United States

EnvironmentalProtection AgencyRegional BEACH ProgramConferences—1999Proceedings

EPA 823-R-00-003February 2000

Office of Water(4305)Washington DC 20460

	













	

 !"#





$"%	

&#'!


The goal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Beaches Environmental Assessment,Closure and Health (BEACH) Program is to significantly reduce the risk of disease to users ofthe nation’s recreational waters through improvements in recreational water programs, communication, and scientific advances. The BEACH Program applies to freshwater recreationalareas such as lakes, ponds, and rivers, as well as marine waters like oceans and bays, as doesthe Beach Action Plan.

The Beach Action Plan is a dynamic, multiyear strategy governing all EPA activities protecting the public’s health from pathogens in recreational waters. One of the objectives listed inthe Beach Action Plan is for EPA to arrange a series of technical conferences intended for

state and local recreational water quality managers. EPA hosted two regional beach conferences, one in San Diego, California, August 31-September 1, 1999, and the second in Tampa,Florida, October 18-19, 1999, to emphasize regional issues and implementation of nationalguidance.The conferences provided a forum for learning about beach health initiatives across thecountry, identified unaddressed beach health needs, assigned priorities to short-term andlong-term actions, and recommended protocols and procedures to encourage greater consistency among jurisdictions. The conference was organized into the following sessions:Session One Water Quality Standards, Indicators, and ImplementationSession Two Risk Assessment, Exposure, and Health EffectsSession Three Monitoring and ModelingSession Four Beach Advisories, Closures, and Risk CommunicationEach session consisted of individual presentations and a discussion period with questions andcomments from the audience and responses by the speakers. This proceedings documentcontains a summary of each speaker’s presentation, a selection of key graphics, summaries ofaudience questions and responses, and summaries of the breakout group discussions fromeach conference.

	
	
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’sOffice of Water funded the East and West Coast Regional Beach Conferences. The Standardsand Applied Science Division in OST organized the conferences. Tetra Tech, Inc. providedlogistical support for the conferences and production support for the proceedings under EPAcontract 68-C-98-111.The planning workgroup consisted of representatives from EPA Headquarters (ThomasArmitage, Rick Hoffmann, Charles Kovatch, Melissa Melvin, Steve Schaub, and ElizabethSoutherland) and the Regional Offices (Matt Liebman, Helen Grebe, Joel Hansel, FredKopfler, Al Dufour, Holly Wirick, Mike Schaub, Jake Joyce, Janet Hashimoto, Cat Kuhlman,and Phil Woods). The contributions of these persons in planning the conferences are greatlyappreciated.The contributions of the invited speakers and attendees during breakout sessions are gratefully acknowledged. The efforts of these people were critical to the success of the conferences. The material in this document has been subjected to Agency technical and policyreview and approved for publication as an EPA report. The views expressed by individualauthors, however, are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of EPA. Mention of tradenames, products, or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying,official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.


 	 
	
 	()*

Agenda ...................................................................................................................................... 1Welcome .................................................................................................................................... 3Ms. Felicia MarcusEPA’s Beach Plan ..................................................................................................................... 5Mr. Jim Hanlon

 + 	 ,	
- 		 .	 	 .
	

Overview of Water Quality Indicator Microbes ....................................................................... 11Dr. Jake JoyceNew Microbiological Pathogen Indicators for Recreational Water Use ..................................21Dr. Steve SchaubState-of-the-Art Indicator Research: Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase ChainReaction as a Method for Detection of Human Enteric Viruses in Coastal Seawater ............26Dr. Rachel NobleQuestion-and-Answer Session .................................................................................................31

 /+
0 1 	 	
( 

The Relationship of Microbial Measurement of Beach Water Quality to Human Health .......39Dr. Al DufourQualitative Review of Epidemiology Studies ............................................................................43Mr. David GrayPathogen Risk Assessment Methods .......................................................................................50Dr. Steve SchaubQuestion-and-Answer Session .................................................................................................55

 	 
	
 	( 23

 (+ 4 	 4


New Jersey’s Recreational Monitoring Program .....................................................................59Mr. David RosenblattMonitoring Program at Lake Powell ........................................................................................67Mr. Mark AndersonCalifornia’s Regulations and Guidance for Beaches and Recreational Waters........................72Dr. Steven BookSouthern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: Summer ShorelineMicrobiology .............................................................................................................................77Mr. Charles McGeeQuestion-and-Answer Session .................................................................................................86

)

NRDC’s Testing the Waters, 1999 ...........................................................................................91Mr. David Beckman

 + 	(5 
 	 
0	

Communicating About Risk ......................................................................................................97Dr. Sharon DunwoodyThe Aftermath of the Santa Monica Bay Epidemiology Study ..............................................101Dr. Mark GoldBeach Advisories and Closures..............................................................................................105Mr. Chris GonaverQuestion-and-Answer Session ...............................................................................................109

Summary of Breakout Groups ................................................................................................................... 114Speakers’ Biographies ...............................................................................................................................120List of Attendees .......................................................................................................................................124
	 	 
	
 	(

)*

Agenda ...................................................................................................................................133Welcome ................................................................................................................................135Mr. Rick HoffmannWater Quality Issues in the Gulf of Mexico ...........................................................................136Mr. Fred Kopfler

 + 	 ,	
- 		 .	 	 .
	

Overview of Water Quality Indicator Microbes ....................................................................139Dr. Jake JoyceBoston Harbor/Charles River Beach Monitoring Effort: Comparison of TwoIndicator Methods ..................................................................................................................140

Dr. Matthew LiebmanNew Indicators of Water Quality for Recreational Water Use .............................................146Dr. Stephen SchaubNew Tools for Assessing Healthy Beaches ..........................................................................147Dr. Joan RoseEPA’s Beach Plan ..................................................................................................................150Mr. Geoffrey GrubbsQuestion-and-Answer Session ...............................................................................................153

 /+
0 1 	 	
( 

The Relationship of Microbial Measurement of Beach Water Quality to Human Health .....163Dr. Al DufourQualitative Review of Epidemiology Studies ..........................................................................164Mr. Tom MahinEpidemiologic Research on Bather Illness & Freshwater Microbial Contamination .............165Dr. Rebecca CalderonQuestion-and-Answer Session ...............................................................................................170

	 	 
	
 	( 23

 (+4 	4


Indiana’s Escherichia coli Task Force .................................................................................179

Mr. Arnold LederPredictive Modeling of Bacterial Indicators Along the South Shore of Lake Pontchartrain .....187

Mr. Jeff WatersA Regional Modeling Tool for Impacts of Spills and Bypasses .............................................197Mr. Phil HecklerNew Jersey’s Recreational Monitoring Program ...................................................................202Mr. David RosenblattQuestion-and-Answer Session ...............................................................................................203

)

Great Lakes Monitoring Program ..........................................................................................204Mr. Paul HorvatinFactors Affecting E. coli Concentrations at Lake Erie Public Bathing Beaches ..................207Ms. Donna Francy

 +	(5 
 	 
0	

Recreational Rates, Fish Consumption, and Communication .................................................215Dr. Joanna BurgerFlorida’s Beachwater Web Site..............................................................................................223Mr. Robert NoblesFlorida Monitoring and Coordination Efforts ..........................................................................227Mr. Paul StanekQuestion-and-Answer Session ...............................................................................................235

Summary of Breakout Groups ...................................................................................................................241Speakers’ Biographies ...............................................................................................................................246List of Attendees .......................................................................................................................................251
	

	

	



	


	
	
	

 






	



	Goals: To provide a forum for all levels of beach water quality managers and public health officials to share

information and provide input on the future directions of EPA’s BEACH Programs.

Objectives: 1) Present EPA’s BEACH Program.

2) Present the state of the science.3) Discuss local and regional water quality management issues through case study presentations.4) Obtain feedback on major topic areas for EPA’s Beach Guidance document.

Tuesday, August 31–Day 18:30-9:30 Registration9:30-9:45 Welcome

Felicia Marcus, AdministratorUSEPA Region 9

9:45-10:30 EPA’s Beach Plan

Jim Hanlon, Deputy Director

USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

10:30-12:30 Session 1: Water Quality Standards,

Indicators, and Implementation

10:30-10:50 Overview of Water Quality Indicator

MicrobesJake JoyceUSEPA, Region 7

10:50-11:00 BREAK11:00-11:20 New Indicators of Water Quality for

Recreational Water UseSteve SchaubUSEPA, Office of Science and Technology

11:20-12:00 State-of-the-Art of Indicator Research:

RT-PCR as a Method for Detection ofHuman Enteric Virus in CoastalSeawaterRachel NobleUniv. of Southern California & SouthernCalifornia Coastal Water Research Project

12:00-12:30 Q & A/Discussions12:30-1:30 LUNCH1:30-3:30 Session 2: Risk Assessment, Exposure,

and Health Effects

1:30-2:00 The Relationship of Microbial

Measurement of Beach WaterQuality to Human HealthAl DufourUSEPA, National EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory

2:00-2:20 Qualitative Review of Epidemiology

StudiesDavid GrayMassachusetts DEP

2:20-2:40 Pathogen Risk Assessment Methods

Steve SchaubUSEPA, Office of Science and Technology

2:40-3:20 Q & A/Discussions3:20-3:30 BREAK3:30-5:30 Session 3: Monitoring and Modeling3:30-3:50 New Jersey’s Recreational Monitoring

ProgramDavid RosenblattNew Jersey DEP

3:50-4:10 Monitoring Program at Lake Powell

Mark AndersonAquatic Ecologist, Glen CanyonNational Recreational Area

4:10-4:30 California’s Regulation & Guidance

for Beaches & Recreational WatersSteven BookCalifornia State DOH, Drinking WaterTechnical Programs Branch

4:30-4:50 Southern California Bight 1998

Regional Monitoring ProgramCharles McGeeOrange County, CA, Sanitation District

4:50-5:30 Q & A/Discussions
	





Wednesday, September 1–Day 29:00-9:20



NRDC’s Testing the Waters, 1999David Beckman, Senior AttorneyNRDC, Los Angeles Office

9:20-11:20 Session 4: Beach Advisories, Closures,

and Risk Communication

9:20-9:40 Communicating About Risk

Sharon DunwoodyUniversity of Wisconsin, Department ofCommunication

9:40-9:50 BREAK9:50-10:10 The Aftermath of the Santa Monica

Bay Epidemiology StudyMark GoldHeal the Bay

10:10-10:30 Beach Advisories and Closures

Chris GonaverSan Diego County Health Department

10:30-11:10 Q &A/Discussions11:10-11:20 Organization of Breakout Groups

Purpose: Discuss the major componentsof the Beach Guidance. Providerecommendations and key elements tobe included in the document.

11:20-12:30 BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONVENE12:30-1:30 LUNCH1:30-3:30 BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONTINUE3:30-4:15 Feedback to Plenary from Breakout

Sessions

4:15-5:15 Open Discussion and Information

Synthesis

5:15-5:30 Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Jim Hanlon, Deputy DirectorUSEPA, Office of Science andTechnology

	





		
 




 
s. Marcus welcomed the group and noted that many water quality regula- tors from all levels of government,

public health leaders, researchers, facilitymanagers, and water quality activists were inattendance. She commented on the change inthe discussions about beach water quality,which are now focused on what are the bestand quickest indicators rather than whethersampling should be done at all. She noted thatthe consciousness has changed on the part ofmany people—local, state, and federal offices—and beach safety is now a main focus. A caseof the stomach flu or an eye infection is aproblem even though it may not compare inscale to some of the other issues health departments have to deal with.

She also noted that the discussion has

changed to what is the best way to monitor,what are the best indicators, how do we best getthis information to the public, how do we closebeaches based on circumstances that we knoware likely to cause a problem versus waiting for48 hours until we have proof, after people havebeen at the beach for two days. Discussionsnow focus on how to get this information to thepublic reliably and quickly. It is no longer leftto regulators to decide behind closed doorswhether to close a beach. Instead, the publichas an opportunity to know and to make theirown informed choices as part of the wholeright-to-know movement. Over the last 10years there have been changes in the way wefind out about sewage spills. To find out aboutspills, regulators once had to file a Freedom ofInformation Act Request or a Public RecordsAct Request. The next advancement requiredregulators to have a beeper that went offwhenever there was a sewage spill and thenthey issued a press release. Now information isavailable on the Web in real time so that the

public can make their own choices aboutwhether they want to go to the beach.

The players have also changed, not in

terms of who they are, but in terms of how theyare behaving. There is more work towardbuilding consensus and working together tosolve these problems. The time has comepolitically to solve beach problems. Last yearat the President’s Ocean Conference inMonterey, there were a tremendous number ofannouncements about the EPA BEACH Program, although they were overshadowed byoffshore drilling and other fish issues. TheBilbray bill is moving through Congress aswell. Things have moved even faster at thestate level, with the passage of the HowardWayne bill in California 2 years ago leading theway in the nation. It has resulted in a lot morebeach closures in California. Many of SouthernCalifornia partners inside and outside government are developing a Web site that will givepublic access to information as to whether aparticular beach is safe for swimming that day.The Southern California pilot should be completed shortly and then move up the coastbefore leaping the Pacific to Hawaii.

The TMDL effort, storm water regulations,

and other initiatives are being brought togetherinto preventive solutions to the other end of theproblem. There are renewed efforts on combined sewer overflows and sanitary seweroverflows to deal with the sewage issue. EPAhas a regulatory role in ensuring that statesadopt protective standards and that dischargesto beaches meet water quality goals, and strongwater programs play a major role in keeping thebeaches clean. TMDLs are the next wave andfinally give us a shot at integrating point andnonpoint sources in an intelligent way over agiven geographic surface leading into a particular waterbody.
	








In addition to the regulatory side, one of

the most important roles of EPA is to helpprovide good science to help set the standardsfor pathogens and for monitoring them. EPAalso has the ability and responsibility to convene interested parties to share information notonly on the science but also on how beachsafety is communicated to the public. These

nonregulatory pieces of EPA's job are thereason for this conference and the reason theAgency is so pleased that so many peoplecould attend. Finally, EPA has put forth anambitious Action Plan, which Jim Hanlon willdiscuss in detail, and hopes to get feedback onit from the participants.




 

	
	
 	

!"#$%"&im Hanlon presented background on where EPA is and has come from, and the EPA Beach Action Plan for beaches and recre- ational waters, and he offered an outline of

where that will lead EPA in the future. Theconference, he noted, would provide a forum forbeach water quality managers and public healthofficials to share information and to provideinput to EPA that will assist in development ofthe Agency’s program to protect the public frommicrobial pathogens in recreational waters.EPA’s objectives for the conference includedsharing information and gaining feedback on thedevelopment of national guidance. The conference would present ongoing and plannedrecreational water program activities and describe the current “state of science” in recreational water standards, disease indicators, riskassessment, monitoring, and risk communication. At the breakout sessions state, local, andfederal officials would discuss issues related tothe guidance in order to enable national consistency in managing beach water quality. The textof Mr. Hanlon's comments follows.

In May 1997, Administrator Carol Browner

announced the establishment of the BEACH(Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closureand Health) Program in response to concernsabout water quality in recreational areas. Persistent water quality problems (evidenced byadvisories and closings), inconsistencies inmonitoring between states, inconsistent publicnotification programs, growing concerns aboutmicrobial contaminants, and increased pollutionpressures all led to the development of theBEACH Program.

In 1997, the Natural Resources Defense

Council’s 8th annual survey on beach water

quality reported at least 4,153 days of beachclosings and advisories caused by pollution.EPA’s annual National Health Protection Survey

of Beaches, completed in 1998 and 1999,indicates that many beaches continue to havewater quality problems. In 1999, EPA gatheredinformation from more than 1,400 beaches, andapproximately 25 percent of the beaches wereassociated with at least one advisory or closingin the 1998 beach season. The surveys wereissued to agencies responsible for coastalbeaches, including the Great Lakes. Futureefforts will increase the scope to capture inlandbeaches.

Results of the survey confirmed that a wide

variety of standards and monitoring approachesare used at beaches throughout the United States.There is no published technical guidance thatdeals with protocols for monitoring, depth tosample, intervals for sampling, and so forth.EPA surveys have indicated that because ofvarying resources and diverse local circumstances, the local agencies (county healthdepartments and sanitation districts) responsiblefor notifying the public of water quality problems use a wide range of risk communicationpractices. There is a great need to communicatemore effectively with the public.

There is growing concern about microbiological contamination. There is now recognition

that recreational water users are at risk of infection from waterborne pathogens through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated water orthrough contact with the water. Some peoplemay face a disproportionate risk from exposureto the pathogens because of heightened susceptibility. For example, children may be morevulnerable to environmental exposure becauseof their active behavior and developing immunesystems.

Most of the recreational water quality

problems are man-made. More than 50 percentof the U.S. population live within 50 miles of thecoast, where people are densely packed into less
	





than 10 percent of the nation’s land. Seriousovercrowding in the highly popular coastallocations, especially in the Northeast, midAtlantic region, and Southern California, hasalready caused water quality problems, anddemographers project continued increases in theyears ahead. EPA’s reaction has been to establish open dialogue with local beach managers.To address these problems, EPA has organized anumber of beach conferences. The First National Beach Conference was held in October1997 in Annapolis, Maryland. The purpose ofthat conference was to identify important issuesthat must be addressed by EPA’s BEACHProgram. Now, with these regional conferences,EPA wants to focus on specific topics andconcerns and has invited representatives of state,local, and regional organizations to participate.

'

In March 1999, EPA published the

Agency’s Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters, which was derived from the1997 conference. The Beach Action Planidentifies EPA’s multiyear strategy for monitoring recreational water quality and communicating public health risks associated with potentially pathogen-contaminated recreational rivers,lakes, and ocean beaches. An important part ofthis strategy is to improve and assist in state,tribal, and local implementation of monitoringand public notification programs.

The plan strengthens and supports state and

local programs. Most of the programs arecentrally managed through compliance andmonitoring. EPA will strengthen water qualitystandards implementation programs by establishing appropriate policies (e.g., what should bedone in tropical waters) and assisting localmanagers in their transition to EPA’s currentlyrecommended Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor Bacteria.

Guidance and technology transfer are key

components of the beach program. EPA willcoordinate the planning and issuance of nationalBEACH Program guidance documents addressing recreational water quality monitoring, riskassessment, risk management, and risk communication, incorporating input from state and localparticipants. This conference will assist us indeveloping the guidance.

National beach health survey and public

right-to-know communication efforts will alsobe an important part of the guidance development. EPA will continue to conduct an annualnational beach health survey to collect detailed

national data on state and local beach monitoringefforts, applicable standards, beach water qualitycommunication methods, the nature and extentof beach contamination problems, and anyprotection activities. Surveys have been completed during each of the past 2 years, and theresults have been made available to the public onEPA’s Beach Watch Internet Web site. EPA willcontinue to maintain this web site to providetimely recreational water quality information tothe public and to local authorities. The currentWeb site will become a real-time electronicdatabase with links to state and local beachhealth-related information. The Web site willalso provide information identifying thosebeaches where monitoring and assessmentactivities are conducted in a manner consistentwith EPA’s national guidance.

An important part of EPA’s effort to make

beach information available to the public is todevelop a national digitized inventory of beachmaps. EPA will develop a protocol for mappingbeaches and begin mapping in priority areas.These maps will ultimately be linked to thelocation of pollution sources through a geographic information system. This will helpbeach managers visualize the resource andpotential threats.

EPA has recognized the need for developing better and faster indicators of water quality.

Indicators are needed to identify risk beforeexposure takes place and to determine thepotential presence of pathogens causingnonenteric diseases. Work has begun to complete research to reduce sample processing anddevelopment of new indicators.

A number of mathematical models have

been or are being developed to assess themigration of pollution near recreational waters.These models can be used to rapidly determinepublic health risks at beaches following rainfallevents or spills. EPA has catalogued a range ofpredictive tools and is improving them. Acatalogue and evaluation of existing models isavailable on EPA’s Beach Watch Web site.Models range from rules of thumb for predictingrisk, such as the occurrence of intense rainfall, tocomplex hydrodynamic models.

Research is planned to investigate the risks

of combined sewer overflows, the role thatinterstitial waters play in microbial exposure tobathers (particularly children), and humanexposure factors (such as inhalation, skincontact, time spent in the water, skin abrasions or




(

cuts, and crowding of swimmers at small recreational areas) that contribute to adverse healtheffects. EPA has identified a need for epidemiological studies to establish a link between waterquality indicators and disease endpoints. Newand innovative indicator methods will be used toassess and validate their efficiency for determining health risks.

EPA beach-related activities have taken

greater prominence because Beach Programlegislation has been proposed in the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives passedH.R. 999, the Beach Environmental Awareness,Cleanup and Health Act, sponsored by Congressman Bilbray, on Earth Day. Senator Chafeechaired a Senate hearing on July 22 on twobeach bills, Senator Lautenberg’s bill (S. 522)and H.R. 999. There has been no action yet onthese bills in the Senate, but they are beingreviewed and a vote on them may be taken inthis session of Congress.

It is hoped that there will be more action on

these bills in the fall. The proposed legislation

would require the adoption of revised state waterquality standards consistent with EPA’s currentambient criteria for bacteria (i.e., E. coli or

enterococcus) within 3.5 years. The legislationwould establish state or local beach monitoringand notification programs. EPA grants to statesand local governments would support monitoring and notification programs.

The legislation would provide for an

increased federal role in developing standardsfor consistent monitoring and in monitoringwhere state and local governments fail to act.The legislation tasks EPA with the responsibilityfor developing federal guidance and regulationsfor monitoring and notification. EPA will develop a national public right-to-know databasewith access to local beach data. The agencywould also conduct monitoring and notificationif it is not done by state and local governments.EPA will have to balance the requirement fornational consistency in monitoring and notification with the need for flexibility to address sitespecific conditions.
	







 






	





	


 




 n indicator is a parameter or a value derived from a parameter which pro- vides information about the environment with a significance extending beyond that

which was measured, and is intended as asurrogate for other unmeasured parameters.Indicator microorganisms are used to conductmicrobiological examinations of water in orderto determine its sanitary quality. Indicatororganisms are used in drinking water, shellfishsanitation problems and in recreational waters,which is the topic of this presentation. Although waterborne disease can be caused byviruses, protozoans, bacteria or helminthes,only bacterial indicators are used to assesswater quality. This is because routine examination of water for pathogenic microorganisms isnot recommended, except for special studies, orfor the examination of water-related illness, andthen, only certain pathogens are sought. Inother words, the levels of indicator microorganisms are measured in lieu of looking directly fora large suite of pathogenic microorganisms. Ahuman fecal sample can contain as many as ahundred different species of bacteria. Theprimary function of a water pollution indicatororganism is to provide evidence of recent fecalcontamination from warm-blooded animals. Aproper indicator of fecal pollution shouldsurvive longer, but not much longer than theintestinal pathogens it is intended to indicate.In other words, if it doesn’t survive as long as apathogen, then a false negative could result. Ifit survives appreciably longer than the pathogens, it could indicate false positive results.

The concept of an indicator assumes that

the indicator bacteria are randomly dispersed inthe water body. In reality this is seldom, ifever, the case. Another major limitation with

bacterial indicators is that they are based upongastrointestinal disease alone, while inhalationand contact diseases can result from exposureto the contaminated water. The use of anindicator is limited because a relatively smallvolume sample is used to represent a muchlarger quantity of water. Also, any indicatorchosen is a surrogate for disease-causingpathogens.

The currently used bacterial indicators for

the presence of fecal contamination are asfollows:

1. Total coliforms—includes several

genera of gram(-), facultative anaerobic, nonspore- forming rod-shaped bacteria, some ofwhich occur in the intestinal tracts of animalsand humans, and some of which occur naturally in soil and in fresh or marine waters. Thecoliform group is made up of a number ofbacteria including genera of Klebsiella,Citrobacter, Ecsherichia, Serratia, and Enterobacteria. Although the total coliforms test wasessentially a surrogate for E. coli, it is the false

positives from this traditional water quality testwhich have prompted the adoption of moredefinitive indicators of water pollution by fecalmatter. The total coliform test was used anindicator until 1968 when the Federal WaterPollution Control Administration recommendedthat a subgroup of the total coliforms (the fecalcoliforms) be adopted.

2. Fecal coliforms—includes several

species of coliform bacteria that are able toferment lactose and produce gas, and theycommonly occur in the feces of warm-bloodedanimals. The fecal coliform (or “elevatedtemperature” test) was developed in 1904 toscreen for E. coli. The use of the term “fecalcoliforms” has proven to be a poor choice,


 
!

however, because it implies that all microorganisms responding to the test come from fecalmatter, which is an incorrect assumption. Intheory, the 44.5 

"

oC temperature should inhibit

the growth of Citrobacteria and Enterobacters,but many members of the Klebsiella group arethermotolerant and can survive. More alarmingwas the discovery that some strains of E. coli

could be inhibited by the elevated temperatures,leading to false positive results. The fecalcoliform indicator has been used to measurewater quality and has been faulted becausenon-fecal environmental sources of Klebsiella,Citrobacter and Enterobacteria bacteria have

been noted. This could have the effect ofcausing a false positive or a false negative inthe water sample for sewage contamination.This lack of specificity for accurately differentiating between fecal and non-fecal contamination also compromises the value of the fecalcoliform method for assessing water quality.Also, the fecal coliform method does notdifferentiate between fecal organisms of humanor animal origin. The standard for fecalcoliforms is the logarithmic mean of fivesamples taken over a 30-day period should notexceed 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL ofwater. In addition, 10 percent of the totalsamples during any 30-day period should notexceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 mL ofwater.

Note: Studies have indicated that fecal and

total coliform counts do not correlate well withlevels of pathogenic bacteria and virusesactually measured in waters. To account forthis, two new tests were proposed for determining fecal contamination in waters in 1986:

3. Enterococci––round coccoid bacteria

that live in the intestinal tract. Streptococcusfaecalis and S. feacium are two indicators of

that group that are more human-specific thanthe other members of the group, but can beisolated from the intestinal tract of domesticanimals. These two microorganisms were

chosen because they are the main detectedbacteria from this test. For enterococci, thefreshwater standard is the geometric mean ofthe bacterial densities of five samples takenover a 30-day period which should not exceed33/100 mL. The marine water value should notexceed 35/100 mL. The single sample maximum is 61/100 mL for freshwater and 104/100mL for marine water.

4. Escherichia coli––a member of the

coliform group whose presence indicates fecalcontamination since it is one of the ubiquitouscoliform members of the intestinal microflora ofwarm-blooded animals. Under its previousname, Bacterium coli, it has been recommended as an indicator of fecal pollution in

waters since 1904, but its use was delayed untila method specific to its enumeration wasdeveloped. In the late 1980s scientific evidence was amassing that E. coli itself should bethe bacterial indicator for fecal contamination inwaters. E. coli has been found to be universallypresent in the fecal matter of warm-bloodedanimals at densities from 108 to 109 per gram

and comprises nearly 95 percent of thecoliforms in feces. This indicates that E. coliwould always be present in fecal contaminationincidents whereas the other members of thecoliform group may or may not be present,even though known sewage contamination waspresent. The steady-state geometric meanindicator density (five samples equally spacedover a 30-day period) is 126 E. coli per 100 mLwater.

As a final note, along with sampling and

analytical difficulties, perhaps the greatestproblem with the use of indicator data is peoplewho are unaware of the limitations of the testsand interpret them inappropriately. Finally,indicator microbe analytical data should not beinterpreted alone. It should always be used inconjunction with a sanitary survey; however,this step is often omitted.

	



#

WATER CONTAMINATION

INDICATORS

Jerome (Jake) Joyce, Ph.D.

Indicator—a parameter, or a value derivedfrom a parameter, which provides informationabout the environment with a significanceextending beyond that which was measured,and is intended as a surrogate for otherunmeasured parameters.

Indicator organisms are used to conductmicrobiological examinations of water inorder to determine its sanitary quality.

Indicator organisms are used for determiningfecal contamination in:• drinking water• recreational waters• shellfish sanitation

An ideal indicator organism should:• be found only when pollution or pathogens

are present

• be absent when pollution or pathogens are

present

• occur in larger numbers than the pathogens• increase in numbers in proportion to the

degree of pollution

An ideal indicator organism should (cont):• respond to routine testing procedures• survive longer that the pathogens• be applicable to multiple sanitary situations• have consistent culture characteristics


 
!

$

Although waterborne disease can be causedby viruses, protozoans, bacteria or helminthes,only bacterial indicators are used to assesswater quality.

Routine examination of water for pathogenicmicroorganisms is not recommended exceptfor special studies or for examination ofwater-related illness, and then only specificpathogens are sought.

In other words, the levels of indicatormicroorganisms are measured in lieu oflooking directly for a large suite ofwaterborne pathogenic organisms.

A human fecal sample can contain as many asa hundred different species of bacteria.

Human fecal bacteria include:• (primary species)

– Bacteroides– Lactobacillus– Escherichia coli– Enterococcus

Human fecal bacteria (cont)• (secondary species)

– Citrobacter– Klebsiella– Clostridium– Staphylococcus– Bacillus

	



%

Human fecal bacteria (cont)• (rare but can be found)

– Proteus– Providencia– Pseudomonas

A number of bacterial species have beenproposed as indicators of fecal pollution:• Vibrio• Clostridium• Pseudomonas• Bifidobacterium• Bacteroides• Yersinia

A primary function of a water pollutionindicator microorganism is to provideevidence of recent fecal contamination fromwarm-blooded animals.

A proper indicator of fecal pollution shouldnot survive longer that the intestinalpathogens it is intended to indicate.

The indicator concept assumes that theindicator bacteria are randomly dispersed inthe water body. In reality, this is never thecase.

A simple cause-and-effect relationshipbetween pollution and human disease is oftendifficult to substantiate.


 
!

&

Another major limitation with bacterialindicators is that they are based upongastrointestinal disease alone, while inhalationand contact diseases can also occur fromcontaminated water.

There is no indicator organism or group oforganisms that can predict the transmission ofdisease by all possible waterborne routes.

Some waterborne pathogens (viruses andprotozoans) can survive in water longer thanindicator bacteria, leading to false negatives.

The use of an indicator is limited as:• the relatively small volume sample is used

to represent a much larger quantity of water

• any indicator chosen is a surrogate for

disease-causing pathogens

The major problem with the total coliform testis the false positive results from naturallyoccurring microbes.

The total coliform group includes thefollowing genera:• Klebsiella—found in feces and natural

environment

• Enterobacter—found in feces and natural

environment

• Citrobacter—found in environmental

sources

• Serratia—found in environmental sources• Escherichia—always found in feces

	





The total coliform test was the standard until1968 when the Federal Water PollutionControl Administration recommended that asubset of the total coliforms (fecal coliforms)be used instead.

Fecal Coliform Test—originally developed in1904 to screen for Bacillus coli (now called E.coli).

The fecal coliform method does notdifferentiate between fecal organisms ofhuman or animal origin.

The fecal coliform test does distinguishbetween fecal and nonfecal contamination, butnot between human and nonhuman sources.

The major drawback of the fecal coliform testis that Klebsiella bacteria, which can benaturally occurring, can survive the elevatedtemperatures and give false positive results.

A final drawback of the fecal coliform test isthat some strains of E. coli are unable toferment lactose or are not thermotolerant; thiscan lead to false negative results.


 
!

'

In 1986, EPA issued a revision to the ambientwater quality criteria to include new bacterialindicators which provide better correlationwith gastrointestinal disease than does thepreviously used fecal coliform test:• Escherichia coli• Enterococci

Enterococci and E. coli are bothrecommended for fresh recreational waters,while enterococci are preferred for marinewaters.

E. coli is an ideal indicator for fecal pollutionbecause it:• is an obligate parasite of humans and

animals

• doesn't multiply out of the host's body• vastly outnumbers potential waterborne

pathogens

• dies off in the environment and indicates

recent pollution

For fecal coliforms, the criterion is thegeometric mean of 200 fecal coliforms per100 mL.

For recreational fresh waters, the guideline is33 enterococci/100 mL water, while formarine waters it is 35/100 mL.

For full contact recreational waters, thegeometric mean of the indicated bacterialdensities of not less than 5 samples taken overa 30-day period should not exceed one or theother of the following:

• E. coli 126 per 100 mL• Enterococci 33 per 100 mL

	



(

Fecal streptococci have generally been foundto be more persistent than fecal coliforms innatural waters.

The fecal streptococcus group consists of anumber of species of the genus including:• S. faecalis• S. faecium• S. avium• S. bovis• S. equinus• S. gallinarum

The enterococcus group is a subgroup of thefecal streptococci and includes:• S. faecalis• S. faecium• S. gallinarum• S. avium

The fecal streptococci are favored asindicators because:• consistently present in feces of warmblooded animals• survive longer than pathogens in

environment

• are not frankly pathogenic• do not seem to multiply appreciably in

polluted waters

Enterococci are round coccoid bacteria thatlive in the intestinal tract of warm bloodedanimals.• Streptococcus faecalis• Streptococcus faecium

These two streptococci are used as they areconsidered more human specific than otherswhich can be found in wild and domesticanimals' intestinal tracts.


 
!

")

No assumptions can be made concerningindicator/pathogen ratios; therefore:• A water with indicators exceeding certain

levels may be considered unsafe.

• A water with indicators below certain levels

is not necessarily free of risk.

Along with sampling and analyticaldifficulties, perhaps the greatest problem withthe use of indicators is people who areunaware of the limitations of the tests andinterpret them in inappropriate ways.

Indicator microbe analytical data should notbe interpreted alone. It should invariably beused in conjunction with a thorough sanitarysurvey; however, this second step is oftenomitted.

	



"

!"
#$
%

&
 #



!!
!
*+ 



'he use of enterococci and E. coli for determining the safety of recreational waters was established by EPA in its 1986

recreational water criteria. These indicatororganisms were selected after epidemiologicalstudies on recreational exposures demonstratedthat they correlated with acute gastrointestinaldisease (AGI). The indicators and the associated pathogens that cause AGIs are typically offecal origin. Recently, a number of newconcerns about the sources of indicators, theirrelationship to other diseases and types ofexposures, and their adequacy to provide waterquality information in a meaningful time framehave been identified.

There are a number of specific requirements for improvements to the capabilities of

indicators used in recreational water monitoring, such as rapid or real time indicator methods to detect fecal contamination; capabilities todiscriminate animal vs human fecal contamination; expanded ability to determine the potential

for more serious diseases risks than just acutediarrhea; new capabilities to determine risksfrom skin, ear, eye, and upper respiratory tractinfection; and better indicators for use todetermine disease risks in tropical waters(current indicators are suspect because ofenvironmental regrowth).

When enhanced or new indicator capabilities are available, it will be important to ensure

that they are easy to use, are affordable, andhave adequate precision and accuracy toprovide results that health professionals and thepublic will have confidence in. To ensure thatthe methods will allow risk-based decisionmaking, it is important to demonstrate that theyreflect the potential and magnitude of diseaserisks they have been designed for. However, inthe final analysis, the new indicator methodswill only be as instructive about health risks asthe monitoring programs will allow for assessments of the temporal and spatial variabilitytypically found in recreational waters.


 
!

""

New Indicators of Recreational

Water Quality

Stephen A. Schaub

USEPA

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Classical Criteria for Ideal Fecal

Contamination Indicators

• Numbers in water are associated with risks

of enteric illness to swimmers (a doseresponse relationship).

• Survival => than pathogens and stable

characteristics.

• Don't regrow environmentally and harmless

to humans.

Classical Criteria for Ideal

Indicators (cont)

• Apply to all waters and detection/assay is

simple and fast.

• Always in fecally contaminated samples

when pathogens are present - correlatedwith degree of fecal contamination.

Problems with Fecal Indicators

• Analyses take too long for many

applications and for public health decisions.

• Distribution of indicators and many

pathogens becomes divergent once excretedfrom gut.

– Different environmental fate and transport– Different effectiveness of wastewater treatment

and disinfection

Concerns About Indicators (cont)

• Analyses impacted by interference from

water matrices.

• Methods don't discriminate fecal sources.

Why Not Direct Pathogen

Monitoring?

• Typically costly and sophisticated.• Too many to monitor, even for multiplex

probes and PCR.

• Occurrence in population/wastewaters is

sporadic or cyclical.

	



"#

No Direct Pathogen Monitoring (cont)

• Water constituents interfere with sampling and

assay, reducing recovery and reproducibility:

– turbidity, soluble and colloidal organics, non-target

organisms, salts, and extreme pH.

• Low concentrations require large sample

volumes -

– 10 - 1000 L.

• Difficult to determine significance of isolates -

detection often mandates knowledge of viabilityand human infectivity, etc.

Improved Indicator Tools To Meet

Future Monitoring Needs

• CRITERIA FOR IMPROVEMENTS:

– Risk-based: Indicate potential for disease in

exposed population.

– Adaptable to multiple usages/media.– Fast, inexpensive, easy to perform and to

interpret.

Improved Indicator Tools (cont)

• Allow field analyses.• High precision and accuracy.• Accommodate water matrices

(interferences).

Recreational Water

Indicator Needs

• Real-Time Recreational Indicators:

– Requirement: rapidly determine potential risks

before exposure occurs. 18-48 hr indicatorswon't prevent exposures.

– Development approach is "dipstick" or other

rapid, easy-to-use, inexpensive technology, e.g.,fecal chemicals or microbes.

Real-Time Indicators (cont)

• Representative candidates: caffeine, fecal

sterols, detergents, IgA, immunologicaltests for antigens (elisa).

• Can use frequently at the beach. Positive

samples may trigger more sampling,possibly tiered with more sophisticatedindicators.

Recreational Water Indicator

Needs

Differentiation of Human vs Animal FecalContamination:

• Requirement: Track sources of contamination

to eliminate them or determine potential forexposures and risk of illness.– Domestic/feral animals excrete fecal

indicators and pathogens: AFO/CAFO andrunoff levels in water may exceed humansource indicators.


 
!

"$

Differentiation of Fecal

Contamination: (cont)

• Representative candidates: DNA

fingerprinting, phage typing, PCR/probesfecal chemicals.

• From a public health perspective, are

pathogens from animals really less of aconcern for swimming if they infecthumans?

• Bird or animal droppings can close beach

because of resulting high indicator levels.

Recreational Water

Indicator Needs

Tropical Water Indicators:

• Requirement: Evidence that coliforms

(including E. coli) and enterococci can grow insoil/water in tropics. May result in falsepositive indications of fecal contamination.

• Confirm regrowth and determine essential

conditions; also establish the minimum"tropical" temperature and period of growth.

Tropical Water Indicators: (cont)

• Potential candidates: Clostridium

perfringens, phage, genetic markers of regrowth capability.

• Establish tropical criteria on regrowth

factors and ID tropical range that statescould use for implementing alternativemethods.

Recreational Water

Indicator Needs

Indicators of Nonenteric Diseases:• Requirement: many swimming-associated

diseases are not necessarily of fecal origin,e.g., ear, upper respiratory tract, and skininfections. Fecal indicators are notappropriate.

– Other sewage (grey water), industrial and food

wastes contain nonenteric pathogens thatswimmers are exposed to.

Indicators of Nonenteric

Diseases (cont)

• Potential indicators: Pseudomonas spp.,

Staphylococcus spp., fungi, and others.

• Can a single indicator represent risks for all

nonenteric diseases and their sources?

• Anthropogenically derived indicators are

not suitable for water-based pathogens.

Recreational Water

Indicator Needs

Enhanced Methods for Serious EntericDisease and Sequella:

• Requirement: Some enteric diseases of a severe

nature may pose swimming risks, e.g., hepatitis,diabetes, sequella from viral infections,campylobacteriosis. Enterococci and E. colihave demonstrated relationship only for AGIs.

	



"%

Methods for Serious Disease:

(cont)

• Potential candidates: ?? What approach would

provide relevance to severe diseases having lowinfectious dose, long incubation time, orsequella?

• Look for novel indicator approaches that

correspond to presence and magnitude of thesetypes of disease risks. Could indicators capturethe range of diseases of concern consideringdifferent sources, infective dose, fate andsurvival factors?

Recreational Water

Indicator Needs

Other Needs:• Applicability to emerging disease risks.• Tiered indicator approaches - positive

indicator sample triggers additional definitiveindicator or pathogen assessments.

• Indicators of poor environmental conditions,

e.g., high nutrients (V. parahemoliticus and

V. vulnificus).

Other Needs (cont)

• Establish disease correlations for beaches

using sensory approaches: smell, color,sewage debris, dead birds and animals, etc.

• Establish significance of viable, but nonculturable - discount, or resuscitate and

count?

• Determine appropriate sample volumes - is

100 mL adequate? What are upper volumelimits?

Other Needs (cont)

• Determine method's precision, accuracy,

and bias.

• Establish indicator - disease risk

relationships for criteria development.

Monitoring Issues for Assessing

Water Quality

• Monitoring requirements are naive to

dynamic indicator or pathogen loadings(seasonal and event-driven changes).

• Monitoring strategies can detect excess risk

- but lack cohesive strategies to determinewhen water is safe again.

Monitoring Issues (cont)

• Low-frequency monitoring may not adequately

determine local spatial/temporal effects:

– changing hydraulic flows and underwater

topography.

– wind and wave action.– sediment dispersal into water column.– tides.– variable water column distribution, e.g., salinity

gradients.


 
!



((
#( 

%#
%'
 ")#%

#*

+,
-)

%#!

, !

 
-

"&

icrobial pathogens introduced into thecoastal environment, from stormdrains, are a major concern for those

using the ocean for food and recreation. Questions related to the presence of pathogens in thesea take on particular significance in an arealike Southern California where beach-going andmarine recreation are very popular and occuryear-round. Also, storm drains in SouthernCalifornia are known contributors of microbialcontamination to adjacent beaches and havebeen demonstrated to adversely affect thehealth of those using coastal waters for recreation (Haile et al. 1999).

For decades, bacterial indicators have

been used to infer microbiological water qualityin recreational waters. However, viruses havelong been known to be important etiologicalagents of waterborne disease. Human pathogenic viruses can be found in coastal waterscontaminated by urban runoff and sewage, butcurrently used microbiological standards forrecreational waters do not include viruses.Shortcomings in bacteriological water qualitystandards have been revealed on severaloccasions where viruses were isolated fromseawater that met current standards of bacterialindices. Previous studies indicated that severaldangerous viruses can be contracted by swimming or diving in contaminated ocean waters(Cabelli et al. 1982, Seyfried et al. 1985, Haileet al. 1999).

A major goal of this project was to study

viral indicators, human enteric viruses, alongthe coast of southern California, with a focus onstorm drains. We were interested in optimizingthe methods for detection of human entericviruses by Reverse Transcriptase PolymeraseChain Reaction (RT-PCR) in seawater andlearning if the presence of human entericviruses was related to concentrations of indicator bacteria. Total and fecal coliform, andenterococci were assayed by standard detectionmethods performed by a state-certified laboratory. Enteroviruses are members of thepicornaviridae, a family of single-strandedRNA viruses, including poliovirus,coxsackievirus, echovirus, and other enteroviruses.

For detection of human enteric viruses by

RT-PCR, a large-volume seawater sample (20-40 L) was retrieved in ankle-deep waters,concentrated with the use of spiral cartridge andCentriprep-30 centrifugal ultraconcentrationunits. RT-PCR was performed with the use ofpan-enterovirus “universal” primers for totalenterovirus nucleic acid amplification.

RT-PCR was successfully used to detect

human enteric viruses in coastal seawatersamples, and results were attainable within18 hours. Detection of human enteric viruseswas positive in 23 (35%), negative in 35 (54%),and inconclusive in 7 (11%) seawater samples,(n = 65). There was no direct correlation

	



"

between RT-PCR results and measurablerainfall, but our analyses demonstrated thatpositive results for human enteric viruses weresignificantly more likely during the winter“wet” season than during the summer “dry”season. Results of 62 and 56 samples did not

demonstrate any overall significant logisticalcorrelation to total and fecal coliforms, respectively (p > 0.05). However, a subset of samplesanalyzed during August 1998 were taken from15 randomly selected year-round flowing stormdrains in the Southern California Bight, andrevealed a weak logistical correlation to fecalcoliforms. In 73 percent of the samples, thepresence of human enteric virus coincided withthe exceedance of the fecal coliform thresholdof 400 cfu/100 mL. Results of 14 samplestaken from within Santa Monica Bay showed asignificant, but weak, logistical correlation tolevels of enterococci (R = 0.50, p < 0.05).Inconclusive results occurred about one-ninthof the time where inhibition of PCR occurreddue to substances in the seawater. Optimizationof our concentration procedure has improvedthe RT-PCR method over time and has reducedthe incidence of inconclusive results; e.g.,during the last two years, only one analysis wasinconclusive.

Our results demonstrate that RT-PCR is an

effective method for the detection of humanenteric virus genomes in coastal seawater, andthat viruses from fecal contamination may

degrade or decay quite differently than theirbacterial counterparts. It is useful to use directapproaches to determine the presence andquantity of human enteric viruses introducedinto the marine environment. At this time, thereis no strong correlation between the presence ofhuman enteric viruses and routinely monitoredcoliforms at storm drain locations. Our research demonstrates that virus testing may beadvisable at high-use beaches, especially thoseinfluenced by storm drains.

%

Cabelli, V.J., A.P. Dufour, L.J. McCabe,

and M.A. Levin. 1982. Swimming-associatedgastroenteritis and water quality. AmericanJournal of Epidemiology 115:606-616.

Haile, R.W., J.S. Witte, M. Gold, R.

Cressey, C. McGee, R.C. Millikan, A. Glasser,N. Harawa, C. Ervin, P. Harmon, J. Harper, J.Dermand, J. Alamillo, K. Barrett, M. Nides, andG-Y. Wang. 1999. The health effects ofswimming in ocean water contaminated bystorm drain runoff. Epidemiology 10: 355-363.

Seyfried, D.L., R.S. Tobin, W.E. Brown,

and P.F. Ness. 1985. A prospective study ofswimming-related illness. II. Morbidity and themicrobiological quality of water. AmericanJournal of Public Health 75:1071-1075.


 
!

"'

State-of-the-Art Science: RT-PCR as

a method for detecting enteroviruses

Rachel T. Noble

University of Southern California, Wrigley Institute

for Environmental Studies and the Southern

California Coastal Water Research Project

Microbiological Testing of

Recreational Waters in the U.S.

