes in watershed or weather pattern. Weather

patterns are typically cyclical, so predictive models must reflect this variance or acknowledge this

limitation. For example, rainfall-based alert curves may not be appropriate for use along the arid

southern California coast because of an “impact lag” effect where discharges from storm water

outfalls can continue for several weeks following substantial rain events. 

K.3.4 Overview of Rainfall-Based Alert Curves Technical Approach

Rainfall-based alert curves are developed in three phases: collecting data, analyzing data (linking

the rainfall events to bacterial indicators), and developing operating rules for advisories or

closings of recreational waters. Although EPA is currently supporting continued efforts in

research and development of these techniques, the Agency recommends that state, tribal, and

local beach managers consider developing scientifically based and easy-to-use site-specific

decision rules based on the technical approaches summarized below:

• Rainfall-based models are site-specific, and their development requires relatively large sets of 

monitoring data for both rainfall and water quality. The overall relationship can be described

by a statistical regression/estimation model. Depending on the number of rainfall stations 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-6 June 2002

considered and the number of rainfall characteristics (amount, duration, lag time), the

relationship might require a more complex multiple-regression model. Because of the

statistical nature of these types of models, they cannot distinguish between point sources and

nonpoint sources of pathogens and do not explicitly incorporate advection, transport, and

decay processes. Also, because their use is limited to assisting in the development of decision

rules for advisories and closings of recreational waters, they do not attempt to provide the

spatial and vertical distribution of pathogens.

• Frequency of exceedance analysis is another rainfall-based method that can be used to

develop rainfall-based alert curves. An exceedance is defined as any time the observed

pathogen concentration exceeds the action level, such as the state water quality standard,

specified by a responsible agency. The objective of this method is to determine the minimum

amount of rainfall that causes the pathogen concentration to exceed the action level. This

amount can be determined by dividing cumulative rainfall amounts over a period of 24 hours

or more into segments that range from no rainfall to an upper limit that is representative of

the rainfall record, types of storms, and season. For each rainfall amount category, the

observed pathogen concentration or the geometric mean of multiple samples is compared to

the action level.

• After establishing a relationship between rainfall amounts and pathogen concentrations,

developing decision rules for advisories and closings is the next step. An advisory or closing

threshold is determined based on the least amount of rainfall that would result in an

exceedance of the action level. This method applies to situations where historical rainfall data

and water quality records exist. Decision rules also should be developed to include seasonal

variation in rainfall. 

K.3.5 Case Studies

Rainfall-based alert curves based on regression analysis have been used for preemptive beach

closures in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Stamford, Connecticut; Sussex County, Delaware; and the

Boston, Massachusetts, area. In the cases of the city of Milwaukee, city of Stamford, and the

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the approach taken was

regression analysis to relate rainfall to pathogen concentration. Models developed based on this

approach are site-specific because they are derived from locally observed water quality and

rainfall data as well as beach location/configuration relative to pathogen sources.
Appendix K

June 2002 K-7

Pathogen Point

and Nonpoint

Source Loading

Components Potential Models

• HSPF

• SWMM

• STORM

Pathogen

Concentration

Prediction

Stream (Run of the river):

• CE-QUAL-RIV1

• QUAL-2E

• HSPF

Lake -Estuary:

• CE-QUAL-ICM

• CE-QUAL-W2

• WASP

• TPM

• EFDC

Figure K-1. Predictive tool summary.

K.4 Other Predictive Tools to Supplement Sampling

Supplemental Sampling

The overall objective of beach closure predictive tools is to minimize the population’s exposure

to pathogens. The tools currently in use by local agencies vary in their complexity and approach

to minimizing exposure but are generally simple, reliable tools. Figure K-1 shows other

predictive tools that can be used to determine the need for a beach closing. The listed models are

divided into two categories—watershed pathogen loading models and pathogen concentration

prediction models. The latter category is divided into two additional groups to reflect the

waterbody types: (1) rivers and streams and (2) lakes and estuaries. Currently, there are no

readily available models that address the coastal nearshore environment; therefore, surf zone

models are not included in this appendix. 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-8 June 2002

Pathogen Loading Estimates

Watershed loading models that can be used to estimate pathogen loadings to receiving waters are

presented in table K-2. Three considerations are taken into account in the table—real-time

prediction, source type, and land use type.

Table K-2. Watershed-scale Loading Models

Model Type Model Name

Real- time Prediction Source Type Land Use Type

Data

Needs

Processing 

Time

PS NPS CSO Urban Rural

Watershed-scale

loading

HSPF:

Hydrological

Simulation

Program–Fortran

x x xx x x xxx

SWMM: 

Storm Water

Management

Model

x x x x xx xx x

STORM: Storage,

Treatment,

Overflow, Runoff

Model

x x x x x xx

x Low data requirements/applicability.

xx Medium data requirements/applicability.

xxx High data requirements/applicability.

