Implementing the 

BEACH Act of 2000

Report to Congress

October 2006

Implementing the 

BEACH Act of 2000

Report to Congress

October 2006

EPA-823-R-06-001

i

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

Improving water quality standards, water quality criteria, and water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Promulgation of water quality standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Technical research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Recommendations to improve beach water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3

Implementing the BEACH Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3

Recommending improvements to methodologies and techniques for monitoring of 

coastal recreation waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4

Chapter 1: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 What is the nature of the problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 What is the BEACH Act? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.3 Organization of the Report to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

Chapter 2: Health Concerns at Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 What are pathogens and bacterial indicators? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Bacterial indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2 What are the health concerns at beaches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

Epidemiology studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

Illness Outbreak Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and Quality of Water at Beaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Existing criteria and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

EPA’s existing recommended water quality criteria for bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

EPA promulgation: State water quality standards for bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.2 Water quality criteria under development by EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

EPA’s NEEAR Water Study and methods development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Indicator methods development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Epidemiology study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.3 Survey of beach advisories and closings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.4 Major sources affecting water quality at beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

Point and nonpoint sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

SSOs and CSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
ii Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

3.5 Recommendations for actions to improve beach water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

Establish pathogen indicators based on sound science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Reduce pathogen levels in recreational waters generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Improve beach monitoring and public notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.6 Improving beach water quality through related programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

EPA’s National Estuary Program (NEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

EPA’s National Marine Debris Monitoring Program (NMDMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

EPA’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

Great Lakes National Program Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to 

Implement the BEACH Act................................................ 4-1

4.1 What has EPA done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Monitoring and notification performance criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Cooperative consultation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Program development and implementation grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

EPA’s eBeaches: Information technology development for beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

National List of Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

“Floatables”: EPA Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

EPA Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.2 What have other federal agencies done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

U.S. National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.3 What have state and territorial governments done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
iii

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.4 What have tribal governments done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.5 What have local governments done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

Chapter 5: Improvements to Methodologies and Techniques for 

Monitoring Coastal Recreation Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 What monitoring research has EPA conducted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 What modeling work has been conducted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

Appendix A: BEACH Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: BEACH-related References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

1. National Beach Conference Proceedings (October 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

2. Tropical Indicators Workshop (March 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Tropical indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Other Research Related to BEACH Act Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Data Collection and Modeling of Enteric Pathogens, Fecal Indicators and Real-Time 

Environmental Data at Madison, WI (EPA Grant Number: R829339) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling for Equitable Recreation on the 

Mystic River (EPA Grant Number: R829338) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Prevalence and Survival of Microorganisms in Shoreline Interstitial Waters: A Search for 

Indicators of Health Risks (EPA Grant Number: R828830) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Near-Real Time Monitoring of Inland Suburban Waterways: Application to Three Critical 

Environmental Issues Facing the North Shore/Metro Boston (EPA Grant Number: R828582) . . . . . . . . D-2

Molecular Detection of Anaerobic Bacteria as Indicator Species for Fecal Pollution 

in Water (EPA Grant Number: R827639) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Contents
iv Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and Public Outreach (EPA Grant 

Number: R827063) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Development of Guidance on Decision-Making When Using Microbial Source 

Tracking Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Proof of Concept Demonstration for Near Real-Time In Situ Detection of Fecal 

Contamination in Fresh and Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Portable Pathogenic Predictor for Storm water (EPA Contract Number: 68D99028) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

A New Biosensor for Rapid Identification of Bacterial Pathogens (EPA Contract 

Number: 68D02051) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5

Automated Human Fecal Pollution Detection (EPA Contract Number: EPD05036) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
ES-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Section 7 of the BEACH Act of 2000 requires EPA to 

publish reports to Congress on the implementation 

of the Act. This is the first Report to Congress since 

the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000. This report 

documents the significant progress that the states, 

territories and EPA have made to implement the 

BEACH Act.

Executive Summary

Our coastal beaches are one of our nation’s natural 

treasures. They are ecologically important, 

psychologically important, and economically important 

to us. In 2000, EPA estimated that a third of all 

Americans visit coastal areas each year, making a total 

of 910 million trips and spending about $44 billion 

(USEPA 2000). For many people, a day at the beach 

“The Beach. Say the words and they conjure the gentle tickle of waves against the shore, the harder kick of 

surf dashing against the rocks, the slap of spray against heated skin. For most of us, the place where earth 

meets ocean is the very essence of play—romantic, full of novelty and joyful abandon. At the beach, we are all 

children. As we gambol in the shallow surf and toss in the deeper waves, we feel the freedom of helplessness and 

the satisfaction of improvising defenses. Unburdened by consciousness or self-consciousness, we are caught in 

the moment. Suffused with pleasure, we exult in the sheer lightness of being.” 

—(Marano, Psychology Today, 1999)
ES- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

provides recreation, relaxation, and a chance to renew 

the spirit. Americans also make coastal areas their 

home. Over half the U.S. population lives in coastal 

watershed counties, and roughly one-half of the 

nation’s gross domestic product ($4.5 trillion in 2000) 

is generated in those counties and in adjacent ocean 

waters (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004).

Americans have recognized the need for improved 

protection of public health at beaches, including 

stronger beach monitoring programs, and in 2000 

Congress passed the Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. 

Since then, the EPA, in partnership with state and 

local governments, has made significant progress in 

improving public health at our nation’s beaches. EPA is 

pleased to report the following:

1. States have significantly improved their 

assessment and monitoring of beaches; the 

number of monitored beaches has increased from 

about 1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,500 out of 

approximately 6,000 beaches, as identified to EPA 

by the states for the 2004 swimming season.

2. EPA has strengthened water quality standards 

throughout all the coastal recreation waters in the 

United States; the number of coastal and Great 

Lakes states with up-to-date water quality criteria 

has increased from 11 in 2000 to 35 in 2004.

3. EPA has improved public access to data on beach 

advisories and closings by improving its electronic 

system for beach data collection and delivery 

systems; the system is known as “eBeaches.” The 

public can view the beach information at http://

oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.

main.

4. EPA is working to improve pollution control 

efforts that reduce potential adverse health effects 

at beaches. EPA’s Strategic Plan and recent 

National Water Program Guidance describe these 

actions to coordinate assessment of problems 

affecting beaches and to reduce pollution. (See 

section 3.5).

5. EPA is conducting research to develop new or 

revised water quality criteria and more rapid 

methods for assessing water quality at beaches 

so that results can be made available in hours 

rather than days. Quicker tests will allow beach 

managers to make faster decisions about the safety 

of beach waters and thus help reduce the risk of 

illness among beachgoers.

These achievements are the result of specific actions 

implemented by EPA and the states under the BEACH 

Act. The actions are summarized in Table ES-1 and 

described following.

Improving water quality standards, 

water quality criteria, and water 

quality

EPA and states took regulatory action to improve 

the existing water quality standards. In addition, the 

Agency devoted significant resources for conducting 

new research and developing new or revised

recommended water quality criteria. 

Promulgation of water quality standards

EPA responded to the BEACH Act’s requirement that 

the Agency propose water quality standards using its 

most current water quality criteria if states had not 

adopted these criteria by April 10, 2004. On November 

16, 2004, EPA published a final rule that put federal 

standards into place for the 21 states without criteria 

that are as protective of human health as EPA’s 1986 

criteria for coastal recreation waters. 

Technical research

Since passage of the BEACH Act, EPA has initiated and 

conducted significant research activities. For example, 

EPA—through its National Epidemiological and 

Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) 

Water Study—is evaluating rapid indicator methods 
Executive Summary ES-

to detect fecal contamination and assessing them with 

epidemiological studies that relate the rapid indicator 

measurements to human health. EPA has completed its 

recommended studies of Great Lake waters and is now 

assessing this new information, as part of a process to 

develop new or revised water quality criteria. EPA is 

assessing its further research needs at this time.

Recommendations to improve beach water 

quality

In its Strategic Plan (USEPA 2003c), EPA identifies 

“Water Safe for Swimming” as an important objective 

for the Agency. EPA’s National Water Program Guidance

for both FY 2005 and FY 2006 (USEPA 2004a and 

USEPA 2005b) summarized the Agency’s key national 

strategies and actions to help improve beach water 

quality. For FY 2005 and FY 2006, EPA’s national 

strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters 

includes four key elements:

1. Establish a new generation of pathogen indicators 

based on sound science. 

2. Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin 

restoration.

3. Reduce pathogens levels in all recreational waters.

4. Improve beach monitoring and public notification. 

Implementing the BEACH Act

EPA and the states have focused on another set of 

actions to help reduce the human health risks at 

beaches through better water quality monitoring and 

improved public notification. Important progress has 

been made working cooperatively with state and local 

environmental and public health agencies. Actions 

include the following:

$ Beach grants. EPA provided beach program 

development grants to states in FY 2001 and has 

provided implementation grants to all states (except 

Alaska) since then. EPA has awarded, or is in the 

process of awarding, approximately $52 million in 

grants to states to develop and implement beach 

monitoring and public notification programs.

$ State and local accomplishments. Many of the 

actions discussed below were accomplished 

through the diligent efforts of state and local public 

health and environmental agencies. State-written 

“spotlights” that provide detailed descriptions 

of achievements resulting from state and local 

beach programs are provided in Section 4.3 and 

Appendix B of the report.

$ National program requirements and guidance. EPA 

published National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants in July 2002. This 

document established the fundamental framework 

for beach programs and provides guidance for 

receiving implementation grants. EPA developed 

the document in consultation with coastal states and 

other interested parties over a two-year period.

$ National List of Beaches. States completed the 

first national, comprehensive listing of beaches 

using a risk-based classification scheme to identify 

monitoring and notification priorities. This list 

will eventually be linked to detailed geographic 

identifiers, monitoring stations, and other data 

systems.
ES- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

$ eBeaches. EPA has improved public access to data 

on beach advisories and closings by improving 

its electronic system for beach data collection 

and delivery systems; the system is known as 

“eBeaches.” This online system includes a database 

of monitoring results and notification actions, 

thereby fulfilling the National Pollution Occurrence 

Database requirement of the BEACH Act. The 

public can view the beach information at http://

oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.main.

Recommending improvements to 

methodologies and techniques for 

monitoring of coastal recreation 

waters

EPA and others have taken a number of actions to 

improve our understanding of beach water quality 

monitoring and modeling. For example, EPA is 

developing faster indicator methods that will provide 

more rapid results than the currently used tests. The 

goal is to help beach managers quickly test the water 

and make available the results about the safety of beach 

waters in hours, rather than days. This technology 

will help reduce the risk of waterborne illness among 

beachgoers.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

conducted an intensive monitoring program (the 

Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and 

Community Tracking, or EMPACT, study) at several 

beaches to determine what factors influence microbial 

indicator concentrations. This study provides state and 

local governments with information for improving the 

design of site-specific beach monitoring programs. 

Included is an examination on how environmental 

factors like sunshine, tide, rain, or wind and sampling 

variables (such as sampling times and sample depth and 

distance from the shore) affect fecal indicator levels.

ORD has also been investigating means to improve 

the monitoring of beach water quality and to develop 

strategies, including modeling, for timely notification 

of the public when bacterial contamination poses a 

risk to bathers. New software called Virtual Beach 

is being developed to support both empirical and 

physical approaches in an integrated application. In 

collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

EPA is developing a prototype of Virtual Beach to 

automate statistical analytical techniques developed 

by USGS. The goal is to develop a user-friendly 

application that can help beach managers predict the 

need for a beach advisory or closing up to three days in 

advance.

References

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean 

Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final report. U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986. 

EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2000. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources 

at a Turning Point. EPA-840-B-00-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2003. 2003–2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for 

the Future. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Executive Summary ES-

Table ES-1. Accomplishments in Implementing the BEACH Act

Activity Date Page

Water Quality Criteria and Other Actions To Improve Coastal Recreation Waters

• Existing Water Quality Standards

Promulgated water quality standards for states and territories that had not yet adopted water 

quality criteria for bacteria that were as protective of human health as EPA’s 1986 bacteria 

criteria. November 2004 3-1

• National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) 

Water Study

Initiated joint study with the CDC, USGS, and others to test potential new water quality 

indicators. 2001-present 3-3

• Rapid Methods

Developing new water quality tests that will provide rapid results. 2001-present 3-3

• Water Quality Criteria Development

Will update water quality criteria based on ongoing and planned studies. 2001-ongoing 3-5

• Recommendations to improve beach water quality

EPA’s strategic plan included combination of actions to improve recreational water quality. September 2003 3-7

Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts

• National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants

Published the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 

establishing the basic requirements for beach programs that receive federal beach funds. July 2002 4-1

• Awarded BEACH Grants

EPA has awarded, or is in the process of awarding, approximately $52 million in grants to 

states to develop and implement beach monitoring and public notification programs. 2000-present 4-3

• “eBeaches”

Designed, built, and implemented an electronic data system called eBeaches to collect, 

store, and provide beach information to the public. http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_

national_page.main. May 2005 4-4

• National Health Protection Survey of Beaches

Continued the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches through 2002 to collect 

information about state and local beach programs. 1997-2002 3-5

• National List of Beaches

Developed and published a “list of beaches” (“list of waters”) that includes those with a 

monitoring and notification program, as well as those without a program. 2004-present 4-7

• Floatables

Published guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris to help states, tribes, and 

local governments develop their own assessment and monitoring programs for floatable 

debris in coastal recreation waters. August 2004 4-7

• State and Territory Accomplishments

States and territories have used BEACH Act grant funds to implement and improve their 

beach monitoring and public notification programs. 2001-present 4-9

Recommendations to Improve Integrated Coastal Water Monitoring and Modeling

• Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) 

Beaches Project

Conducted a study to identify those characteristics of a beach environment that have a 

significant impact on monitoring in coastal recreation waters. September 2005 5-1

• Modeling

Investigated the USGS Project SAFE model. Collaborated with USGS to design the Virtual 

Beach model. 2005 5-2
ES- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress
1-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1	 What is the nature of the

problem?

Over the past 50 years, epidemiological studies and 

“outbreak investigations” have linked swimming in 

polluted water with adverse human health effects. 

Epidemiological studies determine the relationship 

between water quality and health effects in swimmers. 

Swimming-related diseases can range from less severe 

gastrointestinal diseases (e.g., sore throats and diarrhea) 

and non-gastrointestinal diseases (e.g., respiratory, ear, 

eye, and skin infections) to more serious illnesses, such 

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

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 like 

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 (Craun et al. 2005). 

1.2	 What is the BEACH Act?

On October 10, 2000, the Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) was 

signed into law, amending the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

The BEACH Act addressed pathogens and pathogen 

indicators in coastal recreation waters, and it contains 

three significant provisions, summarized as follows: 

• The BEACH Act amended the CWA by adding 

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). Section 303(i) also directs EPA to promulgate 

standards for states that fail to establish standards 

as protective of human health as EPA’s published 

criteria. 

• The Act amended the CWA by adding section 104(v) 

and 304(a), which together require EPA to conduct 

studies associated with pathogens and human health 
1- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

and to publish new or revised CWA section 304(a) 

criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators based 

on those studies. Under section 303(i)(1)(B), states 

that have coastal recreation waters are directed to 

adopt new or revised water quality standards for all 

pathogens and pathogen indicators to which EPA’s 

new or revised section 304(a) criteria are applicable 

by not later than three years after EPA’s publication 

of the new or revised section 304(a) criteria. 

• The Act amended the CWA to add section 406, 

which authorizes EPA to award grants to states or 

local governments to develop and implement beach 

monitoring and assessment programs. 

The Beach Act also amended part 502 of the CWA to 

define coastal recreation waters as the Great Lakes and 

marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) designated under CWA section 303(c) for swimming, bathing, 

surfing, or similar water contact activities. The term 

coastal recreation waters does not include inland waters or 

waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream that 

has an unimpaired connection with the open sea.

1.3	 Organization of the Report to

Congress

Section 7 of the BEACH Act required EPA to publish a 

report to Congress four years after enactment and every 

four years thereafter. Specifically, the act required that 

the report include

• 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 (Chapter 3)

A copy of the BEACH Act is in 

Appendix A. 

The BEACH Act is also available 

online at: www.epa.gov/waterscience/

beaches/act.html
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-

Rose, 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.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean 

Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final report. U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2000. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources 

at a Turning Point. EPA-840-B-00-001. Office of 

Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC.

• An evaluation of federal, state, and local efforts to 

implement the act (Chapter 4)

* Recommendations on improvements to methodologies and techniques for monitoring coastal 

recreation waters (Chapter 5)

This report to Congress fulfills EPA’s obligation for 

the first report. It provides a synopsis of the health 

concerns related to pathogens, followed by chapters 

that address the three requirements of Section 7 of the 

BEACH Act. This report documents the significant 

progress that EPA and its partners have made in implementing the BEACH Act. The Agency’s collaborative 

work with other federal agencies, states, and territories, as well as local environmental and public health 

agencies, has resulted in better beach monitoring and 

notification and, consequently, better public health 

protection at America’s beaches.

1.4	 References

Craun, G.F., R.L. Calderon, and M.F. Craun. 2005. 

Outbreaks associated with recreational water in the 

United States. International Journal of Environmental 

Health Research. 15(4): 243.
1- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress
2-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

2.1	 What are pathogens and

bacterial indicators?

This section includes background information about 

pathogens and bacterial indicators to allow a better 

understanding of the BEACH Act’s requirements for 

water quality standards and criteria.

Pathogens

A pathogen is defined as any disease-producing microorganism (Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 

2000). 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 reside on the 

skin, providing protection against pathogens. Still others are used commercially 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, they can cause gastrointestinal illness, other 

medical problems, or even death. The source of human 

pathogens is usually the feces of humans and other 

warm-blooded animals. For recreational waters, there 

are three groups of gastrointestinal pathogens of concern—bacteria, viruses, and protozoans. 

• Bacteria are unicellular organisms that lack an organized nucleus and contain no chlorophyll (Chapra 

1997). They contain a single chromosome and typically reproduce by binary fission, during which a 

single cell divides to form two new cells. A primary 

bacteria source of concern at beaches is feces from 

people and other warm-blooded animals, including 

fecal waste associated with farming and the discharge 

Chapter 2

Health Concerns at Beaches

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 understand, 

however, that most bacteria are not pathogenic or 

disease-causing.

• Protozoans are unicellular organisms with a nucleus 

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, are found in the feces of people 

and other warm-blooded animals (Mitchell et al. 

1988, cited in NCSU 1997). 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 (Academic Press 2003).

Giardia lamblia. (H.D.A. Lindquist. USEPA)
2- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

•	 Viruses are a group of infectious agents that require 

a host in which to live and reproduce. 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 the cells of the gastrointestinal tract of people and infected animals. These 

enteric viruses are excreted in feces, and they include 

hepatitis A, rotaviruses, caliciviruses (noroviruses), 

adenoviruses, enteroviruses, and reoviruses.

Bacterial indicators

Bacterial indicators1 are used to measure fecal contamination in environmental waters and the potential presence of a diverse group of hard-to-detect pathogenic 

organisms. A bacterial indicator organism provides 

evidence of the presence or absence of fecal waste and 

the potential presence of pathogenic organisms that 

survive under similar physical, chemical, and nutrient 

conditions. An ideal indicator organism should have 

as many of the following characteristics as possible: 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; and have a die-off rate similar to the 

die-off rate of the pathogens of concern (Sloat and Ziel 

1992, Thomann and Mueller 1987).

Most disease-causing microbes exist sporadically, 

often at very low concentrations, and are difficult and 

expen­sive to detect. Indicator organisms, therefore, 

have been used for more than a century to help identify 

where fecal contamination has occurred and to indicate 

where disease-causing microbes might be present. 

These organisms generally do not cause illness directly; 

how­ever, they have characteristics that make them 

good indicators that fecal contamination has occurred 

and that harmful pathogens might be in the water 

(Thomann and Mueller 1987, Wilhelm and Maluk 

1999). Figure 2.1 shows the relationship of various 

bacterial indicator organisms.

1	 This report uses the term bacterial indicators because it is the term more commonly used by microbiologists. The CWA defines a pathogen indicator as a substance that indicates the

potential for human infectious disease. EPA interprets the term pathogen indicators, as used in the BEACH Act, to refer to any indicators for pathogens, which include bacterial indicators.

Indicator Organisms

Total Coliform

Bacteria

Fecal Coliform

Bacteria

Escherichia coli

Fecal Enterococci/

Streptococci

Enterococcus Streptococcus

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

Figure 2.1.	 Relationship between bacterial indicator organisms

Rotavirus. (F.P. Williams. USEPA)
Chapter 2: Health Concerns at Beaches 2-

Table 2.1. Waterborne Pathogens (adapted from Metcalf and Eddy, 1991)

Pathogen Disease Effects

Bacteria

Escherichia coli

(enteropathogenic) Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea, and 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 

immuno-compromised 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

Naglaria fowleri Amoebicmeningoencephalitis 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

Noroviruses (Norwalkand Sapporo-like viruses) Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Reovirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

Rotavirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea
2- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

2.2	 What are the health concerns at

beaches?

Various studies and reports have documented the 

adverse health effects that might result from human 

exposure to fecally contaminated waters. The main route 

of exposure to disease-causing organisms in recreation 

waters is contact with polluted water while swimming.2

In waters that contain fecal contamination, bathers 

could potentially contract all the waterborne diseases 

spread by the fecal-oral route (Henrickson et al. 2001). 

These illnesses include diseases resulting from exposure to various pathogens, such as

• Bacteria that can cause cholera, salmonellosis, 

shigellosis, and gastroenteritis

• Viruses that can cause diseases like infectious 

hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal diseases

• Protozoans that can cause diseases like amoebic 

dysentery, cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis

These and other diseases that can result from contact 

with water contaminated with introduced or naturally 

occurring pathogens are summarized in Table 2.1.

When people become ill as a result of contact with contaminated water, one common illness is gastroenteritis. 

Gastroenteritis is the inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, usually caused by a microorganism. It can 

involve chills, nausea, diarrhea, and sometimes fever. 

People can also contract diseases that affect the eyes, 

ears, skin, and upper respiratory tract. Infection 

might result when pathogenic microorganisms come 

into contact with abrasions in the skin, or ruptures in 

delicate membranes in the ear or nose, resulting from 

swimming exposures.

Epidemiology studies

The relationship between water quality and human 

health has been studied for many years. EPA began 

studies to quantify 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 waters and 

freshwaters. 

• Most swimming-related illnesses are of undetermined etiology (cause).3

In 1995, researchers with assistance from the Santa 

Monica National Estuary Program, launched a largescale 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 followup interviews designed to assess the occurrence of 

symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. 

The study found 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 indicated 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 such storm drains (Haile et 

al. 1996).

A review of studies conducted during the past several 

decades has provided the following overall conclusions 

(Prüss 1998):

• An exposure-response relationship exists between 

bacterial indicator counts in recreational waters 

and gastrointestinal symptoms in bathers.

• There is no demonstrated relationship between 

bacterial indicator counts and symptoms not 

related to the gastrointestinal tract (such as eye, 

nose, ears, and skin symptoms).

2	 The terms swimming and bathing are used in this report to encompass recreational activities (such as swimming, bathing, water skiing, surfing, and kayaking) where ingestion of, or

immersion in, the water is likely. States and territories typically identify these uses in their water quality standards as “primary contact recreation.”

3	 The illnesses can be identified, but the specific pathogen (i.e., bacterium, virus, or protozoan) often is not identified unless there is a specific outbreak investigation.
Chapter 2: Health Concerns at Beaches 2-

• The relative risk of swimming in contaminated 

waters ranged from one to three times above the 

risk associated with swimming in uncontaminated 

waters.

• The indicators showing the best correlation 

with adverse health effects were enterococci 

(marine water and freshwater) and Escherichia coli

(freshwater).

Illness Outbreak Reports

Another source of information about adverse human 

health effects is reports of waterborne disease outbreaks. In 1971 EPA, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), and the Council of State and 

Territorial Epidemiologists initiated a surveillance 

system for reporting the occurrence and causes of 

waterborne outbreaks in the United States. This system 

resulted in a series of annual reports on waterborne 

disease outbreaks.

These reports are an important source of information about human health problems in our nation’s 

recreational waters. A recently published article titled 

“Outbreaks associated with recreational water in the 

United States” summarizes these reports from the past 

30 years (Craun et al. 2005). In the article, the authors 

review the causes of outbreaks associated with recreational water during 1971–2000 and note the following: 

• A bacterial or protozoan etiology was identified in 

three-quarters of the outbreaks; 23 percent of the 

outbreaks were of undetermined etiology. The most 

frequently identified agents were Cryptosporidium (15 

percent), Pseudomonas (14 percent), Shigella (13 percent), Naegleria (11 percent), Giardia (6 percent), and 

toxigenic E. coli (6 percent). Outbreaks attributed to 

Shigella, E. coli O157:H7, and Naegleria were primarily associated with swimming in fresh waters such 

as lakes, ponds, and rivers. In contrast, outbreaks 

caused by Cryptosporidium and Giardia were primarily associated with treated water in swimming and 

wading pools. 

• An important source of contamination for both 

treated and untreated recreational waters was the 

bathers themselves. Contamination from sewage 

discharges and wild or domestic animals were also 

important sources for untreated waters. A contributing factor in swimming-pool outbreaks was 

inadequate attention to maintenance, operation, 

disinfection, and filtration.

• Although not all waterborne outbreaks are recognized or reported, the national surveillance of these 

outbreaks has helped identify important sources 

of contamination of recreational waters and the 

etiologic agents. This information can be useful in 

making prevention recommendations and setting 

research priorities that might lead to improved water 

quality guidelines. 

These reports provide insight into the health effects 

and, to some degree, the causes of human illnesses. 

Unfortunately, the reporting has limitations. For 

example, it is difficult to detect and document illness 

outbreaks in the population. People who acquire an illness from bathing in contaminated water do not always 

associate their illness with swimming. The symptoms might arise after leaving the beach and might 

be attributed to other causes, such as food poisoning. 

As a result, disease outbreaks often are inconsistently 

recognized (Craun et al. 2005). Disease surveillance 

reports also cannot accurately determine the incidence 

of disease among bathers. 

E. coli, a bacterial indicator organism that correlates with adverse 

effects in freshwater. (Rocky Mountain Laboratories. NIAID. NIH)
2- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

2.3	 References

Academic Press. 2003. Handbook of Water and 

Wastewater Microbiology. Chapter 40, p. 695. 

Elsevier. 

Chapra., S. 1997. Surface Water-Quality Modeling. 

McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

Craun, G.F., R.L. Calderon, and M.F. Craun. 2005. 

Outbreaks associated with recreational water in the 

United States. International Journal of Environmental 

Health Research 15(4): 243.

Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 2000. 29th 

ed. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.

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

Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay Restoration 

Project, Monterey Park, CA. 

Henrickson, S.E., T. Wong, P. Allen, T. Ford, and P.R. 

Epstein. 2001. Marine swimming-related illness: 

Implications for Monitoring and Environmental 

Policy. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (7, 

July): pp 645–650.

McGraw-Hill. 2005. Encyclopedia of Science and 

Technology Online. <http://www.accessscience.

com>. Accessed November 14, 2005.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: 

Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 

Inc., New York.

Mitchell, L.G., J.A. Mutchmor, and W.D. Dolphin. 

1988. Zoology. The Benjamin/Cummings 

Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park, CA.

NCSU (North Carolina State University). 1997. 

Water Quality Group, NCSU. Water Resource 

Characterization DSS-Bacteria, Protozoans, and 

Viruses. <http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/>. 

Prüss, A. 1998. Review of epidemiological studies on 

health effects from exposure to recreational water. 

International Journal of Epidemiology 27:1–9. 

Sloat, S., and C. Ziel. 1992. The Use of Indicator 

Organisms to Assess Public Water Safety.

Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of 

Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper 

and Row, New York.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 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 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. 

National Beach Guidance and Required Performance 

Criteria for Grants. EPA 823-B-02-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC.

W.B. Saunders Company. 2000. Dorland’s Illustrated 

Medical Dictionary. 29th ed. Philadelphia, PA.

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.
3-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA has made significant progress in meeting the 

BEACH Act requirements related to water quality 

criteria and standards. EPA promptly issued a 

regulation to promulgate water quality standards in 

coastal recreation waters in the states that had not 

adopted criteria as protective of human health as 

EPA’s current recommended bacteria criteria. EPA 

is conducting research to identify better indicators 

and develop faster indicator methods. The Agency 

is assessing this information as part of a process to 

develop new or revised water quality criteria.

3.1	 Existing criteria and standards

Water quality standards consist of designated uses, 

the criteria necessary to protect those uses, and an 

antidegradation policy. A waterbody’s designated uses 

determine what criteria apply to the waterbody. CWA 

section 101(a)(2) sets the national goal of achieving 

water quality that provides for the “protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife” and 

“recreation in and on the water” 

wherever attainable. This national 

goal is commonly referred to as 

the “fishable/swimmable” goal of 

the CWA.

CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) requires 

that water quality standards “be 

such as to protect the public health 

and welfare, enhance the quality 

of water, and serve the purposes 

of this Act.” States have generally 

provided for the “swimmable” 

goal by designating “primary 

contact recreation” as a use for 

their waters. Primary contact 

recreation encompasses activities 

Chapter 3

Water Quality Criteria and

Quality of Water at Beaches

that could be expected to result in ingestion of water 

or immersion. These activities include swimming, 

waterskiing, surfing, and any other activity where 

contact and immersion in the water are likely. Water 

quality standards form the foundation of the nation’s 

water quality management program and set the 

baseline by which success is ultimately measured for a 

given waterbody or watershed.

EPA’s existing recommended water quality 

criteria for bacteria

Section 303(i) of the CWA calls for states to adopt 

“initial standards and criteria” for the pathogens and 

pathogen indicators for which EPA has published 

criteria under CWA section 304(a), namely, EPA’s 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria–1986

(USEPA 1986). The scientific basis for the criteria 

was a series of studies conducted by EPA in the late 

1970s and early 1980s (Cabelli 1983, Dufour, 1984). 

The studies considered several organisms, including 
3- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci, as possible 

indicators.

EPA found that enterococcus is a good predictor of 

illness in all waters and that E. coli is a good predictor 

in freshwaters. As a result, in 1986 EPA recommended 

the use of the indicator organisms E. coli for fresh 

recreational waters and enterococci for fresh and 

marine recreational waters. EPA recommended a 

geometric mean level of 126/100 mL for E. coli in 

freshwater. EPA recommended geometric mean 

levels of 33/100 mL for enterococci in freshwater and 

35/100 mL for enterococci in marine water.

EPA promulgation: State water quality 

standards for bacteria

The BEACH Act directed coastal and Great Lakes 

states to adopt for their coastal recreation waters, by 

April 10, 2004, water quality criteria for pathogens 

or pathogen indicators as protective of human health 

as EPA’s 1986 water quality criteria for bacteria. 

The BEACH Act also required EPA to propose and 

promulgate such standards for states that did not do so.

EPA worked collaboratively with all the states and 

territories that contain coastal recreation waters to 

identify their existing water quality standards, review 

them for consistency with the BEACH Act requirements, and determine what steps were needed to meet 

the BEACH Act requirements. On November 16, 2004, 

EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule that 

promulgated water quality standards for 21 states and 

territories that had not yet adopted water quality criteria for bacteria that were as protective of human health 

as EPA’s 1986 bacteria criteria. The states and territories subject to this rulemaking are listed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1.