Bacterial Indicators

 Are used to infer microbiological water quality as

indicators of human fecal contamination

 Indicators are not all pathogens themselves Tests are relatively rapid, standardized, inexpensive,

and simple to perform

 Currently no standardization between labs, but results

show that performance-based approach is acceptable

 Southern California beaches are some of the most

extensively monitored in the country

Microbiological Testing of

Recreational Waters in the U.S., cont’d

Viral Indicators

 Pathogens in sewage and runoff include viruses Viral indicators are direct indicators of

pathogens; some of the currently used areenteric viruses, adenoviruses, Hepatitis A virus

 Testing by molecular methods is rapid, but

expensive and not yet standardized for routinemonitoring purposes

 No water quality standards set for viral

indicators

Assays for Viral Indicators

 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction

(RT-PCR) is used to detect specific virus genes

 Much faster and more sensitive than assays that

require cultivating of viruses, and can detect someviruses that culture assays cannot

 Might be more suitable for management decisions Caveat: Because it detects the presence of viral genes,

not infectivity, positive results could include inactiveviruses. Positive results are still probably areasonable indicator of active viruses

Virus Concentration Protocol

0.2 mprefiltration Tangential 

Flow Filtration

“Virus Concentrate”

20 litersseawater

Volume ca. 150 mL

1) Virus concentrate is further concentrated with centrifugalultraconcentration units2) Final volume of virus concentrate is 0.1 mL, concentration factor of 200,000 X

Sampling Locations

 Locations tested are mainly storm drain or highuse sandy beach sites in the Southern California

Bight

 More intensive sampling in Santa Monica Bay Most sample sites have a routine bacteriological

monitoring program associated with them

 Coordination with agencies for routine sampling

provides information on bacterial indicators

	



"(

Relation between viral and bacterial

indicators?

 Perform RT-PCR for presence/absence of viral

indicators: enteroviruses

 With presence/absence values for enteroviruses

perform logistical correlation analyses with levels ofbacterial indicators

 Logistical correlation based upon bacterial indicator

thresholds

 With quantitation of enterovirus genes, analyze rank

correlation between bacterial and viral indicatorsand total viral and bacterial abundance

0

0.80.60.40.2

1

1 10 100 1000 10000

Logistical Regression of Enteroviruses vs.

Fecal Coliforms during the Summer Season

Presence/Absence

of Human Enteric Viruses

Fecal Coliforms (per 100 ml)

0

0.5

1

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Logistical Regression of Enteroviruses vs. 

Total Coliforms

Presence/Absence

of Human Enteric Viruses

Total Coliforms (per 100 ml)

0

80604020

1 10 100 1000 10000

Fecal Coliforms versus Enterovirus 

Levels during the Summer Season

Fecal Coliforms (per 100 ml)

Human Enteric Virus

l concentrate)

 (per 100 

Results of RT-PCR Work

 65 samples analyzed over 5-year period Inconclusive results in early tests indicated problems

with inhibition of PCR, likely due to humic acids andchanging ionic conditions

 Positive results seen at high-use sandy beaches and

storm drain locations

 Positive results seen more than 50% of the time after

measurable heavy rain (> 0.5 inch)

 Positive results about 50% of the time at storm drains,

even during the summer “low flow” periods

Relation between viral and bacterial

indicators

 No strong significant logistical correlation between any

of the bacterial indicators (total and fecal coliforms,total/fecal coliform ratio, or enterococcus) and thepresence of enteroviruses

 Only a weak logistical correlation (p < 0.1) between

fecal coliforms and enteroviruses during the summerseason, weak logistical correlation betweenenterococcus and enterovirus only in Santa MonicaBay

 No significant rank correlation between bacterial

indicator and enterovirus levels at storm drains


 
!

#)

Implications for use of viral indicators

for water quality testing

 Results demonstrate that virus testing may be

necessary under specific circumstances (e.g., at highuse sandy beaches or areas adjacent to flowing stormdrains)

 RT-PCR permits detection of specific types of viruses Improve concentration methods - no way to

successfully separate viruses from other particles

 Use chelation beads to chelate away humics and other

materials that inhibit PCR.

 Use “Molecular Beacons” as a way to quantify virus

products without having to run gels.

	



#


(( "
 
 #  %# !Q (Sydney Harvey, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services): This question is forDr. Noble. Your slides showed a good array of viruses that are not, by definition, entericviruses other than they are shed in the feces. Are you multiplexing for all of these RNAviruses or are you looking for an individual virus? In other words, if it is negative foradenoviruses, do you go on to hepatitis A?Rachel Noble:

I did not want to give the impression that I was testing for hepatitis A or adenovirus,

although I have done that work in the lab. The results are solely from the use of primersthat were designed to only detect human enteric viruses.Q (Sydney Harvey): Are you looking for coxsackiesvirus, echovirus, poliovirus? Are youlooking for all of them in every sample or are you honing in on something like poliovirusthat is most commonly seen because of oral vaccines?Rachel Noble:

I was looking for them in every sample as a family because the primers are just a

single primer pair that is based on a human enteric virus sample. The primer pair that wasused has been shown, in the past, to detect 25 serotypes of the human enteric virus family.Q (Sydney Harvey): Have you tried to differentiate when you have a positive PCR?Rachel Noble:

Only in specific cases, not overwhelmingly.

Q (Sydney Harvey): In California, we have not seen, in terms of culturing, a lot of enteroviruses. So it might be interesting to see specifically what kinds of enteroviruses youare finding in the water. How did you put 40 liters of seawater through a 0.2-micron filter?Do you centrifuge it first?Rachel Noble:

We use a stainless steel pressure filtration unit, and it goes up to many pounds per

square inch so the water is being forced through the filter. For some of these storm drainsamples, it can take 8 to 10 hours just to filter.Q (Dr. Jack Skinner, Stop Polluting Our Newport): In the medical profession, we useenteroviruses as coxsackiesvirus, echovirus, poliovirus. When we talk about enteric viruses, it represents a whole collection that might also include Norwalk and rotaviruses. Areyou measuring enteric viruses that would include the ones that are believed to be a problemfor swimmers, like rotavirus or Norwalk-type virus? Or are you measuring enteroviruseswhere you might be dealing with attenuated poliovirus?
	

		





Rachel Noble:

The primers that were designed for the work that I was doing were for the pan-enterovirus family. So, it is the enterovirus family that is the subset of the human enteric

viruses that we are detecting, namely, coxsackiesvirus, echovirus, and poliovirus.Q (Dr. Jack Skinner): So there is a big group out there that probably is responsible for theillnesses that we are concerned about with swimming. Which would probably be mostlyNorwalk-type virus and rotavirus.Rachel Noble:

Right.

Q (Dr. Jack Skinner): My second question has to do with F-specific phage. From what Iunderstand, F-specific phage is not found in the human intestinal tract, except in maybe 2percent of people. [This information was from a Japanese study of 100 people and does notrepresent a global distribution.] It is wastewater-related, but not fecal-related. Does thisthrow off your monitoring? If you are looking for wastewater, you could find F-specificphage. If you are looking at swimmer density or for boat discharges in a harbor where thisis direct fecal input, you would not find F-specific phage because it does not multiply in thegastrointestinal tract.Rachel Noble:

Right. I have done some work in conjunction with a professor at UCI and we are

trying to relate the presence of the F-specific phage infectivity to our PCR research onenteroviruses. It’s a really good question, and in Los Angeles some of the problems that wehave seen are like what you’re talking about. Septic system overflows and things like thatmight come from the natural population and not from the treatment plant. I think that indoing this work, the intent was to be looking for human fecal contamination via a poliovirus. In some cases, we are making the assumption that poliovirus will still be found in thosesamples, but I don’t know how much of it will be found in different treatment scenarios. Iam not sure how the enteric viruses, as a group, relate to one another in relation to whattype of treatment process they’ve gone through as far as the numbers are concerned. Thereis no way for me, at this point, to differentiate between the ocean and the storm drain in theocean. The material is probably coming from a variety of sources. It is a difficult questionto answer because there are different types of scenarios where we see different levels ofdifferent types of viruses or different phages.Q (Clay Clifton, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health): Since theimplementation of AB411 on July 26, which is the new state regulation and guidance formonitoring and posting for California beaches, in San Diego, we have had about sixexceedances of the enterococcus indicator that have subsequently required a posting of abeach. In those same sample results, the fecal coliform counts are lower than the enterococcus counts. How do you explain lower fecal coliform counts than enterococcus counts ifthe enterococcus are within the fecal coliform group? Also, is it possible for the fecalcoliform indicator to give a false negative for enterococcus?Jake Joyce:

Coliforms are a rod-shaped bacteria, bacilli, not cocci like enterococcus. They both

are enterobacteria, but they are not the same thing. Some fecal coliforms can die off, whereenterococcus can survive much longer in the natural environment. That may have something to do with the time of the sampling or where you sampled. Enterococci can persist

	



##

longer in the environment than many of the fecal coliforms. Due to the natural attenuationprocess, a lot of them can’t outlast the natural microbes in the environment. Sometimesfecal coliforms can be attenuated by natural processes, including other microbes and thingsthat they give off and so forth, where enterococci live longer than the fecal coliform incertain situations. A lot of it again has to do with sampling. That is the reason why we aremoving into the enterococcus and E. coli rather than fecal coliforms. Enterococcus persistmuch longer in marine water also.Q (Clay Clifton): Is the fecal coliform test specific for bacillus and does not include theenterococcus as a class of bacteria?Jake Joyce:

Enterococci used to be called the Lancefield Group D streptococcus years ago.

Coliforms and enterococci belong to the Eubacteriales. Enterococci are shaped differentlyfrom coliform and are an entirely different microorganism.Q (Roger Fujioka, University of Hawaii): The problem is to get an assay that is fast anddetects health risks, which are the viruses that Dr. Noble has been testing for. How do youcorrelate volume testing of bacteria to viruses with larger numbers? What is real-time, ifthe RT-PCR takes 17 hours and you can get a coliform result in 18 hours with Colilert®. Isthat sufficient for real-time? With the IC integrated cell culture PCR, where do you thinkthat we should be heading for monitoring purposes for these pathogens? Dr. Noble, I hopethat you would look for PCR with Clostridium because your correlation with enterococcusprobably relates to their stability and since Clostridium is more stable you might find acorrelation also.Steve Schaub:

I don’t think there are any fecally borne microbial indicator candidates that occur at

levels in the water that would allow us to use them as tools for very rapid analysis. We willprobably have to rely on chemicals or possibly other types of antigens that are specific tofeces, and which would be present in fecally contaminated waters at higher concentrationswhich we can detect with rapid analytical methods. I think that the rapid dip-stick methodologies can be developed and linked in a tiered approach whereby a positive dip-stickwould trigger a more sophisticated indicator or possibly pathogen measurements of watersamples. Also, at the International Calicivirus Conference held last March, it becameapparent that one of the things public health practitioners had theorized, that the rotavirusesand the caliciviruses were a major component of the gastrointestinal disease burden forrecreational waters, was not likely to be an accurate assessment. To the contrary, at leastinternationally, it seems that calicivirus and rotaviruses predominate during the wintermonths both in the northern and southern hemispheres and not in the summer during theswimming season, so we may have to look for new culprits as the causative agents for acutegastrointestinal disease in swimmers. Our two prime candidates would appear not to be athigh levels during the summer swimming months.Rachel Noble:

I will address the detection that is related to the infectivity. My work has been done on

RNA viruses. When we detect RNA in these samples, we are pretty certain that humanenteric viruses were in the sample relatively recently, if not intact at the time we detectedthem, because RNA degrades rapidly. This can be very different for DNA viruses. Theprocesses that affect DNA and RNA are very different. This may be a situation where amore logical process of monitoring is needed, where we have indicators or a developed dip-


 
!

#$

stick method and the results read to a flow chart on what to do next. Then you go afterspecific types of bacterial indicators and then viral indicators. If the bacterial indicators aredown to about 5-10 per 100 mL and you are detecting human enteric viruses, especially insome areas of Santa Monica Bay where there’s been some demonstrated relation betweenthe viruses and health risk from an epidemiological study that was conducted there, thenthere is good evidence that we should have a more logical flow chart of sampling where weare going in different directions for different types of scenarios. Temperate versus tropicalis going to give you different results just based upon the indicator that you used. I thinkthat there are some possibilities out there for combining some probe and PCR detection ofviruses specifically that haven’t been completely eliminated from the possibilities. Thecombination of using fluorescent probe quantification with amplification using PCR over ashort time span may get the samples down to a couple of hours rather than 24 hours.Steve Schaub:

Regarding sample volume requirements, as a corollary, we are starting to look at larger

sample volumes for bacteriophage indicators in groundwater. We are thinking of increasingfrom a 100 mL to a liter-size sample to increase our sensitivity to detect the potential forvirus contamination. We need to address the question: why do we have proportionally lowsample volumes to look for indicators which themselves may be significantly reduced in thegroundwater environment when we are trying to estimate low levels of viruses but forwhich only one infectious unit may cause disease. We may have to increase our samplevolumes for some of the new indicator candidates to achieve the sensitivity we need todetect potential presence of disease organisms for recreational waters.Q (Frank Alvarez, Santa Barbara County Public Health): This question is a follow-up onthe infectivity of the viruses and determining health risk. We should not only look at thetype of virus, but consider the viability of the virus. Did you do any follow-up viral culturesto look at any correlation between the lack of correlation between the viruses that you weredetecting and fecal coliform counts in some of the samples?Rachel Noble:

I have pursued some work in relating the RT-PCR results to cell culture that was done

out of house because we do not have the capabilities to do cell culture at USC. Morerecently, we have taken water samples to analyze for multiple groups such as adenovirus,enterovirus, coliphage, and coliphage infectivity to find the relation between those samples.We have not finished analyzing all of those samples, but in terms of relating all of thedifferent groups of viruses, the processes that go into the degradation and loss of viability orinfectivity are very complex, but they definitely need to be teased out. It had been shownbefore that different viruses, for example, respond much differently to different types ofinactivation. Those types of experiments are going to be very important in the future. Therelationship between the MS2 and poliovirus has shown that the poliovirus is extremelyhardy where MS2 will fall apart easily. There are very big differences between differenttypes of viruses and taxa of viruses.Q (Ken Burger, East Bay Regional Park District): We are in the process of struggling withthe new emphasis on beach monitoring. As you are aware, the marine regulations havegone into effect and there is a freshwater guidance document also in the process. This hasincreased our monitoring costs by approximately $200,000 a year to implement these newregulations. We have eight freshwater beaches and two marine water beaches that wemonitor. Concerning the issue of rapid response, do you have a preferred method? AreMPN, Colilert®, and Millipore filter all acceptable?

	



#%

Jake Joyce:

One of the big problems when you use membrane filtration techniques is turbidity. If

you have a turbid sample, you may want to consider using the multiple-tube fermentationtechnique since you will probably clog your filter and not get a good colony count.Q (Ken Burger): Our concern is that the MPN, the multiple- tube method, is a much longertest, so it puts you back in that scenario where you are testing on Saturday and gettingresults on Wednesday and trying to figure out what it means. It is too late after the monitoring to be an effective management tool.Jake Joyce:

I have some pictures of Millipore filters that are just clogged from natural turbidity.

So, you would want to use a multiple-tube fermentation technique. It is much easier to do amembrane filtration technique, but sometimes you can’t do it.Q (Charles Kovatch, US EPA Office of Science and Technology): As we saw from all threepresentations today, there is a need to establish consistent sampling. How close to seweroutfalls did you sample and how did you select those sites? Did you utilize any plumemodeling? What depth of the water did you sample? How did you derive that samplingmethodology?Rachel Noble:

In southern California, the storm drain systems are separate from the sewer systems

although at some low-flow periods, some storm drains are directed into the sewer system.All of the samples that I have taken are not from sewer outfalls. They have been fromfreshwater outlets such as concrete lined storm drains, creeks, and rivers. They weresampled at locations where the bacteriological monitoring was actually done. Except frombridges, most of the samples were taken in 3-18 inches of surf zone water, in areas wherethe waves were actually meeting the creek. Not in the storm drains. This is because Iwanted to reduce the amount of variability in trying to relate some of the bacterial numbers.I tried to take the samples at the same time on an incoming wave, as written in the standardmethods. The salinity of the seawater samples was between 32 and 33.5 parts per thousand.Q (Charles Kovatch): Has research been performed on the path of the contaminants oncethe plume meets the ocean?Rachel Noble:

There has been a great deal of research regarding water quality, such as total suspended solids, for example, in Santa Monica Bay to try to map the plumes. It is something

that we are very interested in doing, but we haven’t gotten out to do the sampling. We wantto try to relate all of the satellite and remote sensing, total suspended solids, and currentmeasurements to the pathogen levels and the bacterial indicator levels all the way out into aplume. This is the work that will be going on this fall and spring in Santa Monica Bay. Atthis time, I have only done a very limited scenario of detection of the specific viruses byPCR upstream through downcoast because it takes a long time. Modeling fate and dispersalof the pathogens is one of our main problems and goals for the future.
	







	






	 !"#$




 
!"#$%



	he bacterial indicator concept has been used for more than 100 years and is today a key element in maintaining the quality of

recreational waters. Early use of bacterialindicators was not risk-based. The presence ofbacterial indicators signaled the presence offecal material, and this alone was consideredhazardous enough to disqualify the use of thecontaminated water. In the late 1940s indicatorbacteria were used quantitatively to measure thequality of recreational water, and these datawere used to determine whether the waterquality was related to health effects associatedwith swimming activity. Health effects werefound to be related to contaminated recreationalwater. These findings were extended andrefined by U.S. EPA studies in the 1970s on therelationship between water quality and swimming-associated health effects. These datawere used by EPA to develop guidelines formaintaining the quality of recreational water.The findings of the EPA studies have beenconfirmed in studies around the world and lendcredence to the approach used in the UnitedStates to protect the health of swimmers.

The establishment of a risk-based approach to protecting the health of swimmers has

not, however, solved all of the issues related tomaintaining high-quality recreational waters.The U.S. EPA’s Action Plan for Beaches andRecreational Water has discussed a number ofthese issues, many of which are related toindicator bacteria. Three of these issues, whichfrequently raise questions from water resource

managers, involve indicator bacteria. Allcurrently recommended indicator bacteriademonstrate the presence of fecal material fromwarm-blooded animals without distinguishingwhether the source is human or animal. Research findings regarding health effects associated with nonpoint sources of pollution, i.e.,animal or bird contamination of water, areequivocal. Data from past research will be usedto further define this issue. Another issuewhich frequently raises questions is whether therisk of swimming in waters that receive discharges from a combined sewer overflow(CSO) is the same as that encountered in watersaffected by treated wastewater from a pointsource. Health data associated with exposure toCSO discharges that affect recreational waters isnot available; however, it is possible to speculate on the risk due to this type of exposureusing microbial data from the analysis ofwastewaters that pass through sewage treatmentplants and data from studies on storm waterrunoff. The last issue to be discussed in thispresentation will address the question of newindicators for measuring recreational waterquality and whether a new indicator can besubstituted for a standard indicator withoutestablishing its relationship to health effects.This is especially important because of therapid proliferation of new technologies formeasuring the quality of surface waters. Theforegoing issues will be discussed with regardto currently used indicator bacteria, fecalcoliforms, E. coli, and enterococci.
&'
"
(#'
)

*+

Al Dufour

USEPA ORD, Cincinnati

Epidemiological Studies Connecting Microbial

Load in Beach Water to Human Illness

Indicator Concept

• Intestinal disease linked to water• Pathogen cannot be cultured• How to measure risk?• Measure easily cultured microorganism

constantly associated with feces

• Bacterial indicator = feces• Feces = pathogen• Pathogen = disease

Nonpoint Source Pollution and SwimmingAssociated Illness Association between cases of gastrointestinal illness and various monitored parameters

Monitored

Parameters

Relative

Risk

P value

Rainfall 2.1 0.089Enterococci 1.9 0.059E. coli 1.4 0.412Fecal Coliform 1.7 0.159Bathers 4.8 0.011Straphylococci 2.6 0.026

	




*,

Indicator Bacteria and Enteroviruses in Raw

 Sewage and Storm Water

*Correlation Coefficient Significantly Different from Zero

Ratio of Thermotolerant Klebsiella to Fecal Coliforms 

in Water Samples from Freshwater Bathing Beaches

Sam ple

No.

Klebsiella1 / Fecal Coliform s Percent Klebsiella

1 16/92 17.42 170/760 22.43 18/80 23.54 66/279 23.65 15/61 24.66 37/143 25.97 135/448 30.18 31/101 30.79 30/93 32.3

10 24/72 33.311 60/165 36.412 8/220 36.413 27/73 3714 34/89 38.215 50/126 39.716 24/44 54.517 122/205 59.518 75/121 6219 102/161 63.320 62/98 63.321 100/136 73.5

1Density per ml x 100

Thermotolerant Klebsiella as a Percentage of Fecal Coliforms
&'
"
(#'
)

*-

	




*

"%%
&#$%'#.#! 
)



#"
))

	he Massachusetts Department of Environ- mental Protection (DEP) has conducted a review of epidemiological studies relative

to pathogen indicators and illness rates inrecreational water users. The work was conducted as a state match to a federally fundedClean Water Act Section 104(b)(3) grant. Theproject involved reviewing published literatureand in some cases nonpublished epidemiological studies. Both the methodologies and theconclusions of the studies were reviewed indetail. The review was primarily conducted byTom Mahin, the Co-chair of DEP’s PathogenWork Group. David Gray of DEP has assistedwith issues raised relative to microbiologicalsampling QA/QC issues, as well as DEP’s stormwater-related issues, and has acted as an advisor during the review. It should be noted thatthe opinions expressed in this summary are notintended to represent DEP’s formal policyrelative to this complicated and important issue.Rather, they are presented as part of an ongoingdialogue between USEPA, the states and otherstakeholders.

In 1986 the USEPA recommended that

states use enterococci as the bacterial indicatorfor marine waters and either enterococci or E.coli as the indicator for freshwaters (Dufour,1986). We have summarized some of the mostimportant epidemiological studies since that1986 recommendation:

During 1989-1992 during four consecutive summers, epidemiological studies (the “UK

beach studies”) were carried out at marinebeaches in England (Kay, 1994; Fleisher,1996). The UK beach studies differed fromprevious epidemiological studies in two important ways. First, volunteers were randomlyassigned as either bathers or non-bathers.

Second, rather than relying on self-describingof symptoms, clinical examinations wereincluded as part of the study. The studiesinvolved a total of 1216 participants. Thestudies found a dose-response relationshipbetween fecal streptococci (FS) and gastrointestinal (GI) illness. (It should be noted that thedefinition of fecal streptococci as used in thesestudies is very similar to or the same as enterococci as used in the U.S.) An increase in GIillness rates was observed when FS levelsexceeded 32 colony forming units (cfu)/100mL.

The studies also reported what was described as a “clear dose-response relationship”

between respiratory illness and fecal streptococci levels. The threshold level for increasedillness was 60 cfu/100 mL. While these studiesonly dealt with marine waters and not freshwaters, the results appear consistent with thework done for USEPA by Cabelli (Cabelli,1983) that indicated that enterococci works wellas an indicator of rates of GI illness in marinewaters whereas fecal coliform does not. Itshould be noted, however, that these studies inEngland did find that only fecal coliformdemonstrated a significant statistical correlationwith ear infections.

A major epidemiological study was

conducted in Hong Kong in 1992 involving25,000 beach-goers at coastal beaches (Kueh,1995). Unfortunately the study did not includeanalyses of fecal streptococci/enterococcidensities. The study did find that “no directrelationship between GI symptoms and E. colior fecal coliforms could be identified in thisstudy.” The findings of the study appearconsistent with USEPA’s position that fecalcoliform and E. coli are not effective at predict-
&'
"
(#'
)

ing GI illness in users of marine waters. The1992 study did contradict a 1987 study(Cheung, 1989) of coastal beach-goers in HongKong that had found that

**

 E. coli was the best

indicator for predicting illness.

An epidemiological study was conducted

in 1995 of swimmers in the marine waters ofSanta Monica Bay (Haile, 1996). The studyincluded 11,686 subjects. Illness rates werecompared for those swimming near storm wateroutfalls versus those swimming farther away.Illness rates were also compared to variousbacterial indicators. Fecal coliform levels >400/100 mL correlated only to skin rash and E .coli correlated only with earache and nasalcongestion. Enterococci levels >106/100 mLwere statistically correlated with “highly credible GI illness” and also with “diarrhea withblood.”

()%*

How much of a risk does wet weather

storm water/urban runoff pose to recreationalbeach-goers? The Santa Monica study doesn’tappear to have answered this question becausethe samples appear to have been collecteddaily, which would presumably include mostlydry weather flow contributions. The dryweather flow presumably could have includedsignificant amounts of illicit sanitary connections that could have been responsible for asignificant percentage of the illness ratesdetected. None of the epidemiological studiesreviewed appear to have differentiated betweendry and wet weather conditions. Many of thehigh bacterial indicators detected at Massachusetts beaches appear to be the result of urbanrunoff conveyed by municipal storm waterdrainage systems. Given the high enterococcicounts that can be commonly detected in stormwater and the general presumption that animalwaste is a lesser cause of illness than humansewage, this issue is of critical importance.

Should a single indicator or multiple

indicators be used for marine waters? USEPArecommends the use of either E. coli or enterococci for freshwaters but only enterococci formarine waters. The UK beach studies foundthat only increased levels of fecal coliformorganisms were predictive of ear ailmentsamong bathers in the coastal waters studied. Inaddition, the Santa Monica epidemiological

study found that E. coli was the best predictorof earache after swimming in the marine watersinvolved in the study.

It is unclear what the source is of contamination in many of the studies reviewed. It

appears that some of the major epidemiologicalstudies involve contamination resulting mostly,or in part, to chlorinated effluents. This wouldresult in the potential to significantly decreasethe indicator-pathogen ratio in receiving waters.In addition, this could alter the ratio of variousindicators to each other depending on theirrelative susceptibility to chlorination. Since onecould generally presume that storm waterimpacted waters are unchlorinated, they mayexhibit higher bacterial indicator-pathogenratios than those found in many of the studies(which are equivalent to lower pathogenindicator ratios). Such a lower pathogenindicator ratio (if confirmed) when added to theissue of risk from animal source contaminationversus human source would have the potentialto overestimate the risk relative to many of theprevious epidemiological studies.

In conclusion, the authors believe that

additional research is required relative tounresolved issues such as the issues raisedabove relative to wet weather (municipal stormwater) events and the relative risk of indicatorsoriginating from animal sources versus humansources.



Cabelli, V.J. 1983. Health Effects Criteria

for Marine Recreational Waters. EPA 600/1-80-031. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency.

Cheung, W.H.S., K.C.K. Chang, and

R.P.S. Hung. 1991. Variations in microbialindicator densities in beach water and healthrelated assessment of bathing water quality.Epidemiol Infect 106:329-44.

Dufour, A., and R. Ballentine. 1986.

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria –1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Fleisher, J.M., D. Kay, R.L. Salmon, F.

Jones, M.D. Wyer, and A.F. Godfree. 1996.Marine waters contaminated with domesticsewage: nonenteric illnesses associated withbather exposure in the United Kingdom. Am JPublic Health 86:1228-34.

	




*/

Haile, W., et al. 1996. An Epidemiological

Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects ofSwimming in Santa Monica Bay. Final Report.California.

Kay, D., J.M. Fleisher, R.L. Salmon, et al.

1994. Predicting likelihood of gastroenteritis

from sea bathing; results from randomizedexposure. Lancet 344:905-09.

Kueh, C.S.W., T. Tam, T. Lee, et al. 1995.

Epidemiological Study of Swimming-Associated Illnesses Relating to Bathing-Beach WaterQuality. Water Science Technology 31(5-6):1-4.
&'
"
(#'
)

*0

	
		

	


	

Tom Mahin & David GrayMassachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection




 Epidemiological studies reviewed relative to pathogen

indicators and illness rates in recreational water users

 Main focus was to evaluate studies completed since

USEPA’s 1986 recommendations relative to the use ofenterococci (in marine waters) and E. coli or

enterococci (in freshwaters) as bacterial indicators forambient water quality criteria

Marine Water: enterococci < 35/100mlFresh Water: enterococci < 33/100ml or E. coli <126/100ml

		
	


	Marine Water United Kingdom (Fleisher, 1996; Kay, 1994) Santa Monica Bay (Haile, 1996) Hong Kong (Kueh, 1995) Hong Kong (Cheung, 1989)

Freshwater

 Yale University/New Haven, CT (Calderon, 1991)

	



	Retrospective

– attempt to relate existing/past cases of illness to swimming– data is collected “after the fact”

Prospective

– participants are recruited from the beaches, but follow their

own bathing/non-bathing routine

– participants are screened for confounding factors, and

interviewed regarding symptoms of illness

Randomized Controlled

– participants are recruited and randomly assigned to

swimming or non-swimming groups

– Universally accepted as the strongest of all epi-study designs

	



	Enteric Illness Gastroenteritis (GI) - combinations of vomiting,

diarrhea, nausea

Nonenteric Illness

 Respiratory illness - fever, headache/body ache,

fatigue, sore throat, runny nose, congestion, cough

 Eye ailments - sore, red eyes, with or without

discharge

 Ear ailments - pain with or without discharge Skin ailments - rash, ulcers/sores, irritation with

itching


		


	Prüss (1998) published a review of 22 studies

completed between 1953 and1996 and concluded:

 Studies strongly suggest a causal dose-related

relationship between GI symptoms and bacterialindicator counts in recreational waters.

 Few studies showed relationship with other

symptoms

 Relative risk for swimming in polluted vs. clean

waters ranged from 1 to 3

	




*1

 	 
 

■ Indicators showing best correlation with illness

– marine waters: enterococci/fecal streptococci– fresh waters: enterococci/fecal streptococci and E. coli

■ No relationships identified between severity of

symptoms and variation in indicator densities

■ Symptom rates were usually higher in the lower age

groups

■ The higher indicator thresholds for increased illness

rates observed in some countries may be due toendemicity or lower pathogen-to-indicator ratios

 

Design■ Joint US and English research effort, randomized

controlled studies

■ 1216 participants, age 18+, at 4 separate marine

beaches in England

■ Conducted during 4 summers between 1989-1992■ Intensive water sampling (every 30 minutes) at 3

depths every 60 feet

■ Sampled for fecal coliform, total coliform, fecal

streptococci (similar to enterococci), staphylcocci,pseudomonas aeruginosa. E. coli not enumerated

  
Findings■ Only fecal streptococci demonstrated a significant

trend relating concentration to gastroenteritis rates

■ “Only fecal streptococci exposure ... showed any

evidence of a statistically significant trend” for acuterespiratory illness

■ Only fecal coliform showed statistically significant

trend in the incidence of ear ailments


 Design■ In the summer of 1995, first large-scale

epidemiological study in the U.S. conducted toinvestigate health effects associated with swimmingin ocean waters impacted by stormwater outfalls

■ Included over 11,000 swimmers and non-swimmers■ Water analyzed for fecal & total coliforms,

enterococci, and E. coli


 
Findings■ Study found an increased risk of illness associated

with swimming near flowing storm drain outfalls (37additional illnesses per 1,000 swimmers)

■ Fecal coliform was only statistically associated with

skin rashes

■ E. coli was only statistically associated with earaches

& nasal congestion


 


Findings (cont.)■ Enterococci statistically associated with diarrheawith-blood and “highly credible gastrointestinal

illness”

■ Conclusion - Enterococci was the best indicator for

predicting GI illness in swimmers, which was the themost common adverse health impact found

■ Contamination probably included significant

contribution from illicit sewage connections
&'
"
(#'
)

*2

   	 



Design■ 18,000 participants, between the ages of 10 and 49,

at 2 popular coastal beaches during the Summer1992

■ Water samples were composited from three samples,

at three sites, at each beach

■ Sampling included fecal coliforms, E. coli, clostridium

perfringens, Aeromonas spp., Vibrio cholerae

■ Did not include analyses for enterococci/fecal

streptococci

   	 



Findings■ No direct relationship found between GI symptoms

and fecal coliform or E. coli.

■ However, significant relationship found between GI

symptoms and clostridium perfringens, Aeromonas,and turbidity

■ No significant relationship between indicators and

respiratory, eye, or skin illness

■ Total additional (swimming-related) illness rates - 41

per 1,000

    

Design■ 1987 study of coastal beach-goers that included over

18,000 useable responses at 9 beaches

■ Samples taken every 2 hours, at three sampling

points, at each beach on the weekends

■ Samples analyzed for fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal

streptococci, enterococci, stapylococci and otherindicators

    

Findings■ Total additional (swimming-related) illness rates - 30

per 1,000

■ E. coli correlated best with GI illness and skin

symptoms (threshold value of 180/100 ml)

■ Relatively low correlation found between

enterococci/fecal streptococci and GI illness

■ Staphylococci correlated best ear, sore throats, and

total illness (threshold value of 1,000/100 ml)

   

Design■ 104 families resulting in 1,310 exposure person-days

for swimmers and 8,356 exposure person-days fornon-swimmers during summer months

■ 3-acre river-dammed pond with no point sources of

pollution

■ Daily samples collected 3 times per day at two

locations

■ Precipitation measured daily■ Participants mailed-in self-completed questionnaires

   

Findings■ Swimmer illness was not associated with elevated

common fecal indicator densities orrainfall/stormwater runoff

■ Swimmer illness was associated with high swimmer

densities and high staphylococci densities (illnessprobably transmitted swimmer-to-swimmer via watercolumn)

■ Currently recommended indicators are ineffective at

predicting health effects associated by non-pointsource (i.e., animal source) fecal pollution

	




*

	 


■ Wet Weather Stormwater/Runoff

– How much of a risk does wet weather stormwater/urban runoff

pose to recreational water users?

– How much of a relative risk are equivalent levels of indicators

when the source is animals versus humans?

– Calderon (1991) showed no association with increased illness

■ Marine vs. Freshwater Waters

– Many of the more recent studies have been on marine waters,

there have been less recent studies relative to freshwaterbeaches

	 
 
■ Use of Single or Multiple Indicators

– Is a single indicator adequate or should more than one

bacterial indicator be used for respiratory or eye, ear and skin

illness?

– UK studies indicated that fecal coliform were the best

indicator for predicting ear ailments/earaches

– Santa Monica Bay study indicated that E. coli was the best

indicator for predicting ear ailments/earaches

– Original EPA studies showed no increase in ear infections

and only a slight (non-significant) increase in respiratory

illness when the average fecal coliform concentration =

200/100ml (PC/Dufour)

– Literature has shown slight relationships between fecal

coliformand non-GI symptoms, but only at the outer-limits of

significance (PC/Dufour)

	 
 
■ Chlorinated vs. Unchlorinated Waters

– Several of the studies were based on chlorinated waters– Indicators are eliminated at a much higher rate than viruses

during treatment and disinfection

– Therefore, chlorinated waters will result in lower indicator-topathogen ratios

– Indicators more valid when pollution source is not disinfected,

resulting in a higher indicator-to-pathogen ratio

	 
 


■ Transferability of Study Results

Results valid for different countries/continents?

– Different climates - temperate vs. tropical– Different endemicity rates

– Different indicator-to-pathogen ratios

Results valid for different contributing populations?

– Indicator-to-pathogen ratios may vary greatly as population

contributing to the pollution source decreases
&'
"
(#'
)

+&
% 



))
)
3#



	

/+

he current recreational water quality

criteria are considered risk-based in thatthey were established after studies demonstrated a relationship of the magnitude of fecal

indicator organism levels (enterococci and E.

coli) and relative incidence of disease in persons swimming at contaminated beaches.Improvements in indicators and additionalhealth studies may allow further refinements ornew criteria to protect the health of personsswimming in our nation’s waters. To maximizeour ability to provide risk-based criteria or todetermine the safety of beach waters, improvedrisk assessment approaches should be applied.These should consider the unique features ofmicrobial pathogens in water that lead tohuman exposure and also the unique featuresassociated with human infection and disease.

A framework has been developed for

conducting pathogen risk assessments for watermedia and various types of exposure settings.The framework follows a classic risk assessment approach in that there is a ProblemFormulation stage, an Analysis stage, andfinally a Risk Characterization stage whichprovide the risk manager or user with answersto problems identified during problem formation. One of the key features of the pathogenrisk assessment is that iterative loops areconsidered important throughout the process,both to obtain the appropriate problem formulation and to properly assess the factors used forthe analysis.

The analysis phase is broken down into

two major divisions: Characterization of Exposure and Characterization of Human Health Effects. There are a number of tools and meth- ods to use in data collection for the two major divisions of the analysis phase. For Character- ization of Exposure the process is broken down into four blocks of data collection and analysis: Pathogen Characterization; Exposure Analysis; Pathogen Occurrence; and finally Exposure Profile (a synthesis of findings and associated uncertainties observed with the first three groups). Under the Characterization of Human Health Effects division there are also four blocks for analysis: Host Characterization; Dose Response Analysis; Health Effects; and again, a synthesis of findings and uncertainty in the Host Pathogen Profile. The final step, Risk Characterization, is an exercise of evaluating all of the exposure and host-pathogen profile data inputs along with the uncertainty, estimates, and modeling that were used during the analysis phase. The estimates of risk take into account the quality and vari- ability of the data, uncertainty of the informa- tion, and lack of data and can apply a sensitiv- ity analysis to provide the risk manager with a sense of what the risk assessment will allow him to do in his management decisions. Risk assessment is a very iterative process and improved analysis tools and improved data will significantly improve subsequent Risk Characterization outputs, especially for recre- ational waters where there are sparse data on pathogen occurrence, exposure assessment, and health effects.

	




/,

Pathogen Risk Assessment

Methodology

Stephen A. Schaub

USEPA

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Risk Assessment Approach and

Process for Recreational Waters

• Typically, environmental risk assessments

are conducted for a single pathogen andtype of exposure profile.

• For recreational waters risk assessments and

criteria have utilized surrogates of fecalcontamination.

– Have been very few formal risk assessments for

U.S. recreational waters.

Approach and Process (cont)

• The current risk-based recreational water

health criteria:

– Apply bacterial indicators to detect and assess

risks considering the magnitude of fecalcontamination.

– Estimate fecal contamination relationship to

acute gastrointestinal (AGI) disease from oralexposure by head immersion.

– Protect against AGI disease, a general

syndrome expressed by a number of viral andbacterial pathogens of fecal origin.

Approach and Process (cont)

• Future recreational water risk assessments

may use fecal or other indicators for otherexposures (skin, eye, ear, and URT).

– A limiting factor is the lack of data on pathogen

exposure response.

• Typical recreational water applications:

– Develop new "risk-based" standards/criteria.– Determine risks from rainfall or pollution

events at specific beaches.

Pathogen Risk Assessment

for Waters

• ILSI coop with EPA has established a

pathogen RA framework.

– Risk analysis, vol. 16.6, 1996. pp 841-848.– Fully considers unique aspects of microbial

pathogen exposures and human health effects.

– Resembles EPA's ecological risk assessment

process.

Pathogen Risk Assessment for

Water (cont)

• New approach needed because NAS

chemical paradigm does not adequatelyconsider:

– Pathogen amplification for die-off factors.– Environmental and treatment impacts on nature,

fate, and transport of microbials.

– Human infection vs. disease, secondary spread,

and susceptible populations.
&'
"
(#'
)

/-

Characterization of Exposure

• Pathogen characterization: evaluate

characteristics of pathogen that affect its abilityfor transmission to, and cause disease in host.For recreational use, rely on surrogates forassessing the range of viral and bacterialpathogens causing AGI disease:

– Virulence and pathogenicity.– Survival and amplification of pathogens (in the

environment).

– Ecology of pathogens in the water system that

impacts on occurrence at beach.

Pathogen Characterization (cont)

– Pathogen source responses to water treatment

or intervention.

– Pathology on infection and strain differences on

relationship to exposed population.

– Host specificity (animal vs. human strains).– Route(s) of infection (oral for AGIs); also

secondary spread.

Characterization of Exposure

• Pathogen (hazard) occurrence: frequency of

appearance of a pathogen (or relation to thesurrogates):

– Spatial distribution, e.g., clumping, adsorption

to particles, settling.

– Concentration and distribution (depth,

hydrology, gradients).

– Frequency of distribution: pollution spills,

rainfall runoff, diurnal events, seasons.

Pathogen (Hazard) Occurrence:

(cont)

– Niche or habitat (e.g., accumulation in swash

zone or growth in sand).

– Environmental amplification, die-off,

persistence, e.g., temperature, predation, UVlight, nutrients, suspension of sediments.

Pathogen (Hazard) Occurrence:

(cont)

• Exposure analysis: Characterize the source

and temporal nature of human recreationalexposure to pathogens:

– Type of recreation.– Measured unit of exposure (assume 100ml for

swimming event).

– Temporal nature of exposure (single or multiple).– Route of exposure and related transmission

potential (oral for AGIs).

	




/

Exposure Analysis: (cont)

– Population demographics (age, susceptible,

sensitive population).

– Size of exposed population.– Behavior of exposed population.– Location of bathers in the water (swash zone or

deep water).

• Integrate pathogen characteristics, hazard

occurrence and exposure analysis.

• Provide statements regarding:

– Analysis of likely pathogen occurrence and

exposure of the population.

• For recreational water assess the relationship of the

surrogates to the pathogens/illnesses of concern.

Exposure profile: qualitative or quantitativeevaluation of the magnitude, frequency, andpattern of exposure to fecal contamination (Orpathogen).

Exposure Profile: (cont)

• Statements (cont)

– Assumptions used in assessment: define

when/where used and the range of impacts onthe outcome of the assessment.

– Uncertainties and data gaps: how dealt with and

the impacts of poor quality data or lack of dataon the analysis.

Characterization of Human

Health Effects

• Evaluate the ability of pathogen (or

indicator relationship) to cause adversehealth effects under a set of conditions.

• Dependent on tools and methods available

such as:

– Disease outcomes and potential for sequella.– Epidemiology studies: cohort/intervention.– Clinical studies human feeding.– Animal model systems.

Host characterization: evaluate thecharacteristics of potentially exposedpopulation that influence susceptibility to apathogen.• Collect and analyze data pertaining to the

pathogen characteristics used in theexposure compartment.

• Examine data on host characteristics that

influence susceptibility.

• Analysis of susceptible populations and

characteristics that influence effects ofpathogens (or groups of pathogens).

Characteristics That Influence

Effects (cont)

• Age and Gender.• Immunity.• Pregnancy.• Diet.• Exposure Behavior in the Water.• Sensitive Subpopulations.
&'
"
(#'
)

/*

Health effects: clinical manifestations ofdisease associated with a specific pathogen.• Health effects: characterize clinical illnesses

associated with pathogen single or multipleorgans (e.g., heart, URT, liver, ear, skindiseases).

– Characterize the potential extent and magnitude

of illnesses from a pathogen, includingsecondary spread:

• Seroconversion or subclinical severity and duration

of frank disease.

– Sequella.– Mortality.

Dose response analysis: characterize therelation between pathogen dose, infectivity,effects in exposed population.• Establish relationship between dose,

infectivity, and response.

– Epidemiological studies.

• Outbreaks• Cohorts/case control studies

– Feeding studies– Animal studies (animal models for dose

response estimation). Are they valid?

Host-pathogen Profile: Qualitative or QuantitativeEvaluation of Nature and Potential Magnitude ofHuman Health Effects from a Specific Exposure.Developed from Integration of:

• Host-pathogen interactions.• Health effects.• Dose-response.

– As was done for exposure characterization,

characterize and make statements concerning:health effects data analysis; assumptions used;and uncertainties around data and data gaps.

Pathogen Risk Assessment (RA)

for Water

Risk characterization:• Estimation of the likelihood of adverse human

health effects occurring as a result of a definedexposure to microbial contamination ormedium (beach).

• Exposure profile and host-pathogen profile are

integrated.

– Determine the likelihood of adverse human health

effects occurring from the defined recreationalexposure scenario.

Risk Characterization (cont)

– Perform risk estimation to describe types and

magnitude of effects anticipated (include allassumptions and uncertainty and an assessment oftheir impact on the ra).

– Prepare risk description to identify the confidence

of the risk estimates and include consideration ofthe sufficiency and quality of the data andevidence of causality.

– Describe the adequacy of the assessment to

adequately resolve the questions from the problemformulation questions, goals, and endpoints (e.g.,Sensitivity analysis). Figure 2. Analysis phase of risk assessment for waterborne pathogens.

	




//

",,
+$$%'#  % Q (Fred Lee, G. Fred Lee Associates): A number of California cities face the removal offecal coliforms from storm water runoff where there is limited sanitary sewage in the runoff.We know that highways have very high concentrations of fecal coliforms where we suspectthat there is no sanitary sewage, except in leaking RVs. What is EPA’s position on the needto remove fecal coliforms from storm water runoff where we have limited sanitary sewageand no CSOs?Steve Schaub:

I don’t think that we will be able to treat all environmental contamination monitoring

problems using indicators in a one-size-fits-all approach. However, if you do have a stormwater runoff situation and it does have high concentrations of fecal coliforms and there is adownstream use which will be impacted, then obviously it needs to be controlled andregulated. If the runoff is going to some area where there is no considered use downstream, then it could be handled differently. I am not the authority on local dischargerequirements, but my perspective is that it will be handled based on the downstream requirement of whether or not it is going to be used for a human exposure scenario.Q (Fred Lee): Would that be focused because of it?Steve Schaub:

That is one of the problems. If we have a downstream use and until somebody can

show that roadside waste runoff does not have a pathogen component, then we can’t ignoreit.Comment (Patty Vainik, City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department): It’s myunderstanding of the Santa Monica Bay Epidemiological Study that total coliform and fecalcoliform did have a relationship to health risk, not individually, but as a ratio. That hasformed the implementation of our recent legislation, AB411, and two of the authors of theepi-study report are present, Mark Gold and Charlie McGee, who can probably speak tothat.David Gray:

That is correct. I was recently informed that the study was just published. As far as I

read in the actual report and the summary, I didn’t see that information. I do apologize fornot including these findings in my presentation.Comment (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay): I am one of the authors of that report and that wasone of the findings of the study. Everyone on that study thought that the total-to-fecal ratiowas going to show nothing, but we were shocked to see that it had the strongest correlationwith the incidence of adverse health effects, including upper respiratory infections andstomach flu.
&'
"
(#'
)

/0

Q (Mark Gold): In the last presentation, there was some discussion on the fate and transport of runoff plumes and some of the impacts they have on exposure. Has EPA doneanything in this arena to look at plume dispersion studies to see what the bacterial densitiesare with various differences from flowing drains and how this relates to current as well ashow it relates to what the flow is coming out of the drain or stream?Al Dufour:

EPA has not done that kind of study. As far as I know, that kind of study has not been

done for years. There were a few studies done in the late 1960s off the California coast thatlooked at dispersion and transport. Somehow it came into disfavor due to the expense ofsuch a study and other reasons. There is one study that has been conducted in the UK bythe same team that did the health study. I don’t know at what stage they are in of theirresearch, but I suspect that it will be published one of these days.Q (Ken Theisen, Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board): Does EPA know of any riskassessment models that have used MS2 phage as the indicator of pathogenic pollution?Also, what are your thoughts on the pros and cons of using MS2 phage in a risk assessment?Steve Schaub:

Arie Havelaar of the Netherlands may have developed some information on that. MS2

phage falls within the group of our candidate bacteriophages that may be promoted asindicators if we can demonstrate that there is some correlation with a disease endpoint. Idon’t think that he has ever done an assessment specifically looking at a particular diseaseendpoint through a risk assessment e.g., comparing MS2 phage against acute gastrointestinal disease incidence. If phage can be demonstrated to be good indicators or any particulardisease endpoints associated with fecal contamination then I would be in favor of usingthem.Al Dufour:

None of the F-specific phage, to the best of my knowledge, have been used in studies

relating water quality as measured with phage to health effects in swimmers. I think that isone of the reasons your question cannot be answered. The data are not there to do a goodrisk assessment.

	







	






 





 !"#$%
&''

ocal and state environmental health agencies that participate in the New Jersey Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program

perform sanitary surveys of beach areas andmonitor concentrations of bacteria in nearshorecoastal and estuarine waters to assess theacceptability of these waters for recreationalbathing. These activities and the resulting dataare used to respond to immediate public healthconcerns associated with recreational waterquality and to eliminate the sources of fecalcontamination that impact coastal waters. Aspart of this program, New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) routinelyinspects the 17 wastewater treatment facilitiesthat discharge to the ocean. NJDEP also performs daily aerial surveillance of New Jerseynearshore coastal waters and the HudsonRaritan estuaries to observe changing coastalwater quality conditions and potential pollutionsources.

The municipal utilities authorities, which

manage the sewage treatment facilities and theirocean discharges, are an integral part of theoverall monitoring program in New Jersey, andthey are key to the improvement in and thecurrent good quality of the state’s coastalwaters. Because of their unique observationalpositioning, lifeguards provide NJDEP withfirsthand information regarding water andbeach conditions. Citizen participation, particularly through reports of pollution sightings toNJDEP, is encouraged.

To implement the more comprehensive

approach to the improvement of New Jersey’scoastal water quality that the reduction ofnonpoint sources of bacteria requires, NJDEP isworking with private and public sectors topromote watershed management. The water

quality data and beach closing numbers,therefore, will be used as indicators of thesuccess of the strategies implemented to resolvewater quality problems of various origins. Tosupport this effort, the Cooperative CoastalMonitoring Program manager and staff weretransferred from the Division of Complianceand Enforcement into the new Division ofWatershed Management’s Atlantic CoastalBureau.


 

The State Sanitary Code N.J.A.C. 8:26 and

the DEP Field Sampling Procedures Manualprescribe the sampling techniques and beachopening and closing procedures the agenciesuse for the Cooperative Coastal MonitoringProgram. The agencies perform routine sampling from mid-May through mid-September onMondays. Samples are analyzed for fecalcoliform concentrations using DEP-certifiedlaboratories, including those of the utilitiesauthorities; MPN or membrane filter methodsprovide results within 24 hours of sampling. In1998, as in a number of previous years,samples were collected and analyzed forenterococci from a subset of ocean and baystations in all of the coastal counties as the stateprepares for further federal direction in beachmanagement.

The recreational bathing standard for all

waters in New Jersey is 200 fecal coliforms per100 mL of sample, and closings are based ontwo consecutive single samples. If the resultsfrom the first sampling of the week are withinthe standard, sampling is complete until thefollowing week. If a sample from a station

 %
(#
&%


OceanClosings 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998bacteria 784 35 22 10 27 34 50 4 10 18 3floatables 19 9 10 0 0

)*

0 0 0 000

total 803 44 32 10 27 34 50 4 10 18 3Bay Closings 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998bacteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000

exceeds the standard, the water at that station isimmediately resampled, and adjacent beachesare also sampled to determine the extent of thepollution. A sanitary survey of the area is alsoconducted. A second consecutive fecalcoliform concentration exceeding the standardor the identification of a source requires closingof the beach. Health officials retain the discretion to close beaches for any public healthreason, with or without water quality data.

floatables 52 232 202 97 84 54 171 73 75 24 36total 52 232 202 97 84 54 171 73 75 24 36

In 1998, the program included water

quality monitoring stations at 179 oceanbeaches and 138 monitoring stations in bayareas. Most ocean stations are sampled toevaluate the water quality at several lifeguardedbeaches in an “area” rather than just onelifeguarded beach. These areas consist ofcontiguous, similar beaches with no permanentpollution sources. Individual beaches withpermanent sources are assigned monitoring

stations. A monitoring station is assigned toeach recreational bay beach because of theirlocations on noncontiguous shorelines.

 

Ocean beach closings due to floatables

have been controlled for the past eight years,while closings in the ocean and bays due tobacteria have fluctuated with lower numbers inrecent years (Table 1, Graph 1, and Graph 2).Ocean beach closings due to floatables havebeen controlled for the past eight years, whileclosings in the ocean and bays due to bacteriahave fluctuated with lower numbers in recentyears (Table 1, Graph 1, and Graph 2). Fecalcoliform concentrations as geometric meanshave remained relatively consistent (Graph 3).

Table 1
	



)+

0

800700600500400300200100

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

beaches closed due to floatable debrisfor bacteria in excess of standard

  	

   

 







       	 
 

 	 	
   




  	


   

 

Graph 1

Graph 2

Ocean Beach Closings 1988 - 1998

Bay Beach Closings 1988 - 1998

 %
(#
&%


),

0

70605040302010

1995 19961997 1998

 Sandy Hook

Long Branch

 Lakeg rinp

S

Seaside Hts. y Atlantic Cit

Wildwood

	



	



	








  Graph 3

Geometric Means of Fecal Coliform at 179 Ocean Sampling Stations

1995 - 1998
	



)-

New Jersey’s Beach Program

	



			
		

	

 s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s s

ss

s ss

 %
(#
&%


).

s

ss ss

	




s

s

s

s

s

s

s




	















  	 
    
  

 






 





 



 

   

 

 


 

 


  
 

 	




 




	

        	 
 

 
  	    
        

 ! 
   
 
 "#$ 
 
  

50

40353025201510

       !  " #$  %#&'#$  %(%" 	 #&' ) % * '+ +   ,   %  - ('(  +   #& ' !  ( %    #& '+  "  % "    %" *  .  /   - "  %  "#& '0&  1   %#&'2  & % 0   #&'    !   % #& '  ( %"  % #& ''    (%" ' % '3   )   '3   ) 4%     %    4'   ' %    
 ' %        %      #& '#  5  #& '#   
 " #& '6  % 7 % & #& '+%    '0  3  %   '0  3  %

7 )  %+ 

1  8%)* % 
	



)

! 
   
 
 "#$ 
 
 
  

50

25201510

       !  " #$  %#&'#$  %(%" 	 #&' ) % * '+ +   ,   %  - ('(  +   #& ' !  ( %    #& '+  "  % "    %" *  .  /   - "  %  "#& '0&  1   %#&'2  & % 0   #&'    !   % #& '  ( %"  % #& ''    (%" ' % '3   )   '3   ) 4%     %      '' %    	 '' %         %      #& '#  5  #& '#   
 " #& '6  % 7 % & #& '+%   % 0   3  %    '0  3  %   '
    / % #&'9 3 3  %.- 3 '   '  5    '#&  	 '   !%$  %   :1; 4'/  -        %/  -   
 %  /  -  %   <    4 % 3  + 
   #& '3 + (   

7 ) %+ 

1  8%)* % 

%! 
   
 
 "#$ 
 
 
  

86420

141210

       !  " #$  %#&'# $  %(%" 	 #&' ) % * '+ +   ,  4%     %     '' %    	 '' %         %    
 " #& '6  % 7 % & #& '+%   % 0   3  %    '0  3  %   '
    / % #&'9 3 3  %.- 3 '   '  5    '#&  	 '   !%$  %   :1; 4'/  -        %/  -   
 %  /  -  %   <    4 % 3  + 
   #& '3 + (   

7  )  %+  

1  8%)* % 

&  
 '   
 ( )
  
 * 
  
  
 + 
   
 




 	      

7  ) %+ 

	
 *  %  

 %
(#
&%


))

7 (%3+%%%'.%&%)& 3%%)'.% 3%%)'
	





	
		
	

				 	
	




he beach-monitoring program at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) began in 1988 to protect visitor health by

detecting fecal coliform bacterial contaminationthat might occur at popular beaches on LakePowell. Monitoring is conducted at least everyother week at approximately 50 sites lakewide.A routine sampling site list is maintained basedon historical bacterial counts. Each samplingevent also includes at least two randomlydetermined beaches to increase the program’scoverage of the lake. Additional beaches,besides the routine and random beaches, aresampled based on known or suspected problems. Protocols exist to add random or othersampled beaches to our routine samplingschedule. ArcView is used to randomly selectbeaches. The lake is currently stratified intotwo areas for sampling. Future plans willstratify the lake into 13 zones, which coincidewith visitor use. The two-level stratificationsystem was established to minimize distancesbetween sample sites and the laboratories. Thetwo laboratories are located 112 km apart, oneat Wahweap, Arizona, and the other at Bullfrog,Utah. The laboratories are certified with theUtah Department of Health.

There are two major questions that need to

be resolved. The first question is what is thebest method for estimating the bacterial population along a beach? The NRA is switchingfrom a single fixed sampling location, whichprovides us with little information about thebacterial population along the beach, to arandom sampling scheme. Although thenumber of samples is currently limited to three,the arithmetic mean of those samples provides abetter estimate of the condition along the beachthan a single sample from a fixed location.Random sampling provides a better estimatebecause the causes of an elevated bacterial

count cannot be consistently associated with asingle point along a beach. Elevated counts arerelated to a combination of events, such asweather, beach orientation, drainage, grazing,recreation, and sediment load.

The second question is what is an appropriate beach closure model? The current model

at Lake Powell is that re-sampling occurs if 200colony-forming units (cfu) per 100 mL Membrane Filtration (MF) or 126 Most ProbableNumber per 100 mL using Colilert® is obtained. If Colilert® is being used, then themethod is immediately switched to MF forregulatory purposes. A re-sample count of 200cfu MF causes closure. The beach remainsclosed until the 2, 3, 4, and 5-day geometricmean and the last day of sampling are below200 cfu. The problem is that only 25 percent ofthe beaches found high on day one are high onday three and only 35 percent of the beachesthat are high on day three are high on day four.In other words, 65 percent of the beaches arebelow 200 cfu on the day the beach is closed.The beach will remain closed for 5 additionaldays until a 5-day geo-mean below 200 cfu isachieved. Only 8.75 percent of the beachesfound high initially are high on day four.

In conclusion, the determination of the

threat along a beach should be based on soundstatistical sampling methods. The beachclosure policy should be conservative in favorof public health; however, the model shouldalso be predictive of pollution events that existfor longer than four days. Closing a beachcauses economic loss to the local communitydue to canceled vacations. Additionally,people recreating are unduly alarmed over ashort-term threat, which has corrected itselfbefore any protective action can occur. Development of a meaningful beach closure model isparamount.

 %
(#
&%


)/

Floating Pump-out Facility

• Hand operated waste pumpout

• Porta-potty cleaning station

• Handicap accessible restrooms

US EPA, Region VIII Mr. Doug Johnson

Navajo Nation EPA, Water Quality ProgramMr. Steve AustinNorthern Arizona UniversityDr. Dean BlinnDr. Gordan SouthamUtah Dept of HealthMr. Richard Clark

 Mr. Ron Ivie

National Park Service, Intermountain RegionMr Barry DavisSouthwest Utah Public Health Dept

 Mr. Bill Dawson

Utah Division of Water QualityMr. Richard DentonMr. Jay Pitkin

Chairman

Dr. William Moellmer

Utah Division of Water Quality

University of UtahDr. Donald HayesArizona Dept of Environmental QualityMr. Tom TrentMr. Troy DayNational Park Service, WRDMr. Barry LongSoutheast Utah Public Health DeptMr. Rick MeyerUtah State UniversityDr. Ron SimsDr. Darwin Sorensen

National Park Service, GLCAMr. Mark AndersonMr. John Ritenour

Executive Secretary

Dr. Lewis Boobar

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

Floating Pump-out Facility

• Hand operated waste pumpout

• Porta-potty cleaning station

• Handicap accessible restrooms
	



)

Routine Sample Sites

Colilert (126 MPN/100ml)MF-FC (200 cfu/100ml)

 %
(#
&%


0*

1234

Depth (ft)

Beach

L

C R

surface

4 inches

600 cfu 300 cfu 0 cfu 60 cfu 250 cfu 50 cfu

Count Test Bacterial Geometric Mean Recommended Sample

Date Date Method Count

2-Day 3-Day 4-Day 5-Day

Action

20 July 21 July Colilert 209.8 NA NA NA NA Resample

22 July 23 July Membrane Filtration 759.1 Closure Resample

23 July 24 July Membrane Filtration 500.6 Remain Closed Resample

24 July 25 July

MembraneFiltration 155.9 Remain Closed Resample

25 July 26 July Membrane Filtration 15.3

 NA NA NA NA

 616.4 NA NA NA

 279.4 389.8 NA NA

48.8 106.1 173.5 NA Remain Closed

Resample

26 July 27 July

MembraneFiltration 5.4 9.1 23.4 50.4 86.7 Re-open Beach

L CR Beach

Oak Canyon

Mean R C L

22Jul 759 494 933 85023Jul 501 273 245 98324Jul 156 97 268 10325Jul 15 11 8 2726Jul 5 0 5 11

0

800700600500400300200100

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

July

cfs/

100ml

August

0

800600400200

12001000

July

7 5 6 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18192021 22 23 24 2526 27 2829 30 31 1 234567

cfs/

100ml

L CR Beach

Oak Canyon

Mean R C L

22Jul 759 494 933 85023Jul 501 273 245 98324Jul 156 97 268 10325Jul 15 11 8 2726Jul 5 0 5 11
	



0+

Random sampling should Random sampling shouldreplace fixed station sampling. replace fixed station sampling.The beach closure model should The beach closure model shouldbe conservative but not respond be conservative but not respondto short term episodic events. to short term episodic events.

 %
(#
&%


!" # "$
% $&%

1


0,



2# !


"#

	he Department of Health Services (DHS) recently expanded its regulations for public beaches and ocean water-contact

sports areas in response to requirements ofHealth and Safety Code §115880, AssemblyBill (AB) 411, Statutes of 1997, Chapter 765.The regulations (in Title 17 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations) consist of §7956 (new),§7958 (amended), §7961 (new) and §7962(new), which became effective July 26, 1999.Other regulations, §7957, §7959, and §7960,were unchanged. The regulations are reproduced below.

7956. Storm Drain. “Storm drain” means

a conveyance through which water flows ontoor adjacent to a public beach and includesrivers, creeks, and streams, whether in naturalor in man-made channels.

7957. Physical Standard. No sewage,

sludge, grease, or other physical evidence ofsewage discharge shall be visible at any time onany public beaches or water-contact sportsareas.

7958. Bacteriological Standards. (a) The

minimum protective bacteriological standardsfor waters adjacent to public beaches andpublic water-contact sports areas shall be asfollows:

(1) Based on a single sample, the density

of bacteria in water from each sampling stationat a public beach or public water-contact sportsarea shall not exceed:

(A) 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters, if the ratio of fecal/total coliformbacteria exceeds 0.1; or

(B) 10,000 total coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters; or

(C) 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters; or

(D) 104 enterococcus bacteria per 100

milliliters.

(2) Based on the mean of the logarithms of

the results of at least five weekly samplesduring any 30-day sampling period, the densityof bacteria in water from any sampling stationat a public beach or public water-contact sportsarea, shall not exceed:

(A) 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters; or

(B) 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters; or

(C) 35 enterococcus bacteria per 100

milliliters.

(b) Water samples shall be submitted for

bacteriological analyses to a laboratory certifiedin microbiology by the California Departmentof Health Services, Environmental LaboratoryAccreditation Program, for methods for theanalysis of the sample type.

7959. Bacteriological Sampling. (a) In

order to determine that the bacteriologicalstandards specified in Section 7958 above arebeing met in a water-contact sports area designated by a Regional Water Quality ControlBoard in waters affected by a waste discharge,water samples shall be collected at such sam-
	



0-

pling stations and at such frequencies as maybe specified by said board in its waste discharge requirements.

(b) In waters of a public beach or watercontact sports area that has not been so designated by a Regional Water Quality Control

Board, water samples shall be collected at suchfrequencies as may be determined by the localhealth officer or Department. Local healthofficers shall be responsible for the propercollection and analysis of water samples in suchareas.

7960. Corrective Action. (a) When a

public beach or public water-contact sports areafails to meet any of the standards as set forth inSection 7957 or 7958 above, the local healthofficer or the Department, after taking intoconsideration the causes therefor, may at his orits discretion close, post with warning signs, orotherwise restrict use of said public beach orpublic water-contact sports area, until such timeas corrective action has been taken and thestandards as set forth in 7957 and 7958 aboveare met.

7961. Public Beaches Visited by More

than 50,000 People Annually and Adjacent toStorm Drains. (a) Waters adjacent to a publicbeach shall be tested for bacteria identified inSection 7958 on at least a weekly basis fromApril 1 to October 31, inclusive, if the beach is

(1) Visited by more than 50,000 people

annually, and

(2) Located adjacent to a storm drain that

flows in the summer.

(b) Water samples shall be taken from

locations that include areas affected by stormdrains. Samples shall be taken in ankle- toknee-deep water, approximately 4 to 24 inchesbelow the water surface.

(c) When testing reveals that the waters

adjacent to a public beach fail to meet any of

the standards set forth in Section 7958(a)(1),the local health officer shall post the beachpursuant to Health and Safety Code Section115915, and shall use the standards of Sections7958(a)(1) and (2) in determining the necessityto restrict the use of or close the public beach orportion thereof.

(d) In the event of a known release of

untreated sewage into waters adjacent to apublic beach, the local health officer shall:

(1) Immediately post and close the beach

or a portion thereof, or otherwise restrict its useuntil the source of the sewage release is eliminated;

(2) Sample the affected waters; and(3) Continue closure or restriction of the

beach or a portion thereof and posting thebeach until testing results establish that thestandards of Sections 7958(a)(1) are satisfied.

7962. Duties Imposed on a Local Public

Officer or Agency. (a) Pursuant to Health andSafety Code Sections 115880(h), 115885(g),and 115915(c), any duty imposed upon a localpublic officer or agency by Section 7961 shallbe mandatory only during a fiscal year in whichthe Legislature has appropriated sufficientfunds, as determined by the State Director ofHealth Services, in the annual Budget Act orotherwise for local agencies to cover the coststo those agencies associated with performanceof these duties.

DHS also prepared draft guidance documents for local health departments seeking to

improve their programs for both saltwater andfreshwater beaches and recreational waters.These guidance documents are available fromthe DHS Web site.

For more information: http://

www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/beachesindex.htm

 %
(#
&%


0.

California’s Regulations and

Guidance for Beaches and

Recreational Waters

Steven Book, Ph.D.

Division of Drinking Water

and Environmental Management

California Department of Health

Services

August 31, 1999

E-mail: sbook@dhs.ca.gov

AB 411 [(Statutes of 1997, Chapter 765), amended Healthand Safety Code Sections 115880, 115885, and 115915)]requires DHS to develop regulations:

• Standards for three indicator organisms for all public beaches:

– Total coliforms– Fecal coliforms– Enterococcus

• Procedures for closing and posting public beaches that are

– Adjacent to storm drains that flow during the summer– Visited by 50,000 visitors– Coastal (not within San Francisco Bay)

• Implementation not required if legislature does not provide

adequate funding in the annual budget. (~ $1 million is inannual budget)

Standards for Microbiological

Indicators

The most recent single measurement is to be usedfor determining the need for beach posting.

– Total coliform bacteria: 1,000 per 100 milliliters,

if the fecal/total ratio exceeds 0.1.

– Total coliform bacteria: 10,000 per 100 milliliters.– Fecal coliform bacteria: 400 per 100 milliliters.

• Enterococcus bacteria: 104 per 100 milliliters.

Microbiological Standards (cont)

The 30-day average of measurements of the level (thelog mean of the results of 5 weekly samples) is to beused by the local health officer along with the singlesample standards to determine if closing and/or otherrestrictions are appropriate.

– Total coliform bacteria: 1,000 per 100 milliliters– Fecal coliform bacteria: 200 per 100 milliliters– Enterococcus bacteria: 35 per 100 milliliters

Locations, Frequency, & Depth of

Sample Collection

For AB 411 public beaches• At least weekly sampling from April 1 to October 31• Sampling is to include waters affected by storm

drains

• Samples to be taken in ankle- to knee-deep water,

approximately 4 to 24 inches below the watersurface

For others: At the discretion of the local health officer.

Definitions

Storm drain (Regulation): A conveyance throughwhich water flows onto or adjacent to a publicbeach, and includes rivers, creeks, and streams,whether in natural or in man-made channels.
	



0

Definitions (cont)

Posting: Signs at an area of a public beach that inform the

public of contamination of recreational water and the risk ofpossible illness (AB411).Posting may be (1) temporary, when a single standard isexceeded for a short period, or (2) more permanent, wheremonitoring indicates regular or sporadic contamination (e.g.,storm drain), or where contamination sources are identifiableand can be explained (e.g., storm drain water, or residentialmarine mammals or seabirds) (Guidance).Posting is required at public beaches subject to AB411whenever standards for microbiological indicator organismsare exceeded.

Definitions (cont)

Closure (Guidance): Signs that inform the public that the

beach area is closed to swimming and water contact. Theyshould indicate the nature of the concern (e.g., sewage spill),and should, by language, color, and design, enabledifferentiation from advisories provided by posting.Closure is envisioned to occur when health risks areconsidered greater than those associated with posting, as withsewage spills or at areas at which monitoring results show thatmultiple indicator organism standards are exceeded, for bothsingle sample and 30-day average values.Closure is required by AB 411 when an untreated sewagerelease is known to have reached recreational waters at apublic beach.

Beach Is Required To Be Closed...

• with a known release of untreated sewage (AB 411)• otherwise at the discretion of the local health officer

Beach Is Required To Be Posted

With Warning Signs...

• whenever an applicable standard is exceeded (AB

411)

• otherwise at the discretion of the local health officer

Sample Language For Signs

(Guidance)

WARNING!

Untreated Sewage Spill

Beach Closed

WARNING!

Storm Drain Water May Cause Illness

No Swimming In Storm Drain Water

Other Means of Public

Information

• Telephone Hotline (required by AB 411)• Press Release (Guidance)• Electronic Access (e.g., Internet or local

television) (Guidance)

Future Activities

• Freshwater beaches and certain other

beaches

• Reporting of beach closures/postings

(SWRCB)

 %
(#
&%


0)

For More Information:

Regulations for implementing AB411Guidance documents for saltwater andfreshwater beachesCan be accessed via:http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/beachesindex.htm
	



00

 
!"$
'(()

!

##%
'


3(44+,414
-"4546+"4"7'.%44"84"

)94
7
:

&
3
04(!/54
+4"492!
4&4 3#+;3
!<

+

'%
%
 (
=>, #?'




'!@


'%
>-%
6
$#

"#


>.#%
'
1
>#%
'

> )#%
''3163

>0?'
!?#


#

@!!$'

!&=%
>/
&3%
''31>%



#
"

 


ore than 80,000 shoreline bacteriological samples are collected annually in south- ern California, representing roughly onehalf of the total bacteriological monitoring conducted in the United States. Despite this impressive amount of monitoring, these data are difficult

to integrate for the purpose of making a regionalassessment of water quality. Integration is difficult because the data are collected by 22 differentorganizations with different sampling strategiesand different data management systems. Additionally, because the sample locations are assigned tofocus on known “problem areas” or to complywith a specific monitoring objective, the strategydoes not allow for an assessment of typical regional shoreline microbiological water quality. Toovercome these limitations, all of the organizationsthat perform routine monitoring in the SouthernCalifornia Bight (SCB) conducted an integratedsurvey during the summer of 1998 that assessedthe overall microbiological water quality of thesouthern California shoreline. The primary goalsof the survey were:

• To determine the percent of shoreline

mile-days in the SCB that exceededbacterial indicator thresholds duringAugust of 1998;

• To compare the response among three

bacterial indicators commonly used inCalifornia; and

• To determine how well these bacterial

indicator measures correlated with detection of human enteric virus geneticmaterial.

Samples were collected on a weekly basis at

307 sites between Point Conception, California,and Punta Banda, Mexico, beginning August 1,1998, and continuing for five weeks. Samplingsites were selected using a stratified randomdesign. Strata included high- and low-use sandybeaches, high- and low-use rocky shoreline,ephemeral freshwater outlets and perennialfreshwater outlets. Samples were collectedaccording to standardized protocols. Total andfecal coliform were measured in all samples.Enterococci were measured in approximately 70percent of the samples. Molecular analyses todetect the presence of human enteric virus geneticmaterial were performed on samples collectedfrom 15 randomly selected perennial freshwateroutlets. Analysis for the presence of this geneticmaterial was used as a tool to detect human fecalcontamination in the coastal zone. It was notintended to be used to infer health risk.

 %
(#
&%


0/

Prior to starting the project, the 22 participating laboratories conducted intercalibration

studies to assess data comparability. Thirteencommon samples were analyzed by eachlaboratory to define variability among laboratories, within laboratories, and among methods.Three quantitative analytical methods, multipletube fermentation (MTF), membrane filtration(MF), and chromogenic substrate tests in a mostprobable number format were compared fortotal coliform, fecal coliform (or E. coli), andenterococci. The average difference amongmethods was less than 6 percent. The averagedifference among laboratories was less than 2percent. The greatest source of variability wasamong replicates within individual laboratories.The intercalibration exercises demonstrated thata multi-laboratory, performance-based approach was acceptable for implementing thisregional study.

Overall, microbiological water quality along

the southern California shoreline was good duringthe study period with more than 95 percent of theshoreline mile-days meeting all present andproposed California bacterial indicator standards.In 98 percent of the cases where a standard wasexceeded, it was exceeded for only one bacterialindicator, while all other bacterial indicators at thesame site and at the same time were below thresholds. Less than 0.2 percent of the shoreline miledays exceeded thresholds for all indicators measured at the site.

Freshwater outlets failed to meet bacterial

indicator standards in almost 60 percent of the

samples, the worst of all strata. Most of thestandard failures near freshwater outlets were formultiple indicators and occurred repetitivelythroughout the five-week study period. Moleculartests demonstrated the presence of human entericvirus genetic material in 7 of the 15 freshwateroutlets with 73 percent of these detections coinciding with levels of fecal coliform that exceededbacterial indicator thresholds.

The probability of exceeding a bacterial

indicator threshold differed substantially amongindicators. Of the samples that exceeded a bacterial standard, and for which all three indicatorswere measured, only 13 percent failed for all threeindicators, 34 percent failed for two indicators, and54 percent failed for one indicator. Thresholds forfecal coliform were exceeded at twice the rate oftotal coliform, and enterococci failed at three timesthe rate of total coliform. Less than one-half of theenterococci thresholds failures paired with threshold failures by another indicator, while nearly 90percent of the total and fecal coliform thresholdfailures were partnered with failures of anotherindicator.

This cooperative study is the first to compare

the relative quality of Mexican and United Statesbeaches using similar site selection approachesand coordinated quality assurance methods.Although nearly 75 percent of the beach samplesin Mexico met California’s bacteriological waterquality standards, the standards were exceededfive times more often on Mexican than on UnitedStates beaches. Mexican freshwater outlets werejust as likely to exceed a bacteriological waterquality standard as those in the United States.
	



0

1998 Southern California

Microbiological Survey

Charles D. McGee

Orange County Sanitation District

Ensenada

Tijuana

0 25

Miles

50



	
 



	
 	 



	





	


 
	

	


	

Huntington Beach

Long Beach

Bakersfield

Los Angeles

Oxnard

San Diego

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT

Background: Existing Effort

(Annually)

● 22 agencies conduct monitoring at 542 sites● 82,310 bacteriological analyses:

Shoreline = 64,134Offshore = 18,176

● About $3 million/year spent

Existing Effort (cont)

● Focused upon areas designated as problem

areas (near storm drains)

● Potentially impacted by offshore discharges

(NPDES permit required)

Limitations: Existing Efforts

● Sites are not randomly assigned● Area monitored is only 7% of the entire

shoreline

● No common analytical method● No common database

Consequence

● Assessment of the entire coastal area not

possible

 %
(#
&%


/*

Participants

● Aliso Water Mgmt Authority● Aquatic Bioassay &

Consult.

● City of Long Beach● City of Los Angeles● City of Oceanside● City of Oxnard● City of San Diego● City of Santa Barbara● City of Ventura● Encina W.W. Auth.● Goleta Sanitation District● Heal the Bay● UABC● LA Co Beaches & Harbors● LA Co Dept Hlth Serv.

● Los Angeles RWQCB● LA Co Sanitation Districts● USMC Camp Pendleton● Orange Co Env Hlth Div● Orange Co Sanitation District● San Diego Co Dpt Env Health● San Diego RWQCB● San Elijo Jt Powers Authority● Santa Barbara Hlth Care Ser● SE Reg. Reclamation Auth● So Cal Cstl Wat Res Project*● So Calif Marine Inst● Surfrider Foundation● SWRCB● USC

* Coordinating group

Objectives

● Determine the percent of shoreline meeting

bacterial water quality standards

● Compare indicator bacterial levels among types of

shoreline

● Assess association between runoff and virus

Percent of Shoreline Meeting Bacterial

Water Quality Standards

What percent of beach-mile days exceed [indicator]threshold limits during [season] at [geographical area]?

Indicators: total coliform, fecal coliform, enterococciSeason: Summer 1998Areas: accessible shoreline, freshwater outlets

Geographical Areas

Sandy Beaches

High-use (lifeguard service)Low-use (no lifeguard service)

Rocky Shoreline

High-use (popular dive and surf spots)Low-use (little or no diving or surfing)

Freshwater Outlets

EphemeralPerennialPoint Zero

HIGH-USE

SANDY

BEACHES

Manhattan Beach

HIGH-USE

ROCKY

BEACHES

Bluff Cove,Rancho Palos Verdes

Pt. Fermin,San Pedro
	



/+

Freshwater Outlets

Storm Drain/Channel Basic Design Elements

● Recreational shoreline, freshwater outlets (81)

mapped in GIS database

● Fixed sites randomly selected among strata● Two types of site placement at outlets:

» Randomly, within 100 yards» Fixed, at mouth of outlet (“Point Zero” sites)

● 213 southern California, 29 Mexico● Sites sampled weekly August - September 1998● All participating laboratories had to perform

intercalibration studies

Intercalibration Exercises

● Analyze 13 common samples● Three to five replicates● Use standard analytical procedures● Use their standard quality assurance procedures● Report data in a common format

Goals of Intercalibration

● Quantify and compare:

» within laboratory variance» among laboratory variance» among analytical methods

Analytical Method Enumeration

● Membrane filtration (MF)● Multiple tube fermentation (MTF)● Chromogenic substrate in the most probable

number (MPN) format

Analytical Methods

● Total coliform by

» M-Endo (MF)» LTB/BGB (MTF)» Colilert®

 %
(#
&%


/,

Analytical Methods

● Fecal coliform

» M-FC (MF)» EC» A-1» Colilert®

Analytical Methods

● Enterococci

» Method 1600 & mE agar (MF)» Enterolert®» Azide dextrose broth/Pfizer selective

enterococcus agar with confirmation in brainheart infusion broth containing 6.5% NaCl@45o C

Intercalibration Results

● Between-laboratory

» significant difference was seen in only 7% of all

pairwise comparisons between laboratories

» largest difference between laboratories was 29%» average difference <2%

Intercalibration Results

● Between-laboratory

» differences occurred most frequently for total

coliform (10%)

» least frequently for fecal coliform (3%)» greatest variability for MTF» least for MF

Intercalibration Results

● Between methods

» average difference was <6%» biggest difference measured in low range of

fecal coliform by MF (may have been due toclumping)

Intercalibration Results

● Between methods

» Only consistent difference was found with

Enterolert® (at low densities no difference, but

at high densities underestimated concentrationby 5% relative to other methods)
	



/-

Intercalibration Results

● Within laboratory

» largest source of variability in the survey» values typically 1/3 to 3 times the median

Intercalibration Results

● Within laboratory

» smallest variance with MF

Coordinated studies with Mexico

● Measured total and fecal coliform using MTF● 29 sites

» 19 along sandy beaches» 10 at perennial water outlets

● Results provided international comparison,

paved way for cooperative work

Indicator Thresholds

(AB 411 & Ocean Plan)

Indicator Daily Limits Monthly LimitsTotal coliform 10,000 20% > 1,000Fecal coliform 400 200 (G.M.)Enterococci 104 35 (G.M.)Total/Fecal Ratio When TC > 1,000

and TC/FC >10 and TC/FC >5

Shoreline Water Quality in the SCBduring Aug. 1998 Meeting Standards

THRESHOLD

Daily Monthly

Percent Shoreline-Mile Days 98969492

90

100

Shoreline Water Quality By Indicator

Total Coliforms Fecal ColiformsEnterococci Total/Fecal Ratio

Percent Shoreline-Mile Days 98969492

90

100

Daily Monthly 

 %
(#
&%


/.

Daily Monthly

High use sandyLow use sandy

7.84.1

9.60.0

High use rockyLow use rocky

2.42.1

2.89.4

Ephemeral outletsPerennial outlets

7.3

10.9

6.7

13.5

Point Zero 40.0 58.3All SCB 4.9 5.7

Shoreline Water Quality byStrata

% SMD Exceeding Threshold

Magnitude of Exceedence

SANDY SHORELINE POINT ZERO OUTLETS

% < 1 SD from Threshold% < 2 SD from Threshold% > 2 SD from Threshold

20 60

Indicator Threshold Exceedence

12

8

Frequency of Threshold Exceedences In

Mexico and the United States

STRATA TOTALS FECALS T:F<10

Sandy Beaches: Mexico US

2.60.5

25.3

5.3

16.5

2.1

Point Zero: Mexico US

12.712.0

32.724.8

21.821.8

Conclusions

Good shoreline water quality in So. Calif. duringsummer 1998

About 95% of shoreline-mile days were belowthresholds

Worst water quality associated with freshwateroutlets

40% of shoreline-mile days were below thresholdsand human enteric viruses were detected at half of theoutlets measured

Conclusions

Enterococci exceeded thresholds more frequentlythan any other indicator

Triple the frequency of total coliforms

Mexican beaches exceeded thresholds morefrequently than US beaches

Frequency was similar near freshwater outlets

Existing beach monitoring programs and cooperativestudies, including use of volunteers, are effective

Went so well we did a “wet season” study!
	



/

Conclusions

Bacterial indicators are weakly correlated to oneanother

Enterococcus is the most conservative of the three

Threshold exceedances by indicators are not tightlyrelated

Most exceedances were for a single indicator

Only storm drains demonstrated multiple indicatorexceedances

More than one indicator exceedance per sampling

Acknowledgements

John Dorsey, Molly Leecaster, Monica

Mazur, Charles McGee, Douglas Moore,Victoria Orozco-Borbon, Daniel Reid,Ken Schiff, Patricia Vainik, and StephenWeisberg

 %
(#
&%


/)

* ++,-
& ,-!

#-   $&Q (Patty Vainik, City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department): Ten years ago,New Jersey did an epidemiological survey along the coastline. I saw a draft final reportand I never saw a final report. Did it ever come out?Dave Rosenblatt:

Yes.

Q (Patty Vainik): Did I miss it in Mr. Gray’s presentation? Was it mentioned? Can you tellus the upshot of the report? As I recall, the draft report did not find any significant relationship between any of the indicators, including enterococcus, and incidence of illness.As I remember, just being on the beach, not necessarily swimming, was the predisposingfactor to illness.Dave Rosenblatt:

The study found that there was no more risk of getting ill from swimming than from

being on the beach. It also found that bacteria counts in the water were so low that it wasvery hard to do the study. The Department of Health conducted the study; my department,the Department of Environmental Protection, assisted with monitoring. The conclusion waspositive for us. Why people were getting ill just being on the beach, I don’t know. Thereare many theories, including the food that they were eating, bathrooms, etc.Comment (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay): In regards to the New Jersey Study, they evaluatedeight or more beach locations. To do an epidemiological study with that many locations,you need to do interviews with 50,000 or more people. That would have added an unbelievable amount of cost onto the study. This guided the Santa Monica Bay study.Q (Mark Gold): In regards to AB411, in talking with the various agencies conducting themonitoring, one of the main issues that Department of Health Services needs to address iswhere to collect the sample in proximity to a storm drain. There are some counties, likeSan Diego and Santa Barbara counties, that collect samples at point zero or right in frontof the drain. Other counties collect samples 25 yards away from the storm drain. I thinkthat the intent of AB411 was to create an even playing field throughout California. At theend of the emergency period, is the state health department considering providing guidance in regards to this issue?Steven Book:

The effective period of AB411 runs from April through October. I think that we will

probably gather the various county representatives and talk about their needs prior to nextspring’s implementation. The only thing that we have talked about in the regulations, interms of location of sampling, is that it needs to include waters affected by storm drains.We have not identified exactly those exact distances yet. We have left that up to the discre-
	





tion of the local health officer. If we do anything outside the regulation, we might makesome suggestions in our guidance. However, I don’t think that we will do anything rightaway. We will talk to people and consider additional guidance by next spring.Dave Rosenblatt:

I just wanted to add to my last answer that there was a delay between the issuance of

the draft and final report in 1988. The draft and the final reports were very similar andthere was nothing new in the final report. People should know that we did this epidemiological study under extreme duress. Back then, there was public outcry about the allegedquality of our waters because of a primary sewage treatment plant. This plant caused a lotof the beach closings.Q (Jack Petralia, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services): I feel that freshwater bathing areas present a bigger problem then marine environments because of poorcirculation and bathing load. When you get high counts, have you tried to correlate thatwith bathing load?Mark Anderson:

It is generally our higher use areas that have been sampled over the years. When we

take samples, we make an estimate of the number of people and boats present. We havefound no correlations between that and our counts over the past 11 years.Q (Charles Kovatch, USEPA Office of Science and Technology): Steven Book, you mentioned that for beach advisory and closing postings you allowed flexibility for language,shape, and color of the signs in AB411. Why did you select a flexible approach as opposedto the standardized approach?Steven Book:

We spent a couple of years meeting with many of the local environmental health

directors. At one point, there was a suggestion for common language. Then they realizedthat many of the signs from various counties differed by one word or by the placement ofthe no swimming symbol. The county that didn’t have the signs that exactly fit the regulation would have to go though all kinds of effort in getting new signs. What we wanted was(1) information to get to the public and (2) incorporate existing signage in counties thatalready had existing programs.Q (Fred Lee, G. Fred Lee Associates): Are there any developments toward applying theAB411 approach to the Sacramento River or the Delta? Places where you don’t havebeaches by strict definition, but you have a lot of swimming, personal watercraft, andskiing.Steven Book:

With regard to freshwater beaches, it is left up to the county ordinances. The definition of a public beach has changed with the implementation of AB411—it has taken out

freshwater beaches—so we need some legislative authority to consider freshwater beachesin regulation. I think that the state board’s microbiological numbers are addressed in theocean plan, but I don’t think the board has microbiological standards for freshwater.Freshwater beaches and recreational waters are currently addressed in our draft guidance.Q (Ken Burger, East Bay Regional Park District): We are in the process of collecting datato determine if our swimming beaches comply with the draft guidelines for freshwater

 %
(#
&%


//

beaches. One of the things in the guidelines is that you are supposed to collect yoursamples within 4-24 inches of water. Mr. Anderson, you indicated that you collect yoursamples in 4 feet of water?Mark Anderson:

Yes.

Comment (Ken Burger): We also used to collect samples in 4 feet of water and foundsignificantly lower numbers than what we were getting in knee-deep water. I think thereason for that is this is where the young kids play. All it takes is one AFR (accidental fecalrelease) or one dirty diaper when you are taking your sample. We have done some sampling in the morning before the people arrived at the beaches and then in the afternoonduring the peak times and we see huge differences. There is a lot of human input inshallow waters from human contact. Our concern is if you are using single samples todetermine when to post, it looks like we are going to be posting all of our beaches. It iscommon to exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 mL during peak use, in shallow water, andon warm summer days. That is a concern to us. I don’t know how this is going to beaddressed and it may create a public reaction. We are looking for ways to deal with thisthat allow the beaches to stay open and meet the requirements at the same time. One of thethings in the guidance created a dilemma for us. It doesn’t make sense for us to post abeach, collect samples 5 days later with low numbers, take the signs back down, and thenput them back up. It’s a difficult situation to be in.Mark Anderson:

We did a study last year where we took samples from 4 feet, 3 feet, and 2 feet of

depth. We got an inverse relationship between the counts and the depth. The closer thatyou get to the shore, the higher the counts. We also did a study where we found that therewere high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria being sequestered in the sediments.Comment (Ken Burger): We are being requested by the two county health departments touse the draft freshwater guidelines. When we do that, we see that beaches that are we incompliance with the old requirements are all in jeopardy now. It’s creating a totally different picture of an old situation. We’ve implemented a diaper ban recently and I’m stillanswering letters from irate housewives claiming that the park district is anti-American andanti-children. It’s creating a lot of concern.Q (James Alamillo, Heal the Bay): I run the beach report card for Heal the Bay and lookat a lot of data from a variety of agencies who monitor their beaches under the AB411regulation. Some of the agency data that I have come across use E. coli in lieu of fecalcoliform as a dataset. How would one interpret E. coli, in terms of the regulation, anddetermine the threshold by which to close/post the beach? Where is that threshold derived?Steven Book:

We understand that some of the counties are using Colilert® to monitor for fecal

coliforms. The test measures E. coli and some are using a 1-to-1 correlation and some usea 1.1 or 1.2 correlation. We are hoping to come out with some guidance on that subject.In the interim, I think that we would expect the counties who are using E. coli to predictfecal coliforms to document the results of split samples run by two different methods toshow the correlation. If it’s 1-to-1 or 1.2-to-1, what’s the justification? For your Heal theBay report card, when you describe the methodology, you could include a sentence for
	





each of the counties on how they make that correction so that people who want to comparecounties or want to make a correction so that all data are comparable can do so.Comment (Dan Mills, California Department of Health Services): I think there are somepeople in the room who have experience with that correlation. Charlie Mc Gee do youhave any recent information since we last spoke about it? I think the SCCWRP (SouthernCalifornia Coastal Water Research Project) laboratories have some comparative databetween the methods.Charles McGee:

We have looked at the relationship of E. coli to fecals using the Colilert® product and

A1 medium as an example. When we look for wastewater around our outfall, it appearsthat about 90 percent of the fecals are E. coli. That’s relatively fresh contamination and I

would expect it to change a little bit as this contamination is dispersed toward the beach. Ido not have good numbers to give to you. Who knows what it is in all wastewaters. Wecouldn’t compare E. coli and fecals in the intercalibration study last year because in threeof the five samples, we used E. coli. From two of them we did and we have a little bit of

information. Rachel, do you remember, have we looked at that at all?Comment (Rachel Noble, University of Southern California): We singled out Colilert®results, especially in Charlie’s case when we did the Bight 1998 Microbiology Study. Forquite a few of the samples the lab ran both, and we found that the Colilert® number represented 90 to 95 percent compared to the number gotten by the other method. A fewpercent lower, because we were sampling seawater and not wastewater.Q (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay): Let’s assume that you would use a multiplier, like 1.1, timesyour E. coli to come up with a fecal threshold to decide whether or not to post. Whatwould you do with the fecal-to-total ratio? Would you take that a step further and compound that uncertainty?Steven Book:

If you were making an estimate by taking your Colilert® number and multiplying it by

1.1 and using that as your fecal coliform value, then you would use that as your numeratorin your fecal over total ratio.Comment (Al Dufour, USEPA, Office of Research and Development): I think we shouldn’tplay these number games. As one of my slides earlier showed, the number of E. coli in

sewage treatment plant samples can range from 92 percent of the total fecal coliforms downto 60 percent of the fecal coliform numbers. With that variation, I don’t know how you cancompare that to a method that measures only E. coli. You might come up with some

average number, but on a sample by sample basis, I don’t think that it will be very meaningful. I think you have to be careful when you try to say E. coli is X percentage andtherefore we can multiply by 1.2 and then compounding that by making it a part of a ratiowhich is even less stable than the E. coli percentage of the fecal coliform. I would add anote of caution before doing things like that.Steven Book:

I also have to agree that you have to use caution, but there is also redundancy because

we are doing sampling for enterococcus at the same time and we are doing weeklysamples. We will look at this more as the implementation of the program proceeds.

 %
(#
&%


*

Q (Roger Fujioka, University of Hawaii): It’s clear that the source of most of the beachpollution has been identified as storm drains, rivers, or lakes coming into the beach area.I have not seen enough data on the concentrations of the indicators in these kinds ofwaters. It would be a greater variation in these kinds of waters than in sewage. Do youhave the data on the freshwater sites and their impact as it goes out into the ocean? Howdo you manage the runoff from the land?Charles McGee:

This summer, in southern California, the major metropolitan sewage agencies that treat

the wastewater are being pressured to accept the nuisance flow in the summertime. That ishappening in LA County and Orange County. My agency is accepting the nuisance flows.Obviously, that can’t happen during the rainy season, but we don’t get rain in the summertime. These flows are being diverted right now just to remove the problem, not addressingthe problem. It’s just taking the contamination to the treatment plant.Q (Roger Fujioka): How do you characterize the freshwater as to whether it’s a lake,storm drain, or river? If it’s a high level what do you do about it? Is there any way tocontrol that contamination from the land, up in the watershed?Charles McGee:

It depends on the level and the flow of the discharge. We need to know what happens

to freshwater when it hits the ocean. The state and Heal the Bay are working on somedistribution models of what happens to the freshwater when it hits the ocean. Those are inthe design phase right now. It needs to be done, it is a very critical component in theequation that we don’t have now.

	



+

!	
%-'((($&'(
'%
'	he Natural Resources Defense Council has published Testing the Waters, its annual summary of beach closure and advisory data

in the United States, for nine years. NRDCcompiles data from independent surveys and fromdata collected by the United States EPA. TheTesting the Waters project was conceived by itsproject director, NRDC Senior Attorney SarahChasis.

The 1999 edition of Testing the Waters

documents 7,236 beach closures and advisories inthe United States during calendar year 1998, afigure that is nearly twice as large as the figure for1997, and nearly three times the number recordedin 1996.

On a state-by-state basis, California logged

the most closures and advisories during 1998, withover 3200 closures and advisories. Florida postednearly 1900 closures during 1998. It is importantto note that states such as California that havemonitoring programs in place may post highernumbers of closures and advisories than states that

do not. Accordingly, the total number of closuresrecorded in a year in one state or locality may notnecessarily convey relative information aboutbeach water quality.

When the reasons given for beach closures

and advisories during 1998 are examined, it isclear that water quality monitoring results providethe largest basis for the beach closures and advisories (69%); known pollution events (27%) andprecautionary action (8%) are also significantreasons.

Looking at the issue from a slightly different

perspective, the major sources of pollution listedas responsible for beach closures in 1998 were asfollows: broken sewer lines and overflows (48%);polluted runoff (31%); and rain-related preemptiveaction (21%).

NRDC’s Testing the Waters report is now

accompanied by online information that allowsInternet users to access information about particular beaches around the country. This informationis part of NRDC’s Internet site, www.nrdc.org.

 %
(#
&%


,

STATES INCLUDED IN TESTING THE WATERS 1999

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

80007000600050004000300020001000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Number ofClosings orAdvisories

Note: Because of inconsistencies in monitoring and closing practices among states and over time, it is 

difficult to make comparisions between states or to assess trends over time based on the closing data.

Total Advisories and Closings, 1988-1998

(excluding extended and permanent)

A

63%

B

27%

C

8%

D

2%

ABCD

based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standardresponse to known pollution event without relying on monitoringprecautionary due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming watersother reason

Reported Causes of Advisories and Closings in 1998

A

69%

B

13%

C

18%

D

0%

ABCD

based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standard

response to known pollution event without relying on monitoringprecautionary due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters

other reason

Reported Causes of Advisories and Closings in 1997

A

48%

B

30%

C

22%

ABC

Sewage Spills and OverflowsPolluted Runoff and StormwaterRain or Preemptive (usually due to polluted stormwater or sewage overflows)

Pollution Sources Responsible for Closings in 1998

	



-

N ew Jersey 222 175 79%C a lifo rn ia 144 116 81%F lo rid a 216 9 0 42%C o n n ec ticu t 100 8 1 81%M ic h ig an 157 6 5 41%N e w Y o rk 131 4 7 36%M a s sa c h u se tts 7 5 3 1 41%O h io 6 0 2 9 48%N o rth C aro lin a 2 0 2 0 100%In d ian a 3 7 1 8 49%W is c o n s in 4 5 1 8 40%Illin o is 3 4 1 3 38%

STATE

Total Numberof BeachesReported in 1998

Number

of Beaches

Indicating 

Stormwater 

Pollution 

Source

Percent

 Indicating

Stormwater

Pollution

 Source

Beaches Indicating Stormwater As Pollution Source FOUR STATES LACK ANY REGULAR MONITORING

OF BEACHWATER FOR SWIMMER SAFETY

 ALABAMA LOUISIANA OREGON WASHINGTON

THIRTEEN STATES HAVE REGULAR MONITORING

AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR 

A PORTION OF THEIR RECREATIONAL BEACHES

CALIFORNIAFLORIDAHAWAIIMAINEMARYLANDMASSACHUSETTSMICHIGAN

MINNESOTARHODE ISLANDSOUTH CAROLINAVIRGINIAWISCONSINNEW YORK

ONLY NINE STATES COMPREHENSIVELY 

MONITOR MOST OR ALL OF THEIR 

BEACHES AND NOTIFY THE PUBLIC

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

NEW JERSEY

NORTH CAROLINAOHIOPENNSYLVANIA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

STATE COST NUMBER OF

COUNTIES

REPORTING

MILES

MONITORED

COST PER BEACH

MILE

California $1,237,929 43 292 $4,239Connecticut $191,955 52 41 $4,682Delaware $31,250 3 7 $4,464Florida $222,470 83 163 $1,365Georgia $170,000 1 NPIllinois $59,750 15 13 $4,596Indiana $32,500 16 10 $3,250Maine $9,250 12 10 $925Maryland $226,300 24 29 $7,803Massachusetts $72,750 56 54 $1,347Michigan $137,750 77 39 $3,532Minnesota $7,500 3 1 $7,500Mississippi $175,000 3 40 $4,375New Hampshire $5,250 3 NP

New Jersey $250,000 3 17 $14,706

New York $532,200 49 28 $19,007North Carolina $361,250 6 270 $1,338Ohio $78,350 18 7 $11,193South Carolina $132,500 15 25 $5,300Texas $114,274 13 10 $11,427Virginia $84,000 15 54 $1,556Wisconsin $103,750 63 8 $12,969NP = Not Provided

1988 COSTS OF OCEAN, BAY AND GREAT LAKES 

BEACH-MONITORING AND/OR ADVISORY-CLOSING PROGRAMS

BEACH INDICATOR

ORGANISM

TESTING

FREQUENCY

CLSOING/

ADVISORY ISSUANCE

EPA-recommendedcriteria

enterococcus generally not fewer

than 5 samples

equally spaced over

a 30-day period

greater than G.M.* of 35/100ml or a

single sample of 104/100ml for a

designated bathing beach

Assateague IslandNational Seashore,VA

enterococcus weekly greater then G.M.* of 35/100ml** or a

single sample of either 104/100ml for

guarded beaches or 158/100ml for

non-guarded beaches

Bethany Beach, DE enterococcus weekly (summer

months)

greater than G.M.* of 155/100ml** or

a single sample of 2,212/100ml

Virginia Beach, VA fecal coliform biweekly greater than G.M.* of 200/100ml** or

a single sample of 1,000/100ml

Ocean City, MD fecal coliform monthly greater than G.M.* of 200/100ml** or

400/100ml of 10% of the samples

(discretionary closures)

COMPARISON OF MONITORING AND CLOSURE POLICIESOF BEACHES IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

* G.M. means geometric mean** Five samples taken over a 30-day period

 %
(#
&%


.

STATE YEAR DOLLAR

VALUE

(Billions)

NUMBER OF

RELATED

JOBS

Alabama 1998 1.7 39,309California 1997 37.6 387,530Georgia 1998 2.14 Not availableHawaii 1998 14.6 179,950Massachusetts 1996 6.5 70,000New Jersey 1998 5.8 267,000North Carolina 1997 1.4 25,850Oregon 1997 1.3 19,703South Carolina 1997 4.0 73,284Texas 1997 1.9 30,500

VALUE OF COASTAL TOURISM 

TO SELECTED STATES
	









	







 






 
!"!!

ommunicating well about a risk, any risk, requires three domains of expertise: (1) topic expertise, (2) audience expertise, and (3) storytelling expertise. Many risk

managers emphasize the first over the othertwo. But leaving even one of the three tochance can be lethal to a risk communicationeffort. In this talk, we’ll look briefly at thosetwo neglected domains.


 !"

The landscape of risk information campaigns is littered with efforts that have foundered on this issue. Knowing enough about the

audience to make educated guesses about thenature and structure of risk messages is difficult, as each risk situation has its unique characteristics. However, there are some generalpatterns emerging from a growing risk communication and health campaign literature that willcome in handy:

• Audiences often bring well-developed

beliefs about a risk to your issue. If yourmessage offers content that collides withthose beliefs, the thing most likely to getmodified is your message, not the beliefs.

• The ability of audience to reconstruct

messages to fit their own beliefs means thatthe strongest effect of the typical riskmessage is to reinforce existing beliefs, notchange them.

• Individuals will distinguish between their

personal level of risk and the risk posed toothers, and they will employ differentchannels of information to inform thosedifferent types of risk judgment.

• The typical members of your audience will

give your risk message a modicum of theirtime. This means they will analyze that

message speedily and superficially. Additionally, they will bring to that message aset of cognitive processing strategies thatmay truncate their ability to understand theevidence that you present.

• Audiences will develop their own notions

of source credibility, and those notions maydiffer from yours.

 !"

Knowing some of these things about your

audience can help you construct “stories” aboutrisk that stand a chance of being ingested andunderstood. Here are some story attributes that aresensitive to the issues mentioned above:

• If you sense that members of the audience

indeed bring strong beliefs to the table, thenyou can try to cope with those beliefs inyour message. This is not easy, but astorytelling strategy that is sensitive tostrong beliefs may actually succeed, whileone that is insensitive is guaranteed to fail.Here is how one might organize a messagewith strong beliefs in mind:

1. Acknowledge the usefulness of the

prevailing belief.

2. Then, demonstrate how the prevailing

belief fails to explain reality in othersituations.

3. Offer up the propositions you hope will

replace the prevailing belief.

4. Demonstrate how those propositions

successfully explain a variety of situations similar to the risk situation youface.

• Individuals will distinguish between their

own personal risk and risk to others. Theywill want to interpret the typical riskmessage (i.e., mass messages) as telling
"#$
%"

&

them something about others’ risk andwill resist seeing those messages asinforming their understanding of theirpersonal risk level. To influence personalrisk judgments, interpersonal channelsare best.

• Anticipating the kinds of cognitive biases

that you will face allows you to embed inyour message explanations to helpcounteract them.

• Heuristic (superficial) processing of

messages means that audience memberswill be relying on message cues to decidewhat they think about a risk. Channelcredibility and source credibility will beimportant cues. But other cues can bebuilt into the messages themselves.

• In a world of heuristic processors, keep

messages short.

	





	
 	 


 	

  
 
   


 	  	

❚ Topic❚ Audience❚ Storytelling

 	

❚ Audiences already have robust beliefs❚ The strongest effect of a message is

reinforcement of those beliefs

❚ Risk referent matters❚ Speedy interpretation will be the norm❚ Credibility judgments are audience--not

source--judgments

		
 	

❚ Coping with strong beliefs

•Acknowledge usefulness of prevailing beliefs•Demonstrate flaws of those beliefs•Propose a new set of beliefs•Demonstrate utility of the new beliefs

		
 	

❚ My risk vs. their risk

Use mediated channels to encourage people to learnabout a risk but interpersonal channels to promotebehavior change

		
 	

❚ Anticipate cognitive biases that people will

bring to your message

•The power of anecdotal evidence•All things have causes•Oversimplification of cause and effect
"#$
%"

'((

	
 


❚ Heuristic information processors will rely

on different message cues than willsystematic information processors

•Brevity is best•Credibility of channel matters more than credibility ofsource•What single main point do you wish to convey?•Expertise cues are important

	



'('

#$$%
 "
%&)%'n the spring of 1996, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) released the results of the first ever epidemiology study

on swimmers in urban runoff contaminatedwaters. The USC-led study demonstrated thatthere was a significant correlation between theincidence of adverse health effects and exposure to runoff contaminated waters with highindicator bacteria densities. Subsequent to therelease of the study, there has been a great dealof progress on beach public health issues.

In the Los Angeles area, a new beach

closure and health warning protocol wasdeveloped and the county lifeguards now warnpeople to avoid swimming in runoff-contaminated waters. Also, local government agencieshave initiated a program to divert the dryweather runoff from polluted storm drains andinto the sewer system. Dry weather runoffdiversions take polluted runoff out of the surfzone, thereby greatly reducing the health risksto swimmers. By the end of the summer, sevenrunoff diversions will have been implementedwith another five scheduled for next year.Also, San Diego has implemented a similarrunoff diversion program on an even largerscale. Perhaps the most unique project is theSanta Monica Dry Weather Runoff DiversionFacility scheduled for completion in the springof 2000. This project will treat up to 500,000gallons per day of runoff with filtration anddisinfection. The treated runoff will be used forirrigation within the community.

Shortly after the release of the study, Santa

Barbara County initiated a shoreline indicatorbacteria monitoring program and a beachclosure and health warning protocol.

Statewide, the major outcome of the study

was the passage of Assembly Bill 411 authoredby San Diego’s Howard Wayne. Last month,the California Department of Health Servicesissued emergency regulations to implement billrequirements. For the first time, California hasstatewide bathing standards (based largely onthe results of the SMBRP epidemiology study),mandatory requirements to post pollutedbeaches with warning signs and close beachespolluted by sewage spills, and mandatorymonitoring programs for popular, runoffcontaminated beaches. Also, the state willprovide funding to local health agencies toimplement AB411 requirements. For the firsttime, water quality data and beach closureinformation will be comparable from county tocounty.

On a regional basis, Heal the Bay has

expanded its weekly Beach Report Card toinclude over 250 locations in Orange, LosAngeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.For the last nine years, Heal the Bay has gradedover 60 beaches in Los Angeles County on ascale of “A” to “F” based on bacterial indicatordensities in shoreline waters. The grades arebased on the frequency of days over a 28-dayperiod that exceeds AB411 thresholds. Heal theBay uses the monitoring data from healthagencies and sewage treatment plant monitoring programs. All of the agencies in SouthernCalifornia have been extremely cooperative insharing data on a timely basis so that Heal theBay can release the information to the mediaand put it on our web site (www.healthebay.org)by noon every Friday. The Report Card hasproven to be a very popular tool to provide thepublic with water quality and beach closureinformation. Heal the Bay hopes to add San
"#$
%"

Diego beaches to our Beach Report card by theend of the year.

'(*

EPA Region 9 has contracted with Heal

the Bay to complete a model national beachstandards, monitoring and public notificationprogram. Currently, staff are still in the information gathering and drafting phase. Our hopeis to release a peer-reviewed document by theend of the year. The objective is to provide anational model program that will providecomparable data from region to region and thatwill provide the public with water qualityinformation in a timely manner.

An upcoming study led by the Southern

California Coastal Waters Research Project withthe city of Los Angeles and Heal the Bayshould provide valuable information on theimportance of storm drain flow and shorelinecurrents on the fate and transport of indicatorbacteria. One of the shortcomings of theSMBRP epidemiology study was the lack offlow and current data. The end result was thatthere was no significant correlation between theincidence of adverse health effects and thedistance swimmers were from flowing stormdrains. Risk managers need to be able toprovide the public with general recommendations to reduce the risk of adverse health effectson swimmers. One of the goals of the study isto provide recommendations on a simple modelto apply nationwide for risk managers to protectthe health of swimmers at contaminated

beaches. The study should be completed bynext spring.

Another ongoing effort is the development

of bacterial indicator and pathogen TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for allVentura and Los Angeles County beaches by2003. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) is currently incharge of this effort. This program is a result ofa Heal the Bay, Santa Monica BayKeeperlawsuit brought by the Natural ResourcesDefense Council against EPA. The end resultshould be TMDL development for all beachesimpaired for recreational water contact, thedevelopment of Waste Load Allocations andLoad Allocations for fecal bacteria sourcesupstream of the polluted beaches, and animplementation plan for achieving the TMDLsand the load allocations.

In a related effort, the LARWQCB is

working with Malibu on a study of septicsystems and their potential role in contributinghigh densities of indicator bacteria at localbeaches. Also, Assemblywoman Hanna-BethJackson has introduced AB885 to developperformance standards for on-site wastewatertreatment facilities in coastal counties. The billbecame a two-year bill after objections fromMalibu, some coastal counties and realtorassociations. Currently, there are no stateregulations governing water quality from onsite treatment systems.

	



'(+

The Aftermath of the Santa

Monica Bay Epidemiology Study

Dr. Mark Gold

Executive Director

Heal the Bay

Santa Monica Bay Epi. Study

• First epidemiological study on swimmers in

urban-runoff contaminated waters

• Designed to answer two questions:

– Is distance of swimming from storm drain

associated with risk of adverse healthoutcomes?

– Do bacteria indicators predict risk of adverse

health outcomes?

Major Finding of Epi. Study

• Correlation between incidence of adverse

health effects (gastroenteritis and upperreparatory infections) and swimming inwater with high indicator densities

• Those who swim in front of flowing drain

are twice as likely to get sick than those 400yards away

Changes in S. California

• Santa Barbara initiated a monitoring and

notification program

• San Diego developed a dry weather

diversion plan

• LA County

– Signs posted at every flowing storm drain– Lifeguards actively warn swimmers near drains– Local government agencies commit to dry

weather diversions

SM Bay Dry Weather Diversions

• Total of 12 diversions

– 2 completed since epi. study– 5 in 1999, 4 in 2000, 1 in 2001-2001

• City of LA, County of LA, City of Santa

Monica

• Santa Monica Dry Weather Runoff

Diversion Facility (DWRRF) - 2000

Statewide Changes—AB411

• Major outcome of Epi. Study• Passed without major opposition• Consistent monitoring, posting and closure

protocols throughout the state

• Significant Public Right-to-Know

component

• Improved programs in several counties such

as Ventura County, Long Beach
"#$
%"

'(,

Expansion of Heal the Bay's

Beach Report Card

• 250 beach locations• Expansion includes Orange, Ventura and

Santa Barbara Counties, and Long Beach

• Modification of grading system• Annual Beach Report Card expansion

On-Going Efforts in SM Bay

• SCCRWP Beach Closure Study

– Physical and/or statistical model of bacteria

indicator plume from storm drains in SM Bay

– Predictive tool for length of beach impacted

• Malibu septic tank investigation

– Chronic contamination at Surfrider Beach– RWQCB/City of Malibu source investigation

On-Going Efforts—State

Legislation

• AB 885 (Jackson)

– Requires state standards for on-site wastewater

treatment systems

– Much opposition, now a 2-year bill

• AB 538 (Wayne)

– Follow-up to AB 411– Requires DHS to establish source investigation

protocol

On-Going Efforts Regional

• Beach Water Quality Group\• EPA's Model Program for Beach

Monitoring and Public Notification

• EPA's West Coast Beach Health Website

LA and Ventura County

Microbiological TMDLs

• Consent Decree established schedule for

development

• $340k to support development of SM Bay

Coliform TMDL

• Heal the Bay supports:

– TMDLs equivalent to AB 411 standards– Implementation through Basin Plans, permits

and watershed management plans

Future Actions

• Promote National Bathing Water Standards• Promote Beach Report Card or similar

format to inform the public

• Ensure AB-411 is working as intended• Support development of source

investigation protocol

• Support development and implementation

of microbiological TMDLs

	



'(-



 &"

$.!/
!)

#he Beach Safety Bill (AB411, Wayne, D- San Diego) was signed in to law in 1997 to provide for statewide standardization of

coastal water testing, beach posting criteria andincreased public health protection for recreational users of our coastal waters. This lawrequires coastal municipalities to test beachwater quality within their jurisdiction and topost warning signs whenever water quality failsto meet bacteriological standards adopted byregulation. The California Department ofHealth Services (DHS) developed emergencyregulations for AB411 that standardize thetesting of coastal waters, posting criteria and thedissemination of beach closure information tothe public.

The regulations (17 CCR §115880 et seq.)

require local health officers to:

• Weekly test coastal water at all public

beaches between April 1 and October 31;where (a) storm drains flow to the surfzone and (b) have 50,000 visitors annually,

• Analyze samples for four indicator

criteria: total coliform (TC), fecalcoliform (FC), TC/FC ratio and enterococcus,

• Post beaches with signs when regulatory

health standards are exceeded,

• Notify the public via telephone hotline

[(619) 338-2073] when beach waterquality exceeds regulatory health standards.

The Department of Environmental Health

(DEH) is the local agency responsible forimplementing AB411 in San Diego County.Many features incorporated in AB411 aremodeled from DEH’s existing Beach & BayMonitoring Program. Under the new AB411program, samples are collected weekly from

138 coastal sites. When state standards areexceeded, beaches are posted with warningsigns and the public is notified via a beachclosure hotline, via the DEH Web site(www.co.san-diego.ca.us/deh) and on theweather page of the local newspaper (SanDiego Union-Tribune).

AB411 uses the terms “posting” and

“closure.” “Posting” is used at beaches whererecreational water contact is restricted due tostorm water runoff pollution and “closure” isused at beaches where recreational water isrestricted due to sewage spills. Past regulationsand practice caused a beach to be posted if totaland fecal coliform water quality standards wereexceeded. AB411 regulations will require abeach to be posted (closed) if any one of fourwater quality standards is exceeded. Thescientific evidence that supports this staterequirement has been questioned by many localagencies. A study published in April 1999 bythe Southern California Coastal Water ResearchProject, found a high degree of inconsistencyamong the three bacterial indicators used as thebasis for beach posting decisions.

The bottom line is that the new AB411

regulations will probably result in an increase inbeach postings (closures) and a correspondingperception by the public that water quality atour beaches has decreased. In reality, we arejust using a different set of indicators.

On the plus side, the Beach Safety Bill

(AB411) requires standardized coastal waterquality monitoring and public notification forall coastal municipalities. Unfortunately, muchof the scientific evidence is unavailable todemonstrate that the proposed bacteriologicalrecreational water quality standards will achievethe intent of AB411: to reduce risk of illnessdue to contact with contaminated coastal water.
"#$
%"

'(0

	





 	
 
  	 

	  	 		  	 	 


1999 Beach Conference 	





  	 
  	 	 
  
 	 	 	 

	






	



 	

  	



  	


 	
	

 	 

 
    	 

 

 	 



    


		
	



	


  	 
 
    


Total Coliforms 10,000 MPN/100ml

Fecal Coliforms 400 MPN/100ml

Enterococci 104 MPN/100ml

Fecal:Total Ratio >0.1 if TC > 1000

Total Coliforms 1,000 MPN/100ml

Fecal Coliforms 200 MPN/100ml

Enterococci 35 MPN/100ml




 

 
   

 

  
  
 
  



   

 
   
 


 
!

 	 

  ! "

 #

 $$ 	 "	  #% $& 	 "	 $ 	 
 ' 	 ()*"  	 +
 , 	 #
 -

# #

#

##

## #####

###

##

###

#

#

#

#

##

####

#

#

#

#

### ##

####

#

##

## ##

############

### ##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# ###

#

####

#

#

##

ORANGE COUNTY

BAJA, MEXICO

	



'(

	





  	
 
  	 


 	
  

  
 
 
 	

 
 
 
	




  	 
  
 
	
 

  



 



 



 
 
 	 

 	 
	
 

  



 



"

 

#$%

 %
%



&"		 
' &
		 

 	
  

  		 

 	

   

   	




  		 

 	

   

   	



"#$
%"

'(&





(
)	

 *++

  	

  	 
 

  	

 

 	  
 

 
	 


 	 		   
	

 	



 	 	

  	

 	 	 	   


(
	
(

	

,

"




 	

 

 !

  
  

 "#$%%&'()%

	



'(

(
))*

%&&Q (Suzanne Michel, San Diego State University, Department of Political Science): One ofthe things that I have noticed, especially here in San Diego, is issues of beach closures,water issues, and urban growth. There is a serious disjunct between what is happening incoastal communities and inland communities. Inland communities upstream are rapidlygrowing. They don’t care about storm water. If there are sewage spills, there is no notification. It’s good that we are talking about what is happening at the beaches, but we need tostart thinking about what’s going on upstream. Upstream is where the urban growth isoccurring, and the upstream communities don’t care what’s happening downstream. WithHeal the Bay are you starting to interact with these groups and look at the watershedperspective?Mark Gold:

We are very involved in watershed management and have been for over a decade at

Heal the Bay. I think that one of the biggest reasons that the BayKeeper, NRDC, and Healthe Bay brought the TMDL lawsuit in the Los Angeles region was this very issue. We wereincreasingly frustrated by the lack of uniformity in compliance with weak storm waterpermits. We have each fought many storm water permits, trying to get them tougher andtougher. The reality is that until you get wasteload allocations and load allocations assigned to certain cities as part of their storm water permits, the issue that you are concernedabout, I think, is going to continue to happen. As long as watershed management is 100percent voluntary, these problems are still going to occur. We got involved in all of thevarious activities, watershed management committees, TMDLs, and storm water permitcommenting.Chris Gonaver:

Sewage spills are treated equally no matter where they are in the county. Public

notification and posting–all are treated the same way. The ones in the coastal areas are justmost obvious with more signs. Regarding watersheds, there is a large effort under way inthe county to coordinate watershed involvement. I think that those watershed activitieshave been in the closet individually for a long time, but there is a real effort now to bringeverybody together and share information as far as who is doing what. From the land usestandpoint, there are storm water requirements in place for development and redevelopment construction. Talk to Donna Frye for watershed planning information.Comment (Suzanne Michel): I just want to comment to make my point. I know sewagespills are all treated the same. There was a huge spill in Santee, 400,000 gallons. I wentaround and talked to people in Santee and (a) not one person knew about it and (b) theydidn’t even seemed to care, that’s just what happens. When you’re sitting at the beachwith a closing, you care. There is a definite disjunct in attitudes between coastal and inland
"#$
%"

''(

communities. I think we need to do more to get the inland communities more involved inunderstanding what is going on downstream.Q (Douglas Moore, Orange County Public Health Laboratory): On the posting versusclosings, San Diego isn’t the only area confused by the signs. Since a posting equals aclosing, are the lifeguards ticketing on postings and closings?Chris Gonaver:

Yes. In the city of San Diego only. From our standpoint, we don’t want people in the

water for either of those events.Mark Gold:

As a follow-up, in the LA region, we looked at it as a voluntary versus an involuntary

risk. That’s why we differentiate between postings versus closings. You can’t closeSurfrider Beach permanently. As Chris was demonstrating with the health survey, if it’sbreaking at 2 to 4 feet at whatever beach, people are going to be there. To put that sort ofimpetus on the lifeguards and the public. I think that the Surfriders want to use their owndiscretion.Comment (Douglas Moore): In the city of Huntington Beach the Mayor said that I wouldbe fined $500 for going in the water when there was a posting or a closure. I don’t seehow to explain to the public the difference between a posting and a closing.Comment (Chris Kinner, Surfrider Foundation): They advocate personal risk managementwith regard to the postings and closures. They also advocate an informed public and wantthem to know the potential for contamination and the associated risks. Many surfers arewater conscious and water aware and are able to make those certain risk assessments ontheir own. Obviously with known closures due to contamination many surfers aren’t goingto weigh a personal choice. If its closed, its closed.Q (Sydney Harvey, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services): I find the datafrom Mark Gold’s report on the Santa Monica Study relevant to the total-to-fecal coliformratio correlation to human disease very intriguing. I wonder if you did species identification of the total coliforms?Mark Gold:

No, it was just the standard test. Both membrane filtration and multiple tube methods

were used.Q (Sydney Harvey): Did you select colonies for species identification?Mark Gold:

No.

Q (Sydney Harvey): You did not know if you were looking at coliforms or a high percentage of aeromonads?Mark Gold:

That is correct.

	



'''

Q (Sydney Harvey): Are there any plans to do this?Mark Gold:

No. It sounds like these are things we should really talk about.

Q (Sydney Harvey): Did the Los Angeles County Public Health Laboratory do some of theassays relevant to your study?Mark Gold:

The county monitors about 35 beaches every week. During the course of the actual

epidemiological study, all the bacteriological surveys were done by the City of Los AngelesEnvironmental Monitoring Division by membrane filtration. Los Angeles County onlyparticipated as reviewers.Comment (Sydney Harvey): We have looked at total coliform populations coming fromvarious places along the Los Angeles County coast. Quite a number of what are obviouslyfalse positives are aeromonads. They are not coliforms and, depending on the test methodology one uses, you can get Vibrio as false positives. I think that it would be very interesting and informative to look at what the total coliform and fecal coliform really means interms of health risk.Q (Clay Clifton, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health): Is there a policyor guidance from EPA or another agency regarding posting of contaminated water signs ata beach which is already under a general advisory for rainfall? If you have a significantrainfall event on a Sunday night, that rainfall advisory will be in effect at all beach locations adjacent to flowing storm drains and river outlets for 72 hours from Monday on. IfMonday’s samples are high, is there guidance that says that the location should be postedwith a sign? If you have routine data with high bacteria counts for a location that isalready under a general advisory, what’s the proper notification? Are you serving thepublic to post a beach that is already under a general advisory and not post an adjacentbeach which does not have a routine sample location, but has a flowing storm drain? Areyou sending a mixed message?Sharon Dunwoody:

The only thing that you can do in that situation is ask people. One of the things that I

do is spot interviewing on a site. Ask the people how they are interpreting the signs thatthey see. We don’t know how the people are reacting to the signs in your area, but thereare ways of finding out.Q (Clay Clifton): From risk assessment, is it better to have the population at beach Anotified with signs because you have the routine sample that confirms high bacteria levelsafter a rainfall event or beach B which does not post because they do not have the data toverify the high bacteria counts? Are you better off to save one and not post signs at thebeach for the second?Comment (Rick Hoffman, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science andTechnology): EPA’s official guidance is currently confined to general, ambient monitoringof water quality, not for beach advisories, so that falls to the county health department.That is one of the things that we are going to be talking about in our future guidance.
"#$
%"

''*

Mark Gold:

Most of the counties that I have dealt with feel that as long as they change their hotline

and get the information out to the media about the rainfall by sending out a press releaseevery time it rains, that should suffice. I think that putting signs up is redundant. We needto get the message out that when it rains, you shouldn’t go in.Comment (Gerry Winant, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services): Threeyears ago, we didn’t have a program. We got blasted by the national press for not having amonitoring program. Finally, the Board of Supervisors took the heat from the public anddecided that this was something that we needed to do. That was the formative step to dothat and thanks to Heal the Bay for helping develop our program. Also, I would like tocomment that I found that the transition of the NRDC survey to the EPA format is unworkable. It seems overdetailed, and I’m not sure how much information can adequately beconveyed in that format. Some of the information is difficult to accumulate.Comment (Rick Hoffman): The purpose of the survey is to develop a national perspectiveand answer many different questions such as what standards are in effect, identify thebeaches, and determine how many people visit those beaches (to give people a sense ofutilization), etc. When we were formulating some of those questions, we looked at NRDC’ssurvey and a couple of the state and local agency surveys. I think we recognize exactlywhat you have said, in that it is a very detailed questionnaire. We have tried to assist folksas best we can in putting it into a usable format. If there are ways that we can simplify thesurvey, we certainly are amenable to that and would appreciate any comments on thosethings you may feel are not as pertinent as others. Some of the questions are more “programmatic” (in the sense of the levels of monitoring, visitation, etc.). You might not needthese facts, but on a nationwide basis, this provides important information such as theaverage costs and other general program characteristics. We hope that once you get thebasic information into the database, the only changes should be the beach-specific information from year to year. It should be easier to complete the second year. The burden fallsmost heavily on some of the localities that have a small number of personnel and a fairnumber of beaches.Q (Jim Colston, Orange County Sanitation District): One of the themes that I have seen inthis session is the issue of urban runoff. Before the State Water Board is the NonpointSource Program. The official comment period closed on Monday, but there will be a publichearing. This is done in conjunction with the Coastal Commission and under CZARA. It’simportant to realize that the proposal is a three-tiered approach where there is a 15-yearcycle: 5 years of voluntary, 5 years of encouraged, and then 5 years of an enforcementlevel for nonpoint sources. This is a rehash of a 1988 proposal. The comments we submitted are that they should redo the three tiers so that tier one would be for waters that meetstandards, tier two would be for impaired waters that are low or medium priority forreceiving a TMDL, and tier three for impaired waters that are a high priority for receivinga TMDL. We feel that this is a much more appropriate approach that will result in waterquality improvement, assuming that the lists are done correctly. This will go before theWater Board soon. I hope that EPA would support the strengthening of California’s regulations.Mark Gold:

Thank you for bringing that up. That has been one of NRDC’s and our organization’s

priorities over the summer. You are correct. I feel that the document will not bring us any

	



''+

closer to real watershed management; protecting our beaches; or stopping runoff problemscaused by agriculture, marinas, or cities. It’s just a list of what is going on in the state ofCalifornia and there is no mention of how you move from one tier to another. There’s nolead agency named. Unfortunately EPA and NOAA, the lead agencies federally, don’t haveany teeth in getting the state of California to strengthen the program, other than providecritical review. They can approve it or disapprove it, but that would get rid of the fundingfor the Coastal Commission, so there is little EPA and NOAA can do to help.
"#$
%"

'',

$

&
"Breakout sessions were held at each of the regional conferences to gather input for theBeach Guidance document. Participants were asked a series of questions regarding themajor topic areas that will be included in the document.%+#"$
&


1. Microbial Indicators of Water Quality

a. Overview of health risks—previous studiesb. Review of specific indicatorsc. Recommendations

2. Water Quality Monitoring

a. Basic considerations in water quality monitoringb. Field proceduresc. Laboratory procedures

3. Predictive Tools

a. Rainfall-based guidelinesb. Fate and transport models

4. Risk Assessment, Management and Communication

a. Risk assessmentb. Risk managementc. Risk communication

Each breakout group was asked two questions for each of the four topic areas:1. Are there any additional major topics that should be considered for inclusion in

the guidance? (no additional major topic areas were identified)

2. Identify the major challenges to successful implementation, possible solutions,

and barriers to implementing the solutions.

%'

1. Challenge: Ability to Conduct a Rapid Analysis

Solutions:• develop a “dip stick” method• update new methodsBarriers:• fluorospectrometry - needs validation and approval• consultants and vendors• cost• skills and training

	%1
!!

''-

2. Challenge: Use of Viruses in Addition to Currently Acceptable Indicators

Solutions:• conduct further research on diseases caused by viruses

- upper respiratory, skin, and ear infections- use of phages as indicators

Barrier:• cost

3. Challenge: Need to Have Flexibility in the Choice of Methods and Indicators

Solutions:• create a matrix to show comparability of validated methods for freshwater and

marine water

• change regulation(s) based on good science and associated health risks• update approved methods• include recommendations for assessing acute GI disease• recommendations should be based on different classes of risks (World Health

Organization document, figure 5, page 20)

• collect more data on human vs. animal indicators and health-associated risks• EPA should hasten the approval process for assessing indicators• determine which indicators are affected by tropical conditions• consider region and source applicabilityBarriers:• inconsistencies between programs• entrenched attitudes• established local laws• lack of communication• public confusion• cost

4. Challenge: Lack of a Central One-Stop Information Source

Solutions:• publish EPA critique of new research on indicators• create a web site with relevant documents, information, case studies, and references

Barrier:

• internal (EPA) and external barriers to completing the research review

5. Challenge: Limitations of Existing Indicators and Methods (regional and source

issues)Solutions:• develop a 3-track approach

- improve existing indicators- develop better indicators- conduct health studies to verify existing and new indicators

• improve communication between laboratories and regulatory agenciesBarriers:• resources• technology• cost-effectiveness• West Coast data sets are different from East Coast
"#$
%"

''0

,(
%

1. Challenge: Improve Monitoring Coordination

Solutions:

• encourage storm water agencies to monitor bacteria• determine uses of data• investigate the use of volunteer monitoring programs• change legislation• coordinate regulations• use the TMDL process as a tool• develop sample handling procedures

- need for longer storage- certify more laboratories

Barrier:• variability of data vs. “load” target

2. Challenge: Sampling Design Issues

Solutions:• consider the larger picture, history of the site, and pollution sources• consider and report local land use• define frequency and timing of sampling

- change requirements for frequency of monitoring depending on type of

incident

- define when to resample- allow enough time in the standards to collect the samples

• clarify the sampling schedule (peak and random)• consider sample parameters

- wind speed, temperature, DO, pH, turbidity- collection location

• suggest the “control chart” (quality control) approach• standardize aspects of the monitoring such as, depth, number of sites, and location and statistical protocols• develop nationally acceptable design considerations

- include ambient vs. worse case- use technical workgroups for peer review

• reevaluate monitoring regulations• correlate monitoring with health effects/risksBarriers:• currently not being done• compliance issues• sample representation of the swimming area• cost• time requirements to interpret and analyze the data

3. Challenge: Varying Sample Locations

Solutions:• clarify areas to be sampled relevant to storm drains• address site-specific sampling, e.g.,storm drainsBarrier:• difficult to distinguish for confined areas, e.g., open ocean and freshwater

4. Challenge: Need to Optimize Programs

Solutions:• provide a tool box for identifying problems

	%1
!!

''

• identify a lead agency to develop a model monitoring program• develop ancillary data collection programs (beyond bacteria)Barriers:• cost• leadership• jurisdictional restrictions

*#

1. Challenge: Application of East Coast, West Coast, and International Models

Solutions:• consider appropriate locations, timing, and dry weather flows• develop two kinds of weather models based on wet and dry conditions• allow for adequate peer reviewBarriers:• data requirements and compilation• randomness of rainfall and pollution events

2. Challenge: Develop Rainfall-Based Guidelines

Solutions:• consider regional variability• develop a general advisory (i.e., 2 inches for beaches and 0.1 inch for storm

water)

• develop guidance on how to adapt standards based on site-specific conditionsBarriers:• regional variability• legal issues

3. Challenge: How to Assess a Rainfall Event

Solutions:• coordinate with local storm water programs• develop a wet weather modelBarriers:• frequent rain events• areas with high rainfall

4. Challenge: Lack of Comprehensive Predictive Tools

Solutions:• offer grants to regional agencies to coordinate and manage fate and transport and

flow-based dispersion models for personal computers

• create a database of results to fit models• field test the models and determine risk management guidelines for a variety of

requirements, e.g., waterbody type, lakes, and ocean

• utilize local universities for researchBarriers:• cost• reliability• technical and training issues• varied parameters• legal issues
"#$
%"

''&

%


1. Challenge: Uniform Signage

Solutions:• apply standards nationally• develop on-site management of signs (size, content, and positioning distance)• define reopening proceduresBarriers:• cost• reluctance to change

2. Challenge: Communication of Risk to the Public

Solutions:• provide access to information on how simplified values (Green Light, Red Light)

are derived for beach reporting (e.g., Heal the Bay, EMPACT web sites)

• provide a decision tree showing how beach advisories/closings are determined• provide successful outreach documents as an appendix in the guidance• define the difference between an advisory and closing procedures• post fliers with lifeguards, surf shops, stores, hotels, fast food shops, and restaurants• encourage the use of hotlines and press release• educate lifeguards to reinforce postings and closings• define indicators for the public• educate upstream communities on the effects of water pollution (watershed

approach)

Barriers:• enforcement• mixed messages• costs

- individual- society

• public trust

3. Challenge: Getting Balanced Media Coverage

Solutions:• develop guidance on successful ways to communicate with the media (case

studies)

Barriers:• media likes to control the message• lack of conclusive data

4. Challenge: Using Risk Assessment Assumptions

Solutions:• present major caveats• use a weight-of-evidence approach with assessments• field test for accuracyBarrier:• assumptions lead to high uncertainty

5. Challenge: Lack of Problem “Visibility”

Solution:• conduct a national campaign to increase beach issue awarenessBarriers:• overreactions

	%1
!!

''

• mixed-messages• congressional constraint

6. Challenge: Risk Management

Solutions:• Assess adequacy of BMPs for pathogens• diaper bans• adequate restroom facilities

Barriers:• none identified7. Challenge: Identification of Source Contamination

Solutions:• provide lists of available tools (i.e., American Water Works Association)• provide guidance on sanitary surveys• develop additional methods to identify sources

- DNA fingerprinting- RNA probes- tracers for sewage- sentinel organisms/mussels

• recommend providing adequate restroom facilities• develop urban runoff versus storm water source issuesBarriers:• lack of historical information on sites• costs

'
&



1. Encourage consistency between surveys to limit duplication of effort (e.g., state,

NRDC, EPA, GLNPO)• beach mile day• water quality data• beach names• consistent data transfer protocols

2. Define terms (define a beach versus a swimming area)3. Include case studies4. Develop sample handling procedures

• need for longer storage• certify more laboratories

5. Include state-specific information and resources6. Encourage states to conduct epidemiological studies7. Hasten the approval process for approving indicators at EPA
"#$
%"

'*(

"- 
"%

Mr. Anderson is a biologist for the National Park Service and Director of the Beach

Monitoring Program at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Page, Arizona. Hereceived his B.S. in Biology and M.S. in Environmental Science at the University of NorthTexas in Denton, Texas. Mr. Anderson has been working in aquatic ecology and certifiedenvironmental laboratories for 8 years. He spent 4 years studying the effects of land useand industrial activity on playa wetlands in west Texas. His current work includes managing two certified laboratories at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and developing amore scientifically sound beach-monitoring program for Lake Powell.




Mr. Beckman directs the water quality program in the Los Angeles office of the

Natural Resources Defense Council, where he is a senior attorney. He received his A.B.from the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree from Harvard Law School.Mr. Beckman’s work at NRDC focuses on matters relating to Clean Water Act enforcement,including storm water pollution control and TMDLs. Mr. Beckman has litigated majorstorm water enforcement actions against Caltrans and Los Angeles County and is currentlyrepresenting NRDC, Santa Monica BayKeeper, San Francisco BayKeeper, and Heal the Baywith respect to TMDLs in California. Prior to joining NRDC in 1995, Mr. Beckman was inprivate practice in San Francisco for three years.


*..

Dr. Book is a toxicologist with the California Department of Health Services’ drinking

water program. He received his A.B. in Biological Sciences from the University of California at Berkeley and his M.A. in Zoology and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University ofCalifornia at Davis. He has held a number of positions in California’s public health andenvironmental protection agencies, serving in various capacities in DHS, the Health andWelfare Agency, and Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Mostof his work has been on the evaluation of public health risks from environmental contaminants, and the incorporation of scientific matters into public policy. Prior to joining stateservice, Dr. Book was on the research faculty of the University of California at Davis. Hehas also worked as an environmental consultant.


$
*..

Dr. Dufour is currently the Director of the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure

Assessment Research Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s NationalExposure Research Laboratory. He earned his B.A. in Biology and Chemistry from Northern Michigan University, his Masters of Public Health specializing in epidemiology andenvironmental health services from Yale University, and a doctorate in microbiology from


.12%
$.


'*'

the University of Rhode Island. Dr. Dufour was with the U.S. Public Health service for fouryears and then joined EPA in 1970. His research interests are analytical microbial methodsdevelopment; microbial risk assessments for recreational, drinking, and shellfish harvestingwaters; and human exposure associated with waterborne and airborne microbial pathogens.
*..

Dr. Dunwoody is Evjue-Bascom Professor and Director of the School of Journalism

and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She earned her B.A. inJournalism from Indiana University, her M.A. in Mass Communication from Temple University, and a Ph.D. in Mass Communication from Indiana University. In addition to herjournalism work at UW-Madison, she has been affiliated with the Institute for Environmental Studies, most recently serving as chair of academic programs there. A former newspaperscience writer, Dr. Dunwoody has spent her research career studying aspects of publicunderstanding of science. Her work in risk communication has focused on understandinghow individuals use information to make judgments about risks. In the course of that workshe has studied, among other things, the risks of eating contaminated fish caught in theGreat Lakes, the risks posed by parasites in drinking water, and individuals’ perceptions oftheir risk of being diagnosed with AIDS.

%&*..

Dr. Gold is the Executive Director of the local environmental group Heal the Bay.

Founded in 1985, Heal the Bay is a nonprofit group of more than 10,000 members workingthrough a combination of research, education, public outreach, and advocacy to make SantaMonica Bay and Southern California’s coastal waters safe and healthy for people andmarine life. Dr. Gold completed his doctoral dissertation in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Science and Engineering. He has worked on a wide variety of water quality andcoastal natural resources issues ranging from sewage treatment to contaminated sedimentsto wetland restorations. Dr. Gold is considered one of the region’s foremost experts onurban runoff pollution and he influences governmental water policy at the local, state, andfederal levels.

&

Mr. Gonaver received his B.S. in Microbiology from Iowa State University in 1971

and his M.P.H. from San Diego State University in 1985. He began his career in publichealth in 1975, when he joined the County of San Diego (as a public health microbiologist)where he worked for 12 years. In 1988, after graduating from San Diego State University,Mr. Gonaver joined the Department for Environmental Health, where he has been a manager for the past eight years. He currently manages the Land and Water Quality Division ofthe Department of Environmental Health, which is one of the Department’s four divisions.His division is responsible for the county’s recreational water quality, storm water permitcompliance, oversight of the cleanup of contaminated underground storage tank sites andother hazardous waste sites, installation and removal of underground storage tanks, publichealth-related land use activities, and risk assessment and risk communication.

&*. .

Mr. Gray is an environmental engineer with the Municipal Services Section of the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) He received his B.S. in
"#$
%"

'**

Civil Engineering from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He worked as a waterresources engineer for 5 years with Camp Dresser & McKee on a variety of water qualitymonitoring and modeling efforts. In 1995, Mr. Gray founded Gray Environmental toprovide storm water management and pollution prevention services with a focus on reopening impacted shellfish beds. For the past year, he has worked for the MDEP with an emphasis on storm water pollution abatement, wastewater, and CSO facilities planning.//*..

Dr. Joyce is currently assigned to the EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas. He is

assigned to the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticide Division, where one of his ancillary dutiesinvolves being the regional BEACH Coordinator. He began his governmental career duringthe Viet Nam era as a green beret weapons specialist cross-trained as a medic. He thenaccepted a commission into the U.S. Public Health Service and was assigned to the U.S.Coast Guard in New York City as an environmental/occupational health officer. He hasalso served as a supervisory sanitarian for the Indian Health Service and an environmentalhealth scientist for EPA’s Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Kansas City, Kansas.Dr. Joyce earned a bachelor’s degree in general science from Marywood College inScranton, Pennsylvania and a master’s degree in environmental biology from Hood CollegeGraduate School in Frederick, Maryland. He also holds another masters degree in environmental health science and a doctorate in environmental health science from New YorkPolytechnic in Brooklyn, New York.