Potential sources of pathogens include point sources (including CSOs) and nonpoint sources.

Models differ in their ability to account for these various source types. Models that simulate

nonpoint sources are capable of describing the pathogen buildup processes during dry weather

and washoff processes related to rainfall-generated runoff. Accounting for various land uses is

very important in estimating nonpoint source loadings because the processes of buildup and

washoff are land-use-specific. CSO loading is a function of the hydraulic routing and the storage

capacity in the publicly owned treatment works, consisting of the treatment plant and collection

system. Therefore, a model’s ability to deal with the complex land uses in the watershed is an

important factor in model selection and applicability. The key loading models suited for real-time

prediction summarized in table K-2 are briefly described below.

HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program— Fortran. HSPF is a comprehensive watershed-scale

model developed by EPA. The model uses continuous simulation of water balance and pollutant

buildup and washoff processes to generate time series of runoff flow rates, as well as pollutant

concentration at any given point in the watershed. Runoff from both urban and rural areas can be

simulated using HSPF; however, simulation of CSOs is not possible. Because of the

comprehensive nature of the model, data requirements for HSPF are extensive and using this

model requires highly trained personnel.
Appendix K

June 2002 K-9

SWMM: Storm Water Management Model. SWMM is a comprehensive watershed-scale model

developed by EPA. It can be used to model several types of pollutants on either a continuous or

storm event basis. Simulation of mixed land uses is possible using SWMM, but the model’s

capabilities are limited for rural areas. SWMM can simulate loadings from CSOs. The model

requires both intensive data input and a special effort for validation and calibration. The output of

the model is time series of flow, storage, and contaminant concentrations at any point in the

watershed.

STORM: Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model. STORM is a watershed loading model

developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for continuous simulation of runoff quantity and

quality. The model was primarily designed for modeling storm water runoff from urban areas,

but it also can simulate combined sewer systems. It requires relatively moderate to high

calibration and input data. The simulation output is hourly hydrographs and pollutographs.

Pathogen Concentration Prediction

Loading models, depending on the simulation type, provide estimates of either the total water and

pollutant loading or a time series loading of water and pollutants. Pathogen concentration

prediction is the process of describing the response of the waterbody to pollutant loadings, flows,

and ambient conditions. Because the response is specific to the waterbody, different types of

models are required for accurate simulation, as shown in table K-3. The models are divided into

two categories on the table—rivers and streams, and lakes and estuaries. 

Rivers and Streams. Prediction of pathogen concentration in rivers and streams is dominated by

the processes of advection and dispersion and the bacterial indicator degradation. One-, two-, and

three-dimensional models have been developed to describe these processes, as shown in table K3. Waterbody type and data availability are the two most important factors that determine model

applicability. For most small and shallow rivers, one-dimensional models are sufficient to

simulate the waterbody’s response to pathogen loading. For large and deep rivers and streams,

however, the one-dimensional approach falls short of describing the processes of advection and

dispersion. Assumptions that the pathogen concentration is uniform both vertically and laterally

are no longer valid. In such cases two- or three-dimensional models that include a description of

the hydrodynamics are used. The river and stream models summarized in table K-3 are briefly

described below.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-10 June 2002

Table K-3. Potential Pathogen Fate and Transport Models

Model Name

Time-Relevant Prediction Waterbody Type

Data Needs Processing

Time

Rivers and

Streams

Lakes and

Estuaries

HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran xx x x N/A

CE-QUAL-RIV1: Hydrodynamic and Water

Quality Model for Streams

xx xx x N/A

CE-QUAL-ICM: A Three-Dimensional, TimeVariable, Integrated-Compartment Eutrophication

Model

xxx xxx x xx

CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally

Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality

Model

xxx xx xx x

WASP5: Water Quality Analysis Simulation

Program

xx xx xx xx

EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer

Code

xx xx xx xx

QUAL2E: Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model x x x N/A

TPM: Tidal Prism Model x x N/A x

x Low applicability.

xx Medium applicability.

xxx High applicability.

HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran . HSPF is a comprehensive watershed-scale

model developed by EPA. The receiving water component allows dynamic simulation of onedimensional stream channels, and several hydrodynamic routing options are available. The model

output is time series of runoff flow rate, as well as pollutant concentration at any given point in

the watershed. Because of the model’s comprehensive nature, the data requirements for HSPF

are extensive and running the model requires highly trained personnel.