States and Territories Subject to the November 2004 

Water Quality Standards Rule

Alaska

California

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

Virgin Islands

Wisconsin

3.2	 Recommended water quality

criteria under development by

EPA

Under CWA section 304(a)(9), as amended by the 

BEACH Act, EPA is required to publish new or revised 

water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators for the purpose of protecting human health. The 

BEACH Act also added section 104(v), which requires 

EPA to conduct studies for use in developing these new 

or revised recommended water quality criteria. Section 

104(v) directs EPA to initiate new studies by not later 

than 18 months after enactment (April 10, 2001) and 

complete the studies by not later than 3 years after 

enactment (October 10, 2003).

The section 104(v) studies are 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

EPA’s Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for Bacteria–1986 can 

be found online at www.epa.gov/

waterscience/beaches/1986crit.pdf

Information about EPA’s promulgated 

water quality standards for states can be found online at 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/bacteria-rule.htm#final
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and Quality of Water at Beaches 3-

(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.

EPA’s NEEAR Water Study and methods 

development

In response to the section 104(v) requirements, EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development, in consultation 

with the Office of Water, started the ongoing National 

Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of 

Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study in 2001. It is a 

collaborative research study between EPA and the 

CDC. EPA also coordinates the study with USGS and 

other interested agencies. 

The indicators and rapid methods that EPA is 

evaluating through the NEEAR study are bacterial 

indicators of fecal contamination. The goal of the 

NEEAR research is to produce information defining the 

relationship between water quality, as measured with 

rapid indicators of fecal contamination, and swimmingassociated health effects.

Indicator methods development 

EPA is developing faster indicator methods that will 

provide more rapid results than the currently used 

tests. The goal is to help beach managers to quickly test 

the water in the morning and make results about the 

safety of beach waters available in hours, rather than 

days. Providing faster results to beach managers and 

the public should help reduce the risk of waterborne 

illness among beachgoers. 

A number of rapid methods were evaluated for use in 

the NEEAR Water Study, but only a few were included. 

Methods were included in the study if they met the 

following criteria:

1. Results could be obtained within a few hours.

2. Enterococci, bacteroides, or other new fecal 

indicator organisms were detected by the method.

3. The sensitivity and specificity of the method were 

adequate.

4. The detection limit was lower than the EPArecommended enterococci limits.

5. Valid data could be obtained because sample 

carryover or other problems did not occur.

The four methods chosen are as follows:

• Method 1600 is the EPA-approved membrane 

filter method using mEI Agar for the detection of 

enterococci in recreational water.

• The Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) 

Method, a modified rapid gene probe method, 

is used to detect enterococci and Bacteroides in 

water samples.

• The RAPTOR Fiberoptic Biosensor is a portable, 

automated fiberoptic biosensor that can be used 

to detect microbiological and chemical analytes in 

water samples.

• The Luminex 100 System is a compact flow 

cytometer that analyzes immunoassays, complex 

genetic analyses, or enzymatic assays through 

the use of optics, fluidics, and advanced signal 

processing.

Epidemiology study

The second part of the NEEAR Water Study is an 

epidemiology study that combines health data and water 

quality analyses using the indicator methods described 

above. The study measures human health outcomes 

such as diarrhea and gastrointestinal illness as well as 

non-enteric swimming-related illnesses (such as skin, 

ear, eye, urinary tract, and respiratory infections). This 

The NEEAR Water Study includes examining detection methods 

that will produce results in 2 hours or less.
3- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

health information is collected through interviewerconducted surveys in beach areas. On the same days 

that health interviews are conducted at these beaches, 

multiple water samples are collected and tested using the 

fast indicator methods described in the previous section.

Planning and implementation of these studies have 

been under way for several years. The initial studies 

focused on freshwater sites in the Great Lakes. The 

beaches were selected on the basis of the potential 

number of beachgoers, water quality parameters, 

and sources of microbial pathogens in the water (e.g., 

domestic sewage vs. animals). These studies place 

emphasis on beaches that have identified point sources 

of contamination (e.g., sewage treatment plants).

The NEEAR Water Study team has completed three 

summers of data collection, including a one-year pilot 

study and two full-year studies. (EPA also conducted a 

recreational monitoring characterization study before 

starting the Great Lakes studies.)

• Pilot Study

West Beach, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Portage, Indiana (2002)

• Full-Scale Study (Freshwater)

1. West Beach, Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore, Portage, Indiana (2003)

2. Huntington Beach, Bay Village, Ohio (2003)

3. Washington Park, Michigan City, Indiana 

(2004)

4. Silver Beach, St. Joseph, Michigan (2004)

More than 10,000 volunteer households at freshwater 

beaches were recruited on weekends during the summers of 2003 and 2004, from Memorial Day through 

Labor Day. These households provided information 

about their activities and health status after beach visits. Families and individuals were interviewed about a 

variety of activities, including swimming, to determine 

their potential exposure to disease-causing pathogens. During the three-year study, more than 21,000 

interviews were completed and more than 1,500 water 

samples were collected and analyzed.

The data are being analyzed to determine whether 

swimmers exposed to higher levels of rapid indicators experience more illness than non-swimmers, or 

swimmers exposed to lower levels of rapid indicators. 

Analysis of the data from the Great Lakes study shows 

a promising relationship between one of the rapid 

indicators methods (Quantitative PCR) and gastrointestinal illness among swimmers. These results have been 

published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Wade, 

2006).

3.3	 Survey of beach advisories and

closings

Beach advisories and closings are based on water 

quality information, and therefore they are, in effect, 

one measure of water quality. A beach advisory or 

closing typically occurs when monitoring results show 

that levels of fecal indicators exceed the applicable 

water quality criterion. State and local public 

health agencies use beach advisories and closings to 

communicate to the public that the level of pathogens 

in the water is unsafe for swimming. As required under 

the BEACH Act, EPA collected state data on beach 

water quality and beach advisories.

EPA was able to build on the existing voluntary 

National Health Protection Survey of Beaches, which 

was conducted annually from 1997 to 2002, to collect 

information about state and local beach programs. The 

purpose was threefold:

1. Create an accurate national inventory of 

swimming beaches and the agencies that oversee 

them.

2. Survey agencies about their beach programs, 

including applicable water quality standards, 

monitoring methods, cost, and notification 

procedures for beach advisories and closings.

3. Document critical aspects of beach advisory 

and closing issues during the swimming season, 

including the time and length of the actions, the 

reason the actions were taken, and the source(s) of 

pollution that necessitated the actions.

Participation in EPA’s beach survey was voluntary. In 

2002, the last year the survey was conducted, a total of 

227 out of 261 local and state agencies surveyed from 
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and Quality of Water at Beaches 3-

31 states and 5 territories submitted information. The 

number of beaches in the survey had grown from 1,021 

in 1997 to 2,823 in 2002.

Beginning with the 2003 swimming season, coastal 

states were required by the BEACH Act to submit 

monitoring, notification, and other important 

information concerning their beaches to EPA. To 

aid in this effort, EPA developed a database called 

PRAWN (PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water 

quality standards and Nutrients). This new system 

of data management replaced the annual volunteer 

questionnaire EPA had sent out to states, territories, 

and other agencies since 1997. 

The results of the 2004 PRAWN data collection cycle 

indicate that, of the days that beaches could be open, 

only 4% were lost due to an advisory or beach closure

(26 percent of the beaches—942 of 3,574 beaches—had 

at least one advisory or area closed). Most of the 

advisories or closings lasted only one or two days. 

Monitoring frequency, however, varies among beaches, 

making state-to-state comparisons of beach water 

quality difficult.

Table 3.2 presents the trends in agency participation, the 

number of beaches, and the number and percentage of 

advisories and closings reported to EPA for 1997–2004.

3.4	 Major sources affecting water

quality at beaches

Point and nonpoint sources

Both the sources and the mechanisms that transport 

pathogens and other pollutants that affect beach water 

quality vary according to location (USEPA, 2001). In 

general, sources are categorized as either point sources 

or nonpoint sources.

• Point sources include discharges from wastewater 

treatment plants, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), 

municipal storm sewer systems, Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), meatprocessing facilities, and fish- and shellfishprocessing facilities. Municipal stormwater often 

contains pathogens from a wide variety of sources, 

A preliminary copy of the NEEAR 

study report is available online at: 

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8273/

abstract.html

NEEAR Water Study interviewers asked beachgoers about their 

activities and health status after visits.

Table 3.2. National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Trends, 1997–2004 (USEPA, 2005a)

Voluntary Survey Required Reporting

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of beaches 1,021 1,403 1,891 2,354 2,445 2,823 1,857a 3,574

Number of beaches affected by 

advisories or closings 230 353 459 633 672 709 395 942

Percentage of beaches affected by 

advisories or closings 23 25 24 27 27 25 21 26

a

 Incomplete data from 11 states; EPA working to complete data set
3- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

including domestic animals, wildlife, illicit 

discharges, and cross-connected sanitary and storm 

sewers.

• Nonpoint source pollution comes from numerous 

diffuse sources and is the result of water running 

off the land and picking up pollutants along the 

way. Identifying potential sources and tracking 

their movement is often technically challenging. 

Nonpoint sources of pathogens can include farm 

animals, wildlife, failing septic systems, and faulty 

sanitary sewer lines, as well as land application of 

manure and sludge. 

EPA’s National Health Protection Survey of Beaches 

queried participants about the source(s) of pollution 

that caused beach advisories or closings during the 

swimming season. Figure 3.1 presents data from the 

2002 swimming season. In many cases (42 percent), 

respondents indicated that the pollution source was 

unknown. When respondents indicated that the source 

was known, stormwater runoff was most often identified as the cause for the advisory or closing (21 percent).

SSOs and CSOs

In some areas of the United States, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and CSOs have the potential to impact 

beach water quality and swimmer’s health. As with 

most pathogen source investigations, CSO and SSO discharges are often hard to identify and characterize. One 

complication is that the volume and frequency of CSO 

and SSO discharges vary, usually in response to wet 

weather. Consequently, they are hard to monitor and 

track. Nevertheless, their potential impact on beaches 

might be significant.

In its California Beach Closure Report 2000, for example, 

the California State Water Resources Control Board 

reported that 42 percent of beach closings in 2000 were 

attributable to SSOs (CSWRCB 2001). Orange County, 

California, has noted that the total number of ocean 

and bay beach closings due to SSOs has increased each 

year since 1999 (Orange County 2003). In the Midwest, 

the Alliance for the Great Lakes, an organization that 

tracks beach closings in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, 

and Wisconsin, believes that CSOs are associated with a 

high percentage of the beach closings. This conclusion 

is based on data collected from local health departments, parks managers, and other municipal agencies.

3.5	 Recommendations for actions to

improve beach water quality

EPA, in its Strategic Plan (USEPA 2003c) and National 

Water Program Guidance for both FY 2005 and FY 

2006 (USEPA 2004a and USEPA 2005b), has identified 

Unknown

43%

Wildlife

11%

Other

9%

Storm water runoff 

21%

Boat discharge

3%

Sewer line blockage/break

3%

Septic system

4%

POTW

2%

SSO

3%

CSO

1%

Figure 3.1. Sources of pollution that resulted in beach actions in 2002 (EPA 2003d)
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and Quality of Water at Beaches 3-

“Water Safe for Swimming” as an important objective 

for the Agency and has summarized its key national 

strategies and actions to help improve beach water 

quality. EPA’s national strategy for improving the 

safety of recreational waters includes four key elements:

Establish a new generation of pathogen indicators 

based on sound science.

Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin 

restoration.

Reduce pathogens levels in all recreational waters.

Improve beach monitoring and public 

notification. 

Establish pathogen indicators based on 

sound science

EPA worked with states and tribes throughout the 

country to implement the adoption of the most recent 

(1986) scientific indicators of unsafe pathogens in all 

recreational waters. 

Identify unsafe recreational waters and 

begin restoration

A key component of the strategy to restore waters 

unsafe for swimming is to identify the specific waters 

that are unsafe and develop plans to accomplish the 

needed restoration. A key part of this work is to maintain strong progress toward the development of Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on the schedules established by states in conjunction with EPA. 

In a related effort, EPA’s Office of Water will work 

in a new partnership with the Agency’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to 

better focus compliance and enforcement resources 

on unsafe recreational waters. Moreover, wet weather 

discharges, which are a major source of pathogens, are 

one of OECA’s national priorities for FY 2005 through 

FY 2007. 

Reduce pathogen levels in recreational 

waters generally

In addition to focusing on waters that are unsafe for 

swimming, EPA, states, territories, and tribes will work 

to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to 

recreational waters using three key approaches: 

1.

2.

3.

4.

1. Address point sources discharging pathogens 

to recreational waters under the permit and 

enforcement program, including discharges 

associated with CSOs, SSOs, POTWs, sewer line 

breaks and urban storm water.

2. In conjunction to implementing NPDES 

requirements, work with municipalities to support 

sustainable municipal wastewater infrastructure 

by insuring adequate funding from all applicable 

sources, better management, effective water use and 

watershed approaches. 

3. Encourage improved management of septic systems, 

boat discharges and other nonpoint sources

Discharges from storm sewers, POTWs, CSOs, and 

SSOs in urban areas can result in high levels of pathogens being released during storm events. Because urban 

areas are often upstream of waters where people swim, 

these discharges can be a significant source of unsafe 

levels of pathogens. EPA is working with states and local 

For beach safety information visit EPA at: 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches

For EPA grant information visit: 

www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
3- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

governments to fully implement NPDES requirements 

for municipal point sources that contribute pathogens 

to recreational waters. This includes fully implementing the CSO Policy, issuing and implementing permits 

for municipal storm sewer systems, and clarifying and 

applying NPDES requirements for wet weather flows at 

POTWs to improve the capacity, management, operation and maintenance of POTW treatment plants and 

separate sanitary sewer collection systems.

Other key sources of pathogens to the nation’s waters 

are discharges from CAFOs, municipal storm water 

systems and industrial facilities. EPA expects to work 

with states to ensure that CAFOs are covered by 

permits. EPA expects that most states will have current 

general permits requiring storm water management 

programs for Phase II municipalities and construction 

by the end of 2006. 

Finally, there is growing evidence that ineffective 

septic systems are contributing pathogens to recreational waters. In 2003 EPA issued the Voluntary 

National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and 

Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems to 

enhance the performance and reliability of decentralized wastewater treatment systems through improved 

management programs. EPA encourages state and local 

governments to use these voluntary guidelines as a template for their efforts to strengthen existing management programs and implement new ones. In addition, 

EPA published a draft Handbook for Management of 

Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment 

Systems, which complements the voluntary guidelines, 

to help state and local governments evaluate and 

upgrade their management programs for onsite and 

clustered (decentralized) wastewater treatment systems. 

Improve beach monitoring and public 

notification

Another important element of the strategy for 

improving the safety of recreational waters is 

improving monitoring of public beaches and notifying 

the public of unsafe conditions. EPA is working 

with states to implement the BEACH Act and has 

awarded, or is in the process of awarding, $52 million 

in grants. EPA will continue to receive and display 

state information on beach water quality through the 

eBeaches system and will seek to increase the voluntary 

participation of inland states. EPA will also continue 

to develop and maintain information on beach safety 

available through the Internet. 

3.6	 Improving beach water quality

through related programs

EPA’s National Estuary Program (NEP)

Improving beach water quality is one focus of EPA’s 

National Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP program 

was established by Congress in 1987 to improve the 

quality of estuaries of national importance. The 28 

NEPs around our nation’s coasts, include many of 

the country’s most popular beaches and recreational 

waters. A major focus of the Program is protecting 

and restoring water quality which complements 

the objectives of the BEACH Act. For example, the 

Tampa Bay, FL NEP has created an internet portal 

that provides citizens real-time access to the status 

of swimming beaches within the Tampa Bay area 

including recent water quality monitoring information. 

Also, the Tampa Bay NEP helped establish the Healthy 

Beaches program. This program was eventually 

adopted by the State and now Florida’s 34 coastal 

counties perform bi-weekly beach water sampling 

analyzing for bacteria indicating enterococci and fecal 

coliform. The New York – New Jersey Harbor Estuary 

Program (HEP) worked with numerous federal, state, 

and municipal agencies to initiate a long-term water 

quality monitoring program that now covers all of the 

waters of the New York/New Jersey Harbor including 

the recreational waters of Raritan Bay. This work 

included assisting 12 municipal wastewater treatment 

plants in developing a comprehensive monitoring plan 

with annual reports to the public on the condition 

the region’s waters. Many NEPs have established or 

support citizen volunteer monitoring networks that 

provide valuable data. The Buzzards Bay NEP in 

Massachusetts has recruited over 300 Bay Watchers 

to monitor 180 stations for various parameters that 

provide an immediate snapshot of the health of the 

Bay. The Indian River Lagoon NEP in FL, provides 

funding for the second largest volunteer estuarine 

monitoring network in the nation. Additional examples 

on NEP BEACH Act related activities can be found at 

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
Chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and Quality of Water at Beaches 3-

EPA’s National Marine Debris Monitoring 

Program (NMDMP)

EPA’s National Marine Debris Monitoring Program 

(NMDMP) was developed to determine the amount 

of marine debris and the sources of marine debris 

affecting U.S. coastlines. The Program is designed to 

gather scientifically valid marine debris data using a 

rigorous statistical protocol. The Monitoring Program 

covers approximately 88,000 miles of U.S. coastline 

(including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 

Monitoring is conducted every 28 days by teams of 

volunteers in nine different regions across the U.S. 

The program is currently in the fourth year of the 

five-year study period. A final report and analysis will 

be developed in late 2007 at the end of the five-year 

study. The report will provide an introduction to the 

study, the details of the methodology, and an analysis 

of the results, including amounts, types, and trends in 

marine debris.

EPA’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source 

Management Program

Under its section 319 Nonpoint Source Management 

Program, EPA support includes grants, technical 

assistance, education, training, technology transfer, 

demonstration projects, and monitoring for nonpoint 

source implementation projects. The section 319 

program has many projects addressing pathogens 

throughout the US. 

Many watersheds are impaired by pathogens from 

nonpoint sources. Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) 

are one category of nonpoint sources that can affect a 

given watershed. For example, there are nearly 300,000 

Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) in the United 

States. When AFOs are concentrated in watersheds, 

they may create very significant water pollutions 

problems because they can be prominent sources of 

pollution such as pathogens and nutrients. Another 

category, storm water discharges, can affect watersheds. 

Like AFOs, storm water discharges are often near 

smaller waterbodies and thus can have significant 

water quality impacts. Finally, non-human sources of 

pathogens (such as geese and other wild animals) can 

raise significant pathogen concerns.

Great Lakes National Program Office

Efforts are underway in the Great Lakes to identify, 

on a regional basis, the causes of beach closings 

and advisories. Importantly, state, local, and federal 

partners have worked together to identify actions that 

could be taken to improve water quality at Great Lakes 

beaches. One of these actions is the completion of 

watershed-based sanitary surveys to identify sources 

of bacterial contamination. EPA expects that this work 

will result in the development of a tool for watershedbased sanitary surveys that could be used by others.

3.7	 References

Cabelli, V.J. 1983. Health Effects Criteria for Marine 

Recreational Waters. EPA-600/1-80-031. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

CSWRCB (California State Water Resources Control 

Board). 2001. California Beach Closure Report 2000. 

Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources 

Control Board, California Environmental 

Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1999. Microbes and 

urban watersheds Watershed Protection Techniques. 

3(1):551–596.

Dufour, A.P. 1984. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh 

Recreational Waters. EPA-600/1-84-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Orange County. 2003. 2002 Annual Ocean and Bay 

Water Quality Report. Orange County, California, 

Health Care Agency, Environmental Health. June. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986. 

EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. 

National Beach Guidance and Required Performance 

Criteria for Grants. EPA 823-B-02-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. June. 
3-10 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2003b. Draft Management Handbook for Management 

of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater 

Treatment Systems. EPA 832-D-03-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. February.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2003c. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management 

of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater 

Treatment Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. March.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2003d. 2003–2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for 

the Future. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. September.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2003e. EPA’s BEACH Watch Program: 2002 

Swimming Season Update. EPA 823-F-03-007. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. May.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2004a. National Water Program Guidance: Fiscal 

Year 2005. EPA 832-B-03-001. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, 

DC. April.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2004b. Report to Congress: Impacts and Control 

of CSOs and SSOs. EPA 833-R-04-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. August.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2005a. EPA’s BEACH Program: 2004 Swimming 

Season Update. EPA 823-F-05-006. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. August.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2005b. National Water Program Guidance: Fiscal 

Year 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. April.

Wade T.J., Calderon R.L., Sams E. et al. Rapidly 

measured indicators of recreational water 

quality are predictive of swimming-associated 

gastrointestinal illness. Environ Health Perspect 

2006; 114 (1):24-8.
4-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA has been working cooperatively with state and 

local partners to implement the provisions of the 

BEACH Act. The extensive efforts described in 

this chapter have helped reduce human health risks 

through better monitoring and public notification. 

In general, state and local agencies have the primary 

responsibility for conducting beach programs.

The following sections summarize key activities 

that federal, state, and local governments have been 

implementing since passage of the BEACH Act.

4.1	 What has EPA done?

Monitoring and notification performance 

criteria

The BEACH Act directed EPA, by April 10, 2002, to 

publish “performance criteria” for a beach monitoring 

and notification program. The criteria must address 

the following:

$ The monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation 

waters adjacent to beaches, or similar points of 

access that are used by the public, for attainment of 

water quality standards for pathogens or pathogen 

indicators, including the use of available methods for 

such monitoring and assessment.

$ Prompt notification of local governments, the 

public, and the EPA Administrator of exceedances, 

or the likelihood of any exceedances, of applicable 

water quality standards for such waters.

To meet the BEACH Act requirement in CWA section 

406(a), EPA published the National Beach Guidance and 

Required Performance Criteria for Grants (USEPA 2002a). 

The document specifies the performance criteria 

that eligible coastal or Great Lakes state, tribal, or 

local governments must meet to receive grants to 

Chapter 4

Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local 

Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act

implement coastal 

recreation water 

monitoring and 

public notification 

programs under 

the BEACH 

Act. The 2002 

document also 

provides useful 

guidance for 

both coastal and 

inland beach 

monitoring and 

notification 

programs. EPA published a notice 

of availability of the document in the Federal Register 

(67 FR 47540, July 19, 2002).

In the National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria document, EPA put forth nine 

performance criteria for the implementation of beach 

monitoring, assessment, and notification programs 

(Table 4.1). A brief summary of each criterion is 

provided below. 

Chapter 3 of the National Beach Guidance is titled 

“Beach Evaluation and Classification Process.” 

It describes the risk-based evaluation steps and 

information that EPA recommends a state or tribe 

consider when ranking beaches. There is one general 

performance criterion for this process as well as five 

specific requirements. The general requirement is as 

follows:

1. Develop risk-based beach evaluation and classification 

plan. A state or tribe is required to develop a riskbased beach evaluation and classification plan and 

to apply it to coastal recreation waters. The plan 
4- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

must describe the factors used in its evaluation 

and classification process and explain how coastal 

recreation waters are ranked as a result of the 

process. This process would yield a list of coastal 

recreation waters, including coastal recreation 

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access 

used by the public.

Chapter 4, “Beach Monitoring and Assessment”, 

describes three general performance criteria and 

several specific requirements. It also provides 

additional technical guidance for beach monitoring 

programs. The general requirements are the following: 

2. Develop tiered monitoring plan. Development of a 

tiered monitoring plan is required. The 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 storm events have on the waters.

3. Monitoring report submission and delegation. States, 

tribes, and local governments are required to develop 

a mechanism to collect and report their monitoring 

data in timely reports and, for 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 are encouraged to coordinate closely with local governments to ensure that 

monitoring information is submitted in a consistent 

manner. If monitoring responsibilities are delegated 

to local governments, the state grant recipient must 

describe the process by which the state may delegate 

such responsibilities to local governments.

4. Methods and assessment procedures. Detailed methods 

and assessment procedures must be developed. 

States, tribes, or local governments must adequately 

address and submit to EPA methods for detecting 

levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators in 

coastal recreation areas. They must also provide 

documentation to support the validity of methods 

other than those currently recommended or 

approved by EPA. In addition, they must identify 

and submit to EPA assessment procedures for 

identifying short-term increases in pathogens and 

pathogen indicators in coastal recreation areas. 

Chapter 5 of the guidance document, “Public 

Notification and Prompt Risk Communication,” 

describes the performance criteria and technical 

guidance for these aspects of a beach program. The 

performance criteria below describe the four general 

requirements for an overall beach notification and risk 

communication plan:

5. Public notification and risk communication plan. 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.

6. Measures to notify EPA and local governments. The 

state, tribe, or local government must adequately 

identify measures for prompt communication of the 

occurrence, nature of, location, pollutants involved, 

and extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of 

exceeding, applicable water quality standards for 

pathogens and pathogen indicators. They must 

identify how this information will be promptly 

Table 4.1.	 Summary of BEACH Act Performance 

Criteria

Evaluation and Classification

1. Develop risk-based beach evaluation and 

classification plan

Monitoring

2. Develop tiered monitoring plan

3. Monitoring report submission and delegation

4. Methods and assessment procedures

Public Notification and Prompt Risk Communication

5. Public notification and risk communication plan

6. Measures to notify EPA and local governments

7. Measures to notify the public

8. Notification report submission and delegation

Public Evaluation

9. Public evaluation of program
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-

communicated to EPA. States also 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. 

7. Measures to notify the public. 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. 

8. Notification report submission and delegation. States, 

tribes, and local governments must compile 

their notification plans in timely reports. States 

must describe any delegation of notification 

responsibilities that has been made, or that the state 

intends to make, to local governments.

Chapter 2, “Public Evaluation of Program,” explains 

the last criterion:

9. Public evaluation of program. Provide the public with 

an opportunity to review the program through 

public notice, review, and opportunity to comment.

Cooperative consultation process

EPA developed the National Beach Guidance and 

Performance Criteria document through a cooperative 

consultation process with a wide variety of agencies 

and interested parties. As a first step in this 

process, EPA hosted several regional workshops to 

identify preliminary concepts and gather specific 

recommendations from various parties. EPA 

then worked with an external group composed of 

representatives from state and local environmental 

and health agencies, as well as various environmental 

groups. This external group provided much valuable 

input to the document. EPA developed a draft guidance 

document that reflected many of the concepts and 

recommendations suggested by the review groups.

EPA published the draft document on July 31, 2001, 

and provided a 60-day comment period that closed on 

October 1, 2001. During the comment period, EPA 

hosted five public forums throughout the United States 

to discuss the draft. The final document incorporated 

responses to those comments obtained through the 

forums and other comments that EPA had received. 

Following publication of the performance criteria and 

before the award of the first implementation grants, 

EPA conducted five regional technical assistance 

workshops to help eligible states and territories develop 

their monitoring and notification programs.

Program development and implementation 

grants 

The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to make grants to 

coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, tribes, and, 

in certain circumstances, local governments to develop 

and implement monitoring and notification programs. 

EPA may award implementation grants to states only if

$ The program is consistent with EPA’s performance 

criteria.

$ The state (or local government) prioritizes the use of 

grant funds on the basis of use of the water and risk 

to human health, and identifies to EPA the factors 

considered in prioritizing the use of funds.
4- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

$ The state (or local government) develops 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 and specifies any coastal 

recreation waters for which fiscal constraints will 

prevent consistency with the performance criteria

$ The state (or local government) provides an 

opportunity for the public to review the program 

through a process that provides for public notice and 

an opportunity for the public to comment.

Since passage of the BEACH Act, EPA has awarded 

approximately $52 million of grant funds authorized 

under CWA section 406(b) to all 35 eligible coastal 

and Great Lakes states and territories to support 

the implementation of coastal recreation water 

monitoring and public notification programs that are 

consistent with EPA’s required performance criteria 

for grants (Table 4.2). States are using the grant funds 

to implement beach monitoring and notification 

programs that are consistent with national guidance. 

The activities include

$ Collecting and analyzing water samples to determine 

whether they exceed, or are likely to exceed, water 

quality standards for public health protection

$ Notifying the public if water quality standards are 

exceeded or are likely to be exceeded

$ Maintaining databases of beach water quality and 

advisory information

EPA has awarded grants to all eligible states that 

applied for funding, using an allocation formula that 

the Agency developed for allocating BEACH Act 

grant funds in 2002. EPA consulted with various 

states and other stakeholders to develop this formula. 

The formula uses three factors—beach season length, 

beach miles, and beach usage. Because the data for 

beach miles and beach usage were not readily available, 

shoreline length and coastal population were used as 

surrogates.

EPA’s eBeaches: Information technology 

development for beaches

Section 406(e) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH 

Act, directs EPA to establish, maintain, and make 

available to the public, by electronic and other means, a 

national coastal recreation water pollution occurrence 

database that provides the following:

•	 The data reported to the Administrator under 

subsections (b)(3)(A)(i) and (d)(3) 

•	 Other information concerning pathogens and 

pathogen indicators in coastal recreation waters 

that

 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

 the Administrator determines should be 

included 

EPA is designing, building, and implementing 

an electronic system to support the BEACH Act 

requirements. The result is a new online system called 

eBeaches. The system provides for the fast, easy, and 

secure transmittal of information about beach water 

quality, and it improves public access to information 

about beach conditions and health risks associated with 

swimming in polluted water. The eBeaches system saves 

time and money by enabling electronic transactions 

and eliminating paper forms and outdated methods of 

data entry. The system also offers a secure electronic 

environment for fast, easy click-and-send reporting. 

eBeaches receives beach water quality, swimming 

advisory, and monitoring program data from the states 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), the central receiving point for environmental data submissions 

to the Agency and a cornerstone of EPA’s e-government 

initiative. CDX provides built-in data quality checks, 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-

Table 4.2. Annual BEACH Act Grants Awards

State/Territory 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Alabama $58,683 $263,142 $261,514 $262,810 $262,650 $262,170 $1,370,969 

Alaska $61,153 $150,000 $149,025 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $810,178 

American Samoa N/A $302,288 $300,364 $302,260 $302,230 $302,140 $1,509,282 

California $57,000 $535,643 $532,164 $527,850 $525,460 $516,960 $2,695,077 

Connecticut $58,694 $226,389 $223,921 $224,560 $224,290 $223,370 $1,181,224 

Delaware $58,694 $211,339 $210,299 $211,300 $211,170 $210,750 $1,113,552 

Florida $58,683 $530,893 $544,552 $540,220 $537,390 $528,410 $2,740,148 

Georgia $58,683 $288,490 $287,442 $288,130 $287,620 $286,200 $1,496,565 

Guam N/A $302,775 $300,860 $302,740 $302,710 $302,600 $1,511,685 

Hawaii $57,000 $325,149 $322,897 $324,230 $323,930 $323,020 $1,676,226 

Illinois $58,694 $248,615 $245,043 $245,060 $244,630 $242,940 $1,284,982 

Indiana $58,694 $206,670 $204,963 $206,090 $206,030 $205,800 $1,088,247 

Louisiana $58,650 $383,287 $380,052 $328,520 $326,780 $322,010 $1,799,299 

Maine $58,675 $259,742 $257,766 $257,650 $256,880 $254,730 $1,345,443 

Maryland $58,694 $276,068 $273,429 $272,860 $271,970 $269,250 $1,422,271 

Massachusetts $58,675 $260,691 $257,453 $257,220 $256,580 $254,440 $1,345,059 

Michigan $0 $287,556 $283,360 $282,520 $281,530 $278,450 $1,413,416 

Minnesota $58,694 $204,631 $203,309 $204,490 $204,440 $204,270 $1,079,834 

Mississippi $58,683 $258,028 $256,481 $257,900 $257,810 $257,510 $1,346,412 

New Hampshire $58,675 $204,918 $203,594 $204,770 $204,710 $204,530 $1,081,197 

New Jersey $58,694 $285,719 $282,586 $281,680 $280,780 $277,730 $1,467,189 

New York $57,000 $366,030 $359,215 $356,240 $354,580 $348,740 $1,841,805 

North Carolina $58,683 $306,721 $305,007 $305,280 $304,540 $302,480 $1,582,711 

Northern Mariana N/A $303,462 $301,648 $303,510 $303,470 $303,330 $1,515,420 

Ohio $58,694 $227,879 $224,227 $224,840 $224,580 $223,650 $1,183,870 

Oregon $54,888 $230,342 $229,757 $230,290 $229,910 $228,780 $1,203,967 

Pennsylvania $58,694 $226,953 $223,012 $223,650 $223,410 $222,530 $1,178,249 

Puerto Rico $58,694 $335,862 $328,757 $329,900 $329,570 $328,450 $1,711,233 

Rhode Island $58,675 $214,225 $212,340 $213,290 $213,140 $212,640 $1,124,310 

South Carolina $57,143 $300,253 $298,726 $299,140 $298,490 $296,660 $1,550,412 

Texas $58,650 $387,957 $387,508 $387,190 $386,150 $382,890 $1,990,345 

U.S. Virgin Islands $58,694 $303,488 $301,483 $303,350 $303,310 $303,180 $1,573,505 

Virginia $58,694 $282,355 $281,693 $280,910 $279,920 $276,900 $1,460,472 

Washington $59,959 $274,034 $274,585 $273,980 $273,080 $270,320 $1,425,958 

Wisconsin $58,694 $228,396 $225,970 $226,570 $226,260 $225,270 $1,191,160 

Totals $1,812,580 $9,999,990 $9,935,002 $9,891,000a $9,870,000a $9,803,100 $51,311,672

a EPA set aside an additional $50,000 for eligible tribes in 2004 and 2005. No eligible tribes, however, applied for BEACH Act grants during either year.
4- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Web forms, standard file formats, and a common, 

user-friendly approach to reporting environmental 

data. Once CDX receives the beach water quality data, 

the data are transmitted to, and stored in, the Office of 

Water’s STORET system, a repository for water quality, biological, and physical data. Local beach program 

and advisory data are stored in the Office of Water’s 

PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality 

standards, and Nutrients (PRAWN) data system. Beach 

Map coordinates are stored in the Office of Water’s 

Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental 

Results System (WATERS). Seamless user-friendly 

access to data in all of these systems is available to the 

public through an Internet application named BEACON 

(Figure 4.1).

eBeaches also allows state and local agencies to 

instantaneously create, edit, and display maps of 

the beaches they are monitoring. Using a tool called 

Web-based Reach Indexing (WebRIT), states or local 

agencies can make and edit maps available to the public 

on the Internet. 

In 2002 EPA drafted a plan on how to meet its BEACH 

Act requirements to collect, store, and maintain state 

beach data and display the data for the public. The plan 

outlined a new approach for data collection within the 

Agency and for states using standardized file formats 

(XML files), secure electronic data reporting (CDX), 

data conversion interfaces (WebSIM), relational databases (PRAWN, STORET), and an Internet application 

(BEACON). This new approach has been challenging 

for both EPA and states to develop and implement. 

The electronic data reporting has required new policy 

on data security, data ownership, data sharing, and data 

reporting. It has introduced new technical concepts 

and capabilities for beach program managers to learn 

and implement. It requires a new task for constant 

maintenance of the system hardware and software in 

areas such as version upgrades, data compatibility, and 

system connectivity. As a result, EPA’s system has experienced periods of down time when states were unable 

to submit their data. Eventually, these maintenance 

periods will be planned maintenance events rather than 

episodic events. 

Initially, all states did not have the trained staff, funding, 

or technological resources to build and maintain their 

data systems. EPA expects that data reporting will 

become easier for states as they further develop their 

systems. The Agency is providing continued support to 

assist states with their data-reporting work.

eBeaches is also part of the Agency’s Environmental 

Information Exchange Network. The Exchange 

WebReg WebSIM Beaches 

STORET

STORET 

Warehouse

State DB PRAWN

RAD

BEACON

Web

RIT

CDX

eBeaches

State 

XML

Figure 4.1. The framework of e-Beaches allows seamless user-friendly access of data through the Internet
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-

Network is a new approach for exchanging 

environmental data electronically between EPA, states, 

and other partners using network nodes. The Exchange 

Network provides improved data quality, better data 

integration, and improved availability of environmental 

data. To share data on the Exchange Network, the 

data must be formatted to common data standards and 

the state must have an operating node. EPA has been 

working with states to develop their ability to use this 

system. States are beginning to use this technology 

to submit beach advisory data to PRAWN. EPA is 

developing the technology to allow beach water quality 

data submissions over the Exchange Network.

In summary, EPA has improved public access to 

data on beach advisories and closings by improving 

its electronic system for beach data collection and 

delivery systems; the system is known as “eBeaches.” 

This online system includes a database of monitoring 

results and notification actions, thereby fulfilling the 

National Pollution Occurrence Database requirement 

of the BEACH Act. The public can view the beach 

information at http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_

national_page.main.

National List of Beaches

Section 406(g) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH 

Act, directs EPA 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. As 

a BEACH Act grant condition, states and territories 

developed their lists of beaches, identified whether there 

is a monitoring program for each beach, and submitted 

this information to 

EPA. EPA compiled 

the submissions 

into the National 

List of Beaches and 

published the list in 

the Federal Register

on May 4, 2004 

(69 FR 24597). 

The National List 

of Beaches provides 

a national picture 

of the extent of 

beach water quality monitoring. The list identified 

6,098 beaches, of which 58 percent are monitored. 

This is a significant increase from the 1,969 beaches 

of coastal recreation waters that states and territories 

had reported to EPA as part of the voluntary National 

Beach Survey. The number of beaches has increased 

because of BEACH Act grant support. These grants 

helped improve state oversight and coordination and 

allowed a more comprehensive inventory of beaches 

and monitoring locations. EPA will update this list 

periodically as new information becomes available from 

states and territories.

“Floatables”: EPA Technical Assistance

To protect public health and safety in coastal recreation 

waters, section 406(f) of the CWA, as amended by 

the BEACH Act, directs EPA to provide technical 

assistance for developing assessment and monitoring 

procedures for floatable materials. In August 2002 

EPA published guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring 

Floatable Debris. 

The guidance 

provides examples 

of monitoring 

and assessment 

programs that have 

been established in 

the United States 

to address the 

impact of floatable 

debris, examples of 

mitigation activities 

to address floatable 

debris, and contact 

information.

For more information about BEACON 

visit EPA at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/

beacon_national_page.main

For EPA Exchange Network information visit:

http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
4- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA Implementation

Section 406(h) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH 

Act, requires EPA, for a state that has not developed a 

program consistent with EPA’s performance criteria, to 

conduct a monitoring and notification program, using 

grant funds that otherwise would have been awarded to 

the state. This “backstop” requirement is not triggered 

until at least three years after EPA lists waters in such 

states under CWA section 406(g). Because EPA listed 

the waters on April 12, 2004, under section 406(g) EPA 

is not yet authorized to implement the program in any 

state or territory. 

4.2	 What have other federal

agencies done?

Section 406(d) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH 

Act, requires federal agencies to develop programs for 

coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar 

points of access within federal jurisdiction by October 

10, 2003. These programs should be designed to protect 

public health and safety, meet EPA’s performance 

criteria, and address certain other matters required for 

state and local programs. 

U.S. National Park Service

The U.S National Park Service (NPS) oversees a 

number of beaches in National Parks throughout 

the United States. Public health for NPS is overseen 

by the Office of Public Health, a part of the Visitor 

and Resource Protection Directorate in Washington, 

DC. This office develops the applicable public health 

guidance, and primarily members of the U.S. Public 

Health Service staff it. 

The applicable NPS guidance and regulations 

govern activities at recreational waters in the parks. 

Specifically, Director’s Orders 83 is the governing 

document that describes the Public Health Program’s 

expectations of park managers. The requirements 

in it are in keeping with the requirements set forth 

in Management Policies 2001 of the NPS, Ground 

Penetrating Radar (GPR) Act requirements, and the 

NPS Strategic Plan. 

The responsibility for administering the parks and 

implementing day-to-day activities rests with the 

regional NPS offices. In some cases recreational waters 

are monitored by state or county authorities; in others 

the responsibility falls on park management. The NPS 

guidance for conducting recreational water quality 

assessments is in the following reference manuals: 

Reference Manual 83(D1) for bathing beaches, Reference 

Manual 83(D2) for swimming pools, and Reference 

Manual 83(D3) for hot tubs and spas.

Discussed below are some specific beaches 

administered by NPS. 

$ NPS Pacific West Region. There are several designated public bathing beaches throughout Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco 

and Marin County. San Francisco beaches are Baker 

Beach, China Beach, Ocean Beach (north and south), 

Fort Funston, Crissey Field, and Aquatic Park. 

Marin County beaches are Stinson Beach, Rodeo 

Beach, Muir Beach, Kirby Cove, Black Sand Beach, 

Tennessee Valley Beach, and Horseshoe Cove.

All the beaches are open year-round, but they are 

used more frequently in the summer. San Francisco’s 

Bureau of Environmental Health monitors the water 

quality at park beaches in the city. Most of the San 

Francisco beaches are sampled once a week yearround for total coliforms, E. coli, and enterococcus. 

Additional monitoring is conducted whenever a CSO 

occurs from the city’s sewer system. Test results are 

provided to the park only when there are positive 

samples. In accordance with state requirements, 

monitoring is coordinated in Marin County by the 

County of Marin Environmental Health Services. 

When there are positive test results, the park posts 

the beaches with approved signage. The park works 

with the county to determine the possible source(s) 

of contamination.

$ NPS Northeast and National Capitol Regions. NPS 

staff monitored the presence of bacterial indicators 

of fecal contamination at six ocean beach locations 

within Assateague Island National Seashore 

weekly from May 23 to September 6, 2005. Using 

guidelines developed by EPA, water samples were 

collected from high-use public bathing beaches 

and analyzed for the presence of enterococci 

bacteria. Assay results were compared weekly to 

EPA-recommended numeric standards and used to 

assess risk to swimmer health from contaminants. 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-

Sample results ranged from less than 10 to 64 most 

probable number (MPN) of colonies of enterococci 

bacteria per 100 mL, and all results were within 

the range of values considered indicative of safe 

conditions for water contact. Assateague Island 

National Seashore contracts with an EPA-approved 

laboratory (State of Maryland Department of Health 

and Mental Hygiene) to analyze water samples using 

the EPA-approved Enterolert analytical method to 

cut response time, travel time, and analytical costs. 

Results from this monitoring program are shared 

with Worcester County and the State of Maryland.

$ NPS Midwest Region. At Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore (INDU), the park monitors its beaches 

daily and has occasionally closed them if E. coli

reaches 235 colonies/100 mL. This typically happens 

after a heavy rainfall event. EPA helped INDU with 

monitoring procedures last year and helped fund 

studies for the park. 

$ NPS Intermountain Region. Padre Island National 

Seashore has two monitored beaches. One beach, 

Malaquite, is on the Gulf side of the island; the 

other, Bird Island, is on the lagoon side. The park 

uses Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi for 

collection and analysis.

Historically, there have been some water quality 

issues of unknown origin. In 2003, 2,030 enterococci 

colonies/100 mL were reported from one sample. 

However, in 2005, all results have indicated low 

levels of bacteria with no beach closures posted. 

The park has not yet been able to determine why 

these variations have occurred, but it is possible that 

variables include hot, dry weather (no runoff) and 

the fact that construction has caused visitation to 

decrease.

4.3	 What have state and territorial

governments done?

As of the date of this report, 34 of the 35 eligible states 

and territories have developed and are implementing a 

beach monitoring and notification program consistent 

with the requirements of the National Beach Guidance 

and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. By doing 

so, these 34 states meet the requirements of the BEACH 

Act. The remaining state, Alaska, is in the process of 

developing a program.

The following sections were written by each state or 

territory to highlight the key accomplishments of beach 

programs in coastal states and territories. EPA has 

not verified and validated these data. These program 

descriptions describe recent activities and might include 

some actions not funded by BEACH Act funds. Readers 

should note that the summaries for the Gulf Coast area 

were written before hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These 

Padre Island 

National Seashore
4-10 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

devastating events, which occurred in August and 

September 2005, will likely have a profound effect on 

the beach programs administered by the affected states 

in the short term. 

Alabama

In June 1999 the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), in cooperation with 

the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), 

initiated a program to routinely monitor bacteria levels 

at five public recreational beaches along the Gulf Coast. 

The effort was later expanded to include six additional 

sites along the Gulf Coast and Mobile Bay. When the 

BEACH Act was signed into law in 2000, ADEM was 

designated as the state’s lead agency and was awarded 

grant money to carry out the monitoring program. 

Through the BEACH Act, ADEM and ADPH 

expanded and enhanced monitoring and notification 

efforts for Alabama’s public recreational waters. The 

goal of this program is to increase public awareness and 

provide water quality information to help the public 

make more informed decisions concerning their recreational use of Alabama’s natural coastal waters.

$ Monitoring. The monitoring program now involves 

the routine collection of water samples from 25 

high-use or potentially high-risk public recreational 

sites from Perdido Bay to Dauphin Island. The 

selection of sites and the frequency of sampling have 

been determined using a risk-based evaluation and 

ranking process. This process considers a number of 

factors for a given site, most important the amount 

of use and the amount of risk. Depending on the site 

rankings, samples are collected twice a week, once a 

week, or once every other week during the swimming 

season (June through September) and once a month 

during the cooler months (October through May). 

Samples are analyzed for the indicator bacteria, 

enterococci. The indicator bacteria used and the 

threshold concentration, which triggers an advisory, 

are part of the state water quality standards, which 

are derived from EPA’s recommended Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) and Water 

Quality Standards Handbook 2nd edition (1983). 

All enterococci analyses are performed by ADPH 

Laboratory using EPA Method 1600. Trained ADEM 

and ADPH staff collected samples from the sites. 

In addition, ADEM and ADPH staffs use YSI 

Environmental Monitoring Systems to collect in situ 

data of dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, 

salinity, and temperature. Turbidity is also collected 

using a field turbidity meter.

$ Public notification. ADPH reviews all data and is 

responsible for issuing any advisories. All test results 

are posted on the ADEM Web site (www.adem.

state.al.us/FieldOps/Monitoring/BeachMonitoring.

htm), along with the in situ data, and advisories 

are publicized through press releases and posted 

on signs at each of the 25 sampling locations. 

Over 3,000 samples have been collected since the 

inception of the Beach Program, resulting in 52 

advisories issued by the ADPH. During fiscal year 

2004, over 800 samples were collected and analyzed, 

resulting in 15 beach advisories issued by ADPH. 

Alaska

Alaska has 36,000 miles of coastal waters, which to a 

large extent are undeveloped, although a great deal 

of recreation occurs on Alaska’s beaches throughout 

the year. The Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Division of Water, Water Quality 

Monitoring & Assessment Program, administers the 

BEACH Act grant program for the state. BEACH Act 

grant-funded work conducted since 2001 has established 

the statewide extent of beaches used for recreational purposes, the degree of use, and the proximity of pollution 

sources to the beaches. Visit www.dec.state.ak.us/water/

wqsar/wqs/beachprogram.htm for more information.

Further work through the BEACH Act grants will 

result in the development of standardized monitoring 

and notification procedures for Alaska’s coastal 

recreational waters where necessary, pilot and ongoing 

monitoring of high-risk beaches, parallel testing of 

fecal coliforms and enterococci, and analysis of results 

of testing for bacteria after various holding times.

$ Beach survey and risk-based beach ranking. Alaska 

conducted a survey of coastal communities to 

identify where beaches were used for recreational 

purposes and what pollution sources might 

contribute to health issues at the beaches. The state 

used the survey results to develop a ranked list of 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-11

identified beaches to prioritize where monitoring 

efforts should be focused.

Field sampling that occurred in summer 2005 

revealed contamination issues at a beach near 

Juneau, but only during high tide. Source tracking 

commenced; local septic systems and an adjacent 

boat harbor were of particular interest.

$ Public notification. Alaska developed a Notification 

and Risk Communication Plan that contains extensive guidelines for how to conduct a monitoring program, report the results to communities, and notify 

them if closings are necessary. The state conducted 

workshops in 2004 in communities with identified high-risk beaches, resulting in revisions to the 

notification procedures. Alaska will use the refined 

procedures during the coming season if monitoring 

results indicate the need for public notification.

American Samoa

American Samoa is surrounded by approximately 143 

miles of beaches. Residents and tourists of American 

Samoa use all of the 143 miles of beaches for swimming and family subsistence fishing. The American 

Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) 

administers the Coastal Recreation Water Monitoring 

and Notification Program for the territory under the 

BEACH Act, and it conducts all monitoring and public 

notification for these beaches. Based on monitoring 

done in FY 2004, ASEPA determined that for swimming use support 56 miles are impaired, 27 miles fully 

support this designated use, and 60 miles are likely 

supporting this designated use but lack sufficient data.

$ Monitoring. Since the monitoring and 

notification program was implemented 

in FY 2002, ASEPA has added 14 new 

beach sites to the program. ASEPA also 

increased the frequency of monitoring 

and public notification for 16 beach sites 

from once every 3 months to once a week.

$ Public notification. Public advisories are 

issued each week in print, radio, and 

television media for all beach samples 

that exceed the American Samoa Water 

Quality Standards for enterococci. The 

number of public inquiries received by ASEPA from 

residents, tourists, and community groups (e.g., 

EnviroCamp Tifitifi, American Samoa Swimming 

Association, American Samoa National Olympic 

Committee) about weekly advisories has steadily 

increased since FY 2002, indicating the success of the 

public notification program in informing the community, raising awareness, and protecting public health.

California

California has one of the most extensive beach 

monitoring programs in the country. County 

health agencies in 18 different coastal counties, 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permittees that discharge to the coastal 

zone, environmental groups, and numerous citizen 

monitoring groups perform beach monitoring. The 

BEACH program is helping California turn these 

programs into a coordinated statewide program.

$ Public notification. EPA BEACH Act grant funds 

have been used to help develop and support 

electronic data submission from the coastal counties 

to the state’s Beach Watch System and to EPA. 

The state’s Beach Water Quality Work Group has 

worked with Heal-the-Bay, a Southern California 

environmental organization, to modify the grading 

system for the Beach Report Card, which provides 

weekly updates on the status of 430 beaches 

statewide (www.healthebay.org/brc/statemap.asp).

$ Pollution removal and future research. California has 

invested $78 million in a Clean Beach Initiative to 
4-12 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

clean up bacterial contamination throughout the 

state. The state has also funded research to develop 

more rapid detection of indicators, better methods for 

tracking contamination sources, and epidemiological 

studies to better understand the relationship between 

bacterial indicators and diseases. 

Connecticut

Connecticut has state, municipal, and private beaches 

along its shoreline with Long Island Sound. Two of 

the most popular beaches are New London’s Ocean 

Beach Park and Rocky Neck State Park, which are both 

EPA–New England-designated “Flagship Beaches.” 

Visit the Web site http://dep.state.ct.us/updates/beach/

wtrqual.asp for more information.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) 

manages the BEACH Act grant, which funds courier 

service to deliver locally collected beach water samples 

to the DPH state laboratory in Hartford for analysis. 

The grant also funds other beach-related activities 

including hosting two annual technical meetings for 

municipal and state beach officials; collecting and 

managing laboratory test results for municipal beaches 

along the shoreline; managing the annual Beach 

Survey; and reporting monitoring and notification data 

to EPA. Connecticut has received $957,854 in BEACH 

Act grants since 2000. Visit the Web site http://dep.state.

ct.us/updates/beach/wtrqual.asp for more information.

$ Risk-based beach ranking. DPH uses a risk-based 

approach to monitor high-priority beaches. Through 

two annual meetings and ongoing consultation 

with municipal and state park beach contacts, the 

program is committed to communicating with the 

local communities along the shoreline.

$ Monitoring. The DPH state laboratory analyzes 

more than 1,000 samples every summer for 

Connecticut’s municipal and state park beaches 

along the shoreline. The laboratory quickly reports 

exceedances to the affected community. 

Local health authorities often preemptively close 

their beaches as a rapid response public health 

measure when historical data show there is a high 

likelihood of elevated bacteria counts after high 

rainfall events.

Delaware

More than 6.1 million beach-going tourist trips are 

made to Delaware each year. Delaware’s swimming 

beaches have been sampled since 1979. The state 

implemented a revised and formalized Recreational 

Water Program in 1989. This program has grown 

further under the BEACH Act. Approximately 50 

miles of coastline are now monitored, from Slaughter 

Beach, on the Delaware Bay, south to the State Line at 

Fenwick Island, Delaware/Ocean City, Maryland. In 

addition, a number of freshwater ponds are monitored. 

Visit the Web site www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnreceis/

Div_Water/Apps/RecWater/Asp/RecWaterPublic.asp for 

more information.

$ Monitoring. Delaware uses the total enterococci 

standards recommended by EPA and employs 

a preemptive rainfall advisory system for the 

freshwater ponds covered under the program. 

Delaware conducts sampling at areas covered under 

the program from the second Monday in May to 

the second Monday in September. In addition, 

temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH data 

are also collected weekly at marine sites.

Florida

Florida has numerous important beaches, including 

such popular destinations as Miami Beach, Fort 

Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, Key West, and Panama 

City Beach. The Florida Department of Health 

administers the Beach Monitoring Program in 

conjunction with the county health departments 

and they conduct and oversee monitoring and public 

notification on approximately 580 miles of beaches. 

They have received $1,674,348 in BEACH Act grants 

since 2000.

$ Monitoring. In August 2000 the beach water sampling 

program included 34 of Florida’s coastal counties 

through state legislation (Senate Bill 1412 and House 

Bill 2145) and funding. This funding allowed for 

biweekly sampling at just over 300 sites throughout 

the state. Testing under this program included 

fecal coliforms as well as enterococci bacteria. The 

choice of these two indicator bacteria was based on 

the water quality standards adopted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-13

(NEIEN) grant to develop a method of transmitting 

the beach data into EPA WebSIM via the Georgia 

network node. The Division then contracted with 

Acclaim Systems to develop an Oracle database 

with a Web-based front end and data transport 

capabilities.

The Oracle application automatically calculates the 

rolling 30-day geometric mean and automatically 

generates an e-mail and sends it to the laboratory 

manager and to the CRD manager notifying 

them when the EPA-recommended level has 

been exceeded. Programmed into the geometric 

mean application is a “what if” calculator that 

automatically displays the hypothetical value of the 

next sample needed to reach the EPA geometric 

mean threshold. This function is useful to beach 

managers for projecting what might happen with a 

particular beach in the near future. 

Guam

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency 

(Guam EPA) administers the beach monitoring 

and notification program for the territory. Tourists, 

fishermen, and the public use the beaches and lagoons 

of Guam heavily every day. Guam has approximately 

31.5 miles of beaches. The BEACH program has 

been instrumental in maintaining and enhancing 

the territory’s water quality and marine monitoring 

programs over the past four years. 

$ Monitoring. Guam’s Recreational Beach Monitoring 

Strategy focuses on the monitoring of “whole-body” 

(primary-use) and “limited whole body” (secondaryuse) recreational marine waters for the presence 

of microbiological organisms. This program is 

important because consistent monitoring ensures 

the protection of the public from diseases such 

as gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and cholera caused 

by elevated levels of microbiological organisms. 

Guam EPA monitors 38 fixed stations weekly along 

Guam’s most frequently used coastal beaches (Tier 1 

beaches) for enterococci bacteria. 

$ Public notification. When samples exceed the single 

sample maximum or geometric mean criteria for 

enterococci bacteria, an advisory is released to notify 

the public that the beach is closed or to warn against 

swimming. These bacteria criteria were updated in 

fecal coliforms and the recommended standards of 

EPA for enterococcus. In August 2002 DEP began 

collecting water samples weekly with additional 

funding from EPA. With the increased sampling 

frequency, the use of enterococcus geometric means 

became possible. Since that point, advisories have 

been based on bacteria levels that exceed either the 

single sample maximum standards for enterococcus 

or fecal coliforms or the geometric mean standard 

for enterococcus.

$ Public notification. The state delegated authority to 

county health departments to conduct the sampling 

and issue health advisories for areas that exceed 

these standards. The public is then notified through 

a Web site (http://esetappsdoh/irm00beachwater/

default.aspx), local media, and signs posted at the 

access points to the swimming area.

Georgia

Georgia has numerous important beaches, including 

such popular destinations as St. Simon’s Island, Jekyll 

Island, and Tybee Island. The Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources administers the Beach Monitoring 

Program in conjunction with county and local 

governments, and they conduct and oversee monitoring 

and public notification on approximately 118 miles 

of beaches. They have received $922,745 in BEACH 

grants since 2000. 

$ Public outreach. The Georgia Department of Public 

Health and Department of Natural Resources 

developed a flier with frequently asked questions. 

The flier, featuring the “Peach on the Beach” 

character, is 

distributed to the 

public by the local 

health department 

and answers many 

of the questions 

related to beach 

advisories in a 

clear and concise 

manner.

$ Data management. The Coastal Resources Division 

applied for and received an EPA National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network 
4-14 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

FY 2004 in the water quality regulations. Guam uses 

the local media (newspapers and TV) and its Web site 

to provide real-time results to the public. The Web 

site posts the weekly results and historical summaries 

to communicate potential risks to the public (www.

guamepa.govguam.net/programs/emas/beach.

html#REPORT). Furthermore, all reports listed 

above are accompanied by a press release making 

them available to any member of the public. 

Hawaii 

There are more than 400 beaches in Hawaii, including 

such well-known beaches as Waikiki and Lanikai. 

Although the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) 

had an established beach monitoring program prior 

to the first award of BEACH Act grant funds, the 

addition of these funds has enabled Hawaii to expand 

its monitoring efforts from a small group of highly 

visited beaches to a wider range of coastal beaches 

throughout Hawaii’s 297 miles of beaches. These grant 

funds have also assisted Hawaii in developing its public 

notification system. Hawaii has received $1,030,971 in 

BEACH Act grant funds since 2001. 

$ Risk-based beach ranking. The HDOH developed a 

risk-based ranking system to classify beaches on 

the islands of Oahu, Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii. 

HDOH used this ranking system to determine 

the monitoring frequency of beaches in the state, 

allowing monitoring efforts to focus throughout the 

entire year on beaches with high visitation while 

also providing periodic monitoring surveillance 

of other beaches throughout the state. Ranks are 

revised as additional information becomes available. 

$ Monitoring. HDOH increased monitoring frequency 

from once a week to twice a week at high-use beaches 

and developed a rotating schedule for monitoring 

beaches with lower use on a periodic basis. Hawaii is 

in the process of increasing the monitoring frequency 

for high-use beaches to four times a week. 

Illinois

The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) 

has been responsible for licensing bathing beaches in 

Illinois since 1974. IDPH’s BEACH Program goals are 

to improve public health and environmental protection 

programs for beachgoers and to provide the public with 

information about Lake Michigan water quality at 

Illinois beaches.

$ Monitoring. Illinois beaches along Lake Michigan are 

among the most frequently monitored beaches in the 

nation. All the coastal beaches in Lake County and 

suburban Cook County are monitored seven days a 

week during the swimming season. Chicago beaches 

are monitored 5 days a week. In addition, beach 

water quality monitoring is augmented through 

the use of E. coli predictive models at several Lake 

Michigan beaches. 

$ Public notification. IDPH provides beach water 

quality and program information to beachgoers 

through informational brochures, signs, and Web 

sites. An educational beach pamphlet titled Why is 

the beach closed? was developed and distributed to 

beach patrons. “Don’t Feed the Waterfowl” signs 

have been posted at several Lake Michigan beaches 

to discourage visitors from feeding birds, which can 

contribute significant fecal loads to beach water. 

Indiana

Indiana has approximately 23 miles of beaches along 

the Lake Michigan shoreline, including such important 

destinations as the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

which has 9 beaches, and the Indiana Dunes State 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-15

Park, with 2 main sections of beaches, along with 

14 other county and city beaches. The Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 

administers the Beach Monitoring and Notification 

Program in conjunction with the Lake County Parks 

and Recreation Department, the Hammond Health 

Department, the East Chicago Department of Public 

and Environmental Health, the Gary Sanitary District, 

the Town of Ogden Dunes, the Town of Dune Acres, 

and the LaPorte County Health Department. IDEM 

has received $676,000 in BEACH Act grants since 

2000. Its goals are improving public health and 

environmental protection programs for beachgoers 

and informing the public of the water quality at their 

beaches.

$ Monitoring. Prior to the BEACH Act grant, E. 

coli monitoring occurred only one day a week at 

Indiana’s Lake Michigan beaches. Since receiving 

funding, Indiana has been able to increase the 

sampling frequency to five to seven days a week at 

most of its Lake Michigan beaches. In addition, 

in 2004 IDEM used grant dollars to fund two 

predictive model development projects with the 

goal of increasing the efficiency of the monitoring 

activities along the Lake Michigan shoreline in the 

future.

$ Public notification. Indiana’s Lake Michigan beach 

managers have requested that IDEM provide realtime information regarding CSO discharge events. In 

conjunction with the Earth911 data reporting system 

Web site (www.earth911.org/waterquality), IDEM 

is working to implement a pilot project designed 

to provide real-time information regarding CSO 

discharge events to local beach managers and the 

public. This project will be linked to Indiana’s Beach 

Program Web site (www.in.gov/idem/beaches).

Louisiana

(Note: This highlight was revised after hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita to reflect current conditions.)
4-16 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Louisiana has several beaches historically visited by the 

public, including the highly frequented Fountainebleau 

State Park, Grand Isle State Park, Cypremort Point 

State Park, Fourchon Beach, and Holly Beach. The 

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

(LDHH) administers the Beach Monitoring Program 

in the state and conducts, or contracts with other 

state and local governments to conduct on its behalf, 

monitoring and public notification. Prior to hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, monitoring was conducted on 

approximately 23 miles of beaches.

LDHH completed a thorough, systematic review of 

available data and information to identify and rank 

Louisiana’s beaches according to risk. LDHH uses 

the resulting beach classification scheme as a basis for 

monitoring the state’s high-priority beaches. (See www.

oph.dhh.state.la.us/sanitarianservices/beachmonitor/

index.html and click on “Louisiana’s BEACH Act 

Grant Report” for a description of the state’s process 

for identifying priority beaches.) LDHH also has 

developed a high-quality public notification program 

that efficiently uses beach signs, the department’s 

Web site, press releases, and direct contact of partner 

agencies and local officials to communicate to the 

public if beach advisories are warranted. Because of 

extensive damage to the state’s beaches and associated 

infrastructure by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, LDHH 

is reevaluating the state’s existing List of Beaches to 

determine whether the list and associated monitoring 

schedules need to be revised.

Maine

Maine has 46 beaches, which are critical to the viability 

of its tourist industry. These include such popular 

places as Old Orchard Beach and Wells Beach in 

southern Maine and Mount Desert Island, home of 

Acadia National Park, bordering the downeast section 

of the 5,250-mile coast. The Maine Coastal Program/

State Planning Office manages the Maine Healthy 

Coastal Beaches Program in cooperation with the 

University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea 

Grant (responsible for coordination of the program). 

Maine has received $1,090,713 in BEACH Act grants 

since 2001.

$ Monitoring. With EPA BEACH Act grant funds, 

Maine has been able to develop a statewide monitoring and notification program, recruiting 19 towns 

and State Parks representing 42 beach management areas. This non-mandatory, local-jurisdiction 

program put in place an EPA-approved Quality 

Assurance Project Plan and developed a tiered monitoring approach with protocols, regional laboratories, 

training, and multiple resources for the program.

$ Public outreach and education. This new and voluntary 

program employed a marketing plan, and resources 

were developed to reach a broad audience through 

radio, television, news media, posters, flyers, 

brochures, and a user-friendly and informative 

Web site, www.MaineHealthyBeaches.org. A public 

interface to Maine’s on-line database was launched 

on the Web site May 2005, and it offers a wealth of 

information on the beach science, status, and data 

for the program.

Maryland

Each summer many state residents and visitors go to 

Maryland beaches for outdoor recreation and vacations. 

To protect the beach-going public, Maryland delegates 

a beach monitoring and public notification program to 

its local health departments. Beginning in the 1980s, 

each county had its own, independently developed 

program. From timing and frequency of sampling 

to methods of public notification, counties have had 

very different programs in terms of resources spent on 

beaches and priority given to public natural bathing 

areas. Maryland’s goal, with the use of BEACH Act 

grant money and EPA guidance, was and is to maintain 

a standardized beach program for its coastal counties. 

Maryland has adopted the EPA-recommended 

indicators and criteria. 

$ Monitoring. Predictive models are being developed 

for high-use beaches in Maryland. Projects to 

monitor pollution sources affecting bathing areas 

have identified and remedied water quality problems 

at beaches. 

$ Public notification. Public notification, education, and 

outreach have increased awareness of the potential 

risks and hazards of bathing in natural waters, 

as well as providing public advisory information, 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-17

resulting in a better-educated and safer public. 

Additional information for the Maryland Beaches 

Program is available by calling 1-800-633-6101, x 

3906 or by visiting the Web site http://www.mde.

state.md.us/CitizensInfoCenter/Health/beaches.asp.

Massachusetts

Every year people head to bathing beaches in Massachusetts for vacation, relaxation, and recreation. The 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) 

is responsible for implementing of the bathing beach 

monitoring program at more than 500 coastal beaches 

in the state. The BEACH Act resulted in funding that 

MDPH has used to increase and implement consistent 

water quality monitoring throughout the state, increase 

public awareness of beach water quality issues, and 

identify areas of concern. Massachusetts has received 

$1,090,645 in BEACH Act grants since 2000.

$ Monitoring. MDPH has achieved weekly monitoring 

at the state’s public and semi-public marine beaches.

$ Public notification. MDPH has developed a public 

notification Web site (www.mass.gov/dph/beha/tox/

reports/beach/beaches.htm), where water quality 

information and beach open/closed status is shown 

in near-real time.

Michigan

Michigan has received a total of $1,134,966 in BEACH 

Act funding to support monitoring programs for 

327 public beaches in 41 counties along the state’s 

3,200 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. Local health 

departments request an average of $380,000 of BEACH 

Act funds per year from the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for local beach 

monitoring programs for approximately 200 highpriority beaches. The BEACH Act allocation for 

Michigan provides funding to support monitoring once 

a week at 80 beaches for part of the summer and 100 

beaches for most of the summer. 

$ Monitoring. All beach monitoring data are reported 

to and evaluated by the MDEQ. The MDEQ 

incorporates beach monitoring data into other water 

pollution prevention programs to encourage strategic 

improvements in water quality.

$ Public notification. The Michigan Beach Monitoring 

Web site (http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-

135-3313,00.html) immediately provides current 

and historical test results for E. coli and beach 

closings/advisories as they are reported from health 

departments for all public beaches in Michigan. All 

public beaches are required to post a sign indicating 

whether the beach is monitored and where the 

results can be found. 
4-18 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Minnesota

Minnesota has a number of important beaches, including the 5-mile-long Park Point beach within the city 

of Duluth and beaches in a number of state parks. The 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency administers the 

Beach Monitoring Program in conjunction with Cook 

County, Lake County, St. Louis County, the City of 

Duluth, the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, 

the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the 

Minnesota Department of Health, the University of 

Minnesota–Duluth, Sea Grant, Clean Water Action, the 

Natural Resources Research Institute, and local clubs 

such as the Park Point Community Club and the Duluth 

Boat Club. Minnesota conducts or oversees monitoring and public notification on approximately 58 miles 

of beaches. The state has received $467,815 in BEACH 

Act grants since 2000.

$ Monitoring. Since the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency started monitoring 35 beaches in 2002 (will 

be 39 in 2005), the level of awareness of bacterial 

pollution of recreational waters in the region, as 

well as in the state, has risen dramatically. The 

understanding that wastewater overflows and 

bypasses can have an effect on beach water quality 

has led to the demand for solutions to the inflow and 

infiltration problems in the region.

$ Public notification. Minnesota has improved many 

aspects of its public notification process. The 

state has developed an exceptional interactive and 

informative Web site (www.MNBeaches.org) that 

summarizes key information about beach advisories 

and closings. E-mail notices are automatically sent 

to interested parties. A local phone message is 

continually updated with the latest advisories, and 

the public can call an 800 number to hear beach 

advisory information. Minnesota also has a good 

working relationship with the local media. 

Mississippi

(Note: this highlight was not revised after hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita to reflect current conditions.)

Mississippi has numerous important beaches, including 

such popular destinations as Biloxi and Gulfport. 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality administers the Beach Monitoring Program 

in conjunction with the State Beach Monitoring Task 

Force, and they conduct and oversee monitoring 

and public notification on approximately 40 miles 

of beaches. They have received $831,092 in BEACH 

grants since 2000. 

$ Monitoring. Under the BEACH Act, the Mississippi 

Beach Monitoring Program was expanded in 

2005 to include 22 beaches, and the frequency of 

sampling was increased for 7 beaches. Sixteen of 

the 22 beaches were classified as Tier 1 beaches, 

and they are monitored 10 times a month during 

the recreational season (May through October). Six 

Tier II beaches are monitored 4 times a month. All 

beaches are monitored 4 times a month during the 

non-recreational season.

$ Public notification. During 2000, MDEQ developed 

a Beach Monitoring Web site to notify the public 

of the water quality at Mississippi beaches and 

to provide historical beach monitoring bacteria 

data. The Web site is at http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/

msbeach/indes. This Web site provides near realtime data from all the monitoring locations, current 

beach advisories, beach locations and pictures of 

all the monitored beaches, and maps locating the 

sampling sites. If bacteria levels reach unsafe levels, 

advisory notices are placed on the beach stating that 

swimming is not recommended until bacteria levels 

return to safe levels. The advisories remain in place 

until the monitoring data indicate that the water is 

safe for swimming and water contact. 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-19

New York

New York has 347 regulated beaches located on Lake 

Erie, Lake Ontario, the Atlantic Ocean, and Long 

Island Sound, including such well-known beaches 

as Jones Beach State Park, Rockaway Beach, Coney 

Island, and Robert Moses State Park. The New York 

State Department of Health administers the Beach 

Monitoring Program in conjunction with 11 subcontractors, including 8 organized county health departments; the New York City Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene; the New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation and Historical Preservation; and one State 

Health Department District Office, which conduct the 

monitoring and public notification program for the 

state’s approximately 53 miles of coastal beaches. Since 

2001 the New York State Department of Health has 

received $1,138,485 in grants from EPA to fund these 

monitoring and notification programs. 

$ Monitoring. Since the inception of the BEACH Act 

grant program, 35 new beaches have been added to 

the inventory of coastal beaches in New York State 

while 5 beaches originally listed have been dropped. 

The current list of 347 coastal beaches represents a 

net increase of 30 beaches. 

$ Risk-based beach ranking. The New York State 

Department of Health, through its subcontractors, 

thoroughly assesses all the coastal beaches and 

uses a risk-based approach to monitor all regulated 

beaches. Beaches assessed as high risk are monitored 

at least weekly during the bathing season, while 

those assessed as medium or low risk are monitored 

less frequently.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire administers a Public Beach Inspection 

Program, or Beach Program, that monitors, inspects, 

and provides public notification for 16 coastal public 

beaches. New Hampshire’s coastal beaches are a 

valuable recreational and economic resource, and they 

include Hampton Beach State Park, New Hampshire’s 

premier coastal beach attraction. New Hampshire has 

received $876,994 in BEACH Act grants since 2000.

$ Monitoring. New Hampshire has increased the 

number of coastal beaches monitored from 9 in 2000 

to 16 in 2005, and the program now includes weekly 

monitoring at 14 high-priority beaches. All beaches 

are subject to annual risk-based beach evaluations, 

which are the basis of New Hampshire’s Tiered 

Monitoring Plan.

$ Public notification. New Hampshire has developed a 

detailed Web site to inform the public of the health 

risks associated with beach recreational activities. 

The Web site includes features such as a current 

advisories page, an illness report form, a public 

comment section, and annual coastal beach reports. 

Other means of outreach include signage indicating 

beach monitoring status, numerous fact sheets, and a 

brochure. 

New Jersey

Since 1974 the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) has administered 

the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CCMP), 

in which 10 local environmental health agencies 

participate. The CCMP assesses nearshore coastal water 

quality and investigates sources of water pollution. To 

date DEP has received $908,679 in EPA BEACH Act 

grants. DEP also received an EPA challenge grant to 

create a centralized database that will allow for the 

timely reporting of water quality conditions at New 

Jersey’s beaches.

$ Monitoring and notification. The local health agencies 

collect water samples each week and perform the 

water analyses for enterococci concentrations at 186 

ocean and 139 bay monitoring stations. The CCMP 

enables local health agencies to respond to immediate 

public health concerns arising from contamination in 

coastal recreational areas. In addition, DEP performs 

aerial surveillance of nearshore coastal waters six 

days a week during the summer. This surveillance 

enables the routine evaluation of coastal water quality 

and the assessment of the nature and extent of public 

reports of ocean pollution. The information collected 

under the CCMP assists the DEP in developing 

coastal zone management strategies such as land use 

planning to control pollution from nonpoint sources. 

North Carolina

North Carolina has numerous important beaches, 

including such popular destinations as Wrightsville 

Beach, Atlantic Beach, and the Outer Banks. The North 
4-20 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources administers the Beach Monitoring Program, 

and it conducts monitoring and public notification on 

approximately 330 miles of beaches. The Department 

has received $975,691 in BEACH Act grants since 2000. 

North Carolina has developed and implemented an 

extensive outreach and education program to educate 

local governments, the public, and state elected officials 

about the Beach Monitoring Program. This has led to 

increased credibility of the program and the investment 

of all parties in making the program successful. Also, at 

the beginning of 2004 the North Carolina Commission 

for Health Services passed new rules codifying the EPA 

beach guidance at the state level.

$ Public outreach: North Carolina Recreational Water 

Quality (RWQ) staff developed an extensive outreach 

and education plan, targeted to different audiences 

both internal and external to state government. The 

audiences include state agency employees; state-level 

legislative representatives from coastal counties; local 

government officials and boards of health; interest 

groups, including tourism, environmental organizations, and pier and camp owners; and local business 

interests near sampling sites. They created brochures 

and fact sheets and the beginnings of a Web-based 

data system that would allow the public access to 

water quality data for their chosen beaches.

The public can access beach water quality data that 

are updated weekly, as well as information about 

the program and downloadable brochures, on the 

program’s Web site at http://www.deh.enr.state.

nc.us/shellfish/Water_Monitoring/RWQweb/home.

htm. In addition, the RWQ staff instigated a series of 

face-to-face talks and meetings, which has been their 

most valuable outreach tool. 

Northern Mariana Islands

The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI) Division of Environmental Quality 

administers the beach monitoring and notification 

program for the territory. The beaches and lagoon 

waters of CNMI are used heavily daily by tourists, 

fishermen, and the public. CNMI has a little more 

than 28 miles of beaches. The BEACH program has 

been instrumental in maintaining and enhancing 

the territory’s water quality and marine monitoring 

programs over the past four years. On the basis of 

beach monitoring, CNMI found that of the 28 miles 

of beaches, 8 miles are impaired, 6.5 miles are fully 

supporting their designated uses, and 13.8 miles 

are likely supporting their designated uses but lack 

sufficient data.

$ Monitoring. Beach samples are monitored not only 

for enterococci bacteria, but also salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, temperature, pH, 

and turbidity. The beach monitoring complements 

CNMI’s long-term coral reef ecosystem monitoring 

and biocriteria development efforts. Beaches that 

have a high potential risk for harmful pathogens 

and are heavily used by the public are all considered 

Tier 1 beaches. 

$ Public notification/outreach. When samples exceed the 

single sample or geometric mean enterococci bacteria limits in the water quality regulations, the beach 

is “red flagged,” meaning a warning is provided to 

the public not to swim in these waters. DEQ uses 

the local media (two newspapers) and its Web site 

to provide real-time results to the public. The Web 

site (www.deq.gov.mp/beach%20monitoring%20web/

Map%20Choice.htm) presents the weekly results and 

historical summaries to communicate potential risks 

to the public. Furthermore, all reports listed above 

are accompanied by a press release making them 

available to any member of the public. Signs are 

posted at six frequently used beaches regarding the 

most recent testing results, and CNMI is beginning 

to install signs at all other locations. 

Ohio

Ohio regards its border with Lake Erie as a primary 

natural resource for commerce, tourism, and recreation. 

The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) has monitored many of the numerous public beaches along the 

lake since 1973. With the cooperation of its partners 

(the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, local health departments, and other interested agencies and organizations), ODH continues to conduct a beach monitoring 

program each year, generating needed data for allowing 

the public to make informed decisions about its aquatic 

recreation.
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-21

$ Monitoring. Since 2002 ODH has used BEACH 

Act grant funding to increase the frequency of 

monitoring of Lake Erie beaches from twice per 

month to four times each week per beach. This 

frequency allows for swifter identification of bacteria 

problems and thus shortens the time involved in 

notifying the public of potential health hazards.

$ Public notification. ODH provides beach water quality 

data, beach advisories, and information regarding its 

monitoring program on the department’s Web site at 

www.odh.ohio.gov. Information on advisory status 

is also provided through a toll-free telephone line 

(1-866-OHIO-BCH) for people who lack access to 

the Internet. BEACH Act funding also has assisted 

in the development of informational pamphlets that 

are distributed throughout the Ohio/Lake Erie area. 

Future funding will allow for the development of 

bilingual signage and other written information.

Oregon

In Oregon the public is guaranteed free and 

uninterrupted use of all beaches along the coastline. 

Oregon’s Parks and Recreation Department 

administers the ocean shore as a state recreation 

area. The state’s Department of Human Services 

administers the Beach Monitoring Program and works 

in conjunction with the Department of Environmental 

Quality and the Parks and Recreation Department 

to implement the program. Since 2002 Oregon has 

received a total of $747,600 in BEACH Act grant funds. 

$ Monitoring. The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program 

conducts monitoring year-round and uses an 

adaptive sampling approach. The beaches sampled 

may change seasonally as use patterns and the 

presence of bacteria change. (http://oregon.gov/DHS/

ph/beaches/beaches.shtml)

$ Public notification. Oregon has significantly 

enhanced its information delivery system with 

the development of a new Web site, improved 

signage and news releases, and collaboration with 

the Oregon Coastal Atlas to display and broadcast 

monitoring data on its Web site at www.coastalatlas.

net/learn/topics/waterquality/beach.

Pennsylvania

There are 12 permitted coastal recreational beaches 

on the southern shore of Lake Erie in Pennsylvania. 

All the beaches are in Erie County, which has the only 

coastal beaches in the Commonwealth. Annually, over 3 

million people visit Presque Isle State Park, which has 

11 beaches. 

EPA awards a BEACH Act grant to the Erie County 

Department of Health (ECDH).

$ Monitoring. Pennsylvania has adapted the E. coli

standards recommended by EPA. A predictive 

model of recreational beach water quality based 

on weather, known sewage discharges, storm 

events, and water currents is being formulated. The 

information would be used to see if a correlation 

could be established with weather and high bacteria 

counts. If a predictive model were established, it 

would allow the beach managers to close beaches on 

a presumptive basis. This could prevent swimming 

in contaminated waters.

$ Public notification. ECDH is developing a Web site to 

provide the public with updated information on the 

water quality of permitted Lake Erie beaches.

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, which includes two additional inhabited 

offshore islands (Vieques and Culebra) and various 

small uninhabited islands, provides more than 100 

coastal segments that are used for bathing nearly 

all year long. Not all these coastal segments are 

designated beach areas. The various designated 

beach areas are operated by one of the following: 

the National Parks Company, the Department of 

Natural and Environmental Resources, or the specific 
4-22 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

municipalities where the beach is located. In all cases 

the Environmental Quality Board is responsible 

for ensuring that the water quality of the coastal 

segments complies with the applicable water quality 

standards through monitoring on alternate weeks 

and enforcement actions whenever noncompliance is 

discovered.

$ Monitoring. In the Beach Monitoring Program, 

Puerto Rico has initially included the 22 major 

(most frequented) beaches throughout the coastal 

shoreline of the territory. The Environmental 

Quality Board monitors all 22 beaches for 

bacteriological and physical parameters on alternate 

weeks. Any noncompliance with respect to water 

quality is addressed immediately through a 

resampling sequence. The compliance status of each 

beach program is announced publicly in newspapers 

and on the Environmental Quality Board’s Web site 

at www.jca.gobierno.pr.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has 70 environmentally and economically 

important coastal beaches. The Rhode Island 

Department of Health (HEALTH) administers the 

Beach Monitoring Program, with the support of the 

Department of Environmental Management, the 

Department of Transportation, the University of Rhode 

Island, and the Office of the Governor. HEALTH 

conducts monitoring at approximately 25 miles of 

beaches and notifies the public whenever a beach is 

opened or closed. HEALTH has received $911,769 in 

BEACH Act grant funding since 2000.

$ Monitoring. HEALTH has conducted sanitary 

surveys at all 70 licensed coastal beaches. A review 

of existing information, collection of geographic 

data, water quality monitoring, and extensive field 

surveys have allowed HEALTH to target resources, 

such as increased monitoring, to the beaches of 

greatest risk to public health.

$ Source identification. HEALTH has worked to 

coordinate a multi-agency response to beach 

closings. The Governor of Rhode Island has charged 

HEALTH with not only monitoring beaches but 

also partnering with local, state, and federal agencies 

to identify and eliminate sources of pollution that 

cause the beaches to be closed.

South Carolina

South Carolina has numerous important beaches, 

including Myrtle Beach, Kiawah, and Hilton Head. 

The Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(DHEC) administers the Beach Monitoring Program in 

conjunction with some local authorities, and together 

they conduct and oversee monitoring and public 

notification on approximately 180 miles of beaches. 

They have received $986,868 in BEACH Act grants 

since 2000. As noted above, the state has worked with 

local authorities through the use of mini-grants to 

implement the program. This allows strong working 

relationships between state and local governments 

and gives local governments a greater commitment to 

seeing the beach monitoring program work.

$ Data management. South Carolina’s existing 

Environmental Facility Information System (EFIS) 

is used to manage monitoring and advisory data. 

All monitoring data are entered into EFIS through 

manual entry or uploaded from the Laboratory 

Information System (LIMS). The program 

coordinator enters advisory information is into EFIS. 

$ Tiering of Beaches. In August 2005 DHEC’s Bureau 

of Water plans to issue a contract for continued 

surveying at sites identified previously as Tier 3. 

This contractor will verify the site locations, develop 

necessary survey forms if sampling is needed, 

document public access and use, and determine 

sources of pollution.

Texas

Texas has numerous popular beaches, including 

beaches in the vicinity of such important destinations 

as Galveston, Corpus Christi, and South Padre Island. 

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers 

the Texas Beach Watch Program in conjunction with 

various contracted entities, including local county 

health departments, universities, and municipalities. 

GLO oversees monitoring and public notification on 

approximately 144 miles of beaches in Texas. GLO has 

received $1.23 million in BEACH Act grants since 2000. 

$ Tiering of beaches. GLO thoroughly evaluated all 

of the state’s beaches. The Office identified beach 

segments that are used most frequently by the 

public and determined where health risks to large 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-23

swimming populations are greatest. Based on the 

results of this risk-based approach, GLO prioritized 

all defined beach segments for implementation of its 

monitoring and public notification program. Before 

passage of the BEACH Act of 2000, the state was 

sampling at 13 of the most popular beaches on the 

Texas coast using state funds. Using the BEACH Act 

grants, Texas has expanded its sampling program, 

and data collection now occurs at approximately 

59 beaches in 7 counties. (See http://www.glo.state.

tx.us/coastal/beachwatch/index.html for a description 

of GLO’s classification of beaches and monitoring 

plan.)

Virgin Islands

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) consists of four main 

islands—St. Thomas, St. John, Water Island, and St. 

Croix. These islands harbor some of the most fascinating and beautiful marine environments in the world. 

These aquatic resources have contributed to drawing an 

average of 2 million divers, beachcombers, and sightseers per year, spending nearly $100 million from 1997 to 

the present. The USVI also has a coastline greater than 

185 nautical miles, allowing for public access at hundreds of locations during a year-round swimming season. These unique factors led to the development and 

implementation of the USVI BEACH Water Quality 

Monitoring Program, which is essential for the protection of both beachgoers and the marine resources.

$ Monitoring. The 2001 BEACH Act grant was used 

to develop the program’s Quality 

Assurance Project Plan. Secondyear funds were used to implement 

the program. A total of 43 beaches 

were selected—20 on St. Croix, 15 

on St. Thomas, and 8 on St. John. 

Sampling officially began in the 

St. Thomas/St. John district in July 

2004 and in the St. Croix district 

in August 2004. The selected 

beaches are monitored weekly. Two 

state-approved labs were selected 

to perform the analysis, one on 

St. Croix and one on St. Thomas, 

and both use EPA method 1600 for 

enterococci analysis. 

$ Public notification/outreach. The USVI BEACH 

program is establishing a Web site and a toll-free 

number to ensure that the public has access to the 

data collected and the public advisory status of each 

beach. The program is using temporary beach water 

quality warning signs until the permanent signs are 

completely assembled. The program has conducted 

public outreach to several local public schools, and 

several interviews with the local media have been 

held.

Virginia

Virginia has been monitoring the bathing beaches at 

Norfolk and Virginia Beach since the 1970s. In 2001 

Virginia received the first EPA BEACH Program 

grant to implement a Beach Monitoring and Public 

Notification Program for the 2002 swimming season 

at bathing beaches along the Atlantic coast and the 

Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. This grant was used to 

implement a state-level coordinated beach monitoring 

program at Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The Virginia 

Department of Health (VDH) coordinates the program, 

and state employees in the local health departments 

carry out weekly monitoring.

$ Monitoring. In 2003 the Beach Monitoring Program 

was expanded to include additional beaches along 

the Virginia coast. The Beach Monitoring Program 

in Virginia provides seasonal water monitoring 

coverage of bathing beaches at Virginia Beach, 
4-24 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton, and Yorktown; 

the eastern shore of Virginia; and Gloucester and 

King George counties. 

$ Public notification. State employees in seven different 

Health Districts participate in the program by 

conducting sampling and posting signs at beaches 

when water samples exceed the state water quality 

standards for bacteria. The public is notified of a 

swimming advisory through press releases to local 

newspapers and notices on the Virginia Department 

of Health Web page (http://www.vdh.virginia.

gov/whc/external_whc/BeachMonitoring.asp). In 

addition, two source-tracking techniques were used 

on Virginia’s beaches during the 2004 swimming 

season. One method provided information on 

whether a human waste stream was present at the 

beaches; the other provided greater detail on the 

source of contamination by linking the bacteria to 

more specific sources such as pets, wildlife, human, 

or waterfowl sources. 

Washington

Washington State has 3,066 miles of shoreline with 

over 2,000 miles in the west coast’s largest estuary, 

Puget Sound. Washington has a variety of beach 

destinations, including coastal treasures like Westport, 

Ocean Shores, the city of Edmonds with its nationally 

recognized scuba diving sanctuary, and the city of 

Seattle, which has approximately 30 miles of shoreline. 

The Washington State Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) and Department of Health (Health) 

administer the Beach Monitoring Program in 

conjunction with county environmental health 

departments. The monitoring takes place on 

approximately 60 miles of beaches at the local level, 

while public notification occurs through actions taken 

at the state and local levels. Washington has received 

$880,053 in BEACH Act grants.

The BEACH Act grants have enabled Washington 

to develop and implement a statewide monitoring 

and notification program for bacteria at the state’s 

most popular marine recreational beaches. Prior 

to Washington State’s BEACH Program being 

implemented in 2003, only a handful of marine beaches 

were monitored with the intent to reduce the risk of 

disease to users of the state’s waters. County health 

departments monitored beaches independently, if at 

all, and developed threshold levels independent of 

other counties. Because of EPA’s BEACH Act grants, 

Washington now has a uniform statewide monitoring 

program and an interactive mapping Web site that 

notifies people of advisories and closings.

Using CWA funding from the BEACH Act, Ecology 

and Health have developed the Washington State 

Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication 

and Health (BEACH) Program. Washington’s statewide 

BEACH Program monitors marine recreational 

beaches to reduce the risk of disease and provide 

a notification program warning recreational users 

when there is an increased risk. As lead agencies 

for the beach monitoring and notification program, 

Ecology and Health formed an Inter-agency Advisory 

Committee made up of county, city, and state officials, 

nonprofit groups, and local park managers to develop 

the program. The committee chose to implement the 

BEACH Program by using state agencies to coordinate 

and county environmental health departments to 

voluntarily implement the monitoring plans. Public 

notification is conducted at both the county and state 

levels.

$ Monitoring. In 2003, thanks to EPA’s grants, 

Washington State was able to implement the first 

statewide monitoring and notification program 

for marine recreational beaches in a pilot project 

phase. Washington began full implementation of 

the BEACH Program by evaluating and ranking 

roughly 1,000 marine beaches in the state. Seventytwo beaches were identified as priority beaches 

and were monitored for bacteria during the 2004 

summer swimming season. Washington State’s 

BEACH Program will evaluate the results from 2003 

and 2004 for chronically polluted beaches. Shoreline 

surveys and further investigation and remediation 

will follow for the beaches identified as problem 

beaches. 

The results from the BEACH Program demonstrate 

that Washington has relatively clean water and 

safe beaches: 100 percent of the state’s marine 

recreational beaches fall below EPA’s recommended 

geometric mean of 35 enterococcus colonies per 100 
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Implement the BEACH Act 4-25

mL. However, the BEACH Program has identified 

roughly 20 percent of the monitored beaches as 

having bacteria levels above expected background 

levels. With the population in the Puget Sound 

region expected to grow by 1.2 million people by 

2025, bacteria levels are expected to increase in 

Washington’s recreational waters. Sample results 

were analyzed to see whether environmental factors 

like rainfall and sediment size could be correlated 

with an increase in bacteria levels. Further 

investigation is needed to determine whether 

the increased levels of bacteria are due to human 

impacts or natural causes and whether an increased 

risk of disease is present.

$ Public notification/outreach. The BEACH Program 

also notifies the public when a sewer spill adjacent 

to a public beach has occurred. Prior to the BEACH 

Program, statewide notification did not exist. A new 

interactive, map-based Web site allows people to 

determine the condition of the beach they plan to 

visit before driving hours to get there only to find 

the beach unhealthy for use that day. 

Better public education is still needed to increase 

the awareness of the public as to the potential risks 

associated with swimming in polluted water. The 

BEACH Program developed a public education and 

outreach campaign for 2005.

Wisconsin

$ Beach assessment and identification. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources collected geolocational data on 193 beaches, along with their 

proximity to wastewater outfalls on the shoreline 

of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. This 

information was used to develop state and county 

maps and to determine actual beach miles along the 

Great Lakes shores.

$ Public notification. The Wisconsin Beach Health 

Web site, which is accessible to the public, stores upto-date monitoring data and advisory information 

(www.wibeaches.us). An e-mail notification system 

allows beach users to sign up to be notified of the 

status of beaches of their choice. A toll-free phone 

line is also available for public use.

4.4	 What have tribal governments

done?

Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat 

eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as states 

for the purpose of receiving CWA section 406 grant 

funding. To be eligible for a CWA section 406 

development grant, a tribe must have coastal recreation 

waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access 

that are used by the public. In addition, a tribe 

must meet the requirements in CWA section 518 for 

treatment in a manner similar to a state for purposes 

of receiving a CWA section 406 grant. At this time, no 

eligible tribe has applied for a BEACH Act grant.

4.5	 What have local governments

done?

The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to make a grant to a 

local government for implementation of a monitoring 

and notification program only if, after the 1-year 

period beginning on the date of publication of the 

performance criteria (which was July 19, 2002), EPA 

determines that the state within which the local 

government has jurisdiction is not implementing 

a program that meets the requirements of section 

406(b) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH Act. 

On April 26, 2006, EPA made this determination for 

Pennsylvania and transferred the state’s grant to Erie 

County.

4.6	 References

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2002a. National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants. EPA 823-B-02-004. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, DC. June.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2002b. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. 

EPA 842-B-02-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. August.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. 

National List of Beaches. EPA 823-R-04-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. March.
4-26 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress
5-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA has also been working to improve the science and 

integration of monitoring and modeling for pathogens 

in coastal recreation waters. Chapter 3 describes 

some of EPA’s efforts in this area. This chapter 

describes other EPA efforts to improve monitoring 

and recommends improvements to methodologies and 

techniques for monitoring coastal recreation waters.

5.1	 What monitoring research has

EPA conducted?

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), 

in coordination with the Office of Water, conducted 

a study to identify the characteristics of a beach 

environment that have a significant impact on 

monitoring in coastal recreation waters. This project 

examined five beach environments to determine 

the factors that most influence the measurement of 

beach water quality. Two ocean beaches, an estuarine 

beach, a Great Lakes beach, and a riverine beach 

were selected to provide as broad a representation of 

beach environments as possible. The following sites 

participated in this study (Figure 5.1):

$ West Beach, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Ogden Dunes, Indiana, a freshwater beach on the 

shores of Lake Michigan 

$ Belle Isle Park, Detroit, Michigan, a freshwater 

beach on the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair 

and Lake Erie

$ Wollaston Beach, Quincy, Massachusetts, a marine 

beach in Quincy Bay

Chapter 5

Improvements to Methodologies and 

Techniques for Monitoring Coastal 

Recreation Waters

$ Imperial Beach, Imperial Beach, California, a 

marine beach on the Pacific Ocean 

$ Miami Beach Park, Bowley’s Quarters, Maryland, 

an estuarine beach on Chesapeake Bay near 

Middle River

EPA published the report titled Environmental 

Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking 

(EMPACT) Beaches Project in August 2005. EPA 

will initiate a formal review process to evaluate the 

study results. The Agency plans to use the results of 

the study, along with other recent research studies, 

to determine how its monitoring guidance for beach 

monitoring programs might be improved.

There is, for example, a range of technical and policy 

issues that EPA might review. These could include the 

depth at which samples should be collected; the time 

and location at which samples should be collected; 

other considerations, such as sampling “hot spots,” the 

use of composite sampling, and combining sampling 

with site-specific predictive modeling; and other 

monitoring factors that states and localities should 

consider. 

5.2 	 What modeling work has been

conducted?

EPA has been investigating means to improve 

the monitoring of beach water quality and to 

develop strategies, including modeling, for timely 

notification of the public when bacterial contamination 

poses a risk to bathers. A few models for predicting 

bacteria concentrations on beaches have been 
5- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

developed in recent years. They include statistical 

models that rely on readily available parameters, such 

as rainfall, turbidity, wind direction, and wave height. 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has also 

conducted research related to beach water quality. For 

example, USGS has been refining monitoring methods, 

and conducting field sampling studies. USGS and EPA 

have been working to improve models to better predict 

water quality at beaches.

USGS has developed empirical models for beaches 

in Ohio and Indiana. In Ohio, USGS researchers 

developed beach-specific models for five Lake Erie 

beaches (Francy and others, 2003). At Huntington 

Beach, Bay Village, Ohio, predictions based on the 

model are being presented to the public through an 

Internet-based “nowcasting” system in 2006 (see 

http://www.ohionowcast.info/); the models for the other 

beaches will be presented through the nowcasting 

system after they are validated. In 2005, USGS 

scientists studied beaches in Porter and Lake Counties 

in Indiana and developed a mathematical model 

dubbed “Project SAFE” (Swim Advisory Forecast 

Estimate, see http://www.glsc.usgs.gov). In these types 

of models, sources are usually not defined explicitly 

because rainfall or other variables serve as surrogate 

source functions. Project SAFE and Nowcasting uses 

measurements such as rainfall, wave height, and lake 

turbidity to estimate E. coli counts and to determine 

when counts are high enough to threaten the health of 

swimmers. Because of the 24-hour time lag associated 

with the current technique of collecting water samples 

and culturing for E. coli, there are limitations for beach 

public notification decisions. Therefore, Project SAFE 

and Nowcasting seeks to decrease the waiting time for 

results by incorporating real-time information into its 

model prediction.

USGS began using the Project SAFE models at 

beaches in Gary, Indiana, during the summer of 2005. 

According to the SAFE protocol, each morning USGS 

scientists downloaded data from weather- and watermonitoring stations near or around the Burns Ditch 

outfall and beaches to the west. Scientists incorporated 

the data into the mathematical model, determined the 

likelihood of elevated bacteria levels, and distributed 

the result to beach managers in time for them to make 

an educated decision about keeping a beach open to 

Imperial Beach

West Beach Miami Beach

Wollaston Beach

Belle Isle

Figure 5.1.	 EMPACT study beaches
Chapter 5: Improvements to Methodologies and Techniques for Monitoring Coastal Recreation Waters 5-

swimmers, issuing an advisory that E. coli counts were 

likely elevated, or closing the beach. Similar procedures 

are being followed as part of the Nowcasting system in 

Ohio in 2006. USGS has proposed using this method 

for other Great Lakes beaches as well.

Less developed, at least in the area of beach bacteria 

predictive models, are comparatively complex 

hydrodynamic approaches. Based on initial and 

boundary conditions, these models are designed 

to solve the equations of motion numerically, thus 

predicting the fate and transport of pollutants. 

Although fundamentally physics-based, they also often 

have important empirical components to bridge gaps in 

knowledge or to simplify the mathematics. Such models 

are currently used mostly for other purposes, such as 

predicting the transport and fate of hydrocarbons after 

an oil spill. Sources are usually modeled explicitly.

Nowhere in this spectrum of existing approaches are 

there models that are readily applicable to new sites. 

Empirical models apply to specific sites, and complex 

numerical models generally require the services of 

experts and consultants to implement them.

New software called “Virtual Beach” is intended 

to overcome these limitations by supporting both 

empirical and physical approaches in an integrated 

application. In collaboration with USGS, EPA is 

designing Virtual Beach to automate the statistical 

analytical techniques developed by USGS. Upon 

collecting and compiling similar ambient data, wellmotivated laypersons will be able to use Visual Beach 

to derive predictive statistical models for their own 

sites. A prototype is under development at the EPA 

Ecosystems Research Division in Athens, Georgia. A 

beta version of the Virtual Beach statistical model was 

distributed to selected reviewers in June 2005. Parts of 

the interface and statistical models were presented at 

the AllPI conference on Oceans and Human Health in 

Lansing, Michigan, April 19–20, 2005 (Ge 2005).

The goal is to develop a user-friendly application that 

directly or indirectly includes point and nonpoint 

sources of contamination, the latest bacterial decay 

mechanisms, real-time and Web-based ambient and 

atmospheric and aquatic input, and a predictive 

capability of up to three days to help avert potential 

beach closings. Upon successful completion of the first 

phase, similar development approaches will be used to 

start the second phase, the hydrodynamic modeling 

approach. After both the statistical and hydrodynamic 

approaches become available, end users will be able 

to select the approach most compatible with their 

resources and capabilities.

The suite of predictive capabilities for this 

software application can enhance the utility of new 

methodologies for analyzing indicator pathogens by 

identifying times that represent the highest probability 

of bacterial contamination. Successful use of this 

model will provide a means to direct timely collection 

of monitoring samples, strengthening the value of the 

short turnaround time for sampling. In addition, in 

some cases of known point sources of bacteria, such as 

wastewater treatment plant discharges, the model can 

be applied to help guide operational controls to help 

prevent resulting beach closings.

5.3	 References

Francy, D.S., A.M. Gifford, R.A. Darner. 2003. 

Escherichia coli at Ohio bathing beaches: distribution, 

sources, wastewater indicators, and predictive modeling. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4285. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Ge, Z. 2005. The development of an empirical bacteria 

model for Visual Beach. Presented at the AllPI 

conference on Oceans and Human Health in 

Lansing, Michigan, April 19–20, 2005. 

USEPA. 2005. The EMPACT Beaches Project: Results 

From a Study on Microbiological Monitoring in 

Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-04/023, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, 

Ohio.
5- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress
A-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

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 (33U.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 

sub-section, 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.

“(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 

Appendix A

BEACH Act
A- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

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, 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);
Appendix A: BEACH Act 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 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;

“(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 
A- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

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 sub-sections (b)(3)(A)(i) and (d)(3); and

“(2) other information concerning pathogens and pathogen indicators in coastal recreation waters that—

“(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 
Appendix A: BEACH Act A-

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

“(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.
A- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

(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.).

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.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
B-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

The following sections were written by each state or 

territory to highlight the key accomplishments of beach 

programs in coastal states and territories. EPA has 

not verified and validated these data. These program 

descriptions describe recent activities and might 

include some actions not funded by BEACH Act funds. 

Readers should note that the summaries for the Gulf 

Coast area were written before hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. These devastating events, which occurred in 

August and September 2005, will likely have a profound 

effect on the beach programs administered by the 

affected states in the short term. In the coming months, 

EPA and the states will work to reestablish program 

activities so that the health and safety of beachgoers 

remain protected.

Alabama 

In June 1999, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), in cooperation with 

the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), 

initiated a program to routinely monitor bacteria levels 

at five public recreational beaches along the Gulf Coast. 

The effort was later expanded to include six additional 

sites along the Gulf Coast and Mobile Bay. ADEM was 

designated as the state’s lead agency and was awarded 

grant money by EPA through the BEACH Act to carry 

out this program. Through the BEACH Act, ADEM 

and ADPH expanded and enhanced monitoring and 

notification efforts for Alabama’s public recreational 

waters. The goal of this program is to increase public 

awareness and provide water quality information 

to help the public make more informed decisions 

concerning their recreational use of Alabama’s natural 

coastal waters.

Monitoring and Public Notification

The monitoring program now involves the routine 

collection of water samples from 25 high-use and/or 

Appendix B

State and Territory Highlights

potentially high-risk public recreational sites from 

Perdido Bay to Dauphin Island. The selection of sites 

and the frequency of sampling have been determined 

using a risk-based evaluation and ranking process. 

This process considers a number of factors for a given 

site, the most important being the amount of use and 

the amount of risk. Depending on the site rankings, 

samples are collected twice a week, once a week, or 

once every other week during the swimming season 

(June through September) and once a month during 

the cooler months (October through May). Samples 

are analyzed for the indicator bacteria enterococci. 

The indicator bacteria used and the threshold 

concentration, which triggers an advisory, are based on 

recommendations provided by EPA in the documents 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) 

and Water Quality Standards Handbook, second edition

(1983). All enterococci analysis is performed by ADPH 

Laboratory using EPA Standard Method 1600. EPA 

Method 1600 provides a direct count of bacteria in 

the water based on the development of colonies on the 

surface of the membrane filter. The ADPH and EPA 

whole body water contact standard for enterococci is 

104 col/100 mL (single sample maximum).

Trained ADEM and ADPH staff collect samples 

from the sites, and the ADPH Mobile Laboratory 

performs enterococcus analyses. ADPH reviews all 

data and is responsible for issuing advisories. All 

test results are posted on the ADEM Web site and 

advisories are publicized through press releases and 

posted on signs at each of the 25 sampling locations. 

More than 3,000 samples have been collected since 

the inception of the Beach Program, resulting in 

52 advisories issued. During fiscal year 2004, over 

800 samples were collected and analyzed, resulting 

in 15 beach advisories. Currently ADPH is using 

YSI Environmental Monitoring Systems, which are 
B- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

multiparameter, water quality measurement and 

data collection systems used to collect in situ data. 

These data are also reported on the ADEM Web site. 

The in situ data collected includes dissolved oxygen, 

pH, specific conductivity, salinity, and temperature. 

Turbidity data are also collected using a field turbidity 

meter.

American Samoa 

Overview of progress

All 143 miles of beaches and lagoon waters surrounding 

American Samoa are used daily by residents and 

tourists both for swimming and for family subsistence 

fishing. Thus, protection of public health by reducing 

the risk of disease acquired from swimming and 

recreating in contaminated waters is a great concern 

for the local community. Prior to 2002, the existing 

methods for monitoring recreational waters in the 

territory did not adequately protect public health. 

Following the receipt of BEACH grant funds in FY 

2001, American Samoa EPA (ASEPA) successfully 

developed a beach monitoring and public notification 

program by the end of FY 2002. Since that time, 

ASEPA has continued with full implementation and 

enhancement of this program.

Background

Prior to receiving BEACH Act grant funds in FY 2001, 

limited assessment was made of beaches (embayments 

and open coastal waters). Each week, ASEPA monitored 

only 12 beach sites spanning 30 beach miles. Although 

beach samples were analyzed for the detection and 

quantification of enterococci, no statistical reference 

work was performed, nor was any attempt made to 

utilize the information for public notification.

FY 2002 Progress

In FY 2002, ASEPA used grant funds to develop a 

program consistent with EPA’s nine performance 

criteria for the implementation of monitoring, 

assessment and notification. The primary objective of 

the project was continued development of an enhanced 

coastal recreation water monitoring program for 

American Samoa. Samples were routinely collected and 

analyzed from 14 beach sites weekly (Tier 1), 7 beaches 

monthly (Tier 2), and 14 remote beaches quarterly (Tier 

3). Public advisories were issued in print, radio, and 

television media for all beach samples that exceeded the 

American Samoa Water Quality Standards.

FY 2003 Progress

In FY 2003, ASEPA continued with full 

implementation of the beach monitoring and 

notification program. ASEPA also submitted an annual 

performance report, financial report, and monitoring 

and notification report for each fiscal year. Two Tier 

3 beach sites were shifted to a more regular sampling 

frequency of Tier 1, increasing the number of beaches 

monitored weekly from 14 to 16 beaches. An additional 

beach site was added to Tier 3 for monitoring and 

public notification, bringing the total number of 

beaches sampled each quarter to 15. The total number 

of beach miles monitored and assessed for public 

notification at the end of FY 2003 was 83 miles.

FY 2004 Progress

Increased BEACH Act grant funding awarded in 

FY 2004 enabled ASEPA to continue with full 

implementation and to enhance its beach monitoring 

and notification program. Specifically, ASEPA 

increased the monitoring frequency for Tier 3 waters 

from quarterly to weekly monitoring; bringing the 

total number of beach sites sampled each week from 16 

to 31. In addition to increased monitoring, advisories 

of water quality exceedances at Tier 3 waters were 

issued weekly for public notification. These data have 

enabled ASEPA to focus its nonpoint source efforts for 

improving water quality at beach sites. A fourth tier of 

21 new beach sites spanning 60 miles was evaluated and 

classified using a risk-based approach, increasing the 

total number of beach miles considered for monitoring 

and public notification to 143 miles.

California 

California has one of the most extensive beach 

monitoring programs in the country. Monitoring is 

performed by county health agencies in 18 coastal 

counties by NPDES permittees that discharge to the 

coastal zone, environmental groups, and numerous 

citizen monitoring groups. The BEACH program 

is helping California turn these programs into a 

coordinated statewide program.
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-

Monitoring

BEACH Act grant funds have been used to augment 

beach monitoring in California. The State Department 

of Health Services (DHS) requires weekly monitoring 

for three bacterial indicators (total coliform bacteria, 

fecal coliform bacteria, and enterococcus) during the 

summer dry-weather period (April 1 to October 31) 

at all beaches having more than 50,000 visitors each 

year and near storm drains. Some local governments, 

especially in southern California, monitor their beaches 

year-round. Counties have used the BEACH Act grant 

funds to increase the number of stations sampled at 

beaches, increase the frequency of sampling, and, 

where appropriate, extend sampling to year-round. 

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) 

has an ongoing Beach Water Quality Task Force 

consisting of health officials, regulatory agencies, 

discharge agencies, and environmental groups. 

The task force developed a three-tiered monitoring 

framework. Tier 1 beaches are high-use beaches 

with potential sources of contamination. These are 

monitored at least weekly; many are monitored daily or 

five days a week. Tier 2 beaches have moderate usage. 

These beaches may be monitored less than weekly or 

not at all during the period from November 1 through 

March 31 at the discretion of the local health officer. 

Tier 3 beaches are low-use beaches with little or no 

known source of contamination. The local health 

officer and water quality agencies may have monitoring 

conducted to determine whether these waters should be 

classified as Tier 1 or 2. Otherwise, the Tier 3 beaches 

are not monitored.

Quality assurance 

The local health agencies collecting data have their 

own individual Quality Assurance Plans. DHS used 

the BEACH Act grant funds to develop a Quality 

Assurance Management Plan for all beach monitoring 

activities under the BEACH program. The plan 

describes how the program will develop, implement, 

and determine the effectiveness of its quality assurance 

and quality control policies and procedures. Perhaps 

unique to California, organizations participate in 

inter-laboratory calibration studies to ensure that 

results being generated by multiple laboratories are 

comparable. 

Public notification and outreach

The state regulations prescribe bacterial thresholds and 

procedures for posting advisories and closing beaches. 

California makes a clear distinction between advisories 

and closings. Advisories provide the beachgoer with 

information to make an informed decision. The 

thresholds for posting an advisory in California are 

lower than those in other states. In California, beach 

advisories are mandated when any single sample 

exceeds a threshold for any one of three indicators. In 

addition, advisories are routinely posted for beaches 72 

hours after a rainstorm. These differences need to be 

taken into consideration when making state-by-state 

comparisons. 

Coastal counties are required by statute to report 

monthly to the state the number of beach advisories 

and closings. EPA BEACH Act grant funds have 

been used to help develop and support electronic data 

submittal. In Southern California, the county health 

agencies have data systems in place that allow them 

to transmit the water quality and advisory data to 

the State Board’s Beach Watch System. In Northern 

California, counties are able to submit data to the 

Beach Watch System through a Web-based interface. 

The data from the Beach Watch System is used to 

submit data to EPA. 

The Beach Water Quality Work Group refined the 

Heal-the-Bay Report Card system for consistent 

statewide application. The beach report card provides 

information on 430 beaches in California and is 

updated weekly (www.healthebay.org/brc/statemap.

asp). The use of letter grades effectively communicates 

complex water quality data in a way that most people 

can understand and allows them to make informed 

decisions about where they want to swim. 

Other highlights

California is a leader in beach monitoring. The state 

has invested $78 million in a Clean Beach Initiative 

to clean up bacterial contamination throughout the 

state. The state also has invested in the development 

of techniques for rapid indicators to allow for quicker 

notification and methods for source tracking to 

accurately and rapidly identify causes of bacterial 

impairments. There have been two epidemiological 
B- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

studies in California (Santa Monica Bay, 1994, and 

Mission Bay, 2004) to evaluate the relationship 

between bacterial indicators and incidence of disease. 

The Mission Bay study is unique in that it provides 

information on the risks associated with nonpoint 

sources of bacteria that are not of human origin. 

Connecticut 

Monitoring and public notification

The 67 regulated coastal bathing areas along the 

shoreline of Connecticut in contact with the Long 

Island Sound Estuary fall into two groups. Sixtythree of these beaches are sampled and monitored 

by 22 municipal local health departments, while the 

remaining 4 are state park beaches monitored by the 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

(CTDEP). These 67 beaches are monitored and closed 

in accordance with the State of Connecticut’s Guidelines 

for Monitoring Bathing Water and Closure Protocol. From 

Memorial Day to Labor Day, the shoreline local health 

departments and CTDEP notify the public when they 

issue closings or advisories for these beaches.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health 

(CTDPH) is currently building Web pages for the 

public beaches in Connecticut. The pages will be 

accessed through the department’s home page, and 

will include beach lists; a tiered beach monitoring 

list; the State of Connecticut’s Guidelines for Monitoring 

Bathing Water and Closure Protocol; links to Connecticut 

local health departments and CTDEP for beach 

closure information, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, and EPA; and references to state 

regulations governing public beaches.

Beach mapping and data management

CTDPH has traversed the entire length of each of the 

67 regulated coastal bathing areas along the shoreline 

adjoining the Long Island Sound Estuary. This 

survey yielded the latitude and longitude of the beach 

end points, the beach lengths, and the latitude and 

longitude of each of the 144 sampling sites at these 

beaches. The geographic data from this survey have 

been rendered through geographic information system 

(GIS) software to create one colored and scaled map 

for each of the regulated coastal bathing areas. These 

maps, along with notification and monitoring data, are 

contained in an integrated custom relational database 

reserved for office use. Notification and monitoring 

data can be displayed on beach maps to quickly 

visualize seasonal data sets for selected beaches.

This custom database not only tracks notification and 

monitoring data but also is used to produce a yearly 

Beach Summary report and the annual Beach Survey 

that is completed by CTDEP and the local health 

departments. Sample results produced by CTDPH state 

laboratory for these beaches are reported seasonally 

to CTDPH where they are entered into and managed 

by custom relational database software. Monitoring 

and notification data collected with the annual Beach 

Survey is stored in the database and forwarded to EPA 

as part of a BEACH Act grant requirement.

Laboratory services

The CTDPH state laboratory is an active partner with 

CTDEP and the local health departments that elect to 

use the laboratory service for beach monitoring. During 

a typical bathing season, the state laboratory routinely 

processes more than 1,000 water samples collected at 

selected regulated coastal bathing areas. Samples that 

test positive for elevated levels of enterococcus trigger 

a telephone call directly to the submitting local health 

department or CTDEP as soon as the test results are 

learned. Beach monitoring test results are mailed to the 

local health departments and to CTDEP.

Training

CTDPH administers the BEACH Act grant in 

Connecticut and provides two meetings annually at 

the beginning and end of the bathing season for local 

health departments, CTDEP, and other interested 

parties. These workshops review the current status 

of the BEACH Act grant, laboratory methods used to 

test for the indicator organism enterococcus, sample 

collection and handling protocol, the courier service 

provided by CTDPH to collect coastal water samples 

along the shoreline, and notification and monitoring 

data collection during and after the bathing season.

Press event

EPA and CTDPH have participated in several press 

events announcing the award of the BEACH Act 

grant. In 2004, the city of New London participated 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-

in the Connecticut BEACH Act grant announcement 

at Ocean Beach. Following the announcement and 

speaker comments, EPA demonstrated water collection 

sampling and testing techniques in front of several 

camera crews and a live audience of swimmers.

Delaware 

Delaware’s swimming beaches have been sampled 

since 1979. As part of an ongoing commitment to 

provide assurances for the state’s residents and 

visitors regarding swimming water quality, Delaware 

implemented a revised, formalized Recreational Water 

Program in 1989. It is one of the most comprehensive 

programs of its kind in the United States. 

Approximately 50 miles of coastline, from Slaughter 

Beach to the state line at Ocean City, Maryland, are 

sampled for enterococcus bacteria levels, monitored 

for rainfall, and observed for other factors known to 

impact water quality, including spills and potentially 

toxic phytoplankton blooms. Delaware has a total of 

25 miles of Atlantic Ocean coast, 50 miles of Delaware 

Bay Coast, and 115 miles of coastal bay (Inland Bays) 

shoreline, including Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay, 

and Little Assawoman Bay. 

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control developed the State of Delaware 

Guidelines for Monitoring and Assessing the Human 

Health Risk of Swimming Activities in Fresh and Marine 

Recreational Waters. These guidelines were set forth to 

protect people from incurring an unacceptable health 

risk due to swimming (primary-contact recreation) in 

the natural waters of Delaware. These health risks may 

include, but are not limited to, infections of the ears, 

nose, eyes, of throat, or gastrointestinal distress. 

The principles in the guidelines were developed 

using health effects relationships determined by the 

EPA through 10 years of study in the United States 

and other countries. The guidelines contain a list 

of definitions, details on the statutory authority, 

specifications and a discussion on health risks, 

monitoring parameters, water quality standards, 

laboratory analytical methodology, and a description of 

their tiered monitoring plan, site selection criteria, and 

their public notification policy.

Swimming advisories are issued to recreational water 

area administrators and are managed collaboratively 

with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control. Continuous notification to 

the public regarding the advisory status of swimming 

areas is maintained via a toll-free number (1-800-922WAVE). Information is also available through the Web 

site www.dnrec.state.de.us. 

Florida

In 1998, five of Florida’s coastal counties began 

monitoring for enterococci bacteria under a grantfunded pilot program. By the beginning of 2000, 11 

Florida counties were participating in the program, 

which continued through July 2000. 

In August 2000, the beach water sampling program was 

extended to 34 of Florida’s coastal counties through 

state legislation (Senate Bill 1412 and House Bill 

2145) and funding. This funding allowed for biweekly 

sampling at just over 300 sites throughout the state. In 

addition, testing under the new program included fecal 

coliform as well as enterococci. The choice to use these 

two indicator bacteria was made on the basis of adopted 

water quality standards of the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection for fecal coliform, and 

recommended standards of EPA for enterococcus. The 

state delegated authority to county health departments 

to conduct the sampling and issue health advisories 

for areas that exceed these standards. The public is 

notified through an online Web site, local media, and 

signs posted at the access points to the swimming areas. 

In August 2002, the beach water sampling program 

began collecting water samples weekly with additional 

funding from EPA. With the increased sampling 

frequency, the use of enterococcus geometric means 

became possible. Since then, advisories have been 

issued if bacteria levels exceed either the single sample 

standards for enterococcus or fecal coliforms or the 

geometric mean standard for enterococcus. 

The Florida Healthy Beaches Web site (http://

esetappsdoh/irm00beachwater/default.aspx) continues 

to be a valuable asset in notifying the public. The 

ability for the public to access the information on all 

beaches in their area allows them to make informed 
B- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

decisions without tying up county or state staff. Sample 

locations and risk classifications for beaches in the 

program are being reviewed to ensure they remain in 

step with development along the coast of Florida.

Georgia 

The Coastal Resources Division (CRD) of the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources uses the Web to meet 

both the monitoring and notification portions of the 

BEACH Act grant. Beach water quality monitoring 

data are easily accessible and transferable in the Webbased Coastal Water Quality Database. For public 

notification, Georgia has partnered with Earth911 to 

allow easy access to current beach status information.

Water quality database

CDR collects water quality data in the rivers, estuaries, 

and ocean waters, including beach sites, along the 

Georgia coast. These data had been stored in a 

single Water Quality Database housed within CRD. 

Upon implementation of the beach data reporting 

requirements, CRD found that the existing database 

was insufficient for storing and reporting the beach 

data required by EPA. CRD applied for, and received, 

an EPA National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network (NEIEN) grant to develop a method 

of transmitting the beach data into EPA WebSIM via 

the Georgia network node. CRD then contracted with 

Acclaim Systems to develop an Oracle database with a 

Web-based interface and data transport capabilities.

Prior to the development of the Oracle database, 

laboratory data were reported to CRD electronically 

in an Excel spreadsheet. CRD staff would then copy 

and paste the data into an Access database (a timeconsuming and error-prone method). With the new 

Beach Water Quality Database, the laboratory staff 

log in to the database using a Web browser, such as 

Internet Explorer, to access a data input form. Data 

in this form are held separately in the database until 

checked for quality assurance and quality control 

(QA/QC) by CRD. After approval, the data are stored in 

the main Oracle database, where they can be queried or 

exported into an XML format for transmission to EPA 

WebSIM. For bacterial data, the laboratory enters the 

bacteria count from each single sample. 

The Oracle application automatically calculates the 

rolling 30-day geometric mean. The application 

highlights the data fields in red when the single sample 

value or the geometric mean value exceeds the EPA 

recommended levels. When the EPA-recommended 

level has been exceeded, the application generates 

and sends an e-mail to the laboratory manager and 

to the CRD manager. A “what if” calculator that 

automatically displays the hypothetical value of the 

next sample needed to reach the EPA geometric mean 

threshold is programmed into the geometric mean 

application. This is useful to beach managers for 

projecting what might happen with a beach in the near 

future. If the numbers show that a relatively low single 

sample value will push the geometric mean above the 

threshold, the beach manager can do a little advance 

planning and perhaps conduct a preventive sanitary 

survey. If a beach is already under a geometric meanbased advisory, the manager can project how much 

longer the beach might remain under advisory and 

perhaps increase public notification outreach efforts.

Beach notification

To ensure the widest outreach of public notification, 

CRD partners with Earth911 to reach the Web-using 

public. As soon as laboratory results are received, CRD 

staff log in to an Earth911 Web interface to update the 

status on each Georgia beach. Changes in status are 

instantly reflected on the public Earth911 Web site. 

After clicking the “Beach Water Quality” category, 

users see a map of the United States. Clicking the 

“Georgia” portion of the United States map zooms in 

to Georgia. Users can then select their beach area of 

interest to see information about it, and the date and 

time of the last update.

An added benefit to Earth911 users is that they can 

subscribe to receive e-mail notifications regarding 

their beach of interest. When the status of that beach is 

revised, a notification is triggered. 

Public outreach

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(GDNR) and the Georgia Division of Public Health 

(GDPH) are working together to implement a public 

outreach component of the Beach Monitoring 

Notification program. To give cohesion to the message 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-

coming from both agencies, they created an easily 

identifiable graphic. Because Georgia is known as the 

“Peach State,” the “Peach on the Beach” was created. 

This character is used in flyers, ads, and promotional 

items. The “Peach on the Beach” literature is designed 

to direct people to the GDNR Web site for additional 

information. Once there, users can easily find a link to 

the Earth911 Web site.

FAQ flyer

GDPH and GDNR developed a flyer with frequently 

asked questions. The flyer, featuring the “Peach on 

the Beach” character, is distributed to the public by 

the local Health Department. The flyer also contains 

contact information directing the public to the GDNR 

Web site and to the local health department telephone 

information line.

In addition, permanent metal folding signs were 

installed at beach access points. The signs are the 

primary way for visitors to the beach to stay informed 

of the current beach status. However, GDPH and 

GDNR wanted to make the information available in 

various formats, especially for people who want to see 

the beach status before their beach trip. 

Newspaper ads and hotel information 

sheets

When GDNR began testing for enterococcus bacteria 

in early 2004, one local beach community began to 

have short-term advisories occur at one or more of 

their beaches seemingly on a weekly basis. When 

GDPH issued a press release issuing a beach swimming 

advisory, within days another press release was issued 

lifting the advisory. Eventually, GDNR and GDPH 

began running a weekly ad in the local newspaper. The 

ad, entitled “Your Weekly Beach Report,” featured 

the “Peach on the Beach” and listed which beaches in 

that county were currently under advisory. The ad also 

pointed readers to the GDNR Web site for the most 

current beach advisory information. The newspaper ad 

ran weekly throughout the swimming season.

In addition to the newspaper ad, the local health 

department worked with the local visitors bureau to 

create a customized information sheet for hotels to 

display or distribute to their guests. The date-stamped 

flyer is faxed weekly to a distribution list maintained 

and updated by the visitor’s bureau.

Promotional items

GDNR holds an annual coastal environment festival, 

Coastfest, every year in October. The one-day event 

is very popular, drawing more than 7,000 visitors 

last year. GDPH set up a booth at Coastfest with 

information about the Beach Water Quality Monitoring 

and Notification Program. At the booth, beach buckets 

imprinted with the “Peach on the Beach” and Web 

directions were given to the children. Coloring sheets 

were handed out as well. Pencils imprinted with the 

Web address were given out to adults. The promotional 

items remind people to check the Web site before going 

to the beach.

Guam 

Tourists, fishermen, and the public use the beaches 

of Guam heavily every day. Increased development 

over the years continues to threaten beach water 

quality. Improper or failing sewage delivery systems, 

septic tanks, urban runoff, non-permitted upland 

clearing, and reverse osmosis discharges are the largest 

contributors to surface water pollution.

Monitoring

The microbiological and chemical parameters that 

the Guam EPA currently monitors include: pH, total 

suspended solids, total dissolved solids, temperature, 

turbidity, nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, dissolved 

oxygen, salinity, total phosphorous, ortho-phosphorous, 

and enterococci bacteria. Guam EPA conducts 

weekly monitoring at 38 fixed stations along its most 

frequently used coastal beaches (Tier 1 beaches) for 

enterococci bacteria. 

Beaches classified as Tier 1 are beaches that are highly 

frequented have a high number of possible pollution 

sources, are easily accessible, and require frequent 

monitoring. Tier 2 beaches are less frequented with 

restricted accessibility, have few pollution sources, and 

require less frequent monitoring. Tier 3 beaches are 

classified as very infrequently visited, remote, or very 

inaccessible, and are not monitored routinely. Of the 

73 beaches, 39 were further classified as Tier 1 beaches 

and the remaining 34 were classified as Tier 3. 
B- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Public notification and outreach

When samples exceed the single sample or geometric 

mean enterococci bacteria (cfu/100mL) an advisory 

is released to notify the public that the beach is 

closed or warn against swimming. These bacteria 

criteria were updated in FY 2004 in the water quality 

regulations. Guam uses the local media (newspapers 

and TV) and their Web site (http://www.guamepa.

govguam.net/programs/emas/beach.html#REPORT) 

to provide real time results to the public. The Web site 

posts the weekly results and historical summaries to 

communicate potential risks to the public. Further, all 

reports are accompanied with a press release making 

them available to the public. 

Hawaii 

Hawaii’s BEACH Act grant, which is managed by the 

Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), assists the 

state in its efforts to monitor a portion of more than 400 

beaches, scattered along 297 miles of its coastline, and 

notify the public when monitoring reveals exceedances 

of water quality criteria for bacteria. HDOH already 

had established and maintained a monitoring program 

for their coastal waters prior to initiation of the BEACH 

grant program. HDOH’s further development of the 

established beach monitoring program, in response to 

requirements of EPA’s BEACH Act grant, began with 

identification of all beaches scattered throughout the 

four major islands of Hawaii (Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, 

and Kauai). These beaches were identified by name 

and associated with longitude and latitude coordinates. 

HDOH then developed and implemented a risk-based 

evaluation and classification plan for their list of 

coastal marine waters and prioritized their monitoring 

schedule using this information. 

HDOH categorized the list of beaches into tiers on 

the basis of potential risk of illness to swimmers 

and frequency of use. Monitoring frequency is done 

according to tier level. Tier 1 beaches are composed 

of coastal recreational waters with a high frequency of 

primary contact recreation use, including waters with a 

potential for contamination by pollution. Presently, 50 

Tier 1 beaches are monitored twice a week throughout 

the year. Tier 2 beaches are used less frequently and, 

therefore, are monitored once a week on a rotating 

schedule for six months at a time. Thirty-four Tier 

2 beaches are being monitored once a week for a sixmonth period. Tier 3 beaches are designated by very 

low visitation and are monitored as needed. HDOH 

compiled data about beach locations and sources 

of potential contamination into a GIS map, which 

identifies beaches by name, latitude and longitude 

coordinates, and indicates the locations and types of 

potential sources of microbial contamination.

All beaches are resampled when water quality standards 

for bacteria are exceeded. In 2003, HDOH refined its 

decision rule for resampling and posting advisories on 

beaches where adjacent coastal waters exceeded water 

quality criteria for bacteria. By 2004, Hawaii’s practice 

of posting advisories was well established and extended 

to add advisories for possible contamination from storm 

water after rain events. In addition to posting advisories 

at beaches, HDOH also alerts the public of high bacterial indicator counts or sewage spills through announcements on radio stations and in newspapers. HDOH is 

in the final stages of developing its own Web site for 

reporting data to the public. They have established a 

practice of sharing monitoring data with a local chapter 

of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental organization. Surfrider displays HDOH’s monitoring data on 

its own Web site. HDOH also sends monitoring data to 

EPA quarterly and reports a summary of notifications to 

EPA annually. 

HDOH keeps the public informed of the beach 

program by attending meetings of community 

environmental organizations, hosting public 

presentations of grant awards, and encouraging 

comments about the monitoring and notification 

program from the public, local agencies, recreational 

clubs, and environmental organizations.

Illinois 

Monitoring

Illinois’ Lake Michigan beaches are monitored five to 

seven times a week during the swimming season. They 

are among the most frequently monitored beaches in the 

country. To augment beach water quality monitoring 

conducted at coastal beaches, the Illinois Department of 

Public Health (IDPH) continues to validate and implement working models to predict E. coli levels in Lake 

Michigan because health warnings are generally issued 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-

on the basis of E. coli concentrations from samples 

taken the previous day. Predictive models created using 

continuously measured hydro-meteorological variables 

provide a good alternative to monitoring because they 

can predict, with a good degree of accuracy, when 

bacteria levels will be high. For example, in the summer 

of 2004, predictive modeling equipment was installed by 

the Lake County Health Department to predict E. coli

levels at two Lake Michigan beaches: Illinois Beach 

State Park–South Beach in Zion, Illinois, and Forest 

Park Beach in Lake Forest, Illinois. The models, which 

measure a number of variables, such as wind speed and 

direction, sunlight, rainfall, air and water temperature, 

humidity, wave height, dissolved solids, clarity, and 

acidity, accurately predicted whether E. coli concentrations were above or below the 235 cfu/100 mL threshold 

for full body contact 85 percent and 86 percent of the 

time, respectively, during the 2004 swimming season. 

Public notification and outreach

All of the Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois use 

standard postings at the beach indicating that 

swimming is prohibited when E. coli levels are 

above 235 cfu/100 mL. IDPH continues to develop 

and distribute educational resources to the public 

on the potential risks associated with swimming in 

contaminated water. “Don’t Feed the Waterfowl” 

signs have been posted at Lake Michigan beaches 

to discourage visitors from feeding birds, which has 

the potential to contribute significant fecal loads to 

beach water, leading to beach closings. To obtain 

beach closure information, the public can visit IDPH’s 

bathing beaches Web site at www.idph.state.il.us/

envhealth/beachhome.htm or the Chicago Park 

District’s Swim Report at www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/

index.cfm/fuseaction/swim_report.home.cfm. 

Information on keeping the beaches clean is available at www.lakemichigan.org. The Lake County 

Health Department, Wilmette Park District, 

Winnetka beaches, and the City of Evanston post 

their beach closure information at the EARTH911 

beach notification Web site at www.earth911.org/

WaterQuality/default.asp?cluster=17.

Indiana

Under the BEACH Act, Indiana has used grant dollars 

to develop the Lake Michigan Beaches Program. 

Indiana’s 45 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline is on the 

northern edge of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties. 

Funding has helped to increase the frequency of E. coli

monitoring at Indiana’s Lake Michigan beaches.

Before the development of the Lake Michigan Beaches 

Program, Indiana’s coastal beaches were monitored one 

or two days a week. The funding has allowed partner 

communities to increase the frequency of sampling and 

analysis of water samples for E. coli to five to seven days 

a week. IDEM has also used a portion of the resources 

to keep the public informed. Beach managers, the 

park department, or both now notify the public by 

posting beach advisory and beach water closure signs. 

In the spring of 2005, IDEM will have fixed signage or 

kiosks installed at several coastal beaches for the 2005 

beach season. The kiosks will provide beachgoers with 

current information about the status of beach waters 

and additional information about the possible sources 

and causes of E. coli contamination. Recommendations 

will also be provided as to how beachgoers and 

watercraft owners and operators can reduce the 

likelihood of causing an E. coli release.

In 2002, IDEM began developing the Beach 

Monitoring and Notification Plan (BMNP) as required 

by EPA for Indiana’s portion of the Lake Michigan 

shoreline. This work was completed in 2003, and the 

plan has met the performance criteria established by 

the BEACH Act.

The summer of 2004 was the first beach season in 

which IDEM was able to provide funds to coastal 

communities to increase the frequency of monitoring. 

The funding provided multiple resources to local 

communities, which were able to upgrade equipment, 

purchase supplies, and pay for additional summer staff 

to collect and analyze samples.

As part of Indiana’s efforts to fulfill the requirement 

of the BEACH Act performance criteria, four pilot 

projects were funded and implemented during the 2004 

beach season: 

1. Indiana University: Developing a prototypical 

model of E. coli-induced closings at Indiana’s Lake 

Michigan beaches in close proximity to the outfall 

of Dunes Creek into Lake Michigan
B-10 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

2. Gary Sanitary District: Characterizing the E. coli

distribution of beaches down-current from Burns 

Ditch, which flows into Lake Michigan

3. LaPorte County Health Department: Working 

with state and local stakeholders to enhance public 

notification of Lake Michigan beach closings in 

LaPorte County

4. Indiana University: Assessing and evaluating 

communication about Lake Michigan beach 

closings and health information provided to Lake 

and Porter County stakeholders

In addition, IDEM has funded 3 pilot projects for the 

2005 beach season:

1. Environment, Law, and Economics Institute 

(ELEI): Protecting the health of our coastal 

communities through education by developing 

and distributing an educational brochure on 

“beach health”

2. Gary Sanitary District: Developing a ‘SwimCast’ 

predictive model system for Buffington Harbor 

Beach in the City of Gary, Indiana

3. Gary Sanitary District: Validating and 

operationally testing predictive model for E. coli

concentrations on swimming beaches of Ogden 

Dunes, Wells Street, Marquette, and Lake Street

Time-relevant water quality data for Indiana’s beaches 

are posted on the Earth911 Web site. The site also 

includes pollution information, project information, 

and links to other water quality sites. During 2004, a 

partnership between IDEM and Earth911 facilitated the 

development of the submittal, reporting, and notification system for Indiana’s Lake Michigan Beaches 

Program. The information posted on the Earth911 Web 

site allows partner communities, beachgoers, and other 

interested parties to access the current status of the 

beaches that have been monitored for E. coli.

Louisiana

(Note: This information was updated after Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast in 2005)

Risk-based beach classification system

Since initial Beach Act grants were awarded in 

2001, the Louisiana Beach Monitoring Program 

has been developed and successfully implemented 

under the guidance of the Center for Environmental 

Health Services within the Office of Public Health 

(OPH). Before the implementation of the Louisiana 

Beach Monitoring Program, OPH and its contractor 

completed a systematic process to identify and rank 

Louisiana’s beaches according to risk. The analysis 

process consisted of four major steps:

1. Identifying and defining coastal recreation waters

2. Identifying beaches or similar points of access 

used by the public for swimming, bathing, surfing, 

or similar water contact activities

3. Reviewing available information on levels of 

potential fecal contamination at beaches and their 

intensity of use

4. Ranking beaches to decide which beaches would 

be included in Louisiana’s BEACH program 

The results of this evaluation are presented in 

Louisiana’s BEACH Act grant Report, Grant Year 2001 

and are available online at www.ophbeachmonitoring.

com. They reflect a model approach for identifying and 

prioritizing beaches in a state for monitoring under the 

BEACH program.

OPH initiated the process by defining coastal 

recreation waters within the state. Waterbodies 

designated as “estuarine” or designated for oyster 

propagation in the state’s surface water quality 

standards and water quality assessments, waters 

adjacent to estuarine waters containing at least one 

sample station with a mean salinity of 3 parts per 

trillion (ppt), and waters lying between an isolated 

estuarine waterbody and the estuarine water’s 

connection to the Gulf of Mexico were identified as 

coastal recreation waters.

Next, coastal recreation waters were examined to 

determine whether beaches or similar points of access 

used by the public for swimming, bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact activities were present. Parish 

sheriff’s offices were contacted to identify the areas 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-11

meeting OPH’s definition of a beach in each parish 

where coastal recreation waters occur. Using the 

resulting list of beaches, OPH delineated each beach 

on digital aerial photography in a GIS and began the 

process of evaluating exposure risk at each beach 

using two factors: the relative densities of pathogen 

indicators in beach waters and the number of people 

using each beach.

OPH used fecal coliform data collected under the 

state’s Molluscan Shellfish Program to identify areas 

where the state’s fecal coliform criteria were being 

exceeded. They also evaluated general information 

gleaned from the state’s existing fish consumption 

and swimming advisories, water quality inventory, 

and impaired waters list. To obtain estimates of beach 

use, OPH surveyed local parish officials. The officials 

provided estimates of the number of beach visitors on 

a typical weekday, weekend, and holiday during the 

peak swimming season, along with the percentage 

of beach users entering the water. Estimates were 

then generalized into broad categories for relative 

comparison.

Using fecal coliform levels and levels of beach use, 

a qualitative ranking scheme was devised and used 

to assign each beach to a monitoring tier. Because 

water quality was good for the majority of beaches 

considered, the level of beach use was the primary 

criterion used to assign beaches to monitoring tiers. 

Beaches classified as having very high, high, or 

moderate to high use were assigned to Tier 1 and 

received the most monitoring attention. Beaches 

classified as having moderate use were assigned to Tier 

2. Beaches with low or very low use and a water quality 

ranking based on fecal coliform data that were not 

collected in close proximity to the beach were assigned 

to Tier 3 and targeted for additional bacterial indicator 

monitoring to better characterize risk. Beaches on 

private land or with existing swimming advisories 

posted by the state and with very low public use were 

excluded from further consideration.

Prior to the landfall of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

in 2005, OPH was implementing its beach monitoring 

program at high-priority beaches consistent with 

its beach classification scheme. OPH had developed 

a high-quality public notification program that 

efficiently used beach signs, the department’s Web 

site, press releases, and direct contact of partner 

agencies and local officials to communicate to the 

public when beach advisories were warranted by the 

monitoring data collected at these beaches. Due to 

extensive damage to the state’s beaches and associated 

infrastructure by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, LDHH 

expects to reevaluate the state’s existing list of beaches 

to determine whether adjustments to the list and 

associated monitoring schedule are necessary.

Maine

Background

Although beach monitoring was not a priority in Maine 

in the past, there is growing interest in monitoring 

ocean beaches to protect public health. Although 

relatively few people swim in the cold water in the 

eastern part of the state, the sandy beach areas in the 

mid-coast and southern regions experience a high 

volume of visitors and intense recreational usage 

during the 3-month beach season.

With EPA funding through the BEACH Act grants, 

Maine’s Healthy Coastal Beaches Program was 

established in 2002 as part of the larger statewide 

Healthy Beaches Program. Prior to then, the state 

monitored a few state parks monthly and the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

focused on ensuring that licensed discharges did not 

threaten swimmers’ health. Monitoring and public 

notification for public beaches was (and still is) 

primarily under the jurisdiction of the municipalities, 

and private beaches are responsible for monitoring 

their own beaches (although most do not). With three 

towns recruited in 2004, 37 beaches in 18 towns are 

currently monitored weekly, Memorial Day through 

Labor Day, as part of the Program.

The Program is a community-based, voluntary 

program with no current legislation and none 

proposed. Although this approach has its challenges, 

the communities have accept it, and they are supportive 

of the assessment and remediation of pollution 

sources that impair water quality at coastal beaches. 

The Program is advised by an Advisory Committee 

composed of representatives from the University of 

Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant; Maine 
B-12 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Coastal Program/Maine State Planning Office; Maine 

Departments of Environmental Protection, Marine 

Resources, Human Services, and Conservation and 

Bureau of Health; Casco Bay Estuary Project; Wells 

National Estuarine Research Reserve; Mount Desert 

Island Water Quality Coalition; Northern New 

England Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, local 

municipalities, and water districts. The Advisory 

Committee has developed and implemented a pilot 

program including: 

1. Surveys of towns and beach users

2. Outreach and education to community groups, 

municipal officials, data managers and citizens 

3. Development and implementation of standards 

and protocols for swimming beach monitoring 

4. Notification of the public of water quality 

conditions at public beaches

Assessment

The program created and updated a risk assessment 

matrix to classify beaches into tiers as required by 

the BEACH Act. Using results of the assessment 

and monitoring, recent additional investigations and 

sanitary surveys have been conducted to identify 

sources of pathogens at Lincolnville Beach and the 

neighboring Frohock Brook; Goosefare Brook in Saco, 

where a study of coastal currents was conducted; and 

Goose Rocks Beach in Kennebunkport.

Training and public notification

In 2004, program staff trained all town and state park 

beach personnel, and personnel from three regional 

labs. Microbac Laboratories provided analysis to 12 

towns and state parks, including the scheduling and 

transportation for the samples. The lab worked closely 

with several towns when water quality exceedances 

occurred. The program received a fair amount of 

media attention this past year, including television, 

newspapers, radio, and newsletters. Advisory signs 

were placed at all participating beaches in 2004.

Database management and Web site

The program has been working steadily on improving 

the online database. It functioned very well in 2004 as 

an in-house tool; the latest functions include automatic 

e-mail alert to managers when a water quality value is 

in exceedance, geometric mean, and simple graphing 

capability. The public interface to the data portion of 

the program’s Web site (developed by the program’s 

database consultant, Relyon Media) is at http://www.

mainecoastdata.org/public/ and went live in March 2005.

GIS maps have been developed for all beaches and 

have been verified for accuracy. Beach monitoring and 

notification data for 2003 and 2004 were submitted to 

EPA in 2005.

In addition to protecting public health, beach 

monitoring data collected by the program have been 

used by scientists investigating harbor seal mortality, 

by a student preparing a master’s thesis, and by 

journalists for articles for the local press.

Education, outreach, and public involvement

The program developed a 2-year marketing plan, using 

professional marketing expertise to develop educational 

and outreach materials such as print materials 

(brochure, posters, community resource guide, and 

advisory signs), a Web site (www.mainehealthybeaches.

org), radio commercials and public service 

announcements, and television weather sponsorship. 

The state conducted a direct user survey to determine 

the extent of the outreach for the Maine Healthy Beach 

campaign. The goal of this effort was to inform visitors 

to Maine beaches of the monitoring program, the risks 

of waterborne illness, and the measures being taken 

to ensure a safe experience in the form of written and 

visual materials.

Community examples of partnerships

The Health Coastal Beaches Program has created 

successful partnerships in Maine. This was evident in 

2004 in Mount Desert Island and southern Maine after 

the Natural Resources Defense Council annual Testing 

the Waters Report singled out the two communities 

in Maine (out of four nationally) as “Beach Bums.” 

Although the report and ensuing articles may have 

accelerated the process of recruiting one of the “Bums,” 

much time was spent redirecting the attitudes created 

by the bad press. In the other “bum” community, the 

report had the opposite effect, though monitoring has 

continued. Maine believed that its Healthy Coastal 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-13

Beaches Program was still in the developing and 

recruiting phase and that this was simply a detour for 

the work that needed to be done in soliciting towns’ 

participation. It was a test of the community-based 

process, reaffirming the importance of community 

support in protecting public health. 

The community partnerships are exemplified by 

the Mount Desert Island Water Quality Coalition 

(MDIWQC), which monitors, with the high school, 

water quality at Seal Harbor Beach, a popular 

swimming spot. The MDIWQC confirmed that at 

times swimmers were at risk at Seal Harbor Beach, 

given the enterococci counts. In fact, two outbreaks 

of swimming illness were reported to the MDIWQC 

during the pilot project. The town of Mount Desert 

Island has been proactive in posting swimming 

advisories, has closed the beach on two occasions, set 

up its own laboratory, and continues to work closely 

with the MDIWQC to solve the pollution problem 

at Seal Harbor Beach. In addition, a group of Seal 

Harbor residents raised funds to conduct a shoreline 

and watershed survey to track down potential pollution 

sources, which will be conducted in 2005. The 

combined data of the town and the MDIWQC have 

helped to develop a more complete picture of when and 

where pollution events are occurring. Healthy Coastal 

Beaches Program staff has provided the training and 

resources necessary to implement the monitoring, 

data entry, and notification for Mount Desert Island 

beaches.

Maryland

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 

adopted revised beach regulations for all of Maryland’s 

beaches. Key points include:

•	 Adoption of E. coli and enterococci as the only 

bacteriological indicators for beach monitoring 

and public notification purposes

•	 Tiered monitoring design, prioritizing beaches 

based on risk

•	 All beaches, permitted or not, receive the same 

protection (in the past, only permitted beaches 

required monitoring)

•	 New amendments reflecting EPA’s comments 

and concerns to the beach regulations (adopted 

by Maryland in July 2004) are in the final 

promulgation stages

Sixteen of the 23 counties in Maryland have recognized 

beaches and monitoring programs. Seven counties 

claim to have no beaches. Each year, memorandums of 

understanding (MOUs) with Maryland Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) have provided 

the Laboratories Administration with the personnel, 

equipment, and materials to evaluate the increase in 

samples.

Working closely with St. Mary’s County, and providing 

grant money to them, has helped a poorly managed 

beach program that was nearly defunct to become the 

most improved county program in Maryland. Increased 

monitoring has exposed potential fecal contamination 

sources. The county has developed its own Web site to 

convey each beach’s status. Thorough sanitary surveys 

and increased monitoring have resulted in a betterprotected public.

MOUs with several other counties have provided a 

much needed benefit to the beach monitoring and 

public notification efforts of those counties. Along 

with St. Mary’s County, Kent, Cecil, and Anne 

Arundel Counties have used grant money to upgrade 

their programs. Many projects revolve around source 

identification. Anne Arundel County is working on 

developing a predictive model. (See below for Sandy 

Point project description).

The number of samples taken by the counties has more 

than tripled in the past two years due to the following 

factors:

$ Replicate sampling is required for quality 

assurance purposes

$ The number of beaches monitored has increased 

by more than 50 percent

$ The frequency of monitoring has increased from 

most beaches being monitored monthly to the 

higher priority beaches now being monitored 

weekly or biweekly
B-14 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Data submission to EPA and the methods for data 

transfer are still evolving. MDE and sister agencies 

in other states are working closely with EPA in data 

sharing. MDE was one of the first states to transmit the 

2003 beach monitoring data. This was mainly due to 

MDE’s use of STORET, which greatly simplified the 

process. As more efficient means of data sharing have 

become possible, EPA’s STORET group has provided 

the technical assistance to the Beach Program. Beach 

advisory data (a.k.a. “Notification Data”) sharing has 

been more challenging due to the requirement to use 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) node. In the near 

future, MDE hopes to use its node to transfer all of the 

required data to EPA.

“Digital Health Department” 

MDE chose to acquire a Web-based product that 

can manage all aspects of the beach program. MDE 

contracted with Garrison Enterprises, Inc. to develop a 

customized version of the Digital Health Department 

application for Maryland’s Beach program. This Webbased product allows them to:

$ Record data collected in the field directly into an 

online database

$ Receive results directly from the lab as the lab 

personnel enter data and test results directly into 

the online database 

$ Analyze and track data, including water sample 

results, illness data, or any search or report of data 

as needed

$ Notify the public and all interested parties 

automatically via e-mail, phone center, blast fax, 

and Web site

$ Export data to EPA in compliance with BEACH 

Act grant performance criteria

Field samplers will use laptop or tablet PC instead of 

a paper form when collecting samples. Scheduling of 

field sampling and preparing labels for bottles will be 

done online using the application. In the field, all the 

information and data that the sampler wishes to collect 

(time, station, salinity, temp, etc.) will be entered 

directly into the device, real time via a wireless Web 

connection. The labs will enter the bacterial indicator 

sample result directly into the database. Transcription 

errors will be eliminated or minimized, creating higher 

quality data. Results will be available to the local health 

department immediately, without having to fax, mail, 

or phone, allowing more timely public notifications 

if necessary. All the local health departments who 

monitor beaches will have access to this data via the 

Web. They will be able to download data, run queries 

and reports, among other things. This application 

also comes with a state beach Web site and a variety 

of methods for notifying the public of water quality 

results and exceedences (fax, e-mail, phone, Web page). 

MDE planned to fully implement the system prior to 

the 2005 beach season.

North Beach–Calvert County, Maryland

North Beach is a high use beach on the Chesapeake 

Bay in northern Calvert County Maryland. The Town 

of North Beach invested millions of dollars in creating 

a boardwalk, building a fishing pier, and attracting 

businesses and vendors. The boardwalk and pier is a 

centerpiece in the town’s plan to attract more visitors 

and help the town’s economy by increasing tourism 

dollars. Overlooked in the town’s planning were the 

possible effects of a stormwater outfall, which is in the 

center of the swimming area. The town assumed that 

any runoff would be rainfall alone and impacts would 

be minimal. 

With Beach Act grant money, MDE implemented a 

tiered sampling design, and required more frequent 

monitoring by the local health departments of the 

state’s higher use beaches. During the summer of 2003, 

the increased monitoring at North Beach revealed 

poor water quality results during the bathing season, 

resulting, ultimately, in beach advisories. A thorough 

sanitary review of the area and discussions between 

MDE, the Calvert County Health Department, and the 

North Beach town engineer revealed the likely source 

of high fecal counts to be the storm water outfall. The 

town engineer provided blueprints that showed that 

the stormwater system shared a common conduit with 

the aging, terra cotta sanitary sewer system. During 

periods of drought, a minimal flow still was evident 

from the stormwater outfall.

A sampling plan was developed to identify the area(s) 

of the sewer system that may be damaged and to 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-15

follow up with camera inspections of the pipes. One 

week later, Hurricane Isabel disrupted those plans, 

damaging much of the boardwalk, pier, and the 

stormwater outfall. However, one very positive result 

of the storm occurred. The town, when rebuilding 

the pier and boardwalk area, decided to extend the 

stormwater outfall past the end of the pier and outside 

of the bathing area. The 2004 beach season sampling, 

during a similarly rainy summer as 2003, revealed 

significantly better water quality in the beach area with 

no advisories or closings required. The town still plans 

to investigate and repair, if necessary, the suspect sewer 

system. Without the BEACH Act and Beach Act grant 

funding, the more proactive monitoring and public 

notification effort by the State may not have occurred, 

thus, perhaps not revealing a potential public health 

risk to the bathers at North Beach.

Sandy Point State Park Project

A major problem in determining whether a swim area 

is safe for human contact is the lag time between water 

sampling and receipt of water quality monitoring 

results. Under current practices, decisions concerning 

swim advisories and beach closings are made using 

results that are between one and four days old, depending on communication with the labs. Consequently, 

bathers may be exposed to fecal-contaminated water 

and may be at increased risk of contracting gastroenteritis and other swimming related illnesses. 

The Anne Arundel County Department of Health, 

in partnership with the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources and MDE, are using Beach Grant 

funds to assess water quality conditions at Sandy 

Point State Park and to more appropriately determine 

beach advisories using real time water quality data. 

Daily fecal indicator sampling, along with real time 

measurements of wind speed, wind direction, rainfall, 

temperature, solar radiation, as well as nutrient and 

other water quality parameters are being collected 

during this project. Two shallow-water monitoring 

sites and a weather station are strategically placed at 

public swim areas within Sandy Point State Park. Over 

1 million visitors bathe, recreate or attend special event 

activities each year at Sandy Point State Park. At the 

completion of the project, decisions concerning beach 

advisories and management of swim and recreational 

areas will be enhanced so that a bather’s exposure 

to fecal contaminated water and risk of contracting 

gastroenteritis and other swimming related illnesses is 

reduced.

Real time and near real time data from Sandy Point 

can be seen at the following Web site: http://mddnr.

chesapeakebay.net/newmontech/contmoneotb_results_

graphs.cfm?station=SandyPointSouth.

A proposal to develop a regression or predictive model 

under a future grant application will be made to 

closely correlate physical, nutrient, and meteorological 

data with bacterial concentrations in bathing and 

recreational waters. The outcome of this project will 

help to further MDE’s efforts in better protection of 

the public who bathe in natural areas by giving more 

timely notifications of possible increased risk due to 

fecal contamination impacts.

Ongoing and near-future efforts

$ Statewide public outreach and information 

campaign to better educate the public regarding 

beaches, water quality, risk, etc. Beach Web site, 

brochures are planned. This may include enhancing 

our notification methods with Earth911.org 

cooperation—Spring and Summer 2005.

$ Continue to select and fund local programs and 

projects. 

$ Develop predictive model for Sandy Point State 

Park.

$ Continue urging counties to perform post rain-event 

sampling to allow for more protective preemptive 

advisories where appropriate.

$ Continue to upgrade and improve data management 

techniques, quality, sharing, etc. between state and 

county agencies and EPA.

$ Explore the use of NOAA radar rainfall data 

for predicting water quality and for developing 

preemptive advisory protocols.
B-16 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Massachusetts

Public notification and outreach

In 2001, the Massachusetts Department of Public 

Health (MDPH) initiated the development of a system 

that would enable the public to see which beaches 

were open or closed on specific day or week, to see 

the reason behind any closure, and to keep track of a 

beach’s water quality history. A working electronic, 

Web-based system for public notification of marine 

beach postings and water quality monitoring data 

went online in 2003. It was developed by MDPH in 

conjunction with Garrison Enterprises. The Web site 

was developed with funding support from the EPA 

BEACH Act grant and can be reached from the home 

page of the MDPH Web site (www.mass.gov/dph) or 

directly at www.mass.gov/dph/beha/tox/reports/beach/

beaches.htm.

The Web site supports reporting routine water quality 

monitoring data through a series of password-protected 

data entry pages. The Web-based system allows MDPH 

contract laboratories to enter sampling test results 

directly to the site. These laboratories are required 

under contract to enter field sampling data and 

laboratory results into the MDPH public notification 

Web site as results become available. Data entered on 

the site provide as near real time public notification 

as possible, after which the Web site automatically 

generates postings for those samples that exceed singlesample or geometric mean regulatory limits. Display of 

postings on the public pages occurs twice a day, at 9:30 

AM and 12:30 PM. Additional enhancements allow for 

local health officials to view postings shortly before 

public notification to give them an opportunity to post 

advisories at beaches and prepare for public inquiries.

Beach mapping

A detailed GIS layer for Massachusetts’s marine 

bathing beaches was developed by MDPH with 

assistance from Applied Geographics, Inc. (AGI), 

and with considerable information from local health 

officials. AGI prepared detailed color aerial photomaps 

for all 60 coastal communities with marine bathing 

beach polygons highlighted. AGI also calculated the 

miles of sandy coastline (approximately 727 miles) in 

Massachusetts. State health officials worked with local 

health officials to identify the locations and specific 

boundaries of each known beach, the designation 

of each beach—public or semi-public (and private, 

if known), the location or locations where the water 

samples are taken for routine monitoring, the location 

at each beach where posting (i.e., posting/closure due 

to bathing water quality violation) would occur if it is 

necessary, and the locations of normal access points 

and parking lots. MDPH staff validated all information 

by site visits to all marine beaches. The completed 

Massachusetts marine bathing beach GIS point layers 

were added to the state Web site (www.mass.gov/mgis/). 

These layers represent the linear extent of each beach 

and points marking their boundaries and access, 

sampling, and other locations. The beach layers display 

information for 510 marine bathing beaches, including 

419 public beaches and 91 semi-public beaches, as well 

as the estimated mileage of public (153.1 miles), semipublic (50.7 miles), and private beaches (522.4 miles) in 

Massachusetts.

Monitoring

MDPH has been successful at monitoring every 

marine and semi-public beach in Massachusetts weekly 

during the past three beach seasons. This includes 

578 sampling locations at more than 500 beaches. The 

bathing beach season in Massachusetts usually runs 

from as early as Memorial Day, in some areas, through 

Labor Day. 

The Public Health-Based Beach Evaluation, 

Classification, and Tiered Monitoring Plan has 

been developed to ultimately direct water quality 

monitoring resources to the beaches that pose the 

greatest health concern. The plan is intended to 

facilitate the identification and cleanup of pollution 

problems, while those beaches with more pristine 

records can be monitored less often than the required 

weekly routine monitoring through a variance process 

pursuant to both the Massachusetts and federal beach 

acts. In this system, every beach was classified into 

three “tiers.” Tier 1 includes heavily used beaches 

that have pollution problems. EPA believes that these 

beaches should be tested at least twice a week. Because 

of the ongoing pollution concerns and violations, these 

beaches are generally sampled more than once a week. 

Tier 2 includes beaches with some pollution. These 

beaches must be tested once a week. Tier 3 includes 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-17

beaches with no known pollution problems. These 

beaches are required to be tested once every 2 weeks or 

sometimes less, as determined by MDPH through the 

variance process.

Training and sanitary surveys

MDPH has held numerous training sessions for local 

health officials during the life of the BEACH Act grant. 

Topics discussed have included health concerns related 

to polluted bathing water, sampling methodology and 

use of standardized field sampling forms, current 

federal and state regulations, MDPH’s new public 

notification Web site, and an overview of MDPH’s 

global positioning system (GPS) survey of marine 

beaches in Massachusetts. MDPH training sessions 

have also presented information on identifying actual 

or potential sources of contamination and use of the 

MDPH standardized sanitary survey form. Additional 

technical guidance has been provided in subsequent 

mailings to local health officials.

MDPH developed a sanitary survey form for beaches. 

The development of this form allows communities 

to apply for sampling variances according to 

Massachusetts regulations (105 CMR 445.100) and 

will help MDPH comply with EPA BEACH Act grant 

requirements for a tiered monitoring approach to 

sampling. In addition, MDPH conducted three sanitary 

survey training sessions for local health officials to 

further these goals.

Laboratory programs and quality assurance

MDPH used the federal beach funds to provide 

partial contract laboratory support for routine water 

quality compliance and monitoring for marine beaches 

required under federal and Massachusetts regulations 

to local communities that qualified. These laboratories 

have analyzed more than 12,000 samples from 48 

marine beach communities that took part in the 

contract laboratory program. The laboratories will be 

audited in 2005 to ensure compliance with the quality 

assurance project plan (QAPP) and standard operating 

procedures.

The QAPP for routine monitoring activities and 

related beach project implementation was submitted 

to, and approved, by EPA. The QAPP describes 

quality assurance, quality control, and related 

activities, including enforcement aspects that are in 

place to ensure that the results of the project meet 

EPA’s published performance criteria. The state 

finalized a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for all 

activities under the EPA BEACH Act grant and other 

activities specific to bathing beach regulations. The 

QMP is a required document that describes how the 

program will develop, implement, and determine the 

effectiveness of its quality assurance and quality control 

policies and procedures.

Database management

The Data Submission Plan for Routine Monitoring 

under the BEACH Act grant and other activities 

specific to bathing beach regulations was developed, 

submitted to, and approved by EPA. The Plan is a 

required document that describes Massachusetts’ plan 

for submitting the beach data it collects from coastal 

municipalities to EPA. Massachusetts submitted all its 

monitoring and notification data for 2003 and 2004 to 

EPA in 2004.

Michigan

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(MDEQ) beach monitoring program is summarized 

below, and more details can be found at www.deq.state.

mi.us/documents/deq-wb-beach-2003annualreport.pdf.

MDEQ’s beach monitoring program is a part of the 

surface water quality monitoring program summarized 

in the January 1997 report titled A Strategic 

Environmental Quality Monitoring Program for Michigan’s 

Surface Waters. The objectives of the beach monitoring 

component of the Strategy are listed below: 

1. Assist local health departments to implement and 

strengthen beach monitoring programs

2. Determine whether waters of the state are safe for 

total body contact recreation

3. Create and maintain a statewide database

4. Compile data to determine overall water quality

5. Evaluate the effectiveness of MDEQ programs 

in attaining water quality standards (WQS) for 

pathogen indicators
B-18 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

The following examples from the report contain 

detailed information about the beach monitoring 

program, as well as water quality data for 2003.

Beach monitoring

The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary 

and is conducted by the local health departments. 

Health departments are required to comply with 

Michigan’s water quality standards according to R 

333.12544 of the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 368, 

which states, 

Funding for beach monitoring

Prior to 2000, health departments relied on local 

funding to conduct beach monitoring programs. 

Local funding is often not sufficient to execute a 

comprehensive monitoring program. MDEQ now 

provides Clean Michigan Initiative-Clean Water 

Fund (CMI-CWF) and BEACH Act grants to local 

health departments to aid in the implementation or 

enhancement of their beach monitoring programs.

MDEQ awards CMI-CWF and BEACH Act grant 

monies to local units of government and nonprofit 

entities. Eligible entities include county, city, township, 

and village agencies; watershed and environmental 

action councils; universities; regional planning 

agencies; and incorporated nonprofit organizations. 

The majority of grants are awarded to local health 

departments. If a group other than a local health 

department is awarded a grant, MDEQ requires the 

group to work closely with the local health department. 

The CMI-CWF and BEACH Act grants are designed 

to fund proposals that determine and report levels of 

E. coli in the swimming areas of public beaches. In 

selecting recipients for grant awards, MDEQ considers 

the following:

$ Location and frequency of beach use

$ History of beach monitoring and bacterial 

contamination

$ Ability to communicate results to the public 

efficiently

$ Ability to respond and take appropriate action in 

the event of beach contamination

In 1998, only 20 counties monitored their beaches. 

Since MDEQ began providing grants for beach 

monitoring, the number of counties with a beach 

monitoring program has risen steadily. Twenty-four 

counties monitored at least one of their beaches 

in 2000, 36 counties monitored in 2001, and 38 

counties monitored in 2003 and 2004. Although no 

grant funding was available in 2002, monitoring was 

conducted in 26 counties.

Minnesota

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

operates Minnesota’s Beach Monitoring Program. 

The program addresses fecal contamination of Lake 

Superior’s recreational waters by implementing 

a comprehensive beach monitoring and public 

notification plan for beaches adjacent to Lake Superior. 

Collaboration of beach program with 

external parties to identify source problems 

MPCA is working to identify beach pollution sources 

so that measures can be taken to reduce beach water 

pollution. For example, the City of Duluth and the 

Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (the District) 

have conducted die testing in the sewer lines and 

stormwater pump tanks and have been able to eliminate 

them as potential sources of bacteria at the New Duluth 

Boat Club site. The District has also been pursuing 

DNA fingerprinting to try to determine whether the 

source of the bacteria is animal or human waste. 

MPCA is also working toward eliminating sewer 

overflows. In many areas of Duluth, the sanitary sewers 

that carry sewage also receive rainwater or groundwater 

that does not normally require treatment. Much of this 

“clear” water enters the sewers from roof drains and 

from footing drains that remove groundwater from 

around houses. The connection of these sources to the 

sanitary sewers over the years has led to overloading 

of the sewers during wet weather. As a result, the 

sewers sometimes overflow during rainy weather, and 

untreated sewage flows into Lake Superior. Because of 

the heavy precipitation in the summer of 2003, there 

were over 40 overflows from 10 different locations. EPA 

has been working with MPCA, the City of Duluth, and 

the District to resolve the problem. Each organization 

submitted a Plan of Action describing its proposed 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-19

actions to eliminate the overflows. Among other things, 

these plans propose preventing excessive amounts of 

rainwater and groundwater from entering the sewers, 

by such means as construction of storage basins to 

hold some of the water during wet weather until it can 

be sent to the wastewater treatment plant for proper 

treatments. 

Monitoring

All the beaches along Lake Superior within state 

jurisdiction are monitored for E. coli regularly during 

the swimming season. If a beach has unsafe levels 

of bacteria, it is posted with a “Water Contact Not 

Recommended” sign until the bacteria levels decrease. 

The Beach Monitoring Program’s goal is to ensure 

a safe and healthy aquatic recreational environment 

by informing the public about the risk of contracting 

waterborne diseases from exposure to contaminated 

waters. It will work toward this goal during 2005 by: 

$ Collecting samples from 39 Lake Superior beaches

$ Analyzing those samples for waterborne diseases 

and human health risks 

$ Working with researchers to try to determine 

the source of contamination at beaches with 

continuous advisories

$ Actively promoting safe water- and beach-related 

recreation

$ Encouraging the beachgoing public to become 

more active stewards of the state’s precious water 

resources 

The 2004 monitoring season brought windier and 

rainier days than 2003’s pilot monitoring season and 

precipitated more advisories along Minnesota’s North 

Shore. During 2004, 38 beaches were monitored 

for E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria; 26 advisories 

were posted at 17 of the sites. Of the 17 beaches with 

advisories, 5 were repeats from the 2003 monitoring 

season. 

Public notification and outreach

MPCA developed beach advisory and closure signs 

that show when risk is present to swimmers. The signs 

contain a “no-swim” icon, information about causes 

of water contamination, advice on what the public can 

do to help reduce beach water pollution, and contact 

information. MPCA also developed an informational 

brochure and beach health fact sheets for distribution 

to the public. It has also partnered with local mass 

media outlets to communicate beach health risk 

information to the public through newspapers, radio, 

and television. MPCA Beach Monitoring Program staff 

developed a user-friendly Web page that offers specific 

beach information and has an easy-to-remember 

URL—MNBeaches.org. The Minnesota program 

also has a local phone number (218-725-7724) with a 

beach advisory voice message and access to advisory 

information via the MPCA 800 number (1-800-6573864).

Mississippi

(Note: This information was not updated after Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast in 2005)

Monitoring

Mississippi’s Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) implemented an intensive beach water 

quality monitoring and public notification program 

in 1998 through its inter-agency Beach Monitoring 

Task Force. From 1998 through 2004 water samples 

were collected from twenty-one beaches and tested 

for fecal coliform and enterococci along with several 

chemical parameters. If bacteria levels reached unsafe 

levels, advisories were placed on the beach stating that 

swimming was not recommended until bacterial levels 

returned to safe levels. The advisories remained in 

place until the monitoring data indicated that the water 

was safe for swimming and water contact. 

Under the BEACH Act, the Mississippi Beach 

Monitoring Program was expanded in 2005 to 

include 22 beaches, and the frequency of sampling 

was increased for seven beaches. Sixteen of the 22 

beaches were classified as Tier 1 Beaches and they are 

monitored 10 times per month during the recreational 

season, which is from May through October. The six 

Tier II beaches are monitored four times per month. 

All beaches are monitored four times per month during 

the non-recreational season.

Water samples from the beaches are tested for 

enterococci bacteria, and if the bacteria levels exceed 
B-20 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA recommended levels, a no swimming advisory 

sign is posted on the beach section. Additional water 

samples are tested from the site, and the no-swim 

advisory remains posted at the site until bacteria levels 

return to safe levels. In addition to signage, MDEQ 

provides public notification of beach water quality 

conditions through press releases and by posting near 

real time information on the state’s Beach Monitoring 

Web site

Public Notification

During 2000, MDEQ developed a Beach Monitoring 

Web page to provide public notification of the water 

quality at the Mississippi beaches and to provide 

historical beach monitoring bacteria data. The public 

can view the Web site at http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/

msbeach/indes. This Web site provides near real time 

data from all the monitoring locations, current beach 

advisories, beach locations, pictures, and maps locating 

the sampling sites. Also, information is provided about 

the history of beach advisories for all beach locations. 

Data from Mississippi’s Beach Monitoring Program 

is routinely uploaded to EPA’s Beach Monitoring 

STORET database. EPA uploads these data to the EPA 

National STORET database.

New Hampshire

Monitoring

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services (NHDES) manages New Hampshire’s Beach 

Program. The Beach Program monitors and inspects 16 

coastal public beaches weekly or twice a month based on 

their status. Currently, 11 beaches are monitored weekly 

and 5 beaches are monitored twice a month. In addition, 

potential pollution sources are monitored regularly 

during the swim season to identify potential public 

health threats. Monitoring and assessment reports are 

available on the program’s Web site at www.des.state.

nh.us/beaches/beach_reports/index.html.

Assessment

The assessment of all beaches and designation of 

tiers were completed in 2003. On the basis of these 

assessments, NHDES performed microbial source 

tracking studies to better identify the host source 

species that contribute to elevated bacteria observations 

in coastal streams that discharge to or near three 

coastal beaches. The sites included Little River, North 

Hampton, which discharges to State Beach; Chapel 

Brook, Rye, which discharges to Bass Beach; and 

Parson’s Creek, Rye, which discharges to Pirate’s Cove 

Beach. The study found that wildlife and humans were 

the most prevalent source species identified at each 

site. Wild animals present included coyote, deer, fox, 

otter, raccoon, and sparrow. At two sites, the state has 

plans for remediation of human fecal contamination, 

including repair of failed septic systems. At another 

site, they will study restoring a salt marsh by removing 

tidal restrictions.

Public notification

On the beach program Web site at www.des.state.

nh.us/beaches/index.html, NHDES has provided the 

public with information about coastal beach water 

quality status. NHDES has also published a brochure 

informing the public about the program. In addition, 

NHDES has produced signage for the public when 

advisories are posted.

Data management

NHDES developed a beach database to allow for ease 

of data transfer between the state and federal levels. 

NHDES’s Environmental Monitoring Database 

houses the department’s environmental data. All New 

Hampshire beach stations, activities, and sampling 

results can be found in the database. The database 

also houses a beach-specific module for the program 

that went live in December 2003. Beach-specific 

information, such as beach contacts, inspections, and 

beach advisory data are accessible through this module. 

The objective of the module is to enhance current 

beach data and make the data reportable to EPA via 

XML. Data are reported to EPA via uploads to the 

National STORET database for the water quality 

database and via XML to the PRAWN database 

for beach advisory and contact information. New 

Hampshire met the BEACH Act grant requirements 

on March 12, 2004, and was the second state in the 

nation to submit notification data via XML. To date, 

both coastal and freshwater beach data dating back to 

1985 have been uploaded into the national version of 

STORET.
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-21

New Jersey

Beginning in May 2004, the New Jersey Department 

of Health and Senior Services and the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) 

Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program required that 

the sanitary quality of its marine bathing beach waters 

be determined using EPA Method 1600 enterococcus 

test (September 2002 version.) In this test, all bacterial 

colonies with a blue halo, regardless of colony size, are 

counted as enterococcus. The method states that there 

is a 6 percent false-positive rate and a 6.5 percent falsenegative rate.

New Jersey coastal county and local health 

departments sample 325 ocean and bay bathing beach 

locations weekly and test the samples for enterococcus 

organisms. The concentration of enterococcus may 

not exceed 104 per 100 mL. Exceeding this value 

requires immediate resampling of the beach water and 

a sanitary survey of the sampled area. Two consecutive 

violations result in closure of the beach to primary 

contact recreational activities. Daily monitoring is 

continued until an acceptable enterococcus value and 

sanitary survey result is obtained, and the beach is then 

reopened.

In June 2004, enterococcus concentrations in samples 

from several ocean and bay bathing beaches were 

unusually high (>1000 per 100 mL), often in the 

absence of high concentrations at adjacent or nearby 

beaches and, in at least one case, in the absence of 

fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria. These results were 

unusual and unexpected because there are no known 

sources of bacteria to those beaches, and years of past 

fecal coliform data have been well within the standard 

for bathing beaches.

NJDEP’s Water Monitoring and Standards marine 

water laboratory began work to isolate and identify 

the bacteria. Ten colonies isolated from one of these 

high-concentration sample petri plates were subjected 

to enterococcus confirmatory testing as specified in 

the method. None of these colonies were Enterococcus 

spp. All colonies on this plate appeared near the end of 

the 24 h incubation period, were less than 0.5 mm in 

diameter, and created lighter-blue halos than colonies 

that confirm as Enterococcus spp. 

Nine similar colonies (< 0.5 mm diameter, excluding 

halo) were randomly selected from high-concentration 

sample plates from four bathing beach sites from two 

counties and subjected to identification procedures 

(“API 20 Strep” test, bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, NC). 

Six colonies were identified as Aerococcus viridans and 

three could not be classified.

Aerococcus viridans and a few other non-enterococcus 

lactic acid bacteria are known to possess the enzyme 

that causes the blue color halo in the enterococcus test 

and interference by A. viridans has been observed by 

researchers in commercial enterococcus detection tests 

that rely on the presence of this enzyme.

Aerococcus viridans was first described in 1953. It is a 

well-known pathogen of lobsters and other crustaceans 

and is an occasional opportunistic pathogen in 

humans and animals. A. viridans has been observed 

in many non-fecal environments and is “by no means 

common in [human] faeces” (Williams et al. 1953. 

J. Gen. Microbiol. 8: 475). Thus, the presence of A. 

viridans in marine water appears to have little sanitary 

significance.

In early July 2004, the NJDEP requested guidance from 

EPA regarding the counting of small-diameter colonies. 

The NJDEP received written guidance from EPA 

recommending that colonies less than 0.5 mm diameter 

no longer be counted as enterococcus, further stating 

their intention to revise Method 1600 to this effect by 

the end of 2005. The NJDEP immediately instituted 

the revised counting procedure resulting in a reduction 

of some sample counts and the need for closures 

at several beach locations. (Note: occasional highconcentration “true” enterococcus samples continue to 

be observed at some beach sampling locations, typically 

associated with wet-weather conditions.)

For more detailed information on New Jersey’s 

Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program, visit the 

NJDEP beach Web site: www.njbeaches.org.

North Carolina 

North Carolina’s recreational water quality monitoring 

program began as a state-funded mandate in 1997. 

The program tests both ocean and estuarine waters in 

deference to North Carolina’s barrier island system, 
B-22 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

which offers recreational areas on both the ocean and 

sound sides. North Carolina boasts 320 miles of ocean 

shoreline and another approximately 4,000 miles of 

estuarine shore. The program had previously tested 

between 275 and 300 sites for E. coli and fecal coliform 

bacteria and posted swimming advisories on the basis 

of a running monthly average or geometric mean. 

The changes to beach water quality monitoring 

dictated by the BEACH Act guidance led North 

Carolina Recreational Water Quality (RWQ) staff 

to expect a higher number of swimming advisories 

for the 2003 season. The new single-sample advisory 

requirement would increase the number of advisories 

because previously, the single-count “spikes” were 

moderated in the geometric mean calculation. However, 

it was questionable whether the number of beach days 

sites were under advisory would also increase. This is 

a more accurate indicator of overall water quality, and 

if people did not clearly understand this difference, a 

potential public perception problem could develop. The 

state sought to address the issue before it occurred. 

RWQ staff developed an extensive outreach and 

education plan, targeted to different audiences both 

internal and external to state government. Their 

audiences included state agency employees; state-level 

legislative representatives from coastal counties; local 

government officials and boards of health; interest 

groups, including tourism, environmental, pier, 

and camp owners; and local business interests near 

sampling sites. They created brochures and fact sheets 

and the beginnings of a Web-based data system that 

would allow the public to access water quality data 

for their chosen beaches. The public can access beach 

water quality data that is updated weekly, as well as 

information about the program and downloadable 

brochures on the program’s Web site, www.deh.enr.

state.nc.us/shellfish/Water_Monitoring/RWQweb/

home.htm. They also entered into a partnership with 

a national environmental nonprofit to display their 

swimming advisories on the nonprofit’s Web site while 

they developed their own capacity. Most importantly, 

they instigated a series of face-to-face talks and 

meetings—their most valuable outreach tool. 

The personal contact facet of the plan was critical, 

especially for introducing the state and local 

government officials. The Recreational Water Quality 

Program is not housed within the state Division of 

Water Quality, which, to the public, might seem a 

logical place for it. Because the program is focused on 

public health protection, it falls under the auspices of 

the state’s Division of Environmental Health, along 

with the Shellfish Sanitation Program.

State and local government employees receive high 

volumes of notices, e-mails, and other information, 

so the likelihood of their closely reading the material 

received from an unknown agency representative, 

much less retaining any of it, was slim. With personal 

contact, however, a face is connected to a name and 

a program. Although people might not retain all the 

information they receive at a meeting, they have a 

contact and back-up material with memories attached 

to them. 

With the goal of reaching as many concerned parties as 

they could, the program staff also performed a snowball 

sample for the first round of a total of 49 meetings, 

ending the discussion by asking those present who else 

they thought they should contact. This yielded other 

groups and individuals, which were also approached. 

Another key component of the outreach program 

involved eliciting the concerns of officials and citizens 

about aspects of the program, and feedback about how 

those concerns might be addressed. One of the most 

common issues raised by officials was the media’s 

handling of swimming advisories, especially in light of 

the likely increase. Early in the program, reporters had 

mistakenly stated that an entire county’s beaches were 

“closed.” The state program does not have the statutory 

authority to close beaches; they issue swimming 

advisories that recommend against swimming in a 

specific area within 200 feet in any direction of a 

sampling site. This caused considerable concern about 

misperceptions regarding an area’s waters and possible 

loss of tourism revenues. 

As a result, the program offered a modified version 

of its educational program to key environmental 

media representatives. Again, the most important 

component of the program involved personal contact, 

and this was augmented by presentations and the other 

informational materials. Several prominent reporters 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-23

were given tours of the program and supplied with data 

and background, resulting in three positive front page 

stories in major newspapers in Raleigh, Charlotte, and 

Wilmington. Throughout the season, media coverage 

was consistently strong and accurate, and no “closings” 

were reported. This approach gave the program 

increased credibility and showed that state and local 

governments can work together, which has led to 

increased cooperation. 

Outreach efforts continue on a smaller scale—refresher 

talks are offered for local government and health 

officials and citizen groups, as well as orientation for 

newly elected or appointed members. The program 

checks in with interested parties before the new season 

begins to determine whether they are the notification 

contact for the coming season and whether they would 

like anyone else added to the notification list for their 

areas. The program has received substantial positive 

feedback for its responsiveness and hopes to continue to 

improve outreach in the coming seasons. 

Northern Mariana Islands

The beaches and lagoon waters of the Commonwealth 

of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are heavily used 

daily by tourists, fishermen, and the public. Increased 

development over the years continues to threaten beach 

water quality. Improper or failing sewage delivery 

systems, septic tanks, urban runoff, non-permitted 

upland clearing, and reverse osmosis discharges are the 

largest contributors to waterbody pollution.

Monitoring

The microbiological and chemical parameters that 

the CNMI Division of Environmental Surveillance 

Laboratory currently monitors are salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, temperature, pH, 

turbidity, and enterococci bacteria. The Department 

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors 38 fixed 

stations along Saipan’s most frequently used west 

coast beaches for microbiological and chemical 

parameters weekly (Tier 1 beaches). On Managaha 

Island (11 sites), Tinian (11 sites), and Rota (12 sites), 

beaches are monitored at least twice a year for 8-week 

continuous periods during the rainy and dry seasons 

(Tier 2 beaches). At all Tier 2 beaches, after the 8-week 

continuous monitoring periods, monthly sampling is 

continued.

Beaches that have a high potential risk for harmful 

pathogens and are heavily used by the public are all 

considered Tier 1 beaches. Beaches that do not have a 

high potential risk for harmful pathogens but may or 

may not be heavily used by the public are considered 

Tier 2 beaches. Tier 2 beaches also include the most 

isolated beaches, which cannot feasibly be sampled 

on a weekly basis. Tier 1 beaches are easily accessible, 

commonly used by the public, and represent the 

majority of impaired waters throughout CNMI. Tier 

2 beaches are less accessible and represented more 

supportive waterbodies. In the case of Managaha 

Island, Tier 2 classification is used because historical 

data sets show few violations despite a growing tourist 

population visiting the island.

Public notification and outreach

When samples exceed the single sample or geometric 

mean enterococci bacteria limits in the water quality 

regulations, the beach is “red flagged,” meaning a 

warning is provided to the public not to swim there. 

These bacteria criteria were updated in FY 20004 

in the water quality regulations. DEQ uses the 

local media (two newspapers) and their Web site to 

provide real time results to the public. The Web site 

posts the weekly results and historical summaries to 

communicate potential risks to the public (www.deq.

gov.mp/beach%20monitoring%20web/Map%20Choice.

htm). Further, all reports are accompanied with a press 

release making them available to any member of the 

public. Additionally, signs are posted at six frequently 

used beaches regarding the most recent testing results, 

and are being installed at all other locations. 

Ohio

Ohio has developed and continues to conduct a 

program for monitoring the bacteria content at the 

majority of recreational waters that are designated for 

swimming, bathing, scuba diving, or similar water 

contact activities. The partnership effort between 

the Ohio Department of Health (ODH), the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, local health 

departments with public bathing beaches within their 

jurisdictions, and private or public organizations along 
B-24 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

the Lake Erie border provides the citizens of Ohio 

with specific information regarding the most recent 

water quality conditions at most public beach areas 

throughout the state. 

Monitoring

The monitoring program analyzes water from selected 

public beaches along the Lake Erie border during the 

summer, generating data for evaluating the risks of 

adverse health effects to bathers. The program provides 

for prompt notification whenever the water at public 

beaches becomes contaminated, thereby helping 

to better inform the bathing public and ultimately 

prevent illness. The program also highly encourages 

the development of localized beach water monitoring 

efforts, predictive models for assessing recreational 

water quality, preemptive warning systems to inform 

the public more effectively, and aquatic sanitation 

programs for identifying and eliminating potential 

pollution sources.

Collaboration of beach program with 

external parties to identify source problems

In Ohio, much work is being done along the Lake 

Erie shoreline to ensure biologically safe swimming 

areas. Many agencies and organizations (both public 

and private) are involved in identifying factors that 

adversely affect beach water. Some local health 

departments have instituted programs to locate and 

eliminate failed septic systems that might contribute 

to high bacteria counts at public beaches. Other 

organizations are concentrating on controlling the 

migratory habits of numerous waterfowl to minimize 

their effects on beach water quality. Two projects 

funded by Ohio’s Lake Erie Commission, one at 

Maumee Bay State Park in the western Lake Erie 

basin and one in the Cleveland area, are working to 

identify and eliminate sources of potentially harmful 

pathogens. By employing intense sampling surveys 

and sophisticated DNA fingerprinting technologies, 

researchers are seeking the sources of illness-causing 

bacteria on Lake Erie beaches. 

Public notification and outreach

In recent years, high levels of E. coli bacteria have 

resulted in Lake Erie beach postings, warning the 

public of the potential health hazards. ODH will use 

BEACH Act grant funds to improve advisory signs for 

use at monitored beaches, offering the public credible 

data for making informed decisions about their aquatic 

activity. Monitoring results are distributed to all 

monitored beaches, all local health departments along 

the lake, and various major newspaper and media 

outlets in the Lake Erie basin.

Oregon

Monitoring

Using an EPA BEACH Act grant, the Oregon Beach 

Monitoring Program (OBMP) began developing its 

monitoring and notification program in 2002 by 

prioritizing and selecting an initial list of beaches for 

sampling. During the first sampling season in 2003, the 

program sampled 99 sites at 52 beaches in all 7 counties 

along the Oregon coast. Six percent of these sites were 

monitored weekly, 44 percent were monitored every 

two weeks, and 50 percent were monitored monthly. 

In 2004, Oregon reduced the number of sites and 

beaches monitored to 60 and 19, respectively. Using 

EPA’s recommendation for adaptive sampling, Oregon 

targeted those beaches that had the highest use and 

bacteria levels as indicated by the monitoring data 

collected the preceding year. While reducing the 

number of sites monitored, Oregon nearly doubled 

its sampling frequency from the previous season—in 

2004, 16 percent of the sites were monitored weekly, 74 

percent were monitored every 2 weeks, and 10 percent 

were monitored monthly. 

For the 2005 sampling season, Oregon again used an 

adaptive approach to prioritize its list and identified 

more than 70 sites at 21 beaches for sampling. This way, 

the program can ensure that each season it is using 

federal BEACH dollars to monitor the most important 

Oregon beaches from a public health perspective. 

In addition, Oregon is one of the few states to monitor 

beach waters during the winter, when surfers are the 

primary beach users. To identify the beaches where 

surfing occurs most frequently, the OBMP has worked 

with the Oregon chapter of the Surfrider Foundation 

and local surf shops. At the time of this writing, 

Oregon monitors 42 winter sampling sites at 12 beaches 

in 6 counties along the coast. The program has doubled 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-25

its sampling frequency from last winter, from once per 

month to every other week, and will try to maintain 

this frequency for subsequent monitoring seasons. 

Public notification and outreach

As of January 2005, Oregon has issued 20 beach 

advisories at 12 beaches along the coast. Until recently, 

the process for notifying the public of these water 

quality advisories consisted of e-mail messages to 

stakeholders and local government officials, press 

releases to media outlets throughout the state, and 

signage at beach access points. Although this system 

continues to be effective, Oregon has taken important 

steps to improve and expand public access to advisory 

information and monitoring data. 

To expand the reach of public notifications and to 

make data accessible to the public, Oregon focused 

its notification system improvements on Internet 

resources. For example, Oregon partnered with 

Earth911 to disseminate beach advisory information 

online. The Earth911 system maps all monitored 

beaches and allows program staff to enter advisory 

information as it is retrieved from the field. The public 

can then access this information for any monitored 

beach in real time from both the OBMP Web site 

(http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/beaches/beaches.shtml) and 

the Earth911 Web site (www.earth911.org/waterquality/

default.asp?cluster=41).

To provide the public with access to monitoring results, 

the program is collaborating with the Oregon OceanCoastal Management Program’s Coastal Atlas. The 

Coastal Atlas is one of the nation’s most comprehensive 

coastal-area information systems, and it provides the 

public with access to interactive maps and data sets 

related to the Oregon coast. The program’s partnership 

with the Coastal Atlas will enable users to view 

monitoring data by beach or by sampling station and 

will provide photographs and maps for each station. 

That system is expected to be available on both the 

Coastal Atlas and OBMP Web sites by May 2005.

For more information, contact the Oregon Beach 

Monitoring Program at 503-731-4012 or visit http://

egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/beaches/.

Rhode Island

Monitoring and assessment

Through routine water quality monitoring, supported 

through the BEACH Act grant and conducted by 

the Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH) 

in 2003 and 2004, three beaches were identified for 

additional attention because of high bacteria densities 

and frequent closings. Sanitary surveys at these beaches 

Warren Town Beach, Easton Beach, and Scarborough 

State Beach helped to reveal problems with storm 

drains, sewer lines, and septic systems. 

At Warren Town Beach, through sampling and 

inspections conducted by HEALTH, the Rhode Island 

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), 

and the Warren Department of Public works, it was 

shown that sewage from a broken sewer line was 

penetrating a brick stormwater catch basin and being 

discharged into the bathing area. The town repaired 

the sewer line, and routine sampling during the 2004 

bathing season showed bacteria levels well below the 

standard; no closings were necessary. HEALTH will 

conduct additional wet weather sampling to ensure that 

all local pollution sources have been addressed

In Newport, HEALTH, RIDEM, Rhode Island 

Department of Transportation (RIDOT), EPA, the 

City of Newport, and the Town of Middletown have 

been working to identify sources of pollution causing 

closings at Easton’s Beach. More than 350 water quality 

samples have been collected in the area surrounding 

the beach. Test results were modeled using GIS 

techniques. This information was used to investigate 

and eliminate pollution sources in the drainage system. 

Smoke testing has revealed several possible crossconnections between the sewer and stormwater system. 

It was discovered that a pump station approximately 

500 feet from the bathing area, in Middletown, Rhode 

Island, was discharging untreated sewage during 

high-flow events. RIDEM issued a Notice of Violation 

(NOV) to the municipality. Short-term measures were 

put into place to avoid discharge, except in the case of 

extreme rainfall. Residents passed a $2.5 million bond, 

which will fund the mandated reconstruction of the 

defective pump station, as well as aid in correcting the 

structural integrity of faulty segments of the wastewater 

infrastructure. In addition, Middletown has an ongoing 
B-26 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

inflow and infiltration abatement project that will 

reduce pump station volumes and lower the risk to 

public health. 

At Scarborough State Beach, routine monitoring in 

the summer of 2003 identified high bacteria counts 

following rain events. Through sanitary surveys, 

HEALTH identified three stormwater discharges 

at this beach. The stormwater outfalls drain surface 

runoff from high-density residential development 

and several wetland areas. HEALTH, RIDEM, and 

EPA conducted extensive water quality sampling and 

inspected private septic systems in the surrounding 

area. Intensive sampling did not reveal a direct 

cause for the bacterial contamination, but several 

septic system violations were identified. RIDEM 

has issued citations to several facilities, including a 

vacation campground with more than 100 units and 

an inadequate sewage disposal system. Short-term 

corrections are in place at the campground; the owner 

has entered into a consent decree and will install sewers 

in the facility by the 2007 bathing season. RIDOT 

contracted with a private engineering firm to develop 

and construct a treatment system for the three outfalls. 

The engineering firm decided to use new, innovative 

media technology to filter out bacteria before they are 

discharged into the bathing area. 

HEALTH will continue to monitor for bacteria at all 

these sites to monitor improvements and notify the 

public if unsafe conditions exist.

Public notification and outreach

HEALTH’s active and visible role in mitigating public 

health risks at beaches through the reduction of 

pollutants has spurred much interest. Media channels 

are reporting beach-related environmental and health 

concerns; the public has focused on beach closings; 

and, most important, there is the political will to 

correct these problems. Local communities have 

formed committees, municipalities have passed bonds, 

and nongovernmental organizations have turned a 

watchful eye to Rhode Island’s beaches. The governor 

has formed a commission to reduce beach closings and 

fish kills, the legislature has authorized a permanent 

commission to provide recommendations for correcting 

the problem, and a $19 million bond fund was just 

passed to help clean up Narragansett bay.

Data management

HEALTH has worked with a vendor, Garrison 

Enterprises, Inc., to develop a Web-based beach 

monitoring and public notification database. The 

database will allow for the improved collection of data 

and transmission to EPA. It will also give HEALTH 

the ability to more effectively and quickly notify the 

public when opening or closing a bathing beach. A 

listing of all of Rhode Island’s beaches, sample stations, 

facility information, facility contacts, monitoring data, 

open/closed information, season reports, and other 

environmental information can be accessed through 

this database from any Web connection. Much of this 

data is also available through a public portal available 

on HEALTH’s Beach Monitoring Web site at www.

ribeaches.org. This real time access to data better 

equips managers and the public to make informed 

decisions about their recreational opportunities. 

HEALTH met the BEACH Act grant requirements 

in 2004 when it electronically submitted to EPA (via 

XML) the 2003 and 2004 monitoring and notification 

data for the national beach database.

South Carolina

Data management

Grant funds provided to the South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(DHEC) through the BEACH Act have allowed 

for many upgrades and improvements to the state’s 

beach monitoring and notification program. One of 

the largest of these accomplishments is electronic 

storage and management of monitoring and advisory 

data. Previously, all records were maintained as paper 

copies. These records were quickly reviewed and then 

filed. The data were not used in any constructive 

way, other than to issue and rescind advisories. 

With the need for electronic data arising from the 

requirements of the BEACH Act grant, this system 

was changed dramatically. South Carolina’s existing 

Environmental Facility Information System (EFIS) 

is used to manage monitoring and advisory data. All 

monitoring data is manually entered into EFIS or 

uploaded from the Laboratory Information System 

(LIMS). The program coordinator enters advisory 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-27

information into EFIS. This improvement has allowed 

for easy dissemination of monitoring and advisory data 

to interested individuals through e-mail or printed 

reports. The electronic format also makes it possible to 

analyze monitoring data. In past years, gathering data 

for analysis or to respond to a citizen’s request was a 

tedious process requiring a lot of time; now it is much 

simpler. 

Mini-grant program

The award of BEACH Act grant funds has allowed 

South Carolina to establish a mini-grant program. A 

portion of South Carolina’s total grant award is set 

aside to award monitoring and notification grants 

to coastal municipalities. Municipalities apply for 

grant awards through a competitive process. A 

committee reviews and ranks grant applications. The 

grants are then awarded on the basis of ranking and 

available funding. For the 2003 and 2004 cycles, all 

municipalities that applied were awarded grant funds. 

These monies can be used for collecting and analyzing 

samples, purchasing advisory signs, and employing 

staff to post and remove advisory signs. 

The benefits of this program are multifaceted. The 

municipalities benefit by becoming more involved in a 

program that greatly affects their community. The local 

state university benefits because currently, all funded 

municipalities employ a local university to perform 

sampling and analysis. This gives the university an 

opportunity for student involvement and instruction, 

as well as monetary support of the laboratory. The 

state benefits from this process by building stronger 

working relationships with the communities involved 

in the beach monitoring program. Municipalities’ 

involvement also assists the state in rapid public 

notification of advisories. Local municipal employees 

are able to post and remove advisory signs more quickly 

than a state employee, who must travel to the site. The 

state plans to continue the mini-grant program as grant 

funds are available. In coming years, the state hopes 

to expand the program by encouraging more local 

governments to apply for grant funding.

GPS data

Before receiving the BEACH Act grant, South Carolina 

had very little locational information regarding 

sampling sites. Descriptions of site locations used only 

nearby streets or landmarks. The length of each beach 

was also imprecise and was estimated using maps. 

Through the grant, South Carolina has collected GPS 

data for each beach monitoring site. Use of these data, 

in conjunction with GIS capabilities, has allowed South 

Carolina to:

$ Determine the location of each site with respect to 

county lines

$ More accurately determine beach lengths 

$ View beach monitoring stations in relation 

to other information layers, such as shellfish 

monitoring stations

$ Create location-specific maps for display in public 

areas, such as community information kiosks or 

state park camping areas

Compilation of locational data also allowed South 

Carolina to participate in Earth911’s beach advisory 

notification Web site. Earth911 works in conjunction 

with coastal states to provide advisory information 

on the Internet. The Web site provides maps of the 

state’s beaches with the sample sites, marked by green 

dots that become red when an advisory is issued for 

the area. This Web site has added another avenue for 

dissemination of advisory information. 

Tier III project

In August 2005, DHEC’s Bureau of Water will issue 

a contract for continued surveying at sites identified 

previously as Tier III. This contractor will verify 

the site locations, develop necessary survey forms, 

document public access and use, and determine sources 

of pollution.

Texas

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers 

the Texas Beach Watch Program in conjunction with 

various contracted entities, including county health 

and parks departments, universities, state parks, and 

municipalities. GLO oversees monitoring and public 

notification on approximately 144 miles of beaches 

in Texas. GLO has received $1.23 million in BEACH 

Act grants since 2000 to develop and implement its 

program.
B-28 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Beach segment classification

During the development phase of the Texas Beach 

Watch Program, GLO used information from its own 

Texas Beach & Bay Access Guide to identify beaches 

within each of the coastal counties that may be eligible 

for implementation of a beach monitoring program. 

Beach segments were initially evaluated to determine 

whether swimming activities occurred at each beach. 

For those beaches at which swimming activities were 

occurring, the level of beach use was evaluated using 

GLO’s observations and those provided by local entities 

with intimate knowledge about local beach usage. 

Beach segments identified with the highest frequency 

of use were then ranked and prioritized for monitoring 

under the BEACH Act. This classification system has 

provided a useful framework in which to prioritize 

funds for the implementation of the Beach Watch 

Program. 

Monitoring

Prior to the passage of the BEACH Act, Texas was 

sampling at 13 of the most popular beaches on 

the Texas Gulf coast using National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Coastal Management 

Program funds. Using the BEACH Act grants, Texas 

expanded sampling to approximately 59 beaches in 

7 counties. Sampling using the BEACH Act funds 

began in 2003 following a 2-year period of program 

development. From January 1, 2003, through October 

31, 2004, GLO performed more than 7,000 sampling 

events at 59 coastal beaches in Texas. 

Public notification and outreach

When beach water quality samples exceed the 

applicable water quality criteria for enterococcus, 

officials with jurisdiction over local beaches, as well 

as other interested citizens and citizens’ groups, are 

immediately notified by e-mail. In most areas, local 

officials have agreed to post beach advisory signs 

to notify the public of potentially unsafe swimming 

conditions. Additionally, GLO maintains an 

interactive mapping tool on its Web site that allows 

the public to select individual beaches or stations 

and get information about current bacteria levels and 

recommended beach advisories. This GIS mapping 

tool provides real time water quality updates using 

the information entered into the Texas Beach Watch 

database. For a link to this interactive mapping tool 

see www.glo.state.tx.us/coastal/beachwatch/index.html. 

From January 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004, 392 

criterion exceedances were noted out of approximately 

7,000 sampling events. Local governments were 

notified, and advisories were posted at local beaches at 

their discretion.

Since the Beach Act was passed, the Texas Beach Watch 

Program has greatly expanded its monitoring and 

notification capabilities and the number of partners 

with which it works to implement the program. This 

has resulted in a much more visible beach monitoring 

program and an increased level of interest in beach 

water quality by the public. 

Virginia

A new component to the program in 2004 included 

collaboration with Virginia Tech researcher Dr. 

Charles Hagedorn to conduct source tracking at 

beaches that exceeded the standard for bacteria. Two 

source-tracking techniques were used on Virginia’s 

beaches during the 2004 swimming season. One 

method provided information on whether a human 

waste stream was present at the beaches; the second 

method provided greater detail into the source of 

contamination as identification of the bacteria were 

linked to more specific sources such as pets, wildlife, 

human, or waterfowl. The source tracking techniques 

have proved valuable to the cities of Hampton and 

Newport News in providing information to help them 

identify where to target mitigation efforts in an attempt 

to control wastewater contamination of beaches in their 

localities.

The Virginia Department of Health Beach Monitoring 

Program has the potential to prevent public exposure to 

waterborne pathogens when they are at levels that pose 

a greater than normal risk at the locations in Virginia 

where the greatest number of people may be affected. 

Virgin Islands 

The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) consists of 

four main islands—St. Thomas, St. John, Water Island, 

and St. Croix. These islands harbor some of the most 

fascinating and beautiful marine environments in the 

world. These aquatic resources have contributed to 
Appendix B: State and Territory Highlights B-29

drawing an average of two million divers, beachcombers 

and sightseers per year spending nearly $100 million 

since 1997. The USVI also has a coastline greater 

than 185 nautical miles, allowing for public access at 

hundreds of locations during a year-round swimming 

season. These unique factors led to the development 

and implementation of the United States Virgin 

Islands Beach Water Quality Monitoring Program (the 

Program), which is essential for the protection of both 

beachgoers and the marine resources.

Before the implementation of the Program, the 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources 

(DPNR), Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

sampled only a fixed network of coastal and offshore 

waters quarterly through the Ambient Monitoring 

Program. The frequency and sampling locations did 

not sufficiently inform the community of the potential 

health hazards in nearshore waters. This promoted 

DPNR-DEP to apply for its first year of BEACH 

Act grant funds in 2001. First-year funds were used 

to develop the program’s Quality Assurance Project 

Plan (QAPP). Second-year funds were directed to 

implementation of the program. A total of 43 beaches 

were selected—20 on St. Croix, 15 on St. Thomas and 

8 on St. John. The selected beaches are monitored 

weekly. Two state-approved labs were selected to 

perform the analysis, one on St. Croix and one on 

St. Thomas, and both use EPA method 1600 for 

enterococci analysis. A Web site and a toll-free number 

are being established to ensure that the public has 

access to the data collected and the public advisory 

status of each beach. Temporary beach water quality 

warning signs are being used until the permanent signs 

are completely assembled. The Program has conducted 

public outreach to several local public schools, and 

several interviews with the local media have been held.

The Program officially began sampling in the St. 

Thomas and St. John districts in July 2004 and in the 

St. Croix district in August 2004. Since the program 

began, several press releases have been issued. Using 

field research, DPNR-DEP has found that the common 

sources of bacterial contamination in the nearshore 

waters at the designated beaches are soil runoff after 

heavy rain events and occasional municipal sewer 

overflows. However, other suspected contributing 

factors are the garbage dumpsters that have been placed 

in close proximity to the shoreline. 

The Program, one of the newest programs within 

DPNR-DEP, is also one of the most popular. Future 

plans include conducting additional pollution source 

investigations throughout the territory and continuing 

public education sessions.

Wisconsin

Monitoring 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) operates Wisconsin’s Beach Program. Under 

this program, WDNR gives grants to communities 

along Lake Michigan and Lake Superior to monitor 

beach water for elevated bacteria levels. To design 

its beach monitoring and notification program, 

WDNR formed a workgroup composed of state-level 

environmental and public health officials, local health 

officials, and other interested parties. They identified 

190 beaches along Lake Michigan and Lake Superior 

using GPS technologies. This allowed WDNR to create 

additional GPS data layers that included the location 

of all wastewater treatment outfalls along with their 

proximity to the beaches. WDNR collected additional 

information for each beach, evaluating the potential for 

impacts from stormwater runoff, bather and waterfowl 

loads, and the location of outfalls and farms. WDNR 

used this information to rank and classify beaches as 

“high,” “medium” or “low” priority. These rankings 

indicate how often the beaches should be monitored 

to ensure that water quality conditions are safe for 

swimming. Passage of the BEACH Act has enabled 

WDNR to substantially increase the number of beaches 

it monitors, from 6 to 110 coastal beaches.

Public notification and outreach

WDNR’s public notification and risk communication 

measures were developed in collaboration with the 

workgroup and other stakeholders, including the 

public. These efforts included developing signs at 

beaches to give notice to the public that the coastal 

recreational waters are not meeting, or are not expected 

to meet, water quality standards. These signs, which 

are also in Spanish and Hmong, were designed using 

feedback from a beach user survey and public meetings 
B-30 Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

held around the state. Other products that were 

developed include:

•	 A statewide toll-free telephone service to make 

beach condition information available to the 

public

•	 An automatic e-mail service to which the public 

can subscribe to receive daily updates on beach 

conditions

•	 A statewide informational brochure, 

approximately 70,000 copies of which were 

distributed at local beaches, parks, and health 

departments

•	 A statewide Beach Health Web page (www.

wibeaches.us) for collecting monitoring and 

advisory data and reporting up-to-date conditions 

at all coastal beaches

•	 An internal Web site for local health departments 

to report their daily advisory and monitoring data 

in the format required for EPA reporting at the 

end of the beach season 

Collaboration of beach program with 

external parties to identify source problems 

Phytoremediation project in Racine, Wisconsin

The Racine County Health Department collaborated 

with staff from federal, state, and local health 

and environmental agencies; nongovernmental 

organizations; academia; and students to plant native 

indigenous wetland plants upland of a beach to filter 

stormwater runoff and thereby reduce nonpoint 

source pollution into Lake Michigan. The plan is to 

reroute the flow of water from a stormwater outfall 

to infiltration beds upland of the beach using the 

native plants to filter the flow and reduce beach water 

pollution. The project should improve water quality, 

reduce the number of beach closings, and increase 

protection of public health.

Microbial source tracking in Door County, 

Wisconsin

Door County has more than 250 miles of shoreline and 

a large number of public beaches that are frequented by 

many tourists during the summer season. The BEACH 

Act grant was used to monitor 27 Great Lakes beaches 

in the county in the summer of 2004. Although there 

was not enough funding to allow for identification of 

sources of detected microbial contamination, steps had 

to be taken to find out where the contamination source 

was and whether it was safe to swim at the beach. The 

Door County Soil and Water Conservation Department 

acquired funding to pay samplers and analysts to 

monitor E. coli concentrations at selected beaches, near 

outfalls, and after rain events. Funds were also used to 

monitor avian waste concentrations; to isolate E. coli

from beach water, avian waste, and human waste in 

Door County; and to conduct DNA fingerprinting and 

antibiotic sensitivity profiling of these isolates. These 

data are to be used to further characterize the indicator 

organism used to monitor beach water quality and help 

to identify the source of contamination. Approximately 

1,000 E. coli isolates from water and waste, and the 

majority has been DNA fingerprinted and tested for 

antibiotic sensitivity.
C-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

1.	 National Beach Conference

Proceedings (October 2004)

The first national conference for EPA’s National Beach 

Program, since passage of the BEACH Act, was held 

October 13–15, 2004, in San Diego, California. The 

conference was designed to help state and local beach 

managers and public health officials from across the 

country share information on implementing a successful 

recreational beach program. Representatives attended 

from all but 3 of the 36 Beach Act states and territories, 

at least 2 inland states, Canada, Mexico, and the United 

Kingdom. Attendees recognized the progress made in 

developing state beach programs four years after passage 

of the BEACH Act in 2000. They also recognized the 

significant technological advances in developing rapid 

methods for microbial analysis and microbial source 

tracking techniques. Several examples presented at the 

conference confirmed innovative program development 

in states where beach programs had not existed before 

Congress passed the BEACH Act.

A panel discussion on the second day of the conference 

was designed to promote frank and open discussion 

of beach monitoring and beach program issues. 

Panel members with different areas of expertise and 

experience related to federal and state environmental 

policy, beach water quality, health, and monitoring 

each addressed two main questions. After the panel 

members addressed the questions, the questions were 

then put out to conference attendees for discussion and 

questions.

The proceedings of the National Beaches Conference 

are available at this Web address: www.epa.gov/

waterscience/beaches/meetings/2004/index.htm.

Appendix C

Beach-related References

2.	 Tropical Indicators Workshop

(March 2001)

A 2-day workshop titled “Tropical Water Quality 

Indicator Workshop” was held at the Waikiki Beach 

Marriott Resort in Honolulu on March 1–2, 2001. The 

primary funding agency for this workshop was the 

EPA’s Office of Water, with matching funds provided 

by the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, and by 

the Water Resources Research Center, University of 

Hawaii. Mr. Rick Hoffmann of EPA was the project 

officer, and Dr. Roger Fujioka of the Water Resources 

Research Center served as the workshop coordinator. 

The overall goal of this workshop was to address issues 

identified under the “Tropical Indicators” section of 

the EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters

(EPA/600/R-98/079), which is restated below:

Tropical indicators

Currently recommended fecal indicators may not be 

suitable for assessing human health risks in the tropics. 

Studies have suggested that at tropical locales such as 

Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam, E. coli and enterococci 

can be detected in waters where there is no apparent 

warm-blooded animal source of contamination. 

Whether or not current indicator bacteria proliferate 

naturally in soil and water under tropical conditions 

must be determined. If so, the range of conditions 

(such as nutrients, temperature, pH and salinity) under 

which the bacteria proliferate will be characterized 

and their geographical boundaries defined. If the 

phenomenon is widespread under tropical conditions, 

additional research will be conducted to modify 

approaches for monitoring, or to develop new tropicsspecific indicators. Further evaluation of Clostridium 

perfringens and other microbial indicators (including 
C- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

coliphages) that do not flourish naturally in the tropics 

will be conducted to determine their usefulness as 

alternative indicators. 

To address the above problem, 18 national and 

international experts, as well as other “observers” 

defined as those with relevant experience from a 

regulatory or environmental perspective, were selected 

to participate in the workshop. Selection of the experts 

was based on their established professional reputation 

and expertise in water quality microbiology and 

some applicable working knowledge of water quality 

problems in tropical areas.

The full report from this workshop is available at this 

Web address: 

www.wrrc.hawaii.edu/tropindworkshop.html.
D-

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

EPA has a number of grant programs that support 

research in areas of special significance to the Agency’s 

mission. EPA’s National Center for Environmental 

Research in the Office of Research and Development 

runs competitions for Science to Achieve Results, or 

STAR grants, in numerous environmental science 

and engineering disciplines through a competitive 

solicitation process and independent peer review. The 

program engages scientists and engineers in targeted 

research that complements EPA’s own intramural 

research program.

The Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) pro­vides 

the Regions with a mechanism to address near term 

research needs through an ORD Laboratory/Center. 

Applied research projects are funded to meet information needs that a Region identifies as necessary and that 

an ORD laboratory has the expertise to carry out. 

The EPA is also one of 11 federal agencies that participate in the Small Business Innovation Research 

Program established by the Small Business Innovation 

Development Act of 1982. The purpose of this Act was 

to strengthen the role of small businesses in federally 

funded R&D and help develop a stronger national base 

for technical innovation. Through the SBIR Program, 

EPA makes awards to small, high-tech firms to help 

develop and commercialize cutting-edge environmental 

technologies.

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) 

Grants

Data Collection and Modeling of Enteric 

Pathogens, Fecal Indicators and Real-Time 

Environmental Data at Madison, WI (EPA 

Grant Number: R829339) 

The City of Madison, Wisconsin contains three 

recreational lakes with over 20 miles of shoreline 

Appendix D

Other Research

within the city limits. The lakes are heavily used for 

recreational activities including sail boating, power 

boating, wind surfing, water skiing, swimming, scuba 

diving, canoeing, kayaking, fishing and jet skiing. 

The Madison Department of Public Health (MDPH) 

developed beach-closing criteria using testing results, 

combined with physical observations at the beach sites. 

There was a concern that the criteria might not reflect 

the actual risk to swimmers because the occurrence 

of pathogenic microorganisms during periods of high 

indicator levels had never been determined. 

The objectives of this research are to: 

1. Expand the current city beach monitoring program 

to include use of improved indicators that index 

changes in the microbial quality of the beach water 

including sensitive gene probe technologies to 

discriminate between human and animal sources of 

fecal pollution.

2. Determine the correlations between microbial 

indicator data, occurrence of pathogens, and 

meteorological, physical and water quality data 

collected by remote monitoring stations.

3. Consider mathematical constructs for modeling 

pathogen occurrence.

4. Create innovative partnerships with community 

groups and agencies to facilitate dissemination of 

water quality data and beach closure decisions, 

including development of a water quality web-based 

database with dynamic query capacity for the public.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfmfuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/5843/report/0
D- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring and 

Modeling for Equitable Recreation on the 

Mystic River (EPA Grant Number: R829338)

The city of Somerville, Massachusetts, in collaboration 

with Tufts University and the Mystic River Watershed 

Association, proposed a project that combines 

advanced technology for real-time water quality and 

meteorological monitoring with sampling of bacterial 

levels to develop a model that anticipates river 

conditions, especially after heavy rains. The realtime data, water quality indices, and model-generated 

water quality predictions will be made available to the 

public via the Internet as well as color-coded flags at 

riverfront sites. The predictive model will enhance 

standard water quality monitoring by providing a way 

to anticipate bacterial levels that ordinarily require 

24 hours to assess, leaving citizens in this dense 

and heavily polluted river basin with inadequate 

information about water safety.

The project objectives include collection of water 

quality indicator data (e.g., fecal coliform, enterococcus, 

DO, turbidity) along with data on depth, temperature, 

pH, conductivity, and meteorological conditions in 

real-time to develop an “early warning” water quality 

forecasting model. The data presentations will interpret 

the data into indices useful for everyday decisions 

about contact with the water.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/5858/report/0

Prevalence and Survival of Microorganisms 

in Shoreline Interstitial Waters: A Search 

for Indicators of Health Risks (EPA Grant 

Number: R828830)

Researchers felt there was some suggestion in the 

literature that the microbiological quality of beach sand 

may constitute a health risk to bathers, particularly 

children who spend time in the “swash zone.” Sand 

could act as a filter to trap and concentrate bacteria, 

spores, and cysts because it has a large surface area 

for microbial attachment, ample oxygen levels, higher 

temperatures, and a constant resupply of nutrients 

through wave action and tides. Pathogenic organisms 

could potentially accumulate in interstitial space. 

Organisms could then be periodically swept from 

surfaces and transported to the surf zone where they 

pose a health risk aggravated by the abrasive nature 

of sand, the ingestion of contaminated waters, and 

the inhalation of aerosols rich in microbes. Thus, 

individuals exposed to the surf zone of populated 

beaches may show a higher incidence of illnesses from 

either enteric or nonenteric pathogens. 

The study will document the number of “classic” 

fecal indicators in sand (E. coli, enterococci, and fecal 

coliforms), paying attention to whether they are free 

in interstitial space or attached to sand particles. 

Consideration will be given to the possibility that some 

of these organisms are lofted into the air. Other nonindigenous microorganisms in sand including nonenterics, coliphage and several eukaryotic microbes 

will be enumerated. A laboratory-based microcosm 

will be enumerated to study the survival (and growth) 

of indicator organisms in sand relative to overlying 

open water. Additionally, correlations of microbial 

abundance data to incidences of beach-related 

indicators will be compiled.

For more information visit:http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/1009/report/0

Near-Real Time Monitoring of Inland 

Suburban Waterways: Application to Three 

Critical Environmental Issues Facing the 

North Shore/Metro Boston (EPA Grant 

Number: R828582) 

Local citizen groups are engaged in environmental 

monitoring of two major tributaries that empty into 

Plum Island Sound estuary, the Ipswich and Parker 

Rivers. In addition, commonwealth, federal agency 

and research/academic groups have carried out focused 

studies on these watersheds.

The proposed work assembles a consortium of eleven 

partner groups drawn from the public, academic, and 

private sectors. Through this partnership the group 

wants to link several, ongoing, but currently uncoordinated, environmental monitoring efforts. The existing 

environmental data sets will serve as a historical benchmark by which to assess future change detected by the 
Appendix D: Other Research D-

near real-time monitoring system that will be installed. 

Pooled data will be evaluated with models and Web tools 

to observe the changing character of the Ipswich and 

Parker watersheds. Although the focus is on monitoring, 

the consortium also has technical expertise to interpret 

and draw scientifically sound conclusions from the 

emerging data sets. An active public outreach program is 

included in the proposal. 

The focal point for this work will be a geospatial 

Web-based information system, the Ipswich/Parker 

Suburban Watershed Channel (I/PS-WATCH), akin 

to the “Weather Channel” but reporting on suburban 

watershed environmental variables. The interface will 

represent extension of an existing system (see: http://

www.gm-wics.sr.unh.edu/ for prototype). I/PS-WATCH 

will be applied to three sub-projects, already identified 

by the partners as of high public relevance, cast in near 

real-time.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/408/report/0

Molecular Detection of Anaerobic Bacteria 

as Indicator Species for Fecal Pollution in 

Water (EPA Grant Number: R827639) 

Fecal contamination of aquatic environments is 

a continuing problem. Yet some of the standard 

indicators for fecal pollution do not distinguish 

between human and animal sources. A novel indicator 

system was developed based on the anaerobic gut 

bacterial group Bacteroides/Prevotella. Molecular 

markers, amplified from bacteria filtered from 

the water, are measured. This method can already 

distinguish human from cow fecal pollution in both 

estuarine and river waters. The proposed study will 

focus on a small, nutrient-rich, fecally polluted estuary, 

Tillamook Bay, Oregon, and its tributary rivers.

The objectives of this proposal are:

1. To develop additional markers from other 

biologically important polluting species, such as 

waterfowl.

2. Identify the indicator strains or species that are 

host-specific.

3. To allow quantitative estimation of both the 

amount of total pollution in the water and the 

proportions of different sources of fecal pollution.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/279/report/0

Community Recreational Water Risk 

Assessment and Public Outreach (EPA Grant 

Number: R827063)

A consortium was formed with several scientific and 

community organizations for the purpose of more 

effectively collecting and disseminating to the public 

recreational water quality data from several beaches 

in Milwaukee and Racine. This project is focusing on 

reporting E. coli levels to the public in a time-relevant 

and meaningful format. 

Project objectives include:

* To improve documentation and dissemination of 

environmental data specifically related to health 

risk associated with the recreational use of public 

beaches.

* To improve the type, quantity and quality of 

environmental data collected at and around public 

beaches in both Milwaukee and Racine Counties 

in development of a public health risk model.

* To improve coordination and collaboration of 

environmental data collected between Local 

Public Health Agencies (LPHAs), other 

organizations and community stakeholders, and 

standardize data collection. 

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/427/report/0

Regional Applied Research Effort 

(RARE) Grants

Development of Guidance on DecisionMaking When Using Microbial Source 

Tracking Methods 

Molecular biology methods (e.g., DNA fingerprinting) 

are now commonplace in public health monitoring 
D- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress

programs. One of the more common uses is microbial 

source tracking (MST), i.e., identifying the sources 

of pathogens in water. The potential value of these 

methods is illustrated in a recent report published by 

the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report 

noted that 87 percent of the 13,000 beach closings 

and water advisories in 2001 were due to high levels 

of bacteria associated with fecal contamination, but 

in 54 percent of the cases, the exact source of the 

contamination could not be identified. 

The methods that have been used include genotypic 

(e.g., ribotyping, rep-PCR, and pulsed-field gel 

electrophoresis) and phenotypic (antibiotic resistance 

testing and carbon utilization) approaches. These 

methods have already been used in recreational water 

and shellfish bed closure programs, TMDLs, and 

source water protection for both surface water and 

ground water in several coastal states in the United 

States. Although already in use by state and local 

governments, these methods have not been fully 

validated, and no single best method for all situations 

has been discovered. Integration of the vast array of 

information on these methods and publishing of this 

guidance as an EPA document will support the Regions 

in the appropriate use of these methods and inform 

potential users of issues that need to be considered 

when selecting a method.

For more information visit: 

http://intranet.ord.epa.gov:9876/OSP/RARE.

nsf/7523fef8d5be8b05852569fa00619181/

0540a0d5a97be2fa85256f6600589621?OpenDocument

Proof of Concept Demonstration for 

Near Real-Time In Situ Detection of Fecal 

Contamination in Fresh and Marine Waters 

A key component of monitoring is the detection and 

timely reporting of concentrations of bacteria that are 

associated with human gastroenteritis and indicate 

fecal contamination. Current monitoring methods 

require incubation periods between 24 hours and 

3 days before public health decisions can be made. 

The development of new in situ instruments with the 

capability for rapid, near real-time, quantification 

of bacterial densities would provide a more effective 

and better warning system for both environmental 

managers and the public. 

For more information visit: http://intranet.

ord.epa.gov:9876/OSP/RARE.nsf/

7523fef8d5be8b05852569fa00619181/a0c21dbd217c5e648

5256c83006cdae3?OpenDocument

Small Business Innovation Research 

(SBIR) Program

Portable Pathogenic Predictor for Storm 

water (EPA Contract Number: 68D99028) 

The key objective of this phase of the project is 

to develop a novel dual-wavelength radiometric 

fluorescence method and sensor for the detection of 

coliform bacteria in water samples. The radiometric 

technology will be rapid, robust, and suitable for the 

development of online sensors for monitoring the 

effluents of urban storm water and sewage treatment 

plants. This novel approach, unlike previous singlewavelength intensity-based methods, will be highly 

immune to light source and detector instabilities, 

temperature effects, optical density, and turbidity 

variability in the sample, spurious quenching, and 

photobleaching. In contrast to current methods that 

take 24 hours or more to generate results, the proposed 

technology will provide reliable results in minutes to 

hours, depending on bacterial concentration. 

The overall potential market for coliform testing 

of water encompasses several segments: drinking 

water, municipal sewage, coastal fisheries, shellfish 

aquaculture, and beach and recreational waters. 

Products will include a portable instrument, reagent 

kits, and online sensors.

For more information visit: http://cfpu b.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/1267/report/0

A New Biosensor for Rapid Identification of 

Bacterial Pathogens (EPA Contract Number: 

68D02051)

Rapid, handheld, or portable instrumentation for 

determining the quality of natural waters, recreational 

waters, and distributed and treated supplies does not 

currently exist. Echo Technologies, Inc., completed a 

Phase I project that demonstrated a new approach for 

identifying bacteria in aqueous systems. The approach 

uses bacteriophage as the molecular recognition 
Appendix D: Other Research D-

element. Bacteriophage are virus particles that 

generally attach to, and infect, a narrow range of host 

cells. Biosensors based on this molecular recognition 

offer a rapid, selective, and potentially very sensitive 

method to detect bacteria and bacterial pathogens in 

potable and recreational waters. 

Several experiments were conducted with a customized 

detection system to demonstrate the feasibility of 

making a small in-line instrument capable of highsensitivity detection. 

Application of the fabricating fluorescently labeled 

virus probes (FLVP) technology to solid-state optical 

sensing represents a new approach to real-time 

detection of bacterial pathogens. This approach will 

minimize the need for culturing to identify pathogens 

and is an important departure from immunoassay- or 

DNA-based sensing concepts. The miniature probes 

are perfectly suited for incorporation in a sensor array 

for the simultaneous detection of many bacterial 

pathogens.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/5182/report/0

Automated Human Fecal Pollution Detection 

(EPA Contract Number: EPD05036)

Public health departments have set strict standards for 

the quantity of coliform bacteria allowed in the water. 

Because of the requirement to detect very low levels 

of these bacteria, rapid automated detection is very 

difficult. Culture techniques take 24 hours, and the 

more rapid DNA amplification techniques still require 

DNA purification and the use of unstable enzymes and 

nucleotides as well as elaborate instrumentation, all of 

which are difficult and expensive to automate. In this 

research project, an automated biosensor capable of 

detecting low levels of fecal microorganisms without 

the need for bacterial culture or DNA amplification 

techniques will be developed. The biosensor should 

be sensitive enough to detect fecal microorganisms at 

a level of 1 coliform cell per 100 mL of water within 

30 minutes. The sensing element will be reusable to 

allow for long-term, unattended, cost-effective analysis. 

The sensor also should distinguish human from farm 

livestock sources of fecal pollution. 

The final product is envisioned as an automated buoy 

placed in drinking water inlet sources, swimming 

waters, and shellfish or other aquaculture growing 

waters. The buoy will report fecal microorganism 

levels at set time intervals by remote telemetry 

communication. A portable version of the instrument 

also will be developed.

For more information visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_

abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/

abstract/7485/report/0
D- Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 Report to Congress