%&

Mr. McGee has worked in the field of environmental microbiology and virology since

1972. He holds degrees from Louisianan State University in Baton Rouge and PepperdineUniversity in Malibu, California. He received virology training at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Mr. McGee worked as a member of an environmental virologyconsulting group in upstate New York from 1974 to 1978, as the virologist for the LosAngeles County Sanitation District from 1978 to 1990, and then from 1990 until now as thelaboratory supervisor in charge of microbiology at the Orange County Sanitation District,Orange County, California. Mr. McGee is a member of the Microbiology Advisory Committee to the California State Water Resources Control Board on California Ocean PlanBacterial Objectives; a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Santa MonicaBay Restoration Project, a coauthor of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Epidemiology Study; and a participant in the World Health Organization/EPA Expert Consultation onSafety of Recreational Waters last November. He has participated in environmental research investigations at the University of California, Irvine, University of Arizona, Tucson,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

0*..

Dr. Noble is a postdoctoral scientist for both the Southern California Coastal Water

Research Project and the USC Wrigley Institute Environmental Studies. She received herB.S. in Molecular Biology from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of Southern California. There herdissertation research focused on the roles of native marine viruses in biogeochemicalcycling, with emphasis on degradation and microbial uptake of degraded virus material. Asa Sea Grant Trainee, she also performed research on the molecular detection of human


.12%
$.


'*+

enteric viruses in seawater. Dr. Noble is currently working on optimization of methods forReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) detection of enteric virusesand researching the relation of viral indicators to bacterial indicators in coastal waters. Hercurrent research interests include the advancement of methods for viral detection, dynamicsof viruses in marine microbial food webs, and new biomarker techniques for bacterial andviral pathogens in coastal waters.

Mr. Rosenblatt is the chief of the Atlantic Coastal Bureau, Division of Watershed

Management, in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. He received hisB.S. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and M.A. in Teaching from theCollege of New Jersey. For the past 20 years, he has evaluated nearshore coastal waterquality and developed pollution response and remediation programs, including NewJersey’s Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program for recreational beaches. Mr. Rosenblattcontinues to manage beach quality programs in addition to watershed planning and management in the Atlantic coastal region.


*..

Dr. Schaub joined the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology in 1992 as a senior

microbiologist for drinking water regulation support. He coauthored EPA’s Beach ActionPlan and served as the EPA representative to the President’s Council on Food Safety. Priorto joining EPA, Dr. Schaub served as a microbiology program officer for the U.S. ArmyMedical Research and Development Command from 1972 to 1992 in field water supply andsanitation. He worked on microbiological method, military equipment evaluation, andeffectiveness, of land application of wastewater. Dr. Schaub also studied microbiologicalpollution in the Great Lakes with the U.S. Public Health Service from 1964 to 1966. Heholds a B.S. in Microbiology from Washington State University and a Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Texas.
"#$
%"

1$Eugene AkazawaHawaii Department of Health901 Ala Moana Blvd. Suite #301Honolulu, HI 96814E-mail: eakazawa@eha.health.state.ju.usJames AlamilloHeal the Bay2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 150Santa Monica, CA 90405E-mail: jalamilla@healthebay.orgMazhar AliLos Angeles Regional Water QualityControl Board320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: mali@rb4.swrcb.ca.govJoseph F. AlstonGlen Canyon National Recreation AreaNational Park ServiceGlen Canyon NRAP.O. Box 1507Page, AZ 86040E-mail: glca_superintendent@nps.govFrank AlvarezSanta Barbara County Public HealthDepartment345 Camino Del RemedioSanta Barbara, CA 93110E-mail: falvare@co.santa-barbara.ca.usRic AmadorCity of San Diego / Marine Microbiology5530 Kiowa Dr.La Mesa, CA 91942-1331E-mail: rba@mwharbor.sannet.govMark AndersonGlen Canyon National Recreation AreaNational Park ServiceGlen Canyon NRAP.O. Box 1507Page, AZ 86040E-mail: mark_anderson@nps.govRosario AstonLos Angeles Regional Water QualityControl Board320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: raston@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

'*,

Julie BarrSanta Monica BayKeeperP.O. Box 10096Marina del Rey, CA 90295E-mail: batray@smbaykeeper.orgLoretta K. BarsamianSan Francisco Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400Oakland, CA 94612E-mail: lkb@rb2.swrcb.ca.govAdele BashamNevada Division of EnvironmentalProtection333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138Carson City, NV 89706E-mail: abasham@ndep.carson-city.nv.usLance BeckerNavy Region Southwest33000 Nixie WaySuite 326San Diego, CA 92147E-mail: becker.lance@asw.cnrsw.navy.milDavid BeckmanNatural Resources Defense Council(NRDC)6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250Los Angeles, CA 90048E-mail: dbeckman@nrdc.orgJim BennettState Water Resources Control Board901 P St.Sacramento, CA 95812E-mail: jbennett@exec.swrcb.ca.govJonathan BishopCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: jbishop@rb4.swrcb.ca.govNadja Bohntedt, R.S.2001 College DriveLake Havasu City, AZ 86403E-mail:

Bonnie BompartSan Francisco Water Department1000 El Camino RealMillbrae, CA 94030E-mail:Steven BookCalifornia Department of Health ServicesDrinking Water Program601 North 7th St., Mail Stop 92P.O. Box 942732Sacramento, CA 94234-7320E-mail: sbook@dhs.ca.govNicki BranchSan Elijo Joint Powers Authority2695 Manchester Ave.Cardiff, CA 92007E-mail: main@sanelijowrf.orgRoger BriggsCentral Coast Regional WQ Control Board81 Higuera St.San Luis Obispo, CA 93401E-mail: rbriggs@rb3.swrcb.ca.govBrad BucknerColorado State Parks13787 So. Hwy 85Littleton, CO 80125E-mail: bradley.buckner@state.co.usGary CannonCalifornia Coastal Commission3111 Camino Del Rio, North, Suite 200San Diego, CA 92108E-mail: gcannon@coastal.ca.govRobert CaustinDefend the Bay471 Old Newport BlvdSuite 200Newport Beach, CA 92663E-mail: defendthebay@caustin.comJau Ren Chen, Ph.D.California Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, Los Angeles Region320 W. 4th StreetSuite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: jchen@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

3
4

'*-

Ashlei ChevrieCA Coastal Commission3111 Camino Del Rio, N.Suite 200San Diego, CAE-mail:Owen ChungCaltrans2829 Juan St., MS-46San Diego, CA 92110E-mail: owen_chung@dot.ca.govClay CliftonSan Diego County Dept. of Env. HealthP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 92112-9261E-mail: cclifteh@co.san-diego.ca.usJ. Roger CollinsFluid Systems Sales Co.638 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 365Agoura, CA 91377E-mail: reproger@aol.comJames ColstonOrange County Sanitation District10844 Ellis AveFountain Valley, CA 92708E-mail: jcolston@ocsd.comMarsha CookS.D. County, Dept. of Env. HealthP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 92112-9261E-mail: MCOOKKEH@co.san-diego.ca.usChris CromptonCounty of Orange, Public Facilities andResources Department10852 Douglass RoadAnaheim, CA 92806E-mail: cromptonc@pfrd.co.orange.ca.usMark CuneoCDS Technologies, Inc.PMB #185322 Culver Blvd.Playa Del Rey, CA 90293E-mail: mcuneo@cdstech.comRenee DeShazoCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: rdeshazo@rb4.swrcb.ca.govGordon DewersDept. of Environmental Resources3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite CModesto, CA 95358E-mail: gdewers@envres.com

Bhupinder S. DhaliwalCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District5019 Imhoff PlaceMartinez, CA 94553E-mail: bdhaliwa@centralsan.dst.ca.usJane DiamondUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne St. WTR4San Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: diamond.jane@epa.govDennis A. DickersonCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angele, CA 90013E-mail: ddickers@rb4.swrcb.ca.govDoug DienerMEC Analytical Systems, Inc.2433 Impala Dr.Carlsbad, CA 92008-7227E-mail: diener@mecanalytical.comAl DufourUSEPA ORD/NERL/MCEARD26 West Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268-1593E-mail: dufour.alfred@epa.govSharon DunwoodySchool of JournalismUniversity of Wisconsin821 University AveMadison, WI 53714E-mail: dunwoody@facstaff.wisc.eduSteven DurhamSan Diego County Dept. of Env. HealthP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 92112-9261E-mail: sdurhaeh@co.san-diego.ca.usJim FinneyMonterey County Health Department1200 Aguajito RD., Suite 103Monterey, CA 93940E-mail: finneyjg@redshift.comSteve FleischliSanta Monica BayKeeperP.O. Box 10096Marina del Rey, CA 90295E-mail: sfleischli@smbaykeeper.orgSonya ForeeCity and County of San Francisco3500 Great HighwaySan Francisco, CA 94132E-mail:

Donna FryeSurfers Tired of Pollution705 Felspar St.San Diego, CA 92109E-mail:Roger FujiokaWater Resources Research Center,University of Hawaii2540 Dole st.Honolulu, HI 96822E-mail: roger@hawaii.eduMarnell GibsonCity of Coronado1395 First StreetCoronado, CA 92118-1502E-mail: mgibson@coronado.ca.usMichele GinsbergCounty of San Diego Health and HumanService Agency1700 Pacific Highway, Rm.107San Diego, CA 92101E-mail: mgnsbhe@co.san-diego.ca.usBrenda GoedenXCEL, National Audubon Society211 Belle AvenueSan Rafeal, CA 94901-3409E-mail: daisychain@hotbot.comMark GoldHeal the Bay2701 Ocean Park Blvd.Suite 150Santa Monica, CA 90405E-mail: mgold@healthebay.orgChris GonaverCounty of San DiegoDepartment of Environmental HealthP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 92112-9261E-mail: cgonaveh@co.san-diego.ca.usJohn GonzalesState Water Resource Control Board/WQP.O. Box 944213901 P St.Sacramento, CA 94244-2130E-mail: gonzj@dwq.swrcb.ca.govAruna GoradiaUnion Sanitary District5072 Benson Rd.Union City, CA 94587E-mail: aruna_goradia@unionsanitary.comRoger GorrkeUSEPA Office of Water (4101)401 M Street, SWWashington, DC 20460E-mail: gorke.roger@epa.gov
"#$
%"

David GrayMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection205A Lowell StreetWilmington, MA 01887E-mail: david.gray-eqe@state.ma.usBrad HagemanCentral Coast Regional Water Board81 Higuera St, Suite 200San Lus Obispo, CA 93422E-mail: bhageman@rb3.swrcb.ca.govJim HanlonUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M Street, S. W.Washington, DC 20460E-mail: Hanlon.James@epa.govSydney HarveyCounty of Los Angeles Department ofHealth Services313 N. Figueroa, rm 1127Los Angeles, CA 91766E-mail: sharvey@dhsco.la.ca.usJanet HashimotoUSEPA Region 9, Monitoring andAssessment Office75 Hawthorne St. (WTR-2)San Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: hashimoto.janet@epa.govRichard R. HaugeCounty of Ventura - Environmental HealthDivision800 S. Victoria Ave.Ventura, CA 93009E-mail: richard.hauge@mail.co.ventura.ca.usKaren HenryCity of San Diego Storm Water (NPDES)Program1010 Second Ave., Suite 500San Diego, CA 92101E-mail: kqh@street.sannet.govRick HoffmannUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St. SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: Hoffmann.Rick@epa.govJim HoganLaw/Crandall9177 Sky Park Court, Suite ASan Diego, CA 92123E-mail: jhogan@lawco.comLarry HoneybourneOrange County Environmental HealthDivision2009 E. Edinger AveSanta Ana, CA 92705E-mail: lhoneybourne@hca.co.orange.ca.us

'*0

Valerie HouselCity of San Bernardino MWD399 Chandler PlaceSan Bernardino, CA 92335E-mail: housel_va@ci.san-bernardino.ca.usJoe IndrawanCity of Corona815 West 6th StreetCorona, CA 91720E-mail: joei@ci.corona.ca.usWinnie D. JesenaCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: wjesena@rb4.swrcb.ca.govMaryann JonesState Water Resource Board901 P St.Sacramento, CA 95814E-mail: jonema@dwq.swrcb.ca.govJake JoyceUSEPA Region 7/WWPD901 North Fifth StreetKansas City, KS 66101E-mail: joyce.jake@epa.govLisa Kaas-BoyleHeal the Bay2701 Ocean Park Blvd.Suite 150Santa Monica, CA 90405E-mail: lboyle@healthebay.orgGita KapaniState Water Resources Control Board901 P St.Sacramento, CA 95814E-mail: kapag@dwq.swrcb.ca.govRevital KatznelsonURS Greiner Woodward Clyde500 12th St., Suite 200Oakland, CA 94607E-mail: revital_katznelson@URSCORP.comEd KimuraSierra Club6995 Camino AmeroSan Diego, CA 92111E-mail: emkimr@cts.comChristopher A. KinnerIrvine Ranch Water District3512 Michelson Dr.Irvine, CA 92612-1799E-mail: kinner@irwd.com

Eve J. KliszewskiThe Surfrider Foundation480 Gate Five Road, Suite 300Sausalito, CA 94965E-mail: ekliszewski@surfrider.orgEmiko KobayashiCalifornia State University, Long Beach385 Termino Ave. #6Long Beach, CA 90814E-mail: ekobayas@csulb.eduCharles KovatchUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St., SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: kovatch.charles@epa.govTed KownackiCalifornia State Assembly Member HowardWayne1350 Front Street#6013San Diego, CA 92101E-mail:Catherine KuhlmanUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne St.WST-8San Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: Catherine.Kuhlman@epamail.epa.govGregg LangloisCalifornia Department of Health Services2151 Berkeley Way, Room 118Berkeley, CA 94704E-mail: glangloi@ix.netcom.comAlan LangworthyCity of San Diego - Technical ServicesDivision4918 N. Harbor Dr., Suite 201San Diego, CA 92106E-mail: AXL@sdcity.sannet.govDiana LeeCalifornia Dept of Health Services1515 Clay St, Room 1700Oakland, CA 94612E-mail: dlee1@dhs.ca.govDr. G. Fred LeeG. Fred Lee Associates27298 E. El Macero Dr.El Marcero, CA 95618-1005E-mail: gfredlee@aol.comKwang LeeCalifornia State RWQCB - Los Angeles320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: klee@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

3
4

'*

Annie Maria Leon GuerreroGuam Environmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 22439 GMFBarrigada, GU 96921E-mail: amelg@ns.guDiana LillyCalifornia Coastal Commision3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200San Diego, CA 92108E-mail: dlilly@coastal.ca.govEllen LirleyCalifornia Coastal Commision3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200San Diego, CA 92108E-mail:Sally LiskaCalifornia Department of Health Services2151 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94704-1011E-mail:Felicia MarcusUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: marcus.felicia@epa.govMarcie MartinOklahoma Department of EnvironmentalQualityP.O. Box 1677Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677E-mail: marcie.martin@deqmail.state.ok.usStephen E. MatsonVentura County Health Dept. Laboratory3147 Loma Vista RoadVentura, CA 93003E-mail: steve.matson@mail.co.ventura.ca.usMonica MazurOrange County Environmental HealthDivision2009 E. Edinger AveSanta Ana, CA 92705E-mail: mmazura@hca.co.orange.ca.usJames McCarthyCaltrans District Seven120 South Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012E-mail: James_McCarthy@dot.ca.govRobin McCrawCalifornia State Water Resource ControlBoard901 P St.P.O. Box 944213Sacramento, CA 95814E-mail: mccrr@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

Charles McGeeOrange County Sanitation District10844 Ellis AveFountain Valley, CA 92708E-mail: cmcgee@ocsd.comCheryl McGovernUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne St.San Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: mcgovern.cheryl@epa.govMark McPhersanSan Diego County Dept. of Env. HealthStormwater Management DivisionP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 921112E-mail: mmcpheeh@co.san-diego.ca.usDean MesserLarry Walker Associates509 Fourth St.Davis, CA 9616E-mail: deanm@lwadavis.comSuzanne MichelSan Diego State University, Dept. ofPolitical ScienceDepartment of Political ScienceSan Diego State University5500 Campanile Dr.San Diego, CA 92182-4427E-mail: smichel61@aol.comLee MichlinNorth Coast Regional Water QualityControl Board5550 Skylane Blvd. Suite ASanta Rosa, CA 95403E-mail: michl@rb1.swrcb.ca.govDaniel C. MillsCalifornia Department of Health Services2151 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94704-1011E-mail: Dmills@dhs.ca.govDavid MooreMEC Analytical Systems, Inc.2433 Impala Dr.Carlsbad, CA 92008E-mail: moore@mecanalytical.comDouglas F. MooreOrange County Health Care Agency(Public Health Laboratory)1729 West 17th StreetSanta Ana, CA 92706E-mail: dmmore@hca.co.orange.ca.usTed MortonAmerican Oceans Campaign725 Arizona Ave, Suite 102Santa Monica, CA 90401E-mail: aoctm@earthlink.net

Steven NakauchiLong Beach Department of Health &Human Services2525 Grand AveLong Beach, CA 9015-1765E-mail: stnakau@ci.long-beach.ca.usArleen NavarretSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission3500 Great HighwaySan Francisco, CA 94132E-mail: anavarre@PUC.SF.CA.USDeborah NeiterDefend the Bay471 Old Newport Blvd.Suite 200Newport Beach, CA 92663E-mail:Jenny Newman11842 S. Park AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90066E-mail: jenny76@mediaone.netMae NikaidoLong Beach Public Health Laboratory2525 Grand AveLong Beach, CA 90815E-mail: manikaido@ci.long-beach.ca.usRachel NobleUniversity of Southern California, AHF107University ParkLos Angeles, CA 90089-0371E-mail: noble@usc.eduLinda O’ConnellState Water Resources Control Board901 P StreetSacramento, CA 95814E-mail: O’COL@dwq.swrcb.ca.govJay OgdenCity of BerkrlryDepartment of Human Services2344 Sixth StreetBerkeley, CA 97410E-mail:Michelle OpalenikEl Dorado County EnvironmentalManagement Department2850 Fairlane Ct, Building CPlacerville, CA 95667E-mail: mopalenik@thegrid.netLaurinda OwensCalifornia Coastal Commission3111 Camino del Rio N., #200San Diego, CA 92108E-mail: lowens@coastal.ca.gov
"#$
%"

Francis PalmerCalifornia State Water Resources ControlBoardP.O. Box 944213Sacramento, CA 94244-2130E-mail: palmf@dwq.swrcb.ca.govDave ParadiesBay Foundation of Morro Bay909 Santa YsabelLos Osos, CA 93402E-mail: davep@laotsu.larc.calpoly.eduLinda PardyRWQCB, San Diego Region9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite ASan Diego, CA 92124-1324E-mail: pardl@rb9.swrcb.ca.govJoel PedersenUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne St., WRT-2San Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: pedersen.joel@epa.govSteve PetersCounty of Santa Cruz EnvironmentalHealth Services701 Ocean St.Room 312Santa Cruz, CA 95060E-mail: env032@co.santa-cruz.ca.usJack PetraliaCounty of Los Angeles - Department ofHealth Services2525 Corporate PlaceMonterey Park, CA 91754E-mail: jpetralia@dhs.co.la.ca.usBruce PosthumasCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite ASan Diego, CA 92124E-mail: postb@rb9.swrcb.ca.govMark PumfordRWQCB - Los Angeles320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: mpumford@rb4.swrcb.ca.govBruce ReznikSan Diego Bay Keeper1450 Harbor Island Dr., Suite 205San Diego, CA 92101E-mail: sdbaykeeper@aol.comGeorge RobertsonOrange County Sanitation District10844 Ellis Ave.Fountain Valley, CA 92708E-mail: grobertson@ocsd.com

'*&

John RobertusCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite ASan Diego, CA 92124E-mail: robej@rb9.swrcb.ca.govVicente RodriguezCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite ASan Diego, CA 92124E-mail: rodrv@rb9.swrcb.ca.govDavid RosenblattNew Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, DWM/ACBPO Box 418401 E. State St.Trenton, NJ 08625-0418E-mail: drosenbl@dep.state.nj.usSuesan SaucermanUSEPA Region 9, WTR-575 Hawthorne StSan Francisco, CA 94105-3901E-mail: Saucerman.Suesan@epamail.epa.govSteven SchaubUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St. SW (4304)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: schaub.stephen@epamail.epa.govTerri SchilderMohave County Environmental HealthP.O. Box 70003675 E. Hwy 66, Suite BKingman, AZ 86401E-mail:Dave SchlesraycCity of San DiegoMetro Wastewater Department600 B StreetSan Diego, CA 91902E-mail: d5s@citymgr.sannet.govKristin SchwallCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite ASan Diego, CA 92124E-mail: schwk@rb9.swrcb.ca.govJohn SkinnerStop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)1724 Highland Dr.Newport Beach, CA 92660E-mail: jskinnermd@aol.com

Deborah SmithCalifornia Water Quality Control Board -Los Angeles Region320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: dsmith@rb4.swrcb.ca.govDon L. SmithCDS Technologies2635 Edgeview Ln.Arroyo Grande, CA 93420E-mail: dsmith@cdstech.comDarwin L. SorensenUtah State UniversityUtah Water Research Laboratory8200 Old Main HillLogan, UT 84322-8200E-mail: dsore@cc.usu.eduConnie StavrosContra Costa Environmental Health2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200Concord, CA 94520E-mail: cstavros@hsd.co.contracosta.ca.usWalter SteinCDS Technologies16360 S. Monterey Rd., Suite 250Morgan Hill, CA 95037E-mail: wstein@cdstech.comKathy StoneCity of Encinitas505 Vulcan AvenueEncinitas, CA 92024E-mail: kstdne@ci.encinitas.ca.usAlexis StraussUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105E-mail: strauss.alexis@epa.govXavier SwamikannuCalifornia Environmental ProtectionAgencyLos Angeles Region320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: xswami@rb4.swrcb.ca.govMitzy TaggartHeal the Bay2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 150Santa Monica, CA 90405E-mail: mtaggart@healthebay,orgGlenn TakeokaCalifornia Department of Health ServicesP.O. Box 942732 (MS 396)Sacramento, CA 94234-7320E-mail: gtakeoka@dhs.ca.gov

3
4

'*

Ken TheisenSanta Ana Regional Water Quality ControlBoard3737 Main St., #500Riverside, CA 92501E-mail: ktheisen@rb8.swrcb.ca.govDoug ThomasLake Havasu City Public Works1150 McCulloch BlvdLake Harasu City, AZ 86403E-mail: lhcww@ctaz.comMay TrieuUnion Sanitary District5072 Benson RoadUnion City, CA 94587-2508E-mail: may_trieu@unionsanitary.comCarlos M. UrrunagaCalifornia Regional Water Quality ControlBoard320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: currunag@rb4.swrcb.ca.govPatricia VainikCity of San Diego, MetropolitanWastewater Dept.4918 North Harbor Dr., Suite 201San Diego, CA 92106E-mail: pmv@mwharbor.sannet.gov

Jon Van RhynSan Diego County Dept. of Env. HealthP.O. Box 129261San Diego, CA 92112-9261E-mail: jvanrheh@co.san-diego.ca.usDiane VermeulenCALTRANS2829 Juan StreetSan Diego, CAE-mail:Pavlova VitaleSanta Ana Regional Water Quality ControlBoard3737 Main St. Suite 500Riverside, CA 92503E-mail: pvitale@rb8.swrcb.ca.govKathy O. WalkerLos Angeles County Sanitation Districts24501 S. Figueroa St.Carson, CA 90745E-mail: kwalker@lacsd.orgGuangyu WangSanta Monica Bay Restoration Project320 W. 4th St., Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013E-mail: gwang@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

Geraldine WashabaughCounty of San Diego - Laboratory3851 Rosecrans St.P.O. Box 85222San Diego, CA 92186-5222E-mail: gwashahe@co.san-diego.ca.usGerry WinantSanta Barbara County EnvironmentalHealth Services225 Camino Del RemedioSanta Barbara, CA 93110E-mail: Gerry@co.santa-barbara.ca.usKaren WorcesterCentral Coast Regional Water QualityControl Board81 Higuera St., Suite 200San Luis Obispo, CA 93401E-mail: kworcest@rb3.swrcb.ca.gov
!		

	

	



"#$

%		&	

 




		

	
	
	Goals: To provide a forum for all levels of beach water quality managers and public health officials to share

information and provide input on the future directions of EPA’s BEACH Programs.

Objective: 1) Present EPA’s BEACH Program.

2) Present the state of the science.3) Discuss local and regional water quality management issues through case study presentations.4) Obtain feedback on major topic areas for EPA’s Beach Guidance document.

Monday, October 18–Day 18:00-9:00 Registration9:00-9:10 Welcome

Rick HoffmannUSEPA, Office of Water, Standards andApplied Science Division

9:10-9:25 Water Quality Issues in the Gulf of

MexicoFred KopflerUSEPA, Gulf of Mexico Program Office,Region 4

9:25-11:20 Session 1: Water Quality Standards,

Indicators, and Implementation

9:25-9:45 Overview of Water Quality Indicator

MicrobesJake JoyceUSEPA Region 7

9:45-10:05 Boston Harbor/Charles River Beach

Monitoring Effort: Comparison ofTwo Indicator MethodsMatt LiebmanUSEPA Region 1

10:05-10:25 New Indicators of Water Quality for

Recreational Water UseSteve SchaubUSEPA, Office of Science and Technology

10:25-10:40 BREAK10:40-11:00 New Tools for Assessing Healthy

BeachesJoan RoseUniversity of South Florida

11:20-12:00 EPA’s Beach Plan

Geoffrey Grubbs, DirectorUSEPA, Office of Scienceand Technology

11:00-11:20 Q & A/Discussions12:00-1:30 LUNCH1:30-3:30 Session 2: Risk Assessment, Exposure,

and Health Effects

1:30-2:00 The Relationship of Microbial

Measurement of Beach Water Qualityto Human HealthAl DufourUSEPA, National EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory

2:00-2:20 Qualitative Review of Epidemiology

StudiesTom MahinMassachusetts DEP

2:20-2:40 Epidemiological Research on Bather

Illness and Freshwater MicrobialContaminationRebecca CalderonUSEPA, Office of Research andDevelopment

2:40-3:10 Q & A/Discussions3:10-3:30 BREAK3:30-5:30 Session 3: Monitoring and Modeling3:30-3:50 Indiana’s E. coli Interagency Task

ForceArnold LederUSEPA Region 5

3:50-4:10 Predictive Modeling of Bacterial

Indicators Along the South of LakePontchartrainJeff WatersLake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

 
   


	'

4:10-4:30 A Regional Modeling Tool for

Impacts of Spills and BypassesPhil HecklerNew York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

4:30-5:00 New Jersey’s Recreational Monitoring

ProgramDavid RosenblattNew Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection

5:00-5:30 Q & A/DiscussionsTuesday, October 19–Day 28:30-8:45 Summary of Day 1

Geoffrey Grubbs, DirectorUSEPA, Office of Science and Technology

8:45-9:05 Great Lakes Monitoring Program

Paul HorvatinUSEPA, Great Lakes National ProgramOffice, Region 5

9:05-9:20 Factors Affecting Escherichia coli

Concentrations at Lake Erie PublicBathing BeachesDonna FrancyUSGS, Ohio District

9:20-11:20 Session 4: Beach Advisories, Closures,

and Risk Communication

9:20-9:50 Recreational Rates, Fish

Consumption, and CommunicationJoanna BurgerRutgers University, Department ofBiological Sciences

9:50-10:10 Florida’s Beachwater Web Site

Robert NoblesFlorida Department of Health, StateHealth Office

10:10-10:30 Florida Monitoring and Coordination

EffortsPaul StanekFlorida Department of Health, PinellasCounty

10:30-11:10 Q & A/Discussions11:10-11:15 Organization of Breakout Groups

Purpose: Discuss the major componentsof the Beach Guidance. Providerecommendations and key elements tobe included in the document.

11:15-11:30 Break11:30-12:30 BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONVENE12:30-1:30 LUNCH1:30-3:30 BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONTINUE3:30-4:30 Open Discussion and Information

Synthesis

4:30-4:45 Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Geoffrey Grubbs, DirectorUSEPA, Office of Science and Technology

	





	
 





 

r. Hoffmann welcomed the audience and noted that this was the second of two regional beach conferences. He

also noted the changes to the agenda. Morethan 200 people registered for this conference,and the participants were evenly distributedfrom Maine to Florida and the Great Lakesstates. Other participants came from as far asCanada, Trinidad, and Palau.

The purpose of the conference was to

provide a forum for beach water quality managers to talk about water quality issues such asissuance of beach advisories, monitoring, andnotification to assist EPA in the development ofa program to protect the public from microbial

pathogens in recreational waters. The conference was designed to allow sharing of information about the current state of the science forwater quality standards, disease indicators, riskassessment, and risk communication. It wasalso to provide a forum for presenting local andregional issues through case studies. EPA is ina “listening mode” prior to developing usefulguidance related to recreational beach programs. EPA will use the recommendationsfrom this conference and the West CoastConference (which was held in San Diego,California, on August 31 and September 1) inthe development of the guidance documentlater this year.
	









	

		









 !
"#
	

$



ater quality is a very important issue

in the Gulf. Tourism is a $20 billionindustry based on the beaches and

gambling. Gambling is extensive in Mississippi, where the casinos are on barges adjacentto the land. The area was once a sleepy backwater area, but it is not that anymore. Thepopulation in Mississippi has increased 30percent since 1969 when hurricane Camille hit.

Most of the land surrounding the Gulf is

wetlands. Rapid growth presents a problem forsewage treatment. Sewage tends to bubble tothe surface and overflows in most areas because of the wetland environment. Determining the presence of sewage and microbialpathogens in recreational waters is a big area ofconcern for the Gulf.

In the Gulf Coast area, there are 95 8-digit

watersheds, 93 of which have a least onesegment impaired due to the presence of fecalcoliform or other pathogens. Approximately800 segments are not meeting their designated

uses due to pathogens. It will be interesting tounderstand how monitoring recreational watersusing new indicators will relate to the ambientwater quality monitoring program, since theTMDLs are all based on fecal coliforms.

The shellfish program is also an issue.

The Gulf of Mexico provides most of theshellfish to the United States. The program isoverseen by the Food and Drug Administration,and they are adamant about using fecalcoliforms as their indicator. They also use theMPN method for enumerating fecal coliforms.Since EPA is responsible for making surewaters meet their designated uses, if the shellfish waters are impaired based on fecalcoliforms it will be interesting to see how thiswill all work out. Beach monitoring and newindicators are a very important issue. Thisproblem will need to be addressed in the future,and this conference will help facilitate thesetypes of discussions.

	







 





	





	


 




Please refer to page 11 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.



 !
"

 
!"#$%&'( $
)*

#+

$

$ ,




%&'

#$

()
*(+,! &

%
)


 

%+'-**.

/(%!

0!-



 oston Harbor and the Charles River are affected by sewage-derived pathogens from illegal sewer connections, storm

water, combined sewer overflows, and poorlytreated sewage. Although improving in quality,Boston Harbor beaches are posted many timesper year and the lower Charles River frequentlyviolates state water quality standards for fecalcoliform contamination during wet weather.The overall goal of this EMPACT (Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking) program, and BEACH programfunded project was to rapidly convey to thepublic whether Boston Harbor beaches are safefor swimming and the lower Charles River issafe for boating.

In the Boston Harbor area, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) routinely

samples 16 saltwater and 4 freshwater beachesfor enterococci and fecal coliform on a weeklybasis during the summer. The samples arecollected on Wednesdays (through 1998) inpreparation for the weekend, with resamplinguntil densities are below established thresholds(e.g., 104 enterococci colonies/100 mL forsaltwater beaches). Some historically contaminated beaches are sampled on a daily basis. Inthe lower Charles River basin, the Charles RiverWatershed Association (CRWA) routinelysamples from four or five stations at or nearboathouses for fecal coliform and enterococci

five days per week. The MDC reports results tothe public as swimmer’s advisories by flagsposted at the beach and via the Internet, telephone and newspaper. The CRWA reportsnumerical results on a daily basis on its Internetweb site and posts boater’s advisories at boathouses with similarly designed flags (blue =safe, red = use caution).

Since 1986, EPA has recommended the

use of enterococci bacterial density as a betterindicator of fecal contamination in recreationalwaters. Recently, EPA developed a newenterococci membrane filtration method—EPAMethod 1600—that reduces incubation timefrom 48 hours to 24 hours (U.S.EPA, 1997).As part of the first year of the EMPACT project,we field tested the new method using an MDCcontract laboratory. We compared Method1600 (mEI medium) to the existing test (EPAMethod Number 1106.1, mE medium,U.S.EPA, 1985) based on statistical tests,specificity, and cost-effectiveness. We designed this field test to be consistent with EPA’salternative method testing protocols and theapproach described in Messer and Dufour(1998). Samples were split in the laboratory.Verification (specificity) of enterococci identification was performed to determine the percentage of false positives and false negatives. Weperformed a paired t-test on both untransformedand natural log-transformed values and exam-
	



#

ined the data using correlation and linearregression.

In 1998, we sampled weekly for 11

consecutive weeks at 14 sites at five beaches inBoston Harbor and one freshwater pond(Houghton’s Pond) under dry and wet weatherconditions. In the Charles River, we sampled atfour or five stations on 25 separate days fromMay to October spanning a range of rainfallconditions. The total number of paired sampleswas 272 (Boston Harbor: n = 132; Houghton’sPond: n = 22; and Charles River: n = 118).

Overall, there was fundamentally no

difference between the two methods. ThePearson correlation coefficients for BostonHarbor, Houghton’s Pond and Charles Riversamples (natural log-transformed) were 0.85,0.80, and 0.93, respectively. For BostonHarbor, the geometric means were similar (8.1[Method 1600] vs. 7.6 [standard]). There wasno significant difference between the methodsbased on a statistical comparison ofuntransformed and natural log-transformedvalues, using the paired t-test for all samples.However, examination of the data graphicallyindicated Method 1600 values were higher thanthe standard method when the mean density ofthe two methods was above 70 colonies/100mL. Based on a paired t-test, when the meanwas above 70 colonies/100 mL, Method 1600resulted in significantly higher values (p < 0.01,n = 17). It is possible that Method 1600 is moreselective at detecting enterococci colonies, butthere was no difference in false positive (2percent and 4 percent) or negative rates (7percent and 8 percent) for Method 1600 and thestandard method, respectively.

Because the MDC posts Boston Harbor

beaches when enterococci density exceeds 104colonies/100 mL, there may be a slight increasein number of postings. In only two samples (of

132 saltwater samples) both methods predictedan exceedance. In seven samples Method 1600predicted an exceedance when the standardmethod did not, and on one occasion thestandard method predicted an exceedance whenMethod 1600 did not.

Based on these results, the MDC replaced

the existing test in 1999 with Method 1600.Because of the reduced incubation time, theMDC now samples on Thursdays instead ofWednesdays. The increased cost to the MDCof the new method ($20 per sample comparedto $17 per sample) was balanced by the reduced number of days required to resample abeach before a weekend. The MDC uses bothfecal coliform and enterococci measurements indetermining whether to post a beach. Now thatthe enterococci incubation time is in line withthe fecal coliform method, the beach samplingprogram is more cost-effective and protectiveof public health.

%Messer, J.W., and A.P. Dufour. 1998. A rapid,

specific membrane filtration procedure forenumeration of enterococci in recreationalwater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64(2):678-680.

USEPA. 1985. Test Methods for Escherichia

coli and Enterococci in Water by theMembrane Filter Procedure. EPA/600/4-85/076. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997. Method 1600: Membrane Filter

Test Method for Enterococci in Water.EPA 821-R-97-004. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Water.Washington, DC.



 !
"

#+

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Boston Harbor/Charles River (MA) Beach

and River Monitoring

A comparison of two bacteria indicator

(Enterococci) methods

Matthew Liebman, US EPA Region 1, New England

Mike Galvin and Paul DiPietro, MDC (Boston, MA)

Diana Liu, G and L Laboratories (Quincy, MA)

Kathy Baskin, CRWA (Newton, MA)

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Boston Harbor and Charles River

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Boston Harbor and Charles River

Background

• Boston Harbor and Charles River polluted by fecal-contaminated point

and nonpoint sources

• Foci of major cleanup efforts• Boston Harbor and Charles River are major recreational resources

swimming, boating, crew, sailing

• Public demands safe swimming and rowing opportunities• Exposure to pathogen related pollution varies on a daily basis

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

EMPACT Project Goals

• Protect public health with routine monitoring of enterococci and fecal

coliform

• Inform public within 24 - 30 hours in a variety of media, including

Internet, television, newspaper, telephone and FLAGS

• Field test new EPA Method 1600• Evaluate use of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) as monitoring tool• Transfer technology to local state laboratory• Develop rainfall predictors

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

EMPACT Project Accomplishments

• Routine monitoring ongoing• Public notified within 30 hours of sampling• Flagging and media coverage ongoing and successful• Method 1600 field tested• PCR technology in development• Tech transfer to state laboratory delayed• Rainfall predictor study ongoing (MWRA)

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Metropolitan Boston Routine

Monitoring Programs

• Boston Harbor area (MDC):

– 21 beaches, 38 sites including freshwater ponds

– routinely sampled on Wednesdays and Thursdays to prepare for weekend

– 7 days per week at four historically contaminated sites

– enterococci, fecal coliform– 24 - 48-hour turnaround in 1998, 24-hour turnaround in 1999

• Lower Charles River (CRWA)

– 5 sites, at boathouses or bridges

– routinely sampled Monday thru Friday

– sampled by volunteers (in 1998) or staff (in 1999)

– enterococci, fecal coliform– 24 - 48-hour turnaround in 1998, 24-hour turnaround in 1999
	



#

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Boston Harbor SW sampling stations

(Source: www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/)

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Lower Charles River sampling stations

(Source: www.crwa.org)

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Methods

• Boston Harbor 1998

– split samples from 14 stations, 11 weeks June through August– tested for new Method 1600 (mEI medium) and EPA Method 1106 (standard

method, using mE medium) and fecal coliform

– N = 132 in Boston Harbor, N = 22 in Houghton’s Pond– range of rainfall conditions

• Charles River 1998

– split samples from 5 stations, 25 separate events May through October– tested for new Method 1600 (mEI medium) and EPA Method 1106 (standard

method, using mE medium) and fecal coliform

– N = 118– range of rainfall conditions

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Statistical tests and specificity

• Verification (= specificity) of enterococci identification

– Method 1106 mE medium: 78 positive colonies and 63 negative colonies– Method 1600 mEI medium: 83 positive colonies and 71 negative colonies

• Paired t-test of untransformed and natural log-transformed values• Correlation (Pearson product correlation coefficient)• Linear regression• Calculation of RPD (relative percent difference)• Analysis of field and laboratory duplicates

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Geometric means of

bacterial indicators, 1998

Method 1106 Method 1600

Sample size (mE medium) (mEI medium) Fecal coliform

Boston Harbor 132 7.6 8.2 35.9Houghton's Pond 22 14.4 11.1 130.3Charles River 113 34.8 29.4 379.9

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Correlation of both methods



 !
"

##

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Correlation of both methods

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Difference vs. mean

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Correlation of both methods

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Difference vs. mean

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Difference vs. mean

(<200 colonies/100 ml)

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Statistical tests

Paired t-tests for Pearson correlation coefficient

natural log-transformed values natural log-transformed values

Np R

Boston Harbor (all samples) 132 0.34 0.845Boston Harbor (< 70 colonies) 123 0.80 0.801Boston Harbor (> 70 colonies) 9 0.02 * 0.273

Houghton's Pond 22 0.25 0.801Charles River 113 0.03 * 0.928
	



#1

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Number of times sample

exceeded criteria

SW criterion = 104 colonies/100 ml; FW criterion = 61 colonies/100 ml

Method Method

Sample size 1106 only 1600 only Both

Boston Harbor 132 1 7 2Houghton's Pond 22 3 1 3

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Specificity

Boston Harbor/Houghton’s Pond 1998

False positive (%) N False negative (%) N

Method 1106 (mE medium) 4 78 8 63Method 1600 (mEI medium) 2 83 7 71

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Relative percent difference

Boston Harbor 1998 only

RPD (%)

Laboratory 1998 (n=19) 1999 (n=18)Fecal coliform 32.2 2.2Method 1106 (mE medium) 15.9 --Method 1600 (mEI medium) -- 7.5Field 1998 (n=11)Method 1106 (mE medium) 38.7Method 1600 (mEI medium) 45.2

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Relationship to salinity

EPA Beach ConferenceOctober 1999

Conclusions

• When enterococci densities are high (>70 colonies/100 ml), Method

1600 gives significantly higher values than standard method in BostonHarbor, but also to some degree in freshwater as well

• Slight increase in postings in Boston Harbor area beaches may result• But, specificity between the two methods is similar and acceptable

(< 10%)

• Increased cost of new method compensated by fewer number of

sample days needed

• 24-hour turnaround time aligns with fecal coliform method• MDC used Method 1600 in 1999 on Thursdays and Fridays



 !
"

-


%

.
 $



""
"
-3!



Please refer to page 21 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.

#2
	



#

-+')!
$ $ %
"

(!4
-)
"%


%ecreational waterborne disease can result from water contamination from numerous sources, including human and animal

wastes, urban runoff, industrial pollution,wastewater, storm waters, large concentrationsof bathers, and even from indigenous sourcessuch as red tide. While historically the focus ofmonitoring has been on enteric diseases such asthose causing diarrhea, of even greater concernare infections of the skin, wounds, respiratoryand genital tracts, eyes, and ears. Transmissionof diseases has been documented from individuals swimming, wind surfing, and evenboating in or on polluted waters. Concern forsuch transmission has been heightened with theemergence of new pathogens (e.g., E. coli and

Cryptosporidium), antibiotic-resistant strains,and a more susceptible population (due to moreelderly, AIDS, and immune suppressant medical treatments). Public health and safety are tiedto the understanding of sources of pollution, sothat prevention and remediation can be accomplished and timely (preferably advance) publicinformation can be made available. The keystone of any effort is the measurement of waterquality and protection of these waters frompollution.Clean beaches and the recreational activitiesassociated with them form the backbone of the

tourist industry in Florida; however, most ofFlorida may be classified as a tropical water.There are significant concerns the water qualityindicators in general use do not faithfully reflectpollution and public health concerns. Also,decisions are based on local interpretations asto what level should result in a beach closure.The limitations of total and fecal coliforms inrecreational waters, particularly subtropicalwaters, are now well recognized. Other indicators such as Enterococcus, Clostridiumperfringens, and bacteriophages (viruses thatare parasites of bacteria) have been suggested,but each appears to have its own limitationswhen relied upon to indicate the presence ofhuman pathogens such as Staphylococcus,Pseudomonas, and viruses. A multiprongedapproach is required, perhaps with a suite ofindicators coupled with pathogen monitoring.The goals of this program are to establishcriteria, protocols, and monitoring plans forintegrated management strategies to be used forassessment and response to public healthconcerns for subtropical beaches in Florida andthe U.S. Using a scientifically based riskassessment approach, land use, sources, climatefactors and broad water quality monitoring canbe used to address appropriate managementstrategies in the future.



 !
"

#5

New Tools for Assessing Healthy

Beaches

Joan Rose

University of South Florida

Beach Sites,Tampa Bay

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

JuneJulyAugSeptJuneJulyAugSeptJuneJulyAugSeptJuneJulyAugSept

d CFU or PFU/100 ml, Log Transforme Fecal Coliforms Enterococci Clostridium Coliphage Courtney Campbell Causeway Honeymoon Island John's Pass North Beach, Ft. De Soto

28°N

27°30'

82°20' W 82°50'

B. fragilis Bacteriophage

• Siphoviridae, double-stranded DNA• Flexible tail• Somatic phage• Found in 13% of human population• B40-8 (ATCC 51477) human strain• B56-3(RYC2056) animal and human strain

B. fragilis phage B40-8

 (ATCC 51477)

• TB1 Delaney Creek• TB7 Bullfrog Creek (Little B.F. headwaters)• TB12 Hillsborough River• TB17 Allen’s Creek

30 degrees C Survival 

 Seawater

1.000E+081.000E+061.000E+041.000E+021.000E+00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Days

PFU/ml

MS2B40-8B56-3
	



#

Sampling Sites

• TB1 Delaney Creek• TB2,5 Alafia River• TB3,4,6,7,8 Bullfrog Creek• TB9,10 Little Manatee River• TB11 Manatee River• TB12 Hillsborough River• TB13 Courtney Campbell Causeway• TB14 Sweetwater Creek

• TB15 Tarpon Lake Canal• TB16 Honeymoon Island• TB17 Allan’s Creek• TB18 Joe’s Creek/Cross Bayou• TB19 John’s Pass• TB20 North Beach, Ft. DeSoto• TB21 Salt Creek• TB22 Control Site-Middle of Bay

B. fragilis phage B56-3 (RYC2056)

• TB1 Delaney Creek• TB3, 4, 6, and 8 Bullfrog Creek• TB5 Alafia River at 301• TB12 Hillsborough River• TB14 Sweetwater Creek• TB17 Allen’s Creek• TB18 Joe’s Creek/Cross Bayou• TB21 Salt Creek• (TB 4 and 6 have tested positive for both Aug and Sept)



 !
"

*/'0 $/11



""
"0

*

1$

PA is holding this conference to provide a

forum for beach water quality managersand public health officials to share information and to provide input that will assist the Agency

in development of a program to protect the publicfrom microbial pathogens in recreational waters.

EPA has several objectives for this conference. The first is information sharing. We want to

present our ongoing and planned recreationalwaters program activities and to present information that describes the current “state of science” inrecreational water standards, disease indicators,risk assessment, monitoring, and risk communication. We also want to discuss local and regionalrecreational water quality issues through somecase study presentations. Second, EPA wantsyour feedback on development of national guidance. The guidance document will address publichealth issues at U.S. beaches and establish nationally consistent beach monitoring and notificationprograms. We want to hear from the state andlocal perspective what would help you in developing your beach program.

In May 1997 EPA Administrator Carol

Browner announced the establishment of theBEACH Program in response to concerns aboutwater quality in recreation areas. BEACH is anacronym for Beaches Environmental Assessment,Closure, and Health Program. The program wasdeveloped as part of the Clean Water Action Plan,an effort to enhance the quality and improveprotection of the Nation’s waters. EPA spent ayear developing its Action Plan for Beaches andRecreational Waters to address concerns andchart the Agency’s future directions. The BeachAction Plan identifies EPA’s multiyear strategy formonitoring recreational water quality and communicating public health risks associated with pathogen-contaminated recreational rivers, lakes, andocean beaches.

Five concerns are identified in the Beach

Action Plan. The first concern is persistent beachwater quality problems, evidenced in beachclosings and advisories. In 1997 the NaturalResources Defense Council’s 8th annual survey on

beach water quality reported 4,153 days of beachclosings and advisories caused by pollution.EPA’s annual National Health Protection Surveyof Beaches, completed in 1998 and 1999, indicatedthat many beaches continue to have water qualityproblems. In 1999 EPA gathered information onmore than 1,000 east coast, west coast, and GreatLakes beaches. Approximately 25 percent ofthese beaches were associated with an advisory orclosing at some time during the year.

The second concern identified in the Beach

Action Plan is substantial inconsistency in monitoring approaches among and within states. EPA’sNational Health Protection Survey of Beaches hasconfirmed that a wide variety of standards andmonitoring approaches are used at beachesthroughout the United States. In 1998 only onethird of survey respondents reported using E. colior enterococcus as an indicator organism. Thethird concern identified in the Beach Action Plan isinconsistency in beach posting and notificationprograms. EPA surveys have indicated that,because of varying resources and diverse localcircumstances, the local agencies (county healthdepartments and sanitation districts) responsiblefor notifying the public of water quality problemsuse a wide range of risk communication practices(web sites, newspaper, radio). Some of thesemethods do not effectively communicate healthrisks to the public.

The fourth Beach Action Plan concern is

awareness of the health risks posed by exposureto microbiological contaminants. It is a fact thatrecreational water users are at risk of infectionfrom waterborne pathogens through ingestion or
	



1

inhalation of contaminated water or though contactwith the water. Some people might face a disproportionate risk from exposure to the pathogensbecause of heightened susceptibility. For example,children may be more vulnerable to environmentalexposure because of their active behavior anddeveloping immune systems. We need to focusresearch efforts to better understand the healtheffects of these microbial pathogens.

The fifth concern identified in the Beach

Action Plan is stress placed on coastal ecosystemsby human population growth and development. Inthe United States, it is estimated that 75 percent ofthe population will live within 1 hour of the coast inthe next 10-20 years. Habitat destruction andpollution resulting from this future coastal development and growth will have a great impact on thecoastal ecosystems. It is a goal of scientists notonly to discover means of pollution prevention, butalso to derive reproducible methods to better assistenvironmental managers in monitoring and improving coastal water quality.

An important part of the Beach Action Plan

is to assist in state, tribal, and local implementationof monitoring and public notification programs.EPA will strengthen water quality standardsimplementation programs by establishing appropriate policies (e.g., what should be done in tropicalwaters) and assisting local managers in theirtransition to EPA’s currently recommendedAmbient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Thetransition to EPA’s current water quality criteriawill be a priority for the triennial water qualitystandards reviews to be completed in FY2000-2002. Beginning in FY2000, EPA will developmanagement agreements with the states and tribesthat will include commitments to have states andtribes adopt the current criteria. Where a statedoes not amend its standards to include the 1986criteria, EPA will act to promulgate the criteriawith the goal that they apply in all states not laterthan 2003.

As part of the Beach Action Plan, EPA is

also coordinating the planning and issuance ofnational BEACH Program guidance documents.The guidance document, entitled National Monitoring and Notification Guidance for Recreational Beach Managers, will address recreational water quality monitoring, risk assessment,risk management, and risk communication. Thedocument is heavily developed with input fromstate and local government agencies. This conference will assist us in developing the guidance.

EPA is taking a number of other steps to

implement the Beach Action Plan. The agencywill continue to conduct the annual National HealthProtection Survey of Beaches. EPA uses thesurvey to collect detailed national data on state andlocal beach monitoring efforts, applicable standards, beach water quality communication methods, the nature and extent of beach contaminationproblems, and any protection activities.

Surveys have been completed during each of

the past 2 years, and the results have been madeavailable to the public on EPA’s Beach WatchInternet web site, www.epa.gov/ost/beaches.EPA will continue to maintain this web site toprovide timely recreational water quality information to the public and to local authorities. Thecurrent web site will become a real-time electronicdatabase with links to state and local beach healthrelated information. The web site will also provideinformation identifying those beaches wheremonitoring and assessment activities are conductedin a manner consistent with EPA’s nationalguidance. An important part of EPA’s effort tomake beach information available to the public is todevelop a national digitized inventory of beachmaps. EPA will develop a protocol for mappingbeaches and will begin mapping in priority areas.These maps will ultimately be linked to the locations of pollution sources through a geographicinformation system.

EPA has recognized the need for developing

better and faster indicators of water quality.Indicators are needed to identify risk beforeexposure takes place and to determine the potentialpresence of pathogens causing nonenteric diseases. Work has begun to complete researchnecessary for development of new indicators.

In modeling and monitoring research, a

number of mathematical models have been or arebeing developed to assess the pollution in recreational waters. These models can be used torapidly determine public health risks at beachesfollowing rainfall events or spills. EPA hascatalogued a range of predictive tools and isimproving them. A catalogue and evaluation ofexisting models is available on EPA’s BeachWatch web site. Models can range from rules ofthumb for predicting risks, such as the occurrenceof intense rainfall, to complex hydrodynamicmodels.

Research is planned to investigate the risks of

combined sewer overflows, the role that interstitialwaters play in microbial exposure to bathers(particularly children), human exposure factors(such as inhalation, skin contact, time spent in the



 !
"

water, and skin abrasions or cuts, and crowding ofswimmers at small recreational areas) that contribute to adverse health effects. EPA has identified aneed for epidemiological studies to establish a linkbetween water quality indicators and diseaseendpoints. New and innovative indicator methodswill be used to assess and validate their efficiencyfor determining health risks.

1+

EPA activities have taken on greater prominence because Beach Program legislation has

been proposed in the U.S. Congress. The Houseof Representatives passed H.R. 999, the BeachesEnvironmental Awareness, Cleanup and HealthAct, sponsored by Congressman Bilbray. Senator

Lautenberg has introduced a similar beach bill (S.522). The Senate may take action on a bipartisanbill (either H.R. 999 or S. 522) during the nextsession. General Provisions of Beach Legislationinclude a requirement for adoption of revised statewater quality standards consistent with EPA’scurrent ambient criteria for bacteria (i.e., E. coli orenterococcus) within 31⁄2 years, establishment ofstate or local beach monitoring and notificationprograms, and issuance of grants to state and localgovernments to support monitoring and notificationprograms. The passage of these bills will spur thedevelopment of a national beach program.
	



1


22'/


 , 
 $ %  11Q (Lou Glatzer, University of Toledo): This question is for Dr. Rose. What was the mechanism by which you were measuring these parameters by Polymer Chain Reaction (PCR)?What was the definition of the parameter for bacteriophages, Clostridium, and so forth?Joan Rose:

The indicators were all done with membrane filtration and cultivation techniques.

Q (Lou Glatzer): But you were showing quantitative levels.Joan Rose:

Yes. For the indicators, it was membrane filtration cultivation techniques for

Clostridium, enterococci, and coliphage. PCR was only for the human viruses. In some ofour studies, we used cell culture for the human viruses and we did get quantifiable numbers. The PCR for the human viruses was taken from a concentrated sample. Part of thesample was put on cell culture for analysis by routine CPE, and part of the concentrate thenwas assessed with a variety of primer sets for the human viruses. That was presence/absence only.Q (James Woodley, USEPA Headquarters, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division): Thisquestion is for Dr. Rose. You mentioned some potential causes of microbial contamination.Did you look at other studies that have been or are currently looking at the correlationbetween recreational and commercial boating and fecal contamination?Joan Rose:

That is certainly a source of contamination at certain sites in the Tampa Bay area. To

my knowledge, we have not investigated whether a marina itself or a high-use boating areais a high risk. Clearly the John’s Pass area, which we are investigating, is a very hightransit area for boats coming out of the upper reaches of the Bay and into the Gulf. We’rehoping to understand the sources, and we have a variety of sites. I don’t know of otherstudies that are being done like that, but that’s a really difficult question to get at and I thinkit’s an important one. It’s a nonpoint source that’s problematic.Q (Helena Solo-Gabriele, University of Miami): This question is for Jake Joyce. You madea statement indicating that E. coli was an ideal indicator because it doesn’t grow outside

the body. Is that a strong statement or is there evidence to indicate that it doesn’t or arethings starting to change?Jake Joyce:

I’ve seen some papers from the state of Hawaii where they were looking at the fecal

coliforms and some E. coli. I am not certain if E. coli could have been still viable if it isbird or animal droppings and not necessarily in human contamination. Historically, we

	











believe that E. coli is not an environmental microbe like Serratia or some of the other ones.

There is recent evidence in tropical areas that some of these things can live in leaf litter if itis well fertilized.Q (Helena Solo-Gabriele): Is there evidence that it doesn’t grow in nontropical environments?

Jake Joyce:

I am not certain. Can someone help us out? [No comments from the audience.] Here

is an area of future research.Q (Bob Howard, Connecticut Department of Public Health Laboratory): My question is forthe EPA representatives. Right now, EPA recommends E. coli and enterococci as theindicator organisms. Do you see in the future that EPA will mandate specific laboratoryprocedures to be used for these indicators, as they do in the Drinking Water Program?Steve Schaub:

We think that the current indicators are the best that are available right now for making

sure that public health is practiced appropriately and that we are protecting the health of ourbeaches goers. For the new indicators, I would anticipate that there will be a standardization process that will occur through our Office of Science and Technology. New methodsare required to go through collaborative testing to establish the precision, bias, and accuracyand bias of any new methods that are deemed equivalent to the existing methods. I thinkthis will be a continuing requirement for any indicator to supplant or be utilized as a replacement for E. coli or enterococci. We want to make sure that if we do come up with anew indicator, it is risk-based, and the indicator replacement must demonstrate the samepathogen loading that we have currently identify with the E. coli or enterococci - at least forour current approach and criteria. If we are talking about new indicators for different sets ofdiseases or pathogens that are currently targeted, they also will have to go through a development process, collaborative testing, and then epidemiological studies to demonstrate therisk correlation of the indicator versus the types of diseases which it is supposed to indicatefor that type of waterbourne exposure.Q (Arnie Leder, USEPA, Region 5): This question is for Jake Joyce. After E. coli is discharged from a failed septic system or a wastewater treatment plant and not properlydisinfected, what kind of a life span or life cycle does it have in the water? How long canyou reasonably expect it to last, particularly in freshwater?Jake Joyce:

That is a difficult question because there are so many different environmental parameters that would factor into it, such as salinity, temperature, the amount of nutrients available, other microbial predation on the E. coli, different competition between the naturally

occurring microorganisms, and so forth. I’m not sure whether that answer is available.Again, that is another area of open research because E. coli is a very important indicator offecal pollution. Could they [E. coli] replicate with appropriate nutrients and temperature?I’m not certain. It seems that in warmer areas there is some indication of that occurring, asin tropical areas where the temperature is more consistent with that of the human body.Q (Arnie Leder): This question is for Dr. Rose. You mentioned that you used tracers in theseptic systems to identify plumes. Could you elaborate on that in terms of what was usedfor the tracer?
	





Joan Rose:

We used virus and bacteriophage tracers. We used the PRD1. It’s a phage that is

grown using a Salmonella host, and we don’t find this particular phage in human sewage

very often. We might find it once in a while, but it’s very rare in terms of naturally occurring, compared with coliphage. We also used a vibriophage that was isolated in Hawaii andwe had never found it in Florida waters. We had those two viruses. We grew them to aboutten billion and injected them over an hour time frame, just flushing them once an hourdown the toilet. Then we monitored for up to 5 days at about six stations throughout thecanals in some monitoring wells that looked at some of the surficial ground water, as well asusing a boat in the other areas, and took currents and other measurements.Q (Nancy Hatfield, BioCheck Laboratory): My question is for Joan Rose. I wondered ifyou could say a little bit more about the pH-dependent desorption of Vibrio from sediments?

Joan Rose:

This is just some preliminary work that’s been going on. Dr. Lipp, during her study of

Charlotte Harbor, looked at sediment and water column for the fecal organisms and specifically for Vibrio vulnificus. In this case, she was able to start building a model based onsalinity and temperature as to when you would see different concentrations of Vibrio in the

water column, but it did not correlate with the concentrations seen in the sediments. Shewas also looking in the laboratory at adsorption coefficients, where she was taking marinesediments and looking at how much the bacteria adsorbed to the sediments. She found adesorption occurring at a certain pH. One of our hypotheses now (and this is somethingthat needs further investigation) is that under these optimal temperature and salinity conditions vibrios desorb into the water column. We are not sure at beach sites how much mightbe found in sediments. That is an issue for swimmers who might have cuts on their feetacquiring vibrios. That is another area of investigation—the idea of the vibrios on thebeach sites as opposed to out farther in the estuaries. They do have an optimal salinity, so ifthere is high salinity, you don’t seem to find the vibrios as you would at moderate salinities.This is one of the things that we want to look at, but there were both laboratory studies andsome studies in the field that suggested that in these conditions, the sediments acted as areservoir and that there was partly a desorption and then a regrowth based on the optimaltemperature and salinity.Q (Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program): This question is for Steve Schaub. Iwas interested in the real-time indicators, the dip-stick method. How viable are thoseconsidered and is this something that EPA will be approving in the short or long term?Steve Schaub:

Al Dufour of the Office of Research and Development is in charge of the studies being

conducted by EPA. They are looking at caffeine, detergents, and other chemicals as potential dip-stick indicators. There is a lot of research going on in this area. Nick Ashbolt andhis associates over in Australia are looking at the fecal sterols, and they have some promising techniques if they can simplify them and make them more cost-effective. The fecalsterols are very good for discriminating various types of fecal sources/types. Right now,these tests are still in the laboratory phase, and obviously researchers are going to have togo out and test them in real-world waters, plus perform the collaborative testing, to makesure anybody can use them with a high degree of precision and accuracy. Then we willlook at them from the standpoint of how practically they represent fecal contamination inepidemiological studies. Again, as Rick Hoffmann was alluding to earlier, we are probably








a number of years from where we need to go in the process to have official methods forthese dip-stick tests.Q (Leslie Williams, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection): This question is for the EPA representatives that we have here today. Will EPA be coming forth witha definition of beaches for us? The concern there is whether the indicator system, asproposed for bathing beach areas, will be specifically associated with our bathing beaches.Or whether they are anticipating that all of our Class III or recreational (fishable/swimmable) waters will include the new indicators?Jake Joyce:

I’m from Region 7, and I’d still love to see some inland waterways because we have a

lot of polluted swimming holes that people are in. It seems like a lot of the work so far hasbeen done on both of the coasts with the large Atlantic cities, Miami beaches, the SantaMonica Bay, and the big coastal areas. I would personally like to see us start to move intofreshwater because there is an awful lot of exposure that occurs in these bathing areas onsmall lakes and swimming holes where there are no sanitation devices and [waters] areshared with animals. There could be a lot of pathogen transfer. As far as I know, most of ithas been geared toward the large beaches in the saltwater areas, not so much for the freshwater rivers, lakes, and ponds.Q (Leslie Williams): The reason that this question comes up for us is that in order to beable to change the water quality criteria, we need to be able to determine whether theindicators, as proposed, are focusing on a designated bathing beach type area, andwhether it is appropriate to use those indicator densities to apply to all of the fresh andmarine waters that are recreational waters.Steve Schaub:

I might expand on that a little bit. Currently, the criteria we have are for designated

recreational sites where the local authority or the state has specifically defined them as aprimary use beach. Also, we do have guidance which we are putting out for lesser usedswimming areas or secondary recreational uses, such as for scuba diving, water skiing, andother contact uses where there is potential exposure. It is my understanding that Office ofWater is coming out with improved guidance for secondary exposures in the near futurethat will have different allowable exposure criteria that will use the fecal indicators.Matt Liebman:

Also, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986 mentions a procedure for how

to calculate the threshold values for less frequently used beaches based on measuredvariability from a site-specific case.Q (Joanna Mott, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi): I had a question about the E. colimethods. If EPA came out with Method 1600 as the recommended method for the enterococcus, is there going to be one recommended method for E. coli? I know that there are anumber of methods that are very similar but slightly modified from each other.Steve Schaub:

The current approach that EPA uses is that any methods for E. coli or enterococci have

to be equivalent to the current E. coli or enterococci which the prescribed methods (1986Criteria) currently measure. The reason is that when we developed the original analyticalmethods that were used in the epidemiology studies to characterize their association or
	





relationship to acute gastrointestinal disease incidence, the ingredients of the media provided growth capabilities to the general strains of the two indicators that were consideredrepresentative of fecal contamination. Therefore, unless or until new epidemiologicalstudies can be conducted on new candidate indicators, those that are to be considered asequivalent to the recognized methods must be demonstrated to detect and quantify the sameindicator strains that were used to establish the epidemiological relationships, e.g., it ismeasuring the same organisms and therefore the same potential health risks. This of courserequires that the methods go through the evaluation process for equivalency to insure thatthe precision, accuracy, and bias are statistically the same as the currently recognizedmethods.Matt Liebman:

In New England, we’ve been getting a lot of calls about the use of the method called

Enterolert®. Maybe that is one of the things you are asking about. As far as I know,headquarters is evaluating the use of Enterolert® for measuring enterococci under theprocedures that Steve just talked about for inclusion in the Part 136 regulations.Q (Dick Svenson, New York State Department of Health): I have a question for SteveSchaub. You mentioned waterfowl, bird droppings. I am particularly interested in smallwaterbodies, and you indicated that your studies showed increased levels due to theirdroppings. Have there been any studies on specific pathogens related to waterfowl andwater quality?Steve Schaub:

There are some specific pathogens of birds that are also pathogens of humans, for

example strains of the Salmonella and Shigella group. Also, it has recently been recognized that birds may passively transfer human pathogens from environmental sources. For

example, it has been shown that geese often feed on cattle manures and if the cattle areinfected with Cryptosporidium parvum the manures are likely contaminated with highconcentrations of the oocysts, although birds are not infected or diseased from these parasites. There does not appear to be a significant amount of degradation of the parasites in thebird’s digestive tract. When the contaminated birds then fly to water to nest and defecatenear to an area of human exposure such as a beach they can significantly contaminate thewater as a typical goose can produce up to a pound of fecal material a day. I think that Dr.Ron Fayer at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service Labs in Beltsville, Maryland has shownthat Cryptosporidium oocysts are not significantly diminished in number or viability whenpassing through goose intestines. Thus there is pathogen transmission potential frominfected avian species or indirect contamination from their feeding and nesting behaviors.Q (Dick Svenson): I understand the potential. On the particular studies of huge amountsof waterfowl or birds on small waterbodies, have there been any studies where they havedocumented that occurring?Steve Schaub:

By inference, maybe. I am not familiar with any specific studies directly relating bird

populations to indicator levels but one might search the literature and find some. I thinkthere have been studies that have shown that there is a loose association of coliforms andenterococci and high bird populations when there is no other obvious source of contamination. Again, I don’t think there have been any direct measurements of waterfowl associated indicator levels in water. Indigenous animals like muskrats and beavers may alsocontribute fecal indicators to the water.








Comment (Rick Hoffmann, USEPA, Office of Science and Technology): I just wanted tocomment on a couple of questions. One of the issues was the definition of “beaches.” Ithink as EPA works on beach health issues, we are asked a somewhat different questionthan we were asked in the past. The ambient water quality standards, as most of you know,start with use designation of waters as either primary or secondary use waters. In otherwords, the state designated the particular use, and our criteria were designed as ambientwater quality standards. They have typically been used to measure if you meet a standardwhen your dischargers are discharging into those waters. When we get into an issue ofbeach advisories or advice to people who are currently using the beach for recreationalpurposes, it raises a somewhat different issue. That is, you might use a geometric mean tocharacterize the overall, average water quality over a 30-day period. The question iswhether that measurement is sufficient for the people who are out there swimming rightnow. In many cases it is not. That is why many states and localities are using a singlesample maximum or some other thing that better characterizes their exposure. That is oneof the things that we will try to address as we develop the guidance document—beachclosures and openings and that sort of thing. It is somewhat of a different take than whathas been addressed through the ambient water quality standards. We really didn’t get intothe definitions of “beaches” with ambient water quality standards because you simplydesignated all waters as to whether they are primary or secondary contact. So we did nothave to get directly into an issue of what constitutes a beach. We started to get into thatwhen we talked about a national beach survey, and we decided to accept whatever a countyhealth department calls its own beaches. Will that issue come up in the guidance? It maybe something that we need to talk about tomorrow as one of the issues that we need toaddress in subsequent guidance.

A final thing is that some of the new indicators that may come along may be sufficient

to detect a presence or absence of fecal contamination. In other words, they may be used ina recreational beach. Whether they will be sufficient as a regulatory standard for dischargers or the designation of compliance with water quality standards is what Steve is starting toget into for the longer-term issues. They get fairly complicated.Q (Joan Rose, University of South Florida): I’ve heard a number of states, in looking at theE. coli standard, talking about changing their effluent discharges as well as their reclaimedwater discharge standards. They say, “Well, this is good enough for swimming in. Thatmeans it’s good enough for treating wastewater and putting it on food crops” and thingslike this. This really concerns me because that means that the fecal coliforms and thetreatment itself will actually be lessened at the wastewater treatment plant. The disinfectionstep will be decreased, the efficacy of that particular process, and I am really concernedabout the disconnect between the dischargers and the users at the endpoint there. I amwondering what kind of dialogue is going on at the federal level on these types of issues.Geoffrey Grubbs:

I agree that there is a need for dialogue between dischargers, pollution sources, and

those who set standards. I am participating in an ongoing discussion primarily with citymanagers and people in politically elected positions to discuss this issue. How do you getout of additional control requirements for combined sewer overflows and for separate seweroverflow events? I also met with the state directors last week. They’re concerned aboutthe potential increase in costs associated with pollution control as well. They told me it’sgoing to cost them a lot of money not only in terms of constituents but also for the timeinvestment for their staffs to implement the changes. We need to be sure that we get the
	





science correct first. After all, that’s one of the main reasons for this conference. Then, andonly then, should we address the consequences of pollution control.Q (Mike Flannery, Pinellas County Health Department, Healthy Beaches Program): Mywife was watching TV last night and saw that the temperature in San Diego in the water was62 degrees. She noticed ours was dropping now to 82 degrees. We have done a lot ofresearch at looking at E. coli as an indicator. The kids that died in Japan got E. coli 0157-87 from radish sprouts that were growing in the warm, humid climate. My question to you

is do you think that lots of the information that EPA is using was developed in cold waterareas? May it not be proper to have two separate standards, one for subtropical areas likeFlorida and maybe other ones for where you have breeding conditions and perhaps otherenvironmental concerns?Geoffrey Grubbs:

The EPA studies performed on marine and fresh waters were located between

Louisiana and New York and Ohio. So you can see that the studies represented a widerange of water temperatures. Earlier today, Thomas Mahin showed us a literature review ofpapers that span from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong. So, I think that the research iscovering many conditions. However, both the EPA studies and those presented by ThomasMahin were not performed under tropical and subtropical conditions. This leads us to thetopic of two separate indicators for subtropical and temperate regions of the country. EPAis currently investigating the issue of tropical indicators. First, we have to determine if theorganisms are reproducing under natural conditions. Then we can proceed to addressseparate standards. Keep in mind that the guidance document will allow for flexibility forstates to use additional organisms based on their varying conditions.Comment (Rick Hoffmann): Just one comment on that. You can raise those same questionsthis afternoon because Al Dufour and several other folks have been talking about thevarious studies.Q (Robert Nobles, Florida State Health Office): You mentioned $20 million. When will themoney be available? If available, how will the states be notified? Who is the contactperson and how can the state of Florida be on the mailing list?Geoffrey Grubbs:

Actually, we costed the implementation of the BEACH Program at $30 million.

What we know right now is that the House has passed H.R. 999 and we are waiting for theSenate to act on either H.R. 999 or S. 522. The draft of the Senate bill does not have costfigures in it yet. The way the money will come is first by getting folks to agree that youneed it, and we have reached that first step, agreement. The next step is to put it into a billthat authorizes the money, the President signs it, and we are hopeful for that next year.Then, in the appropriations process, the President requests and the Congress appropriatesmoney that we then distribute/grant. The granting mechanism would primarily be the states.Remember, the money is available only if Congress passes the legislation. When thathappens, EPA will have a major effort to notify states and localities through mailing listsand the regional offices of the availability of funds.

	



 




	






	 !"#$




 !
"#$%&



Please refer to page 39 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.

'
#
($'
)

"%%
&#	 +$"!
)




Please refer to David Gray's presentation on page 43 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.

*
	




,

& '(
) )




-$.
))#$%&



	his presentation is an outline of some of the epidemiologic issues that have been identified over the last 15 years in the

conduct of epidemiologic studies to evaluatewater quality parameters that may be related tothe occurrence of illness. Epidemic disease haslong been recognized in this country. A reviewof the recreational outbreaks from 1991-1996indicates that the majority of the outbreaks areof a parasitic etiology followed by bacterial.Surveillance for outbreaks is a passive systemin this country, and the information collectedrepresents only a fraction of outbreaks thatoccur. The health effects associated withswimming are gastrointestinal illness, eye andear infections, upper respiratory illness, skinwounds, skin rashes and drowning. The focusof my talk will be on gastrointestinal illnesses.

In the last 15 years, studies have been

done on every continent except South America.The majority of studies are evaluations ofmarine waters. In general, two types of epidemiologic study design have been used: crosssectional and cohort. Both a prospective and aretrospective approach have been used inconducting cohort studies. Epidemiologicstudies can be either observational (investigatordoes not control exposure to the risk factors) orexperimental (investigator controls the degreeof exposure). The advantage of observationalstudies is that they evaluate real world exposures under real world conditions and thereforeare the exposures of interest. The disadvantageis that because there is no control by the investigator these studies can be subject to bias,especially bias due to exposure misclassification. The advantage of experimental studies is that because the investigator controls the parameters of the study the design can be more efficient (fewer subjects) and therefore more cost- efficient. Because the investigator con- trols exposure, there should be little if any exposure misclassification. The disadvantage of these studies is that like observational studies, they can be subject to confounding and it is often unknown if the exposures are the ones of interest. The issue becomes more confusing if a quasi experimental design is used. In these studies it is unclear whether the investigator is accurately measuring the expo- sure or has the degree of control as originally designed. With gastrointestinal disease the focus of many studies, health effects have been assessed by reporting of symptoms either by interview- ing or use of a daily diary. Some investigators have employed a physician-based diagnostic evaluation, and even fewer investigators have endeavored to collect and evaluate either stool specimens or serological specimens. Exposure assessment is usually some measure of water quality, generally a bacterial indicator. Recent studies have employed some measure of bather habits as part of their exposure assessment (e.g., duration in water, head wet). Another issue in conducting these studies is that many of the organisms that cause gastrointestinal illness can also be transmitted by other means (food, person-to-person, animal contact, foreign travel). It is very difficult with current method- ologies to determine when an episode is related to food, contact with an infected person or

	









recreational water exposure. That is why manystudies take a population comparison approach.It is assumed that for any given population theother sources of organisms are the same forswimmers and non-swimmers. To date nostudies have been done to validate or invalidatethat assumption.



Bias and confounding are major sources

of error that make it difficult to interpret epidemiologic studies. A major concern is nondifferential bias of exposure classification. Inmost cases this random misclassification in bothcases of disease and cases of non-diseasegenerally tends to lower associations identifiedin studies. There have been cases where nondifferential bias has artificially raised theassociation. In general, it is felt that because ofthe random nature of the error, the effect instudies of large associations (greater thanrelative risk of 3), is that non-differential biashas little impact. A major concern is differential bias, which is disproportionate exposuremisclassification in either the diseased or nondisease population. This can have a substantialimpact on the magnitude of the effect and thedirection of the bias can be in either direction.This bias can also have substantial impactregardless of the magnitude of the relative risk.Another area of concern is the issue of confounding. Confounding occurs when a riskfactor is associated with both the exposure ofinterest and the health effect. Typical confounders are age and socioeconomic class.

Another issue is the type of statistical

analysis. The appropriate analysis is a function

of the study design and the a priori hypothesesto be evaluated by the investigator. If the goalis to determine individual risk, analyses that areattempting to evaluate population risks may notbe appropriate. The reverse is also true. Whenthe goal is to assess a population’s risk, ameasure called the risk difference is moreappropriately evaluated.

What will the next generation of new

bathing beach studies look like? There havebeen advances in assessment of health effectsthrough the collection of biological specimens,particularly blood for serological analysis. Alsocomputer-assisted interviewing can be deployed, eliminating the effect an interviewermay have on the subject’s responses. On theexposure side, a new generation of waterquality indicators has been developed, and weunderstand bather behavior better and we canincorporate some determination of othersources of organisms into study designs toevaluate bias and confounding.

The research portfolio should be much

broader with investigators employing a varietyof different study designs. Given the increasedknowledge today about other modes of transmission for the microbes of concern, that issueshould be more aptly addressed in new studies.The important goal should be to conduct manystudies of different study designs and look forcongruence in the results. Hopefully as in theprevious generation of studies, dose-responseinformation can be obtained with less uncertainty.
	




/

EPIDEMIOLOGIC ISSUES IN BATHING

BEACH STUDIES:

PREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION

OF BEACH STUDIES

Rebecca L. Calderon, Ph.D., MPH

Chief, Epidemiology & Biomarkers Branch

National Health & Environmental Effects Laboratory

US Environmental Protection Agency

WATERBORNE DISEASE OUTBREAKS

1991-1996

B AC T ER IA L

3 8 .2 %

PR O TO ZO AN

4 2 .2 %

U N KNO W N

1 2 .7 %

VIR AL

6 .9 %

BACTERIALPROTOZO ANUNKNO W NVIRAL

HEALTH EFFECTS

• Gastrointestinal disease• Respiratory illnesses• Ear and eye infections• Skin wounds• Skin rashes• Drowning

REVIEW OF EXISTING STUDIES

Continent Fresh Marine

North America 4 2

South America 0 0

Africa 2 6

Asia 0 4

Europe 0 4

TYPES OF STUDIES

• Cross-sectional• Case-control• Cohort

• Prospective• Retrospective

'
#
($'
)

0

OBSERVATIONAL VS EXPERIMENTAL

Observational Pros: Real World, Natural Variability, Right Exposures Cons: Subject to bias and confounding, No control over exposure conditionsExperimental Pros: Control the exposure conditions, More efficient Cons: Artificial conditions, Subject to bias and confounding

QUASI EXPERIMENTAL

HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

• Self report (Diary or interview)• Medical confirmation• Biological specimens

• Blood• Stools

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

• Water Quality Measurement• Bather Habits

• Ingestion• Inhalation• Dermal Contact• Head Immersion• Duration

OTHER EXPOSURES OF INTEREST

• Food• Previous Illness• Animals• Young Children• Travel (International)• Ingestion of Untreated Water (Hiking)

BIAS

 E E D D

Nondifferential Exposure Misclassification

BIAS

 E E D D

Differential Exposure Misclassification
	




1

BIAS

 E E D D

Differential Exposure Misclassification

CONFOUNDING

Disease

Exposure Confounding

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Population versus Individual Objective of Study Study DesignRelative Risk versus Risk Difference

NEXT GENERATION

HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Biological SpecimensComputer-Assisted Technology Interview

NEXT GENERATION

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Water QualityBather BehaviorOther Risk Factors

NEXT GENERATION

STUDY DESIGNS

Observational

Cohort

Experimental

Cohort

Mixed Design Cohort

'
#
($'
)

/2

"**
+  $ 	   )Q (Richard Eskin, Maryland Department of the Environment): This session was veryinteresting; it was very helpful; it related to the factors that are important and comparedthe indicators. Accepting for the moment that enterococcus is indeed the best indicator,you have still not addressed how you set the threshold of that indicator and what level ofpotential risk that threshold is allowing. I’d like to hear more about that and what level ofprotection EPA thinks is appropriate and is assessing in setting the threshold for theindicator.Al Dufour:

I believe that the Agency has made a judgment with regard to thresholds. For marine

waters, that threshold is at 18 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. For freshwater,it is about 8 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. That judgment was made in1986, and it was based on what was felt to be the acceptable risk at that time relative to allof the monitoring that had gone on before using the 200 fecal coliforms per 100 millilitervalue. It was based on what is acceptable; there may be better ways of doing it, but that’sthe way that it was done.Q (Richard Eskin): If a lot of information has accumulated since then, would EPA considergoing back and saying, “Yes, the threshold we chose does still represent this threshold”?Al Dufour:

It is my belief that if the beach plan is followed—if we develop better indicators, make

better risk assessments, and do follow-up epidemiological studies—the Agency and everybody else will be able to make better judgments about “acceptable,” or I like the word“tolerable” better. Acceptable means you sort of like it and accept it; tolerable means youdon’t like it but put up with it. In the future, I think that we will be able to come up withtolerable levels.Tom Mahin:

If you look at the UK Beach Trial data, just a word of caution in applying this to other

countries because if you look closely at that data, at the higher levels they had a greaterillness rate than has been detected in studies in the U.S. Currently, the standard in marinewaters is 104, and it raises questions about the daily maximum at that level, based on theUK Beach Trials, that those could be high illness rates. There is a lot of different data outthere. We would recommend that EPA analyze the reasons for differences in illness ratesrelative to the daily maximum levels for marine waters.Q (Barry Davis, National Park Service): I have spent about 20 years with the CDC and amfully familiar with the dilemma of epidemiological association of exposure and illness,particularly in bathing waters. It seems like we are in the same place we were in 20 yearsago with being focused primarily on the easy part of the issue, which is the microbiological
	




/

indicators and the nuances thereof. I was glad to hear the presentations on theepi[demiology]. But I still don’t see any plans for any good epidemiology, and my questionis are there any epidemiology studies being planned and are there any funds available toimplement those studies?Rebecca Calderon:

It is my understanding that in outlying budget years, starting in 2001, the plans are to

conduct epidemiological studies. We are beginning to draw that information together, and Iwould anticipate that we will begin to conduct those studies either in 2002 or 2003. Thequestion is how many will we be able to conduct and where will they be conducted? In thepast, they have tried to be as geographically representative as they possibly could and to doan even amount between marine and freshwater. I believe that it is our intent this timearound to do as many geographically representative samples of sites as we possibly can thatmeet some sort of criteria that we will develop in the next year or so. One of the things thatwill make an ideal site is a wide range of exposures. In other words, there will have to be ahigh probability over the course of the summer that you are going to have low and highdays. I know, historically, a lot of places who think that they may be having high days arenot interested in having you come along and do a study so you can tell the world, “Yes, wehave high days,” particularly if your results show that there were illnesses associated withthat. There are social impacts associated with doing studies. My group has had bad luck,particularly in air pollution episodes. When we came to town to do a study, miraculouslythere was no pollution. So, please welcome us with open arms because your pollutionmight go away because we have come to town to do a study.Tom Mahin:

From one state’s perspective, we would love to see an epidemiological study based on

a separate newly constructed separate sewer and drainage system so we knew that it wasn’tbeing impacted by illicit connections. We would like to see the impacts of nonpoint sourcerunoff, as EPA has done in Connecticut, to follow that up with a point source drainagesystem situation and also sample for pathogens (Giardia cysts, Cryptosporidium) and some

PCR work on viruses. We could try to put that all together and resolve this urban stormwater situation.Q (John Barrett, Texas Coastal Coordination Council): The 1986 guidance documentcontained a promise from EPA that they would assess the effects of nonpoint source runoffon disease or enteric illnesses. Then, the study that has been referred to as the Connecticutstudy, that was published in 1991 as the answer to that question that was raised in theguidance document. There are some dramatic conclusions in that report from a manager’sstandpoint. There are some inconsistencies in the beach plan where it states that nothing isknown today about animal impacts on illness. I am wondering if the two principal authorson the panel still feel that study is defensible.Al Dufour:

When I reported on that study, I made it clear that it was a small study. I thought that

the data were provocative and that there should be follow-up studies. I think that, for itssize, the results were quite defendable. However, I have been saying for some time thatfollow-up studies are needed. Unfortunately, in 1992, the interest in wastewater studiesincreased (most of our bathing beach studies are associated with wastewater) and the budgetwent way down. Any hope to do a follow-up study disappeared. I think with the currentEPA Beach Plan one of the key elements is to have a good method for determining what ishuman and what is animal pollution. I think that would describe point and nonpoint source

'
#
($'
)

/3

pollution. With those methods, when we get them, we will be able to do appropriate studies. Since I am from a laboratory, I don’t want to make any promises for the Agency.Q (John Barrett): We are making a lot of progress with the DNA and other methods indifferentiating the sources. The question in my mind as the manager is what are we goingto do once we have differentiated the sources? We find out that we have a bird problem,geese, as a contributor to fecal coliform in a stream. Is the 1991 study putting that streamon “kings x” or are you saying that we need additional studies along the same lines as the1991 study to refine those questions?Al Dufour:

That’s what I was saying.

Q (Bob Nuzzi, Suffolk County, New York Department of Health Services): Given that thethreshold levels were developed from the epidemiological studies and the vast majority ofthe epi[demiological] studies were performed in areas where there are and were pointsources of pollution, do you think that it might be possible that those thresholds might beoverly conservative for areas where we don’t have those point sources of pollution?Al Dufour and Rebecca Calderon:

Yes.

Q (Bob Nuzzi): As a manager and someone who is responsible for regulating bathingbeaches, how can I cope with a standard that’s being suggested or recommended that, inmy case, would appear to have me closing more beaches for longer periods of time withoutany indication that there is any public health relationship to those closures?Rebecca Calderon:

Remember your indicators are just one piece of information. The first speaker that we

had this morning said that it needs to go hand in hand with things like a sanitary survey andother pieces of information. As a manager, I would be uncomfortable making a black-andwhite decision based on indicator levels.Comment (Bob Nuzzi): We never make those kinds of decisions based just on indicatorlevels. However, I would also like to indicate to you that there are people looking over ourshoulders, in the public and environmental groups. We’re in a very litigious society. If Icome up with a number based on these standards that I should close this beach, I have avery hard time not doing so. So I think you have to consider what is being done here, inthat if there is a standard being proposed based on information that’s collected from areaswhere there are large point sources of pollution, I think we have to be very careful if we’regoing to utilize these same standards. If we’re going to a federal standard that is going tobe utilized in all areas, we have to take a lot of care with that.Tom Mahin:

We do have to be careful because even if the studies show that pure storm water runoff

doesn’t pose the same health risk, at least where we are, the sewer systems are so old we seea lot of illicit connections in most storm drains. When it rains, you don’t just get streetrunoff, you get sewage which is in the system that gets pushed out. We don’t want thependulum to go too far the other way and have something that says, “wet weather eventsare okay, so let’s not remove illicit connections.” This is a different standard. We think thatthere is a wet weather problem. The public health risk, we believe, comes from illicit
	




/

connections, and that should be the focus. We believe that EPA’s Phase II regulationsshould really focus on illicit connections also.Comment (Bob Nuzzi): But those illicit connections are coming out of pipes. They arepoint sources.Tom Mahin:

Absolutely. You just have to be careful on how the study is done because when you

analyze pure storm water outfalls, to some people think that storm water outfalls are not aproblem. But they are a problem when you have illicit connections.Q (Dick Svenson, New York State Department of Health): We look at the indicators as atool—as one of the factors that you consider before you open or close a beach. As aregulator, these numbers that were put together—35, 33, and 126—are rather precise.When you look at your charts, whether you are dealing with a log-log or a multi-log-log,and start plotting points and then pull them off for regulatory purposes, we can debate thethreshold level. All things equal, how are you going to do it in the future to have somedegree of tolerance knowing when you have small numbers and you’re plotting them onthose kinds of scales? These numbers obviously amazed me when they came out in 1986compared to what we had before. It’s just one more area to think about when you’relooking at the numbers. I would like to have some feedback as far as when you do futureepidemiological studies and plot them up and come up with another tool to discuss.Al Dufour:

I believe, just as we are going to come up with new and better methods, new and

better ways of doing epidemiological studies, hopefully, we will be very creative in how weset the limits. I think that there are new and better ways today that have been consideredsince 1986. And hopefully, we will use them. I think that most people don’t understandhow conservative the current indicator level is, and I think that at the time, in 1986, although we did have this data showing the relationship between indicators and healtheffects, there was a feeling that there was still a lot that the Agency did not know and,therefore, they went with the most conservative system available or that they could comeup with.Comment (Dick Svenson): This will explain some of the reluctance of the states to jump upfrom a regulatory standpoint to pick those kinds of numbers and have to go with them asfar as the degree of tolerance. When we looked at them back in 1986 when they first cameout, the obvious recommendation was what you are doing, which is doing more researchand looking at them and fine tuning them. I think that is some of the difficulty when youlook at defining, and this gets back to defining what are bathing waters and what is swimming. If the national goal is let’s get it all there, then these are so important—to describewhat’s really bathing waters as far as if you are going to use this as one of the criteria.Al Dufour:

I’m sure the Agency understands that problem. I hope I can speak for the Office of

Water. One of the reasons for these conferences is that they want to get input from thestates and cooperation from the states so that the limits that are chosen, first of all, makesense, and secondly, so that everybody buys into the system.Q (Deana Levengood, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, League of Women Voters): As amember of the public, we’re glad that you’re having this forum and that you’ve invited us

'
#
($'
)

/*

to participate because it’s kind of nice to know what you’re grappling with. We are educated in our process through the estuary program, but the general public as a wholedoesn’t really know what a lot of these issues are about. A couple of questions from thepublic’s perspective might be, as I recognize, is that as managers, you have to develop yourcriteria and do your best effort to protect the masses, but I think that a lot of information isnot passed through the public and that the public can assist in helping to make informeddecisions in that regard—what’s important to them and what’s not—especially with community groups that are looking at these kinds of issues. Particularly in light of our area heredealing with wet seasons or wet weather events. We have a lot of them here in Florida. Inthis area, in fact, they contribute a great deal to a lot of our issues and we have some of ournormal sewage challenges. We have the overflows at times of very wet weather because wedon’t have the best places for injection wells and because of our water supply being soclose to the surface and contaminated a lot. What’s happening now, with regard to some ofthe hurricane opportunities, and I’ll say that they are challenges, but they are also opportunities, in light of looking up in the Carolinas, what’s been happening there with theanimal waste and the other things. Are there any studies in place or being planned so youcan capture some of the data that might be available, taking water quality sample information at this time and seeing what kind of epidemiological impacts it may have in the future,what kind of health impacts, and then trying to tie them together? It seems to me that whenwe have these crisis types of situations, we have to be prepared to go in and do somemassive sampling all at one time and I don’t know if that is practical or effective. We maybe able to learn something from it by having it happen all at one time and in a large dose.Rebecca Calderon:

Since I am from North Carolina, I’ll answer the question. In terms of what the Agency

is doing, I believe that particularly in Region 4, [the Agency] is working with the state ofNorth Carolina to look at some of the impacts on the beach areas, particularly in terms offlooding in the freshwater rivers and the delta where the freshwater rivers run into themarine environment. It would be very difficult to do a recreational study in North Carolinanow because it’s past the recreational season and a lot of the beach areas, because of thehurricane, no longer have access to them because of the flooding or a lot of people justhave packed it up and gone home for the season. We are in the process of our third hurricane in the last 2 months, and I think that a lot of people are going to pack it in for this year.In terms of an opportunity there to do recreational studies, probably not. Given the randomnature of hurricanes, I would be very reluctant to plan a recreation-related type of epidemiology study based on hurricanes. It would just be really difficult to do. But there could bea lot of things that could be learned, at least from a microbiological standpoint.Q (Deana Levengood): Maybe I should clarify something. I’m not talking about recreational studies. I’m talking about when people are displaced or they’re flooded, people are

exposed to coastal waters. Maybe not recreational, but there are people wading aroundbeing exposed to those waters and in some cases having to swim through those waters toget through different areas. And that is an opportunity, again, to do sampling for differentkinds of exposure.Rebecca Calderon:

I’ll tell you what the state of North Carolina told us: “You tell me what’s more important, getting people back into livable housing or running around collecting health information from individuals who may or may not be ill.” It’s just a matter of public health priorities when emergencies like this happen. And they actually got annoyed with the Office of

Research and Development because they were more interested in us providing crews to
	




/,

help with the clean-up efforts than they were in having us come down and do those kinds ofhealth studies. So, while it’s an interesting idea, I think that you have to look at where thepriorities are when something like that comes to town. And it’s probably not in whether ornot Joe Blow out there running around in his little skiff is going to get diarrhea because hefell in the water. It’s difficult to look at that. Now, one of the things that we are interestedin is the impact that this flooding is going to have on ground water supplies. Ground wateris a major source of water in eastern North Carolina, and that is something we are workingwith the state to look at over the long haul.Comment (Jennifer Wigal, USEPA, Water Quality Standards Branch): There is a point thatI want to revisit and perhaps make a couple of clarifications regarding the risk levels associated with the 1986 criteria. I want to reiterate that those criteria levels, as Al mentionedearlier, are for application on a conservative nationwide basis. Those are also to be used inconjunction with a designated use setting, when the states set their goals for the waterbody.These are the criteria we feel are appropriate to protect those designated uses and also toassess the long-term health of a waterbody and whether or not it is meeting that use over thelong term. For beach opening and beach closing situations, I think that perhaps there is alot more flexibility than is being perceived by some of the states as to how they do a day-today open-and-closing decision. This is our recommendation on a national basis for whatwe feel is probably at this time the most appropriate way to protect those waterbodies overthe long term.Tom Mahin:

We do have a lot of problems with people trying to interpret the mean, geometric

mean, and daily maximum, and some people sample once every 2 weeks and some sampleonce a week. It seems very unclear to us when to apply the 200 and when to apply the 400,so I would hope that in the future, that, if there are any changes, the system is simplifiedbecause there are a lot of different beaches out there and there are all kinds of differentsampling frequencies.Q (Gary White, Macomb County Health Department): The question that I have is regardingsampling techniques, such as the depth of the water the samples are collected in and depthbelow the surface and things like that. Have any of those issues been looked at in any ofthe studies that have been done, or are there any plans to look at how best to measureexposure through varying sample techniques and what not?Rebecca Calderon:

The UK study looked at three depths: there was the knee depth, there was the chest

height, and I forget what the third one was. And the chest height in their studies turned outto be the best one. Since I was one of these people who literally waded out into the water,we did ours at about between 3 and 41⁄2 feet in terms of where we collected the water on thebeach. Part of the problem in beach studies is that you have these tidal actions and I remember, particularly in the Boston area, having to walk quite a ways to some point at lowtide to get out there where it was at least up to my knees in the water. I think that in thenext round of studies that may possibly be a component in terms of what’s a more appropriate measure of exposure.Comment (Gary White): I think that would be a very important thing to look into.

#

%

%
5	



'

'2	
#	 1
/
!6
4$#$
-


eaches at the Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore and the State Park in north- western Indiana usually close several

times each year during the summer swimmingseason due to E. coli contamination. E. coli isan indicator organism which indicates thepresence of fecal material in the water. For thepast year, USEPA, USGS, National Park Service, Indiana DNR, Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management, Indiana Department of Public Health, numerous county andlocal agencies, and universities have beenworking together in an effort to identify thesources of the E. coli discharges which are

responsible for closing the beaches. Areasbeing looked at include not only direct dischargers with NPDES permits, but also Combined Sewer Overflows, failing septic systems,contributions from concentrated animal feedingoperations, improperly land applied sewagesludge, marine vessel contributions and evencontributions from wildlife. In addition to theresearch aspects of this task force, IDEM andUSEPA are working in partnership to maintainan especially effective compliance and enforcement presence in the watershed to ensure thatall point source dischargers comply withNPDES permit requirements.

Northwest Indiana E. coli Task Force

Accomplishments 1999: Beach closures atNorthwest Indiana beaches, monitored by theNational Park Service, experienced an increasein 1999 (23) over 1998 (12). While 10 of 12beach closures last year were associated withCombined Sewer Overflows (CSO), this swimming season was generally dryer without themajor storm events after July, suggesting thatother factors play a part in the problem as well.In spite of the increases in beach closings, thefollowing successes were achieved by themulti-agency task force:.

• Continued the efforts of the voluntary

monitoring network and completed areport of last year’s results. The reportidentifies Combined Sewer Overflows asa major contributor to beach closings.

• IDEM and USEPA continued enforcement and compliance assistance efforts in

the watershed, with special attention paidto minor dischargers.

• Non-Point Source Committee initiated

stream surveys to identify failed septicsystems and subsequent actions by stateand local health departments.

• The Indiana Dunes State Park (Indiana

DNR) began a sewer system evaluationand is doing intensive monitoring oftributaries within the park. Dunes Creekruns through the park and regularlyexceeds coliform standards at its mouth.Dunes Creek divides the State Park beachinto an east and west beach. This yearthe State Park took steps to restrict accessto Dunes Creek through the use ofsignage and cones.

• Indiana University and USGS conducted

monitoring during three major stormevents at Burns Ditch in an effort todetermine E. coli loadings to LakeMichigan and area beaches.

• USGS conducted trials of a new flow

cytometer which measures E. coli cells inorder to study whether it will provide amore rapid indication of when thebeaches should be closed.

• Indiana Geological Survey completed the

Derby Ditch Study in an effort to determine beach closing predictors. Theresults of the Derby Ditch Study can beaccessed from the Lake Rim Web Site athttp://129.79.145.25/indmaps/ims/lakerimmo/lakerim_front.html.

/"#$
%"

'&(

• During the course of the year citizen

groups became more involved and presscoverage and public awareness of theproblem increased.

• At the request of the E. coli Task Force,

the Great Lakes Commission will hold aworkshop on marine sanitation deviceslater this fall.
5	



'&'

Northwest Indiana E. coli Task

Force

Arnold Leder

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

E. coli Task Force

• Officially formed in 1995, at the suggestion

of commercial interests in northwestIndiana who came to a number of state andfederal agencies and asked for assistance insolving the coliform contaminationproblems at Indiana’s Lake Michiganbeaches.

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

E. coli Testing Sites Beaches affected include:

• Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore• Indiana Dunes State Park• Municipal beaches

The watershed includes:

• The northern half of Lake, Porter and

LaPorte counties in northwestern Indiana

• Includes the Grand Calumet and Little

Calumet River systems, Trail Creek,portions of the Saint Joseph River, DerbyDitch and Dunes Creek.

The watershed (cont):

• Home to one of the world’s largest

concentration of steel manufacturing

• Rapid growth in the southern portion of the

watershed ahead of municipal sewersystems

• Because of the parks and beaches, tourism

in northwest Indiana is also a majorindustry.

/"#$
%"

'&*

Sources of Contamination:

• Combined Sewer Overflows• Failed septic systems• Agricultural inputs from land-applied

manure

• Major and minor point source discharges• Marine discharges• Storm water

Potential Sources (cont):

• Wildlife• Infrastructure at park facilities (sewer

systems, pump outs and privies)

History:

• Prior to the Clean Water Act, many beaches

in the area were routinely closed

• Treatment plant expansion led to reopening

many beaches in the late 70's and early 80's

• Over the past decade, the rivers, creeks, and

ditches of northwest Indiana have exceededstate criteria for swimmable waters (< 235E. coli per 100 ml H O). 2

Member Agencies:

• US and Indiana Geological Surveys• Indiana and Purdue Universities (Sea Grant

Program)

• National Park Service• Indiana Department of Natural Resources• Indiana Department of Health• Indiana Department of Environmental

Management

Member Agencies (cont)

• USEPA• County health departments from Lake,

Porter and La Porte Counties

• Representative from local municipalities’

wastewater treatment plants

• Industry representatives• Natural Resources Conservation Service

(USDA)

Completed projects:

• USEPA and IDEM, in 1997, completed

CSO Inspections at all major municipalitieswith CSOs in the watershed.

• For the past 4 years, IDEM and USEPA

have focused compliance inspections in thewatershed, with particular attention beingpaid to minor dischargers which haveresulted in state and federal enforcementactions.
5	



'&+

Task Forces:

• Nonpoint Source• Point Source Task Force• Monitoring• Marine

Point Source Task Force:

• In the fall of 1997 began monitoring at 80

different locations in the watershed.

• Worked with the municipalities and health

agencies and the Park Service in order toensure that each agency has implementedapproved methods for E. coli sampling and

analysis.

Standardized E. coli Monitoring

Standardized Operating Procedures forRecreational Water Collection and Analysis ofE. coli on Streams, Rivers, Lakes, and Wastewater

Cooperative Efforts

• An example of the cooperation being

achieved by the task force can be found inthe case of Oak Tree Mobile Home Park.

• Although this facility only discharges

60,000 gallons per day, the treatment planthad failed and the load being dischargedwas equal to what a complying 3 milliongallon per day plant would be discharging.

Cooperative Efforts (cont)

• The company, under federal enforcement,

was ordered to come into compliance withNPDES permit requirements.

• In order to solve this problem, the City of

Portage allowed the mobile home park toinstall a pump station and force main inorder to eliminate their discharge.

Cooperative Efforts (cont)

• The owners have agreed to fund research in

the area as part of a supplementalenvironmental project.

/"#$
%"

'&,

Point Source Task Force

• Has established a voluntary monitoring

network at 80 locations throughout thewater shed.

• Voluntary participants in this project

include the three county health departments,major municipalities and the National ParkService and several major industries.

Point Source Task Force (cont)

• Samples are taken each Wednesday at the

interior sites and each Thursday at thebeaches.

• The results of this monitoring will assist

officials in isolating sources of E. colithroughout the watershed.

Northwest Indiana Beach

Closings

Memorial Day through Labor Day

 Year Closings 1999 24 1998 12 1997 18 1996 10 1995 10

Fixed & Nonpoint Monitoring

Little Calumet Network Grand Calumet Network
5	



'&-

Trail Creek Network St. Joseph Network

FY99 Accomplishments

• IDEM and USEPA continued enforcement

and compliance assistance efforts in thewatershed with special attention paid tominor dischargers.

• Continued the efforts of the voluntary

monitoring network and completed a reportof last years results. The report identifiesCombined Sewer Overflows as a majorcontributor to beach closings.

FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

• Non-Point Source Committee initiated

stream surveys to identify failed septicsystems and subsequent actions by Stateand local health Departments.

• The Indiana Dunes State Park (Indiana

DNR) began a sewer system evaluation andis doing intensive monitoring of tributarieswithin the park.

FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

• Indiana University and USGS conducted

monitoring during 3 major storm events atBurns Ditch in an effort to determine E. coliloadings to Lake Michigan and areabeaches.

• USGS Conducted trials of new flow

cytometer which measures E. coli cells inorder to study whether it will provide amore rapid indication of when the beachesshould be closed.

FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

• Indiana Geological Survey completed the

Derby Ditch Study in an effort to determinebeach closing predictors.

• At the request of the E. coli Task Force, the

Great Lakes Commission will be holding aworkshop on marine sanitation devices laterthis fall.

/"#$
%"

'&0

Clean Water Compliance Watch

Or Where We Go From Here

• OECA’s fiscal year 2000 EMPACT Project

intends to focus on development andimplementation of its hazard assessmenttool in northwest Indiana watersheds.

• The hazard assessment tool, is a system that

combines baseline information, monitoringdata, and modeled results to estimateconditions prevailing in the watershed atany time.
5	



'&

*%$
'
$1 */$$,316
%

47 7/$ 7')%7%*
1
8+

'

.!/
!)


68
)9

.


*3

.!)).



38
5


68
)+
/
!6
4$#$
0

#he south shore of Lake Pontchartrain has for years been polluted to such an extent that swimming and other recreational

activities have been prohibited. The metropolitan New Orleans area lies mostly below sealevel and is completely encircled by floodcontrol levees. Storm water runoff is collectedin a system of drainage canals and pumped intoLake Pontchartrain as a flood control mechanism. Water quality problems in LakePontchartrain are directly related to pumpedstorm water runoff, and state health officialshave declared that swimming is not advisablewithin 1⁄4 mile of the south shore due to bacterial contamination. However, over the lastseveral years, there has been an effort torevitalize the lake and recent water qualitysampling suggests that conditions have improved along the south shore. The purpose ofthis project is to characterize the movement ofcertain bacterial indicators in runoff fromdrainage and to develop a predictive model toassist state and local health officials in determining when and where primary contactrecreation activities may be pursued in LakePontchartrain. The specific objectives of theproject include:

• Define microbiologically the dimensions

of the water “plume” that is being discharged into the lake for a given rainfallevent.

• Determine the titers of certain microorganisms within the plume of pollution and the titer reduction rate of these organisms in the initial area of observa- tion. • Define the movement patterns of mi- crobes. • Develop a model that will allow the accurate prediction of indicators and infectious organisms that would migrate away from the original plume area. • Use this model as a tool to open the lake for primary contact recreation activities at least in specific areas. To determine what factors may influence the fate of indicator organisms, an integrated rainfall/runoff-oriented lake water sampling design was effected. The indicator organisms studied are E. coli, the enterococci group, and fecal coliform. Additionally, physicochemical parameters and environmental data are re- corded to facilitate the development of a model that may produce reasonable projections on the movement and fate of these organisms and their titers. Physicochemical parameters monitored include dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, turbidity, salinity, conductivity, Secchi disk transparency, and temperature. Environmental data collected include wind speed and direction, rainfall amount and intensity, current direction and velocity, and pumpage volume and rate. The overall purpose of the project is to characterize the distribution of certain indicator microorgan-

/"#$
%"

isms in the urban runoff into Lake Pontchartrainbased on sampling events. A deterministicmodel incorporating biotic and abiotic parameters, hydraulic and rainfall information, andGIS mapping is being developed to evaluate thedistribution and fate of pertinent microorganismindicators. A neural-network model is alsobeing developed that will allow for predictionsof lake water quality based on physicochemicalparameters.

'&&

The project was recently enhanced

through the procurement of a grant from the USEnvironmental Protection Agency EMPACT(Environmental Monitoring for Public Accessand Community Tracking) program. Withfunds from the grant, the Lake Pontchartrain

Basin Foundation (LPBF) and the US Geological Survey-Water Resources Division (USGS/WRD) have installed a continuous multiproberecorder at Lincoln Beach on the south shore ofLake Pontchartrain. The multiprobe recordermeasures DO, pH, salinity, conductivity, andturbidity and is equipped with a satellite uplinkso that continuous monitoring data is availableand posted on the LPBF and USGS/WRD websites. Because the predictive model linksbacterial indicators to physicochemical parameters, the availability of continuous, real-timemonitoring data through instant access to themultiprobe recorder will allow continuousassessment of water quality conditions atLincoln Beach.
5	



'&

Predictive Modeling of Bacterial

Indicators Along the South Shore of

Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana

• Jeff Waters, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation• A.J. Englande, PhD, Tulane University School of

Public Health and Tropical Medicine

• Henry Bradford, PhD, Office of Public Health,

Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals

• Mike Schaub, USEPA, Region Six

Pontchartrain Beach Circa 1950

South Shore Lake Pontchartrain

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

Volunteer Water Quality Testing

Program

• 17 Sampling Locations on South Shore• Samples Collected by New Orleans Power Squadron• Analyzed for Fecal Coliform by LaDHH• Period of Record: January 1994 to Present

Duncan

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)

Bonnabel Offshore

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)

Duncan

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)

Bonnabel Offshore

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)

/"#$
%"

'(

M unicipal Yacht Harbor

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN )

Lincoln Beach

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN )

Project Goals

• Characterize the distribution of certain indicator

microorganisms in urban runoff to Lake Pontchartrain.

• Develop a deterministic model to understand the

distribution and fate of pertinent indicator organisms.

• Develop a predictive model that will assist state and local

health officials to determine when and where primarycontact recreation activities can be pursued in the lake.

Three Phase Approach

• Phase I – Characterization and Model Development• Phase II – Continued Model Development and Lincoln

Beach Characterization

• Phase III – Model Validation

Phase I – Model Development

• Stormwater Characterization• ARGOS Buoy Deployment• Grid Sampling

Phase I – Parameters Measured

• Rainfall• Discharge Volume• Current Speed/direction• Wind Speed/direction

• Fecal Coliform• E coli• Enterococci• pH• DO• Conductivity• Turbidity• Secchi Disk Transpency• Air/water Temperature

Municipal Yacht Harbor

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)

Lincoln Beach

0

800600400200

1600140012001000

Fecal Coliform (MPN)
5	



''

Duncan Canal Rainfall Information 

(8/13/98)

0

0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (hrs)

Rainfall (inches)rainrate raintotal

Duncan Canal Pumping Information 

(8/13/98)

0

600000005000000040000000300000002000000010000000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (hrs)

Pu mpin g R ate (cu ft/d ay) Total volum e pum pe d=16000000 cu ft

Duncan Canal Dissolved Oxygen (8/13/98)

543210

15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12

Time (hrs)

(mg/l)

Duncan Canal Turbidity (8/13/99)

0

80604020

100

15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12

Time (hrs)

(NTU)

Duncan Canal Conductivity (8/13/98)

500480460440420400

15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12

Time (hrs)

(us/s)

Duncan Canal Bacterial Indicators 

(8/13/98)

0

5000

200001500010000

15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12

Time (hrs)

MPN/100ml E coli Enterococci Fecal

/"#$
%"

'*

Duncan Canal Rainfall Information 

(8/14/98)

0

0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (hrs)

Rainfall (inches)

rainra tera intota l

Duncan Canal Pumping Information 

(8/14/98)

0

900000800000700000600000500000400000300000200000100000

1000000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (hrs)

Pumping rate (cu ft/day) To tal vo lu me pumped = 14000000 cu ft

Duncan Canal Bacterial Indicators 

(8/14/98)

0

5000

25000200001500010000

11:25 12:37 13:49

Time (hrs)

(MPN/100ml) E coli Enterococci Fecal

Duncan Canal Dissolved Oxygen (8/14/98)

543210

11:25 12:37 13:49

Time (hrs)

(mg/l)

Duncan Canal Turbidity (8/14/98)

0

80604020

100

11:25 12:37 13:49

Time (hrs)

NTU

Duncan Canal Conductivity (8/14/98)

500480460440420400

11:25 12:37 13:49

Time (hrs)

(us/s)
5	



'+

/"#$
%"

',

Phase II

• Continue Development of Deterministic Model• Characterization of Lincoln Beach Water Quality

Deterministic Model

• Statistical Relationship Between Indicator Organisms and

Physicochemical Parameters

• Deterministic Near Field Model – Steady State Model• Deterministic Far Field Model – Time Variable Model

Lincoln Beach Water Quality

• 12 Stations sampled five times/month (June – October, 1998)• Fecal Coliform – Log Mean Range: 2 to 5 MPN/100 ml• Enterococci - Log Mean Range: 2 to 7 MPN/100 ml• E coli - Log Mean Range: 1 to 3 MPN/100 ml

Phase III

• Validate Deterministic Model• Develop Predictive Model
5	



'-

Environmental Monitoring for Public

Access and Community Tracking

(EMPACT)

• Continuous Real-Time Multiprobe Recorder• Satellite Uplinked• Available at www.saveourlake.org or

www.ldlabrg.er.usgs.gov

Multiprobe Recorder

Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data

Lincoln Beach

Jehncke Canal

University ofNew Orleans

Tues 10 A.M.

Mon 12 P.M.

Sun 3 P.M.

Sat 1 P.M.

Fri 1 P.M.

[ Friday 08 – Tuesday 12 ]

Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data

/"#$
%"

'0

Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data Status and Future Goals

• December 1999- Deterministic Model Validated• December 1999 – Predictive Model Complete• June 2000 – Louisiana Department of Health &

Hospitals initiates monitoring program at Lincoln Beach

• June 2001 – Louisiana Department of Health &

Hospitals “reopens” Lincoln Beach to swimming usingPredictive Model and multiprobe recorder to providedaily status
5	



'

%#$'"$"
"*3:;1"
.!/
!6


 Regional Bypass Group, formed in July 1997, was composed of representatives from various governmental agencies

concerned with unplanned/planned bypasses ofraw sewage to receiving waters which mayimpact bathing areas and/or shellfish beds. Atthe time, there were no formal procedures toinform the various entities of a bypass and therewere no readily available tools to quickly assesswhether action measures should be taken.Existing measures at the time could includeenhanced monitoring of a potentially impactedarea and the possibility of temporarily closing abathing or shellfish area. Therefore, the Regional Bypass Group was committed to developmethodologies to quickly assess the impact of abypass and to develop procedures to communicate the occurrence of an event.

Beginning in September 1997, a Modeling

Analysis subgroup met periodically to developa predictive tool for use by Administrators. Ourconsultants, Hydroqual, provided technicalinsight throughout the process to develop amodel that could quickly assess the severity ofa discharge. The basic premise for the modelingeffort was that a methodology would be developed to determine the impact on beaches andshellfish beds of a bacterial discharge due to araw sewage bypass. Three types of output were

generated—graphical, tabular, and a computerprogram (Regional Bypassing Program). Sincethe graphical and tabular outputs are quitevoluminous, the Regional Bypassing Programis by far the easiest to use. The program is amenu-driven, user-friendly tool which displaysmaps locating discharge and receptor sites. Theuser specifies some basic information of thedischarge (volume, concentration and watertemperature) and the program interpolatesarchived model output to these conditions. Theuser can view which areas are impacted by thedischarge and then can tabulate or graphreceiving water responses at the various receptor sites. Within minutes, therefore, the usercan quickly assess the severity of a dischargeand if it will impact a beach or shellfish bed.This information then helps decision-makingauthorities formulate an action (or no action)plan.

The program was completed in May 1998

and has been used successfully for the last twosummers. This predictive model has helpedprevent the unnecessary closure of beaches inseveral cases. In one or two instances it hasbeen used proactively by Health Departmentofficials to close a beach during the time periodduring which the beach would be impacted bya raw sewage bypass.

/"#$
%"

'&

Beach conference

NY-NJ Harbor Wastewater

Bypass Model

Phil Heckler

NYC Dept of Environmental

Protection

Background

 Harbor-wide water quality improvements

– all NYC public beaches reopened– wet weather advisory lifted or relaxed

 Planned shutdown sensitizes region (Jan 97) Unrelated pump station failures (June 97)

– pipeline leak & station shutdown– both disinfected within hours

Widely Varying Response

 First event (pipeline leak)

– NYC closes adjacent beach, one day– Westchester closes 26 beaches up to week 

 Second event (station shutdown)

– NYC closes nearby embayment beaches one day– Westchester closes distant open water beaches

 remain closed up to five days

– CT closes beaches for extended period– Helicopters track “ sewage slicks”

What caused the widely

varying response?

 Lack of communication Media hype Algae slicks and wet weather slicks No acceptable predictive tool Weekend boat activity not previously

measured

Communication Begins

 July 1997 meeting in Tarrytown, NY

– attendees (~30) include NY & CT regulators

and dischargers and ISC

– frank discussions

 Subcommittees established

– modeling analysis– communication & notification

Bypass Modeling Subgroup

 Expanded to include EPA and NJ Goal established:

– develop a predictive model to reduce

unnecessary precautionary closures

– gain acceptance by regulators and local health

and sanitation authorities
5	



'

Participants

 Wastewater

– NYS DEC– NJ DEP– CT DEP– ISC– EPA– NYC DEP

 Consultant

– HydroQual, Inc.

 Shellfish & Health

– NYS DEC– NYS DOH– NJ DEP– FDA– Nassau Co DOH– West. Co DOH– NYC DOH

Model Considerations

 Parameter of concern: bacteria (total and

fecal coliform, enterococcus)

 Water bodies:

– NY-NJ Harbor– LIS & Atlantic Ocean

 Variables:

– wind, temperature, hydrodynamics– duration, quantity & quality of discharge

Approach Use Mathematical Model

– System-Wide Eutrophication Model (Hydroqual)– Apply Coliform Kinetics– Calculate Unit Load - Responses

 Select Discharge Locations (29) Select Receptor Site Locations (53) Specify Seasonal Temperatures (3)

Types of Model Output

 Graphical

– Temporal Profiles

 > 2500 Profiles

– Spatial Profiles

 > 1000 Profiles

 Tabular

 > 250 Tables

 Computer Program

Regional Bypass Program

 Discharge Characterization(input)

– Select Discharge Location– Volume (MG)– Concentration– Water Temperature

 View Results(output)

– Choose Threshold Conc. (Optional)

 View area-wide results

– Select Receptor Site Location

 View Temporal Profile

HydroQual, Inc.

Discharge Sites; Hunts Point Discharge

/"#$
%"

*((

HydroQual, Inc.

Receptor Sites, Hunts Point Discharge, Threshold at 70 MPN

HydroQual, Inc.

Hunts Point Discharge - Response at Rockaway Shores

HydroQual, Inc.

Hunts Point Discharge, Threshold at 2400 MPN/100mL

HydroQual, Inc.

Hunts Point Discharge, Response at Orchard Beach

HydroQual, Inc.

 Throgs Neck Spill, Threshold at 2400 MPN

HydroQual, Inc.

 Throgs Neck Spill, Response at Orchard Beach
5	



*('

HydroQual, Inc.

 Throgs Neck Spill

HydroQual, Inc.

 Throgs Neck Spill, Response at Stamford, CT

Observations✦ The June 1997 Westchester, Connecticut,

Beach Closures Would Not Have OccurredWith Regional Bypass Program

✦ The Program Was Used Successfully

– 1998 New Rochelle &Yonkers– 1999 various– No Unnecessary Beach Closures

Finally✦ The Collective Efforts of Many Tristate

Agencies Are Acknowledged

– Immensely Improved Communications– Developed a Predictive Tool to Evaluate

Impacts of Spills and Bypasses

/"#$
%"

0/-%* : .!

*(*

/
!6


Please refer to page 59 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
5	



*(+

(
))*1/$$, *3 No questions were asked.

/"#$
%"

&1%**
 3
/
!6
4$

*(,

<316$!5


#he Great Lakes comprise 20 percent of the surface freshwater in the world. Another 20 percent is locked up in the ice caps.

More than 33 million people live in the GreatLakes states, which have approximately10,000miles of shoreline. Great Lakes states reportmore than 571 beaches with an additional 200in Canada, totaling over 770 beaches in thisregion.

SOLEC, State of the Lakes Ecosystem

Conferences, produces a biennial report to meetthe goals of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement. The process is science-based,comprising over 20 teams who assess andreport the condition of the Great Lakes. Theteams assess the physical, chemical, andbiological issues related to the Great Lakes.The teams take this information and process itto try to achieve the desired outcomes—fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. They lookat the Great Lakes region by geographiczones—offshore, nearshore, and coastal wetlands and terrestrial. They also addressnongeographic issues such as human health,land use, and stewardship.

The process for SOLEC indicators involves establishing a core group and panel of

experts to mine existing documents for indicators. They are to select, revise, combine, andcreate indicators. At the end of the processthey will propose a suite of indicators. Theprocess also involves stakeholders who helprevise the indicators. Including the stakeholder

process builds consensus, collaboration, andcooperation. For example, SOLEC may identify fecal pollution levels of nearshore recreational waters as important to the InternationalJoint Committee (IJC) desired outcome ofswimmability. The indicators would be frequency of beach closings at specific locationsand counts of fecal coliforms and/or E. coli in

recreational waters. To examine theswimmability, the indicators would be beachclosings as median number of consecutive daysclosed for a given year and coliform counts,turbidity, phosphorus concentrations, aesthetics, and beach characteristics.

Currently, fecal coliform and E. coli are

being investigated. Fecal pollution levels ofnearshore recreational waters in Canada aremonitored using E. coli. The IJC has been

collecting data since 1981 and they have foundthat out of the 571 beaches, one-third currentlymeasure and close beaches using E. coli, 28percent use total and fecal coliform, and 29percent are not monitoring at all. They’ve alsolearned that they need to close beaches afterstorm events.

Most of the beaches (88 percent) were

open for the entire swimming season, fromMemorial Day to Labor Day. Half the beachesare monitored on a regular basis, but 2 percentare monitored only when there is a complaint.The remaining 48 percent are not monitored atall. The overall goal of the program is to keep’em great.
	



*(-

Selecting Great Lakes Indicators:

The United States and Canada

Experience

Paul J. Horvatin

U.S. EPA

Great Lakes National Program Office

Beaches Conference

What is SOLEC?

• State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference

• Biennial report on progress toward meeting

goals of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement

• Science-based, consultative process to

assess and report the condition of the GreatLakes

Organizing Frameworks

• Science Disciplines (Physical, Chemical, Biological)• Desired Outcomes (IJC) (Fishability, Swimmability, Drinkability....)• Geographic Zones and Nongeographic

Issues

 (Offshore, Nearshore, Coastal Wetlands,

Nearshore Terrestrial, Human Health, LandUse, Stewardship)

Process for SOLEC Indicators

• Establish Core Groups & Panels of Experts• Mine Existing Documents for Indicators• Select, Revise, Combine, Create Indicators• Propose Suite of Indicators• Involve Stakeholders (Review, Revise,

Review, Revise, Review, Revise...)

• Build Consensus, Collaboration,

Cooperation

Great Lakes Beach Quality

Indicator

SOLEC:Fecal Pollution Levels of

NearshoreRecreational Waters

• Frequency of beach

closings at specificlocations

• Counts of fecal

coliforms and /or E.coli in recreationalwaters

IJC:Swimmability• Beach closings as

median number ofconsecutive daysclosed for a given year

• Coliform count,

turbidity, phosphorusconc., aesthetics,beach characteristics

General Criteria for Beach

Closing

190

161

220

E.coli

33%

Fecal

Coliform

28%

Not

Monitored 

39%

	











Monitoring Practice VS Percent

of Season Open 1996

Percent

of

season

open

Monitored

on a

regular

basis

Monitored

on

complaint

Not

monitored

Totals

100 203 73 210 486

95-99 41 3 2 4690-94 12 - - 12

<90 10 - 1 11

Totals 276 76 213 555
	



*(

	$$	
1 *


 	
<$

5




#he environmental and water quality factors that affect concentrations of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in water and sediment were

investigated at three public bathing beaches inthe Cleveland, Ohio, metropolitan area. Thisstudy was done to aid in the determination ofsafe recreational use and to help water resourcemanagers assess more quickly and accuratelythe degradation of recreational water quality.Water and lake-bottom sediments were collected and ancillary environmental data werecompiled for 41 days from May throughSeptember 1997. Turbidity, antecedent rainfall,volumes of wastewater treatment plant overflows and metered outfalls, a resuspensionindex, and wave heights were found to bestatistically related to E. coli concentrations;however, wind speed, wind direction, water

temperature, and the presence of swimmerswere shown to be statistically unrelated. Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used todevelop a model to predict E. coli concentrations at the three beaches. The chosen MLRmodel used weighted categorical rainfall,turbidity, and wave height to predict E. coliconcentrations. This model accounted for 58percent of the variability in E. coli concentrations. For 1997 it predicted the recreational

water quality as well as and in some casesbetter than the current method.

For more information, please refer to:

Francy, D.S., and R.A. Darner. 1998. Factors

Affecting Echerichia coli Concentrations atLake Erie Public Bathing Beaches. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources InvestigationsReport 98-4241.

/"#$
%"

*(&

Factors affecting Escherichia coli

concentrations at Lake Erie

public bathing beaches

Water-Resources Investigations

Report 98-4241

by D.S. Francy and R.A. Darner

In cooperation with

• Ohio Water Development Authority• Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District• Ohio Lake Erie Office• Cuyahoga County Board of Health• Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineers• Cuyahoga River Community Planning

Organization

Problem

• Water quality advisories• Current methods to determine water quality

take 24 hours to complete

• Factors that affect E. coli concentrations are

not well understood

-Resuspension of bacteria from sediments

Objectives

• What environmental and water quality 

factors are related to E. coli concentrations?

• Can E. coli concentrations be predicted

accurately from other factors?

• How do sediment-stored bacteria affect

water quality?
	



*(

Sampling Frequency

• Eight field studies• 41 sampling days• May through September 1997• Sampling from 6 to 9 a.m.• 10 days also included an afternoon

sampling

Ancillary data

• Wind speed and direction• Wave height• Number of swimmers• Rainfall amounts• Flow and duration of WWTP overflows or

metered outfalls

• Water-quality parameters

/"#$
%"

*'(

Concentrations of E.coli

BEACH MEDIAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM DAYS >235

WATER--colonies per 100 ml

Edgewater 86 9 830 7

Villa Angela 150 13 8,100 17

Sims 1 400 20 16,000 23Sims 2 450 21 19,000 24Sims 3 390 10 36,000 27Sims 4 400 13 29,000 27

SEDIMENT--colonies per gram per dry weight

Edgewater 7 1 38

Villa Angela 35 5 170

Sims 1 150 2 8,000Sims 2 130 4 2,600Sims 3 72 2 7,200Sims 4 34 4 750

Significant correlations for all

beaches and areas at Sims

E. coli concentrations and• Turbidity• Antecedent rainfall• Weighted rainfall

Significant correlations for some

beaches and areas at Sims

E. coli concentrations and• WWTP overflows• Resuspension of sediment bacteria• Suspended-sediment concentrations

Weak or not statistically

significant

E. coli concentrations and• Wind direction• Water temperature• Number of swimmers

Prediction of E. coli using

multiple linear regression (MLR)

Determine the best set ofexplanatory variablesExplain the variation in E. coliconcentrations, leaving as little aspossible to unexplained “noise”
	



*''

MLR Model

• Weighted categorical rainfall• Beach-specific turbidity• Wave height• Y-intercept terms for each beachAccounted for 58 percent of the variability in

E. coli concentrations

Predictions of E. coli using the

model at Edgewater Beach

W ave 

height (ft)

W eighted catego rica l 

rainfa ll (in) Turbidity

Predicted 

E.coli

90- percent 

prediction 

interval

P robablity 

> 235

2-4 >0 to 0.5 25 130 9 - 1000 360-2 >0.5 10 68 10 - 470 141-3 0 30 40 6 - 260 6

Predictions of E. coli using the

model at Villa Angela

W ave 

height (ft)

W eighted catego rica l 

rainfa ll (in) Turbidity

Predicted 

E.coli

90- percent 

prediction 

interval

P robablity 

> 235

3-5 >0 to 0.5 40 1,600 52 - 48,000 821-3 >0.5 10 430 40 - 4,500 661-3 0 7 100 23 - 2,200 49

Correct and incorrect predictions

PREDICTIONS BASED ON MODEL

PARAMETER

DEFINITION

Edgewaterantecedent

E. coli

All beachesMLR model

Correct Overall correct

predictions

68 85

False Predicted to be

unsafe, but was

safe

76 25

False

negative

Predicted to be

safe, but was

unsafe

20 19

Conclusions

• MLR models based on water-quality and

environmental factors predict E. coli

concentrations fairly accurately

• More work needs to be done to improve

predictive models

– Add other variables– Validate from data collected during other

recreational seasons

Donna S. Francy

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Division

6480 Doubletree Avenue

Columbus, OH 43229

614/430-7769

dsfrancy@usgs.gov

	








	





	

 





 
 
 

ne key aspect of global change in coastal areas is a decrease in ecological integrity as more and more landscapes

are developed, leaving a mosaic of intactrefuges and degraded patches that may not besufficient for conserving biodiversity. Whileincreases in human population and shifts in thedistribution of people affect land use, thetemporary movement of people can have majorimplications for conservation and biodiversity.Tourism and recreation are on the increaseworldwide and will continue to increase asglobal economies improve and leisure timeincreases. For the United States as a whole,walking is the most popular recreational activity, followed by sightseeing, picnicking, swimming, fishing, bicycling, and birdwatching.Some types of tourism and recreation areincreasing more than others. Birdwatching,hiking, backpacking, downhill skiing, andprimitive camping are the five fastest-growingactivities in the United States, and many ofthese occur in coastal areas. In 1982, 21.2million Americans (12 percent) werebirdwatchers, while in 1995 the number hadgrown to 54.1 million (27 percent of Americans). Fishing is one of the most popular andimportant recreational activities, and it differsfrom many other activities in coastal regionsbecause people consume the fish. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency reported thatthe number of water bodies under fishingadvisories rose by 14 percent from 1994 to1995, and this represents 4 percent of theNation’s total river miles. All of the Great Lakesand their connecting waters, as well as a largeportion of U.S. coastal waters, are also underadvisories.

One fact that is clear from the wide range

of studies on the perceptions of risk from eatingfish is that the public consistently underrates orignores the risk and continues to fish in contaminated waters, although this is partly afunction of not communicating to the specifictarget audience. There is a gap between policyand practice. In this case, there is a discrepancybetween the scientist and regulators’ view ofthe risk from eating some fish and that of thegeneral public; the public views eating suchfish as less serious than does the scientist. Fishcontinue to be an important source of protein,leading to conflicting communication messages. Understanding of consumption advisories is often ethnically based, both in terms ofunderstanding the advisories themselves and inevaluating the long-term health effects. Oneaspect of risk assessment and environmentalmanagement that is often ignored is the question of who receives the gains and benefits. Therelatively low levels of interest in fish consumption advisories by the public can partly beexplained by the gains that fishermen experience: they enjoy fishing, it gets them outdoors,it is an activity that can be done with everymember of the family (regardless of sex orage), it can be done with friends, it can varyseasonally as well as by target fish, equipment,and method, and lastly, it provides food. Manyof the reasons for fishing involve complicatedsocial dimensions that may far exceed merelyobtaining fish for consumption. The addedbenefit of supplementing the family food withfish is particularly important for some groups.Risk scientists, in contrast, often concentrateonly on the latter benefit when computing riskand issuing advisories, spending most of their

!"
 #" 

time with probability and magnitude, ratherthan including the more complex issues thatpeople may use in evaluating risk. Recreational

$

activities do not occur in a vacuum, but clearlyinvolve a web of social factors that allow thefishermen to meet their social needs.
	



%

	




	

	



	
	


  	


	 
 	 
	

 	 
  	 
 
  
   

 	      
 

 	



		



	
		

 








 

 





 

 

!	"

#

	

$

%



	
 
	

 
 
	 




	
 
  	

		
  	


   	
  
  
   







  	 	 


  	         

   	
	 
 

 
	 
 

 	





  	 	 

	





  	         

	

	



	
	


	
	



		





	


	
	


	 	
!








!"
 #" 

&

  	
	

  	
 
 

	



'

Hackensack RiverPassaic RiverNewark Bay

Arthur Kill

Raritan Bay

Sandy Hook 

Bay

 

N ew YorkHarbor

N ew York State

StatenIsland

Atlantic Ocean

Kill Van Kull

!"
 #" 

(

  	






     	
 

  	
   	
 
  
 


  


 


  
   	
   	    	



	





 	
 	 







	 

  
 	 	 
 
	

   

	


 	 



	
	  	
 		

Correct Knowledge about Habitat of Common Fish (%)

Spe cies Habitat Fisherm en Staff Students

Shark S 99 100 92Bluefish S 99 86 59*

Flounder S 97 86 66

Tuna S 97 96 80

Swordfish S 94 96 81

Cod S 94 86 54*

Snapper S 93 61 42*

Trout F 85 86 71

Halibut S 80 68 48*

Catfish F 78 71 43*Carp F 76 61 37*

Pickerel F 76 33 25*

Haddock S 75 57 26*

Striped Bass S/B 72 29 15*

Hake S 67 36 20*

Tilefish S 67 43 16*

Sunfish F 65 64 48

Yellow-fined Tuna S 65 29 15*

Perch F 64 43 38*

Bass F 47 75 60*Salmon B 40 61 42*

Tilapia F 7 25 5*

 S, F, and B refer respectively to saltwater, freshwater, and both

Correct Knowledge about Habitat of Common Fish (%)

Species Habitat Fishermen Staff Students

Shark S 99 100 92Bluefish S 99 86 59*

Flounder S 97 86 66

Tuna S 97 96 80

Swordfish S 94 96 81

Catfish F 78 71 43*

Haddock S 75 57 26*

Striped Bass S/B 72 29 15*

Yellow-fined Tuna S 65 29 15*

Salmon B 40 61 42*

Tilapia F 7 25 5*

 S, F, and B refer respectively to saltwater, freshwater, and both

  	
 
  


  


!"
 #" 



 	
  
 

 	
  
	
  	
  
	 



 	 	    	

    
    

   
 

	



)

	
 !"" #"
*+#
+#,
 

	lorida’s gulf and ocean beaches are princi- pal components of the state’s successful tourism industry. Unfortunately, various

media reports have indicated that the bacteriological quality of many of Florida’s beaches isnot routinely evaluated. To combat negativemedia reports and to protect the health of thepublic, the Department of Health began development of a statewide beachwater samplingprogram. Without proper funding and statutoryauthority it was impossible to implement auniform statewide marine water monitoringprogram. As a result, a Pilot Beach WaterSampling Program was developed by theDepartment of Health, Bureau of FacilityPrograms, under a grant sponsored by theDepartment of Community Affairs, FloridaCoastal Management Program, and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). This $50,000 grant was allocated forone year, which began July 1, 1998, andextended through June 30, 1999. Five representative coastal counties were selected forparticipation: Broward, Okaloosa, Pinellas,Sarasota and Volusia. Upon completion of thePilot Monitoring Program, the Florida Department of Health secured a $95,000 grant fromthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency forone year beginning July 1, 1999, and extendingthrough June 30, 2000. This beach watersampling and public notification program wasdeveloped to serve an additional purpose,which was to determine levels of bacteria in thesurf of Florida beaches during dry weather andwet weather conditions. EPA preselected sixcities and associated counties according tospecifications of the beach EMPACT program:Clearwater-Pinellas County, Tampa/St. Petersburg-Hillsborough County, Miami/MiamiBeach-Dade County, Ft. Lauderdale-BrowardCounty, West Palm Beach/Boca Raton-Palm

Beach County, and Jacksonville-Duval County.

Once selected, the county health departments in each of the participating counties were

required to monitor 8 to 10 beachfront sitesalong the counties’ coastline every other week.Counties selected the sampling sites accordingto heavy recreational use, history of problems,proximity of point source outfalls, direct impactby land-based pollution, limited tidal flushing,and accessibility to bathers. Once the waterquality samples were collected, county staffwere then required to transport the samples to aDepartment of Health-certified laboratorywithin six hours of collection and at a standardtemperature of four degrees Celsius. Thelaboratory analyzed the samples for enterococcus using the EPA approved and recommendedMethod 1600, which is a 24-hour membranefilter test method. After laboratory analysis,county health department staff obtained theresults and forwarded them to local mediacontacts for publishing and to the State HealthOffice for Internet posting, which are bothrequired under the grant specifications.

The Florida Department of Health beach

web site was designed as the foundation of ourpublic notification process allowing residentsand tourists to view the water quality in variousareas around the state. Using Front-page 98,the web site has been the DOH icon for waterquality for the past two years. Upon visitingthe web site, you will find a beautiful map ofFlorida with the counties sampling for enterococcus highlighted in red and yellow. From thehomepage, you are able to go to a number oflocations within the web site. By clicking onone of the associated counties, you will be ableto view a map of that county with the samplingpoints indicated, the name of the beaches forthat county, and a water quality rating for eachbeach area sampled for the most recent sam-

!"
 #" 

pling date. A link to the history page for thatcounty can then be viewed by clicking “previous history” in the top left of the page. Fromthe history page, the option to visit anothercounty or to return to the homepage exists byusing the Java script drop-down box. From thehomepage, a description of the study can beviewed by clicking on “This years study.” Theheadings found within this location of the siteare study overview, study participants, indicatororganism and analysis, sampling protocol, datainterpretation, public notification, and question/comment contacts. Also from the homepage, alink to the National Center for Genome Resources can be obtained by clicking on theword enterococcus, which gives a biologicdescription of enterococcus. Information aboutthe DOH Pilot Beach Water Sampling Programis also located on the web site. By clicking“Click here to view data from last year’sstudy,” last year’s web site can be viewed,which includes maps and sampling histories forthe participating counties. The completesummary of all of the data and the findings forthe Pilot Study can be viewed by clicking on“Pilot Study.” Within this site an executivesummary and approximately 17 pages of data

-

interpretations and Department of Healthprojections can be viewed.

The information provided is a summary of

the Department of Health beach water samplingand public notification programs. The web sitewas created for the public, and any suggestionsor comments regarding the functioning and/orthe layout of the site are welcomed and will begreatly appreciated. (www.doh.state.fl.us - thenuse the drop-down box to go to “Beach WaterQuality.”)

$
%

If you have any questions, comments, or

concerns, please feel free to contact RobertNobles at the Bureau of Facility Programs –State Health Office by one of the followingmethods:

1. E-mail: robert_nobles@doh.state.fl.us2. Phone: (850) 487-00043. Fax: (850) 487-0864

Mail: Department of Health

Bureau of Facility Programs2020 Capital Circle, SE BIN A08Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
	





	

		

 		 	 
  


	
	 

 	
  


         	 

  	

 	 	  		

	

	



 
  

  



    	
  
	 
	 	



   

 		 		  

	
 
	  
  	 	


 
    
	  !	

"
# # $


	

		

	

 % 	 
	

    ! "	

#

 & 	 ' 	 	 


	 	 
# 	 		
 ()


 # *%++++ ,
 
 	
 
 
	 $



 (  	 -		 	.(((//		/

/0

 	
		
 	



		

		

 		

!"""

 1 2	 -$
$

  $ $% &
 !



 !

 #3 *%+++ + 	 
 ()


	 	

 	 

! "	

  

 #  #   

$ 

! %  

& % '

!"
 #" 

$

#$	#	%	 

&	

   	 

 
  

 
 


 

   

 


   
 


   	  

 

 


   
 


 	
  

   

 	
 
 

 	
 
 
  	 

   

  

   

 	
  !"

   

*Please see web site for other sampling points and counties

Current Results of a Few Beach Water Sampling

 Points in Broward County

   
 

 




!"
 

#

$! 
% 

#

!& %&



#

  	
 


*Please see website for other sampling points and counties

'(

)

 
 
 

   !

   "



 # 

 $

 $%$

 	
  
	 



	  	
	 
   
	 	 
	

	  	 
 		
	 	 
	
 	

	

*+('

& '
 (
$

   	!

 	" #$%&'($)&&&( *" +))&&&( 
," #$%&'($)&$-( * +))&$-( ." /	
  0


  

 1+&+& 
  *2 34 &$

5 
 -+-667)7&
	



%

	&'(()
 
*+#.
"

)inellas County is located in west-central Florida. Most of the county is surrounded by water. Pinellas County has a number

of different types of beaches, including barrierisland beaches, mainland beaches near TarponSprings, intercoastal beaches, and bay beaches.Pinellas started sampling total and fecalcoliform in 1978 and continues today. Thesampling includes intercoastal beaches, barrierisland beaches, mainland, and bay beaches.Samples are collected twice a month, with halfof the county being sampled in the first half ofthe month and the rest sampled at the end of themonth.

In 1998 and 1999, Pinellas County was

one of the initial five county health departmentsselected in the state to participate in the enterococcus sampling project. This sampling occurred biweekly at eight sites for one year. Thesites included three barrier island, three bay,and two intercoastal, which were spacedgeographically to get a good representation ofthe water quality in Pinellas County. In the1999-2000 enterococcus sampling, PinellasCounty was one of six county health departments sampling 10 sites biweekly for one year.One of the two new sites that will be sampled isthe outfall of John’s Pass to capture tidaleffects. The other site that will be sampled is ahighly used beach area, the Gandy Beach.As part of the requirements for the enterococcus study, the sample results must be publishedin a press release every two weeks. Due to thetiming of the results, high numbers indicate thatthe beach should have been closed last week.This poses a problem when people are allowedto use the beach because of the delay in gettingthe results.

Pinellas County used to notify people

about the sample results by fax, but now wesend out e-mails because the list of recipientskeeps growing. Pinellas County’s water qualityis generally good. When the project firststarted, it got a lot of publicity, but after that itdid not have a regular place in the newspaper.The only times the sampling press release madeit to the paper was when the results were bad.No matter what the press release said, theheadline would read “Intestinal bacteria foundoff six beaches,” which made the phone ringoff the hook.

The way people use the beach and who

uses the beach affect the sampling results. Oneof the big visitors to the beaches in PinellasCounty is pelicans (birds). They leave theirdroppings, which may result in high samplecounts. Also, many people bring pets to thebeach. People bring dogs, birds, snakes, andhorses to some of the beaches.

Pinellas County undertook the healthy

beaches mission for both the people and theenvironment. An inherent problem is that thecurrent methods are reactionary. We are tellingpeople they shouldn’t have used the beach lastweek. An ideal solution is to predict conditionswith a real-time or near real-time analyticalmodel. This model would take into accounttidal effects and rainfall to predict the risks ofswimming in the water. The current situation isthat there is no national or Florida program toconsistently sample and also develop a modelto predict risks. Additionally, there are nomandatory standards for testing. Currentlaboratory methods are also debated.

The key to water quality is the determination of appropriate indicators for microbiological water quality in relation to the occurrence of

pathogens in Tampa Bay watersheds and

!"
 #" 

beaches. This is a top priority.

&

In many areas, beach managers don’t

really want to close beaches. In PinellasCounty, there are certain beaches for which wewould like to permanently post advisories, butthe beaches do have a use. They’re placeswhere people like to go so we do not want tokeep people off of them, but we would like toadvise them of the risks. Water quality isn’t theonly thing considered in the Healthy BeachesProgram; drowning prevention, mercury in fish,sanitation facilities, and bilge water from shipballast are also of concern.

At the beginning of the Healthy Beaches

Program, we got together with the University ofSouth Florida, Florida Marine Research Institute, USGS, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, MoteMarine, Florida Aquarium, Clearwater Marine

Science Center, and the Center for MarineConservation to set up the program. We alsohave cooperation with the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Convention & Visitor’s Bureau torecognize the problems and help seek solutionswhen necessary.

Healthy Beaches is in the midst of Phase I

and has received money to do an assessment ofindicator organisms and source and fate ofenterococcus. Phase II will go to the Floridalegislature for a budget appropriation. Thisphase will develop a water quality model forrisk assessment of pathogenic microorganismscommonly found in Florida waters. This phasewill also include investigating the developmentof biosensors and other rapid response technology for timely quantitative analyses.
	



'

	


 	
 
 

	  	

 	



   

  

 	!"##$#

East Coast Regional Beach Conference

Florida Monitoring and Coordination Efforts

Pinellas County Florida Pinellas

County

History

St. Petersburg

Times

May 30, 1999

What Does the Pinellas County

Health Department Do?

 	

  	  

   	   	 	

	   		

Total and

Fecal

Coliform

Sampling

Locations in

Pinellas

County

!"
 #" 

)(

Pinellas Is One of 5 County Health Departments

Throughout the State, Evaluating Enterococcus.

8 samples, biweekly, 1 year

1998-1999

Enterococcus Results on DOH web site

Pinellas Is One of 6 County Health Departments

Throughout the State, Evaluating Enterococcus.

10 samples, biweekly, 1 year

1999-2000

Enterococcus Sampling Sites

Communication

Federal

State

Public

Academia

Media “The Beach”

County 

Health

Departments
	



)

Public

Media “The Beach”

County 

Health

Departments

Beach Water Quality Monitoring:

A Pilot Research Project

Samples Collected Tuesday September 22nd , 1999

The Pinellas County Health Department is currently involved in a biweekly pilot study oflocal beaches to evaluate a bacteria as a possible indicator of water quality. PinellasCounty along with five other counties across the State are participating in a pilot watertesting program sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The aim of this project is to evaluate aspecific bacteria by monitoring the level of the bacteria at coastal beaches. The specificbacteria being evaluated for use as an indicator of overall water quality is Enterococcus

sp. Enterococcus sp are microorganisms that are found in the intestines of humans and

other animals, and are commonly used as indicators of fecal pollution in drinking water.For questions or concerns please contact the Environmental Engineering Division of thePinellas County Health Department, (727) 538-7277, or visit the Department of Health’sweb site: www.doh.state.fl.us, click on the drop down arrow next to “-Choose Subject-“and then select “Beach Water Quality”

LocationNumber

Location Name City Bacteria

Count

Water

Quality

PC-1 Fred Howard County Park Tarpon

Springs

4 Good

PC-2 Honeymoon Island State Park Dunedin 2 GoodPC-3 Belleair Beach Intercoastal (North

side)

Belleair Beach 16 Good

PC-4 Indian Shores County Access Indian Shores 4 GoodPC-5 Fort Desoto County Park St. Petersburg 14 GoodPC-6 North Shore City Beach St. Petersburg 4 GoodPC-7 Courtney Campbell Causeway DOT Clearwater 20 GoodPC-8 R. E. Olds City Park Oldsmar 2 GoodPC-9 Treasure Island Beach Treasure

Island

4 Good

PC-10 Gandy Beach St. Petersburg <2 Good

Bacteria counts are based on the amount of Enterococcus sp per 100 milliliters of marine water.

Suggested Water Quality Levels used for this Pilot Research Project:

Good = 0-34 Enterococcus sp per 100 milliliters of marine water

Moderate = 35-103 Enterococcus sp per 100 milliliters of marine water

Sample

Press

Release

St. Petersburg Times August 8, 1998 St. Petersburg Times October 17, 1998

BEACHES

!"
 #" 

)

BEACH

USAGE AND

 WATER

QUALITY

(We are not alone)

St. Petersburg Times September 12, 1999
	



))

St. Petersburg Times September 12, 1999 St. Petersburg Times July 17, 1999

The Mission.....

Healthy Beaches for People and

the Environment

Inherent Problem

• Current methods are reactionary

Ideal Solution

• Ability to Predict Conditions• Identify Risk BEFORE Exposure Takes Place• Real-Time or Near Real-Time Analytical

Methods Would Trigger Warnings orClosures and/or Set in Motion a MoreRigorous Monitoring Protocol

Current Situation

• No National or Florida Program (no $)• No Mandatory Standards for Testing• Unexplained Bad Sampling Results• Debate over Laboratory Methods (Most

Probable Number (MPM) Vs. MembraneFilter (MF) methods)

!"
 #" 

)-

Keys to Water Quality

• Determination of the appropriate indicators

for microbiological water quality in relationto the occurrence of pathogens in TampaBay watersheds and beaches is a toppriority.

Tentative Issues & Concerns

• Alternatives to Beach Closures• Classifications of Beaches Based on Intended Use• Indigenous Pathogenic Microorganisms• Parasites in Sand and Water• Storm water Runoff• Consumption of Seafood (Mercury, Toxins)• Ultraviolet Radiation & Cancerous Melanoma• Injuries from Wildlife• Drowning Prevention• Sanitation: Public restrooms• Bilge Water from Ship Ballast

Beginning of Healthy Beaches

Initiative

•Excellent facilities nearby - USF, FMRI, USGS(PORTS system) Tampa Bay Estuary Program,Mote Marine, FL Aquarium, Clearwater MarineScience Center, CMC•Developed Phase I “Indicator Organisms”•St Petersburg / Clearwater Convention & Visitor’sBureau recognized problem•As did Pinellas County Government, saw potentialto cooperate with Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Phase I - Bacteria Sources and Fates

Combined study, by USF Marine Science Dept

head researcher Dr. Joan Rose

1 Indicator Organism Assessment: 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program

2. Sources and Fate

SWFWMD SWIM ProgramTampa Bay Estuary Program

3. Enterococcus in Pinellas Source Evaluation

Pinellas Hotel & Motel Assn.TOTAL: $170,000

Phase II - LBR for Pathogen and

Risk Assessment Model

1) Develop water quality model for risk assessment of pathogenicmicroorganisms commonly found in Florida waters2) Investigate and develop, where feasible, biosensors and otherrapid response technology for timely quantitative evaluation ofhuman pathogens3) Generalization of the results of the Tampa Bay Water QualityAssessment Model for application statewide based on localconditions 4 ) Develop statewide strategy for integrated risk managementinvolving the various stakeholdersPHASE II TOTAL: $835,000
	



)

$
** ) 

 "#"  )
 Q (Lou Glatzer, University of Toledo, Lake Erie Center): This is a general question. I’mrelatively new to this, and it may be directed to the speakers or anyone else here. I’m veryconfused about the variety of use of the terms “advisories” versus “closings.” The questionthat I have is: Is there a source, whether it’s on the Web or the written word, for finding outhow many different approaches there are to advisories versus closings in the variouscounties, municipalities, and states?Joanna Burger:

EPA does a summary every year about fishing advisories and consumption advisories,

and they usually put out a bulletin in which they say how many state waters, how manylakes, what percent have advisories, what the advisories are due to, what percent are due tomercury, what percent are due to PCBs, and so on. That gives you an idea of the number ofadvisories, and then they often tell you how many there were in the previous year or theprevious 2 years.Q (Lou Glatzer): What I’m really asking about is the variety of political approaches by thedifferent municipalities, counties, and states with regard to, well, do we say anything. Dowe give an advisory, let people make their own decisions, or do we say “thou shalt closethe beach” period, exclamation point?Robert Nobles

I can speak for what I have seen in various counties around the state of Florida, but I

think EPA representatives will want to speak for the nation.Comment (Rick Hoffmann, USEPA, Office of Science and Technology): EPA looked at itsfish consumption advisory program as a model for setting up the beach advisory program.EPA started doing fish advisory work almost 10 years ago. One of the first things we did inthat program was to find out what people were already doing. And I think for the beachprogram, we are in the same initial phase since we have been under way a little over 2years. Before we draft formal federal guidance, we want to know what formal guidancemay be in effect at the state or local level. Charles Kovatch [of EPA] is compiling a summary of existing guidance. One of the things we are going to look at is whether there is aformal definition of what constitutes an advisory and a closing and that sort of thing. Wehave also asked people in a national survey whether they have advisories and closings. Butyour point is actually very well made. We are in a discussion right now with the state ofCalifornia because they just recently passed state legislation that defines the types of actionstaken and they make distinctions between advisories, postings, and closings. So they havethree different categories. And one of the things that we will try to do is, first of all, identifywhat people use, how they define those, and then try to make some federal recommenda-

!"
 #" 

)$

tions to improve consistency. But at the moment, there is no consistent usage at least that Iam aware of. And I am not sure within the state of Florida itself.Robert Nobles:

It’s very true. In the state of Florida, right now, it’s based on a county-to-county basis.

Currently, only 15 of the 35 coastal counties sample beach water. In those counties thatsample, some use fecal, some use total, and some use enterococci. A lot don’t feel comfortable with using enterococci to post advisories or to close beaches. Some counties don’teven feel comfortable closing beaches, period. A legislative budget request has beenproposed, and I think that this year we might get the statutory authority to run the beachsampling in the state of Florida. Right now, it’s a county-by-county basis and the onlyfunding has been through grants. Since basically what you’re saying is true, county-bycounty, they pick who wants to post an advisory, who has the most power in that county. Ifthe hotels and the tourist people have more power than the department of health, then noadvisories will be posted because it will lose business. This is what we have found thus far.Until we get a little authority all around the state of Florida, it’s ambiguous.Joanna Burger:

I think that’s a problem not just in the state of Florida. I’ve been out doing some of

these surveys and seen state officials in New Jersey post the fish consumption advisoriesand a half an hour later had the local municipality officials come around and take down thesigns. And when you ask them why, they say, “We don’t want to scare people. We don’twant people not to come here to fish anymore. This is our business.” So there is a realproblem between jurisdictions and what different agencies are interested in.Robert Nobles:

Also, one county posted an advisory and I got a newspaper article back saying that the

person who was swimming, as we’ve seen from Joan’s presentation, said, “Well, if theDepartment of Health was really concerned about our health, they would rope off thebeach.” So, posting advisories just doesn’t work out. I guess that for some areas youwould have to use red tape if possible.Comment (Mike Flannery, Pinellas County Health Unit): I just want to add to that a littlebit. Another level of it is defining what the beach use is. I don’t think “one standard fitsall” really works. You saw Gandy Bridge in my presentation. You saw the use and thetype of people who use it. That’s probably one of our most popular beaches. I think thatwe have three of them like that on the causeways. The local residents, younger people withtheir dogs, this is their life to them. And if we make this standard that is really designed formaybe older people or a tourist area, make it uniform, I don’t think it really does the purpose of a beach. What’s the beach for? It’s so people can enjoy the water. And the perfectway to make it so that they will never get sick is to make sure that they never go into thewater. At some place there must be an inter-level between those two. We have not hadreports of diseases from the Courtney Campbell Causeway or any of those causeways. Andwe do have cases, say of Vibrio, occurring on the most pristine beaches. So, I’m looking ata program eventually that might have an area that is for recreational dogs and everythingelse at some level posting an advisory on that, one that’s more like a tourist area, and a thirdmight be for pristine beaches where nobody should really be there at all, like where thewildlife is natural in that area.
	



)%

Robert Nobles

Mike and I talk about the future of beach sampling within the state of Florida all the

time, so this isn’t anything new. But, my opinion on the matter and what I am going to bepushing for is that, no matter who goes to the beach, if it’s a tourist or if it’s a resident, weare going to protect them the same. I can agree only so much. Okay, the dog is in thewater and you like your dog in the water, but, if your child gets sick as a result, no matterwhat economic status you come from, it doesn’t really matter. So, saying we’ll relax someof the rules at this beach, we’ll just let them know that you can get sick. People take theirown risk anyway, and that’s the way the state is going to approach it. But right now, wedon’t have any authority so I guess in Pinellas County, until next year or the year after, youcan do as you see best.Q (Geoff Grubbs, USEPA, Office of Water): First thing to say is that it is really nice workon the presentation that you guys are doing. But I am curious about, both from the statelevel and the county level, when you find a problem, what you then do internally in yourstate or county to track that back to the source and to in some way effect change at thesource to abate the problem in the near or long term.Paul Stanek:

That is a good question. In the short term, really we just go out and resample. We

want to verify our results since what we are doing is not a perfect science and it’s somethingthat’s been evolving. It’s something that we are not really sure about. We are going to goout and resample and check to make sure that we are doing things right and that our lab isdoing things right and then go from there, most times we’re not able to track back to asource. We don’t have the funds to do that for starters, and part of our Healthy Beachesinitiative is to do that and find out where we are getting those bacteria from.Robert Nobles:

And I may sound redundant, but I often do. On a statewide level, the results come

back to me. If I see that something is contributing to pollution, as in Davis Island in mypresentation about Tampa Bay, right now we just monitor it and we notify. What do we doas a result? We have epidemiologists in the counties that can go look and do an assessmentof the situation, but right now, it is on a county level. Truthfully, without any money, wecannot, as the state, provide any additional funds to the counties saying that, “Okay, youhad bad hits, bad hits, bad hits, and now, let’s go out and find it.” They document on everysampling occasion what the different environment is around the site. Not only the stuff thatI mentioned in my presentation, but they look around. I visited a couple of sites where wehave wastewater treatment plants 200 yards off of where we sample. The beach managerbelieves that the mist off of the top, depending on the wind direction, can cause the waterresults to become high. I mean, we don’t really know. The first thing that we need to do inthe state of Florida is to see if we have a problem (1) by monitoring, (2) by informing, and(3) by looking at causation. That is the approach that we have to take, and without funding,that is the only thing that I can really say.Paul Stanek:

It also kind of goes back to the counties being able to do it. Right now, there are just a

select few that think it’s important or they have gotten some money from Tallahassee orEPA to do the sampling. But right now, the majority of them aren’t.

	











Q (Matt Liebman, USEPA, Region 1): I have a question for Robert about your web site andyour general notification program. By the way, I thought that your web site is excellent. Ihad a question regarding the three levels of notification—good, moderate, and poor. I amjust wondering what your response is from the public when they see something that says“moderate,” for example. Our experience, or many people’s experience, is that the publicmight just want to know if it’s safe or it’s not safe. So there is this level of inbetweenness.I’m just wondering.Robert Nobles:

I don’t know if you’re the person who called earlier in the week or somebody else.

But the same question came up when we started. The same question came up from thecounties. The way it was set up, and knowing the science background, [with] the geometricmean of 35 in one month, we’re not achieving. We’re not sampling five times in onemonth. We can’t. We’re sampling two times in a month, five times in two and a halfmonths So we are using the one-time count of 104. I’m bringing into the picture themoderate as 35-103 because 104 is the action level based on one-time sampling. This iswhat we’re using. The counties are prompted to post advisories or to resample. But whatdo I say to the public if they call or what do I answer to you now? I’ll say that the risk ismoderate if we sampled five times or if you look at the trend because I can do a geometricmean for two and a half months. But looking at the trend, 35-103, you have a risk ofswimming in the water, as much of a risk as anything. It’s not as great as at 104, but youhave a risk. People can get sick. It might not be 19 per 1,000, but you do have a risk ofgetting sick. You need to take that into consideration whenever you go into the water. Butif you look through the web site, you can choose another beach to go to. I’m not promisingthat just because we sampled and gave the beach a good rating that the beach will still begood when you go on the weekend. I’m supposed to post the readings from earlier in theweek, and the water quality right then will be good. So, ambiguously, I answered like thatand hope that they can come back with another question for me to help them.Q (Kim Mikita, Florida Coastal Management Program): I actually got to review the quarterly reports from the pilot program and so I know that there is some trouble with one of thecounties reporting their results in the newspaper. I was wondering if you are having thatkind of trouble this year, as well, and if you ever figured out why that one county, that shallremain nameless, didn’t report their results?Robert Nobles:

You reviewed the quarterly reports and the final report, I’m sure, with the 18 pages of

attachments. I agree, reporting is difficult. I’ll name the counties. I don’t mind. It was

difficult for reporting to occur in Sarasota County. It was difficult for reporting to occur inPinellas County. Once you start sending out press releases, as Paul stated, the press justwants to know if it’s bad. Their view is: “We already know that the water is good, whystate it? Why have it in the newspaper?” It takes extra initiative and a whole lot of cooperation from the local jurisdictions to actually have the media post the readings. This year'sreporting was the second part of your question. No, it hasn’t been published in the newspapers. We’ve just received articles stating that we started a new program; EPA is fundingthis; they might have messed up here and there; we have five counties; we have this muchmoney, etc. Anyway, it’s all a matter of priority for that county and right now, no, it’s notbeing published everywhere. We usually just get articles here and there when it’s bad. Forexample, after the Super Bowl, when readings are 2,000 in Tampa Bay, or if a hurricanecaused bad sampling results. It wasn’t a priority for the media, so the reporting is based on






priority right now. It’s unfortunate, but hopefully, if it takes me calling all of the newspapers in the counties to have them report results, I will.Q (Paul Kuehnert, State of Maine Bureau of Health): I have a question primarily forDr. Burger. You did a great job telling us, to generalize from what you presented, thatwe’re not being successful in getting these messages across. I think that both in terms offish advisories and water safety issues, they are fairly complex messages and we havecomplex and conflicting interests in our communities. I’m just wondering if you have,based on your experiences so far, figured out some things that might be suggestions forwhat works?Joanna Burger:

There are a lot of things that work. All of the studies that I talked about are, of course,

much more complex than I can present. That is why there are reprints over here if peoplewould like them. In the case of one of the studies that we did in New Jersey, we followedup the study on whether people knew that there was a cancer risk and so on. In that samequestionnaire, after we finished the questions that we wanted to ask, we actually told thepeople we were talking to what the state advisories were—that the state advisories were toeat this much fish or not that much fish and that they were based on risk to the fetuses andthat older adults were not at risk in general from eating fish, that it was primarily a developmental problem. And then we asked people a couple of questions after that regardingwhether or not they would change their fishing behavior and whether or not they wouldhave their pregnant wives or wives of childbearing age change their behavior. Everybodysaid “yes.” Part of the problem was communicating the message that it’s particular peoplethat are at risk, not everybody, and that you can moderate your risk by eating smaller fishrather than larger fish. The classic fisherman is bringing home the biggest fish possiblebecause I can show that I caught a big fish. But if you start showing people that in fact theycan catch the big fish but take home the smaller ones to eat, people are receptive to that.But, we haven’t given them that kind of complex message.

The other thing that I would say is that in the study we did in South Carolina the

objective was to find out what people were eating and what the different risk factors were.This summer, we went back to the same population with our two-page fish fact sheet, whichwas written based on the kinds of things we found out from people. It was written in a verysimplified manner. There were pictures of fishermen on the fact sheet, and it talked abouthow fish was very good for you, but that there were some risks and you could reduce thoserisks by eating plant-eating fish rather than carnivorous fish and things like that. So, weshowed the fact sheet that we had written as a result of this to the individual fishermen andasked them to read it and then we went away and came back in 10 minutes later and thenasked them some questions about it. And several interesting things came out from doingthat approach. In other words, this was not just putting them into somebody’s office butactually going back out on the river with little forms and giving them to people who arefishing. Some of the things that we found out were: first of all, everybody read it. Out of50 people that we asked, only 1 person said, “I’m too busy to do this.” Now that is prettyamazing. If you went into the supermarket and gave them a two-page thing to read andsaid that we are going to come back in 10 minutes and ask you some questions, how manypeople would say, “No”? Only 1 out of 50 said that they were too busy. Everyone elseread it and then when we came back, they answered our questions. The second interestingthing that came out was everybody asked if they could have three or four to take back andgive to their friends and family. So, people want something that is understandable—that’snot so full of gobbledy-gook that it goes on for 18 pages. You can tell all of the risk

	











information in 18 pages and have everything covered, but no one’s going to read it or veryfew people will read it or fewer people will read it, let’s put it that way. Everyone read thisand they asked for more copies, so it’s not a question that people don’t want to know anddon’t want something that they can read. I think we haven’t been, in some cases, addressing the audience. We’ve been doing what we would think is appropriate and what asscientists we want to do, which is always go with every contingency. It’s the same thingwith the web. If you look at the web sites they’re developing, they’re not making them socomplex that people can’t get the message right away. I think that there’s a lot of goodmessages that we can give people about eating fish. We don’t have to tell them not to eatfish. We have to tell them enough information so that they can make their own risk decisions and so they themselves are under control about how they can reduce their risk. Thereare lots of ways that people aren’t aware of.Robert Nobles:

I just wanted to say something to the people who came down from Canada because

I’ve been seeing articles about Key West. First, let me thank the EPA for giving $20,000 sothat we can actually sample in Key West. Second, they did have a leaky sewer pipe problem. They’re trying to fix it now, and the articles from New York stating that Key West isgone to the birds are not necessarily true. It will be cleaned up soon. The state is actuallyspending a lot of money to help Key West fix this problem. So, next year you all can comeback.
	/


-

+(

,
Each breakout group was asked to answer the following questions for each of the four topicareas:

1. Are there any additional major topics that should be included in the guidance?2. What are the major issues you’re facing under each of these topics?3. Where do you need more information or guidance to help you address specific

issues?

4. What specific recommendations would you like to see included in the guidance

document?

5. What would you like the document to look like in terms of format and structure to

be most useful to you?

6. Recognizing that additional research can be conducted on all of the issues, what

immediate research needs do you think are necessary for effectively implementingbeach water quality programs?

The following answers provide recommendations under each of the major topic areas:

&"-

1. Discuss alternative indicators and analytical methods

• identify others besides fecal coliforms, bacteria, or viruses

- note that enterococci does not capture water quality- investigate the usefulness of cyanobacteria (floatables, chemicals, harmful

algal blooms)

• DNA fingerprinting and other new technologies• naturally occurring pathogens

2. Determine the health impacts of storm water

• conduct more research• require peer review of future data

3. Study and develop thresholds for indicators across temperature and regional variations

• use eco-region approach• consider that different bacteria behave differently• take into account naturally occurring bacteria

4. Develop a matrix of comparative studies (recognize that one water quality indicator

across the nation will not work)• include general information and a table of given factors

- discuss precision of techniques (false-positives and false-negatives)

• clarify the health risks and limitations associated with each indicator and their

relation to gastrointestinal disease and other diseases

• compare approved/recommended methods (e.g., enterococci, Enterolert®,

Colilert®, MPN-most probable number)

!"
 #" 

-

• describe how the indicator results can be used for beach and non-beach areas,

recreational and non-recreational waters, and shellfishing areas

- full versus partial body contact- explore if indicators for shellfishing or nonrecreational waters can be used for

swimming areas

• validate methods• include historical studies

5. Allow for professional judgement and site-specific variations6. Develop a rapid indicator test

• note that Method 1600 is not specific enough for immediate public advisories

(false negatives)

• EPA/FDA cooperate in “dipstick” development (FDA developing one for E. coli

detection in meat)

7. Describe the relationship of molecular techniques to disease and indicators8. Provide guidance for the transition from current to proposed criteria and the implementation of standards

• explain how to compare old data to chart improvement in water quality• discuss how shellfish managers, source water protection managers, recreational

water managers, TMDL developers, NPDES permit authorities, marine managers(floatables and marine sanitation devices), and storm water dischargers compareinformation if each uses different indicators for bacteria

• describe how actions of agencies will be coordinated (state, federal, and local)• provide guidance on the transition to new standards, indicators, and methods• address exotic pathogens• provide case studies of those states that have successfully changed their water

quality criteria from total coliform and fecal coliform to enterococci and E. coli.

9. Research the life cycles of the indicators and pathogens

10. Provide criteria for monitoring for other indicators (e.g., sediment, turbidity, wind,

climate, birds

11. Conduct a round-robin/intercalibration study of nationwide laboratories for each

method to detect microbial indicators

!$
+&

1. Encourage watershed monitoring and allow for flexibility in each program2. Promote frequent monitoring

• infrequent monitoring doesn’t capture the variability of water quality• encourage the development of baseline studies

3. Offer clear direction and justification for the frequency and location of water quality

sampling• consider time of day for a single sample• address details of sample methodology

- geometric mean or single sample- depth of the sample- wet weather events- number of samples per beach- spatial frequency- personal protective equipment

• seasonal variation in sampling techniques• develop protocol for how to take samples under variable conditions
	/


-)

• discuss interpretation of results

- geometric mean- high single sample threshold exceedances

4. Develop a QA/QC table format for water quality monitoring and laboratory analysis

• address the appropriate use of:

- trip blanks- sampling protocols- field collection data sheets- indicator screening- chain-of-custody procedures

5. Identify funding sources to support water quality monitoring6. Recognize that sanitary surveys and monitoring need to work together and provide

guidance

).

1. Create a model that takes many environmental factors into account

• e.g., turbidity, temperature, sediment influences, wind, climates, seabirds, wildlife, domestic animals, CAFOs• include information on how to interpret model results and/or health risk factors

for disease

• include more than one indicator (E. coli and other EPA-approved indicators)• validate model so it can be used to close beaches• provide costs

- what is lost because of closings- lost tourism- illness- lost time at work

• base tools on a good sampling program and analysis and consider all variables• make data collection and models affordable

2. Identify and define components of a good water quality model (e.g., what to look

for, contacts for more information, different kinds of models [hydrodynamic orstatic], different uses [regional management or contingency plans])

3. Allow for flexibility

• use predictive models in lieu of sampling• use models for a preliminary step in source identification

4. Describe how to manage using predictive models5. Develop predictive tools to provide information for action prior to exposure

&


1. Create a Risk Index or Beach Index (similar to the UV Index)

• clarify the risks in a simple manner (safe versus unsafe)• make it uniform across the country - poor, moderate, good• develop minimum signage requirements

2. Develop a uniform procedure for conducting epidemiology studies3. Develop methods to quantify exposure and designated uses

• describe what risk factors are equated to indicator values without being overly

conservative

!"
 #" 

--

• health risks may vary under different conditions (full body contact versus partial

body contact)

• effects of morbidity and mortality

4. Recognize that management is site-specific

• encourage preventive actions (minimize exposure, use soap after exposure, etc.)• encourage remediation and control measures

5. Develop procedures for closing and reopening a beach

• investigate the flag system (Europe)

6 Determine whether there is a risk factor with bird, mammal, or other non-human

versus human feces and adults versus child

7. Develop recommendations for a beach closing

• address the use of predictive models or real-time assessments• consider post-event evaluations

- designate uses based on water quality monitoring [303(d )and 305(b)]

8. Recommend good communication techniques

• use television weather reports• use newspaper and the Internet• address how to communicate with different audiences• use permanent signs at some beaches warning of risk especially after rain• develop outreach materials to explain risk and encourage reporting of illness

associated with swimming exposure

• establish a dial-in number to report swimming-related illnesses

9. Compare risk to land use, point versus nonpoint sources, human versus other

species, and meteorological events.• describe cost and benefit assessment of the value of monitoring and closing a

beach

10. Define a closing, advisory, reopening, posting, public beach, sanitary survey, and

bathing beach.

11. Study use and interpretation of a distribution (range) of threshold values versus

single number.

.

1. Use the bottom-up approach (local-state-federal)2. Conduct more research on contaminated sediments (toxins and pathogens in the

swash zone) and remote sensing

3. Encourage the implementation of source control measures after monitoring discovers problems4. Include other programs such as storm water monitoring, sanitary surveys, septic

tank management, benefit assessments (economics), and state reports on swimmingrelated illnesses• describe roles of each player

5. Provide additional national or regional meetings to discuss issues and implementation of the guidance6. Include a 1-paragraph statement describing the diverse conditions and public health

problems to confirm that the managers know their waters

7. Make EPA the clearinghouse for beach-related information including monitoring,

indicators, risk assessment, and models

8. Separate freshwater and marine water sections
	/


-

9. Create the guidance document in a software format and in a three-ring binder

10. Develop a generic fact sheet describing the risks of using a beach near areas with

high concentrations of wildlife or using a beach after rain.

11. Define the responsible agency (funding, monitoring, etc)12. Describe the procedures for disease outbreak, tracking, and investigation13. Create a procedure for measuring overall program effectiveness14. Include a synopsis, glossary, and frequently-asked-questions sections15. Be sure that language/terms are consistent so that health departments can understand

the storm water regulators

16. Provide national and regional meetings

!"
 #" 

-$

/ 


)010

Dr. Burger is a distinguished Professor of Biology in the Division of Life Sciences, and

in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, at Rutgers University.She received her B.S. in Biology from the State University of New York at Albany, her M.S.in Zoology and Science Education from Cornell University, and her Ph.D. in Ecology andBehavioral Biology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has taught atRutgers for 25 years, where she conducts research on social behavior of animals, ecologicalrisk, and effects of contaminants on behavioral development. For the past 15 years, Dr.Burger has been involved with examining recreational subsistence fishing, in terms ofrecreational rates, consumption patterns, sources of information, risk to human consumers,and methods of risk management. For the past 5 years she has been involved with thedevelopment of ecological risk methods for Department of Energy sites, including evaluating attitudes toward recreational and ecological services, and future land uses. Her mainresearch interests are fate and effects of contaminants, biomonitoring, social behavior,environmental attitudes and perceptions, risk perception, and risk analysis.

")010

Dr. Calderon is currently the chief of the Epidemiology and Biomarker Branch in the

Human Studies Division of EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects ResearchLaboratory. This is the first time in 10 years that the Epidemiology Program has had apermanent leader. She has revitalized epidemiology at EPA by converting the programfrom primarily an extramural program accomplished through cooperative agreements andgrants to primarily an intramural program that is conducting studies led by EPA’s ownintramural epidemiologists and biomarker scientist. Recent accomplishments in the Epidemiology Program include the following: the first study to examine endemic microbialenteric illness attributed to drinking water in a U.S. population, the first study to examinepossible causal hypotheses of health effects associated with particulate matter air pollutionby examining new physiologic parameters in the elderly, and the first well-conducted U.S.study to examine health effects associated with arsenic in a nonoccupational population.Dr. Calderon received her M.S. in Microbiology from the University of Rhode Island inKingston in 1979. She received an M.P.H. specializing in infectious disease epidemiologyfrom Yale School of Public Health in 1981 and a Ph.D. in Epidemiology from Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, in 1986.

1
(
)010

Dr. Dufour is currently the director of the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure

Assessment Research Division of EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory. Heearned his B.A. in Biology and Chemistry from Northern Michigan University, his M.P.H.specializing in epidemiology and environmental health services from Yale University, and aPh.D. in Microbiology from the University of Rhode Island. Dr. Dufour was with the U.S.

/0
#


-%

Public Health service for 4 years and then joined EPA in 1970. His research interests areanalytical microbial methods development; microbial risk assessments related to recreational, drinking, and shellfish harvesting waters; and human exposure associated withwaterborne and airborne microbial pathogens.1	+

Ms. Francy received a B.S. in Biology from Indiana University and an M.S. in Environmental Science from Rice University. She has been working for the U.S. Geological

Survey for 10 years and has served as project chief on a variety of projects investigating theprocesses that affect the presence of bacterial indicators and pathogens in ground water andsurface waters.

,((+,
""

Mr. Grubbs directs the Office of Science and Technology at EPA headquarters in

Washington, DC. He works with engineers, scientists, and economists to set regulationsrequiring best available treatment of water pollution from all kinds of point sources; setcriteria and standards for pollutants in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other waters under thefederal Clean Water Act; and establish the science for regulating safe levels of contaminantsin drinking water under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Grubbs has an engineering degree from Princeton University.

)2

Mr. Heckler is the deputy director of environmental affairs of the New York City

Department of Environmental Protection. He is involved in all facets of wastewater issues,including construction, design, operation, and policy. He is currently responsible for theNew York City Harbor Survey, which monitors water quality. Mr. Heckler has a B.S. inCivil Engineering from the University of Missouri.

)
2

Mr. Horvatin has been with EPA for 23 years and is currently the chief of the Monitoring, Indicators, and Reporting Branch of the Great Lakes National Program Office. He

manages Great Lakes monitoring programs for GLNPO, such as the Integrated Air Deposition Network, fish contaminant monitoring program, and open water monitoring using theResearch Vessel Lake Guardian. He is also involved in binational developmental workwith Canada on ecosystem indicators for the Great Lakes through the State of the LakesEcosystem Conference process.

+)010

Dr. Joyce is currently assigned to EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas. He is assigned to the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticide Division, where one of his ancillary duties

involves being the regional BEACH Coordinator. Dr. Joyce began his governmental career

during the Viet Nam era as a green beret weapons specialist cross-trained as a medic. Hethen accepted a commission into the U.S. Public Health Service and was assigned to theU.S. Coast Guard in New York City as an environmental/occupational health officer. Hehas also served as a supervisory sanitarian for the Indian Health Service and as an environmental health scientist for EPA’s Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Kansas City,

!"
 #" 

-&

Kansas. Dr. Joyce earned a B.S. in General Science from Marywood College in Scranton,Pennsylvania, and an M.S. in Environmental Biology from Hood College Graduate Schoolin Frederick, Maryland. He also holds another master’s degree in Environmental HealthScience and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science from New York Polytechnic inBrooklyn, New York.	3()010

Dr. Kopfler is one of the original staff members of EPA. Prior to the formation of

EPA, he worked for the Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. Public Health Service.Dr. Kopfler spent almost 20 years in EPA’s Office of Research and Development investigating health effects associated with chemical contaminants in drinking water. He joined theGulf of Mexico Program in 1989 and is currently the co-leader of the Public Health FocusTeam. He is responsible for developing and implementing the Public Health OperationalPerformance Plan. He is also the team leader of the Science and Technical Services Team.This team oversees the scientific peer review for the Gulf of Mexico Program Office,facilitates the Scientific Review Committee, and manages the Quality Assurance Management Program.

4

Mr. Leder has worked in the water enforcement program in EPA Region 5 for the past

25 years. He is currently a program manager with several areas of responsibility, includingConcentrated Animal Feeding Operation enforcement. He is an agency representative tothe E. coli Task Force, an interagency effort attempting to deal with beach closures in theIndiana portion of the Lake Michigan Basin. As a member of the task force, he has focusedhis efforts on ensuring that major and minor dischargers comply with NPDES permit requirements, including CSO controls.

& 4")010

Dr. Liebman is an environmental biologist at EPA’s New England regional office in

Boston. He received his B.A in Biology in 1980 from Carleton College in Minnesota andhis Ph.D in Ecology and Evolution from the State University of New York at Stony Brookin 1991. Since 1990, Dr. Liebman has worked at the EPA office in Boston as a projectmanager and scientist in the National Estuary Program and the Dredged Material Disposaland Monitoring Program, and as a water quality specialist. He is the regional coordinatorfor EPA’s BEACH Program, Nutrient Criteria Initiative, and National Sediment Inventory.He has conducted or been involved in research efforts in the fields of parasitology, marineecology, disposal site monitoring, and water quality.

.&

Mr. Mahin received his B.S. in Environmental Engineering from the University of

Texas at Austin in 1983. He is chief of the Municipal Services Section of the MassachusettsDepartment of Environmental Protection’s largest regional office. He is the cochair of theDEP’s Pathogens Work Group, a group of specialists from different sections within DEP.He is coauthor of an article on waterborne pathogens published in the April 1999 issue ofWater Environment & Technology. Mr. Mahin’s areas of specialization include pathogenindicator issues at bathing beaches and water quality impacts from municipal storm waterdischarges.

/0
#


-'

"#"

Mr. Nobles is an Environmental Specialist III within the Bureau of Facility Programs in

Florida. He has been with the Bureau for 2 years, working on establishing marine watersampling criteria and a statewide protocol for sampling. As a portion of the public notification process, Mr. Nobles (along with the Bureau’s web manager) developed a web site thatprovides updates from beach sampling around the state. He has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and is an M.P.H. candidate at Florida A&M University, Institute of Public Health.

)010

Dr. Rose is a full professor in the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of

South Florida. She is a member of the American Academy of Microbiology and wasrecently appointed to the Water Science and Technology Board for the National Academyof Sciences, National Research Council. She is past president of the Florida EnvironmentalHealth Association. Dr. Rose, who has been in Florida for 10 years, has more than 120publications in the field of water pollution microbiology and public health risk assessment.

1"

Mr. Rosenblatt is the chief of the Atlantic Coastal Bureau, Division of Watershed

Management, in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. He received hisB.S. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and an M.A. in Teaching from theCollege of New Jersey. For the past 20 years he has evaluated nearshore coastal waterquality and developed pollution response and remediation programs, including NewJersey’s Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program for recreational beaches. He continues tomanage beach quality programs in addition to watershed planning and management in theAtlantic coastal region.


")010

Dr. Schaub joined EPA’s Office of Science and Technology in 1992 as a senior

microbiologist for drinking water regulation support. He coauthored EPA’s Beach ActionPlan and served as the EPA representative to the President’s Council on Food Safety. Priorto joining EPA, Dr. Schaub served as a Microbiology Program Officer for the U.S. ArmyMedical Research and Development Command from 1972 to 1992 in field water supply andsanitation. He worked on microbiological methods, military equipment evaluation, and theeffectiveness of land application of wastewater. Dr. Schaub also studied microbiologicalpollution in the Great Lakes with the U.S. Public Health Service from 1964 to 1966. Heholds a B.S. in Microbiology from Washington State University and a Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Texas.

)


Mr. Stanek is the manager of the Health Beaches Program in Pinellas County, Florida.

He has worked for the Pinellas County Health Department for the last 10 years in a varietyof programs, including pools-bathing places, septic tanks, pollutant storage tanks, publicand private drinking water, and finally the beach program. Mr. Stanek earned his B.S. inBiology from the University of South Florida in 1988.

!"
 #" 

(

((+!

Mr. Waters is the project director at the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation in

Metairie, Louisiana. He received his B.S. in Geology from the University of SouthernMaine and his M.S. in Geology form Northern Arizona University. He is currently enrolledas a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University ofNew Orleans. He worked for 3 years as the staff scientist at the Tulane University Environmental Law Clinic prior to joining the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. For the past 5years he has managed more than 20 water quality and habitat restoration projects for theFoundation. Mr. Waters’ main research interests are aqueous geochemistry and the fate andtransport of contaminated sediments in coastal environments.
1
2*



4(Douglas AlleyInternational Joint CommissionP.O. Box 32869Detroit, MI 48232-0869E-mail: alleyd@windsor.ijc.orgAlex AlmarioNational Park ServiceAssateague IslandBerlin, MD 21811E-mail: alex_almario@nps.govErv BallCuyahoga County Disctict Board ofHealth1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524Cleveland, OH 44115E-mail: ervball@hotmail.comBruce BandurskiInternational Joint Commission, USA andCanada1250 23rd Street, NWSuite 100Washington, DC 20440E-mail: bandurskib@washington.ijc.orgSam BarberBeach Masters104 Boca Ciega RdCoca Beach, FL 32931E-mail: barberpictures@mindspring.comJohn BarrettTexas Coastal Coordination CouncilP.O. Box 97Edroy, TX 78352E-mail: jbtxag@aol.comMike BeaucheneCT DEP Bureau of Water Management79 Elm StreetHartford, CT 06106E-mail: mike.beauchene@po.state.ct.usMichael BerryFlorida Department of Health1301 Cattleman RdPO BOX 2658Sarasota, FL 34230E-mail:

Paul BertramUSEPA Great Lakes National ProgramOffice77 West Jackson BlvdChicago, IL 60604E-mail: bertram.paul@epa.govPatricia O. BigsbyState of Florida Dept. of Health1105 E. Kennedy Blvd.Tampa, FL 33511E-mail: patricia_Bigsby@doh.state.fl.usSteven BinnsOhio Department of Health246 N. High Street, 5th FloorColumbus, OH 43266E-mail: sbinns@gw.odh.state.oh.usManja BlazerIDEXX Laboratories Inc.5367 Lake Normandy CtFairfax, VA 22030E-mail: BLAZER@IDEXX.COMKristen P. BrennerUSEPA (NERL)26 W. Martin Luther King DriveML 314Cincinnati, OH 45268-1314E-mail: brenner.kristen@epa.govShannon BriggsMichigan Department of EnvironmentalQualityP.O. Box 30273Lansing, MI 48909-7773E-mail: briggssl@state.mi.usRobert C. BrownManatee County EnvironmentalManagement DepartmentPO Box 1000Bradenton, FL 34206E-mail: robert.brown@co.manatee.fl.usKelly BurchPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection230 Chestnut StreetMeadville, PA 16335E-mail: burch.kelly@dep.state.pa.us

Dr. Joanna BurgerRutgers UniversityDepartment of Biological SciencesNelson Hall604 Allison RoadPiscataway, NJ 08854-8082E-mail: burger@biology.rutgers.eduBrian CagleCDC/NCEH/NPSAFC1924 Building100 Alabama StreetAtlanta, GA 30303E-mail: brian_cagle@nps.govRebecca CalderonUSEPA Region 4MD 58CResearch Triangle Park, NC 27711E-mail: calderon.rebecca@epa.govMelvin CamposFlorida Dept. Environmental Protection2600 Blair Stone Rd MS 3575Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400E-mail: melva.campos@dep.state.fl.usMing ChanFlorida Dept. of Health, Bureau ofLaboratoriesP.O. Box 210Jacksonville, FL 32231E-mail: ming_chan@doh.state.fl.usSarah ChasisNatural Resource Defense Council40 West 20th St., 11 FloorNew York, NY 10011E-mail: mark.dorfman@usa.netJohn CimarosaWestport Weston Health District180 Bayberry LaneWestport, CT 06880E-mail: jcimarosa@wwhd.orgDennis ClarkIndiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement100 North SenateP.O. Box 6015Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015E-mail: dclark@dem.state.in.us

!"
 #" 

Karen Collins-FlemingManatee Co. Environmental ManagementDepartmentP.O. Box 1000Bradenton, FL 34206E-mail:Jody ConnorNH Department of EnvironmentalServices6 Hazen Dr.Concord, NH 03301E-mail: j-connor@des.state.nh.usRobert B. CummingsPalm Beach County Health Department345 S. Congress Ave.Delray Beach, FL 33445E-mail:Elleanore DaubVA Dept of Environmental QualityP.O. Box 10009Richmond, VA 23240-0009E-mail: emdaub@deq.state.va.usDiana Davila MesaEnvironmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County1900 9th AvenueTampa, FL 33605E-mail:Barry DavisNational Park ServicePO Box 25287Denver, CO 80201E-mail: barry_davis@nps.govDaniel DeMarcoUniversity of South Florida4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA 110Tampa, FL 33620E-mail: ddemarco@chuma.cas.usf.eduJudy P. DrakeSarasota County Health Department1301 Cattlemen RoadSarasota, FL 34232E-mail:Al DufourUSEPA ORD/NERL/MCEARD26 West Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268-1593E-mail: dufour.alfred@epa.govCharles DujardinHydroQual, Inc1 LethbridgeMahwah, NJ 07430E-mail: cdujardin@hydroqual.com



Richard M. EckenrodTampa Bay Estuary ProgramMSI-1/NEP100 8th Ave. SESt. Petersberg, FL 33701E-mail: reckenrod@tbep.orgToni EdwardsState of Florida Department of Environmental Protection3804 Coconut Palm DriveTampa, FL 33619E-mail: toni.edwards@dep.state.fl.usGeoffrey EdwardsORSANCO5735 Kellogg Ave.Cincinnati, OH 45228E-mail: gedwards@orsanco.orgSamir ElmirMiami-Dade County Health Department/Environmental Health1725 N.W. 167th StreetMiami, FL 33056E-mail: Samir_Elmir@doh.state.fl.usRichard EskinMaryland Department of the Environment2500 Broening HighwayBaltimore, MD 21204E-mail: reskin@mde.state.md.usGene FlanaganPasco County Health Department7623 Little Road, Suite 100BNew Port Richey, FL 3464E-mail: geneplus@aol.comD. Micheal FlaneryPinellas County Health Unit, Env.Engineering4175 E. Bay Drive, Suite 300Clearwater, FL 33764E-mail: mike_flanery@doh.state.fl.usDonna FrancyUS Geological Survey6480 Doubletree Ave.Columbus, OH 43229E-mail: dsfrancy@usgs.govPortia Franz-ChinPalau Environmental Quality ProtectionBoardP.O. Box 1000 Public Works BuildingKoror, Republic of Palau 96940E-mail: eqpb@palaunet.comMolly FullwoodDare County Health DepartmentP.O. Box 