CE-QUAL-RIV1: Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model for Streams. CE-QUAL-RIV1 is a

dynamic, one-dimensional model for rivers and estuaries consisting of two codes—one for

hydraulic routing and another for dynamic water quality simulation. CE-QUAL-RIV1 allows

simulation of unsteady flow of branched river systems. The input data requirements include the

river geometry, boundary conditions, initial in-stream and inflow boundary water quality

concentrations, and meteorological data. The model predicts time-varying concentrations of

water quality constituents.
Appendix K

June 2002 K-11

Lakes and Estuaries. Predicting the response of lakes and estuaries to pathogen loading requires

an understanding of the hydrodynamic processes. Shallow lakes can be simulated as a simplified,

completely mixed system with an inflow stream and an outflow stream. However, simulating

deep lakes or estuaries with multiple inflows and outflows that are affected by tidal cycles is not

a simple task. Pathogen concentration prediction is dominated by the processes of advection and

dispersion, and these processes are affected by the tidal flow. The size of the lake or the estuary,

the net freshwater flow, and wind conditions are some of the factors that determine the

applicability of the models. The lake and estuary models summarized in table K-3 are briefly

described below.

ASP5: Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program. WASP5 is a general-purpose modeling

system for assessing the fate and transport of pollutants in surface water. The model can be

applied in one, two, or three dimensions and can be linked to other hydrodynamic models.

WASP5 simulates the time-varying processes of advection and dispersion while considering

point and nonpoint source loadings and boundary exchange. The waterbody to be simulated is

divided into a series of completely mixed segments, and the loads, boundary concentrations, and

initial concentrations must be specified for each state variable.

CE-QUAL-ICM: A Three-Dimensional Time-Variable Integrated-Compartment Eutrophication

Model. CE-QUAL-ICM is a dynamic water quality model that can be applied to most

waterbodies in one, two, or three dimensions. The model can be coupled with three-dimensional

hydrodynamic and benthic-sediment model components. CE-QUAL-ICM predicts time-varying

concentrations of water quality constituents. The input requirements for the model include 140

parameters to specify the kinetic interactions, initial and boundary conditions, and geometric data

to define the waterbody to be simulated. Model use might require significant expertise in aquatic

biology and chemistry.

EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code. EFDC is a general three-dimensional

hydrodynamic model developed by Hamrick (1992). EFDC is applicable to rivers, lakes,

reservoirs, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal regions where complex water circulation, mixing, and

transport conditions are present. EFDC must be linked to a water quality model to predict the

receiving water quality conditions. HEM-3D is a three-dimensional hydrodynamic eutrophication

model that was developed by integrating EFDC with a water quality model. Considerable

technical expertise in hydrodynamics and eutrophication processes is required to use the EFDC

model.

CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged Hydrodynamic and Water Quality

Model. CE-QUAL-W2 is a hydrodynamic water quality model that can be applied to most

waterbodies in one dimension or laterally averaged in two dimensions. The model is suited for

simulating long, narrow waterbodies like reservoirs and long estuaries, where stratification might

occur. The model application is flexible because the constituents are arranged in four levels of

complexity. Also, the water quality and hydrodynamic routines are directly coupled, allowing for 
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

K-12 June 2002

more frequent updating of the water quality routines. This feature can reduce the computational

burden for complex systems. The input requirements for CE-QUAL-W2 include geometric data

to define the waterbody, specific initial boundary conditions, and specification of approximately

60 coefficients for the simulation of water quality.

QUAL2E: The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model. QUAL2E is a steady-state receiving

water model. The basic equation used in QUAL2E is the one-dimensional advective-dispersive

mass transport equation. Although the model assumes a steady-state flow, it allows simulation of

diurnal variations in meteorological inputs. The input requirements of QUAL2E include the

stream reach physical representation and the chemical and biological properties for each reach.

TPM: Tidal Prism Model. TPM is a steady-state receiving water quality model applicable only to

small coastal basins. In such locations the tidal cycles dominate the mixing and transport of

pollutants. The model assumes that the tide rises and falls simultaneously throughout the

waterbody and that the system is in hydrodynamic equilibrium. Two types of input data are

required to run TPM. The geometric data that define the system being simulated are the returning

ratio, initial concentration, and boundary conditions. The physical data required are the water

temperature, reaction rate, point and nonpoint sources, and initial boundary conditions for water

quality parameters modeled.
Appendix K

June 2002 K-13

K.5 References

DNREC. 1997. Swimming (Primary Body Contact) Water Quality Attainability for Priority 

Watersheds in Sussex County. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

Kuntz, J.E. 1998. Non-point Sources of Bacteria at Beaches. City of Stamford Health

Department, Stamford, CT. 

USEPA. 1999. Review of Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the BEACH

Program. EPA 823/R-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and

Technology, Washington, DC.

Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A Three-dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code:

Theoretical and Computational Aspects. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, Gloucester, VA. Special Report 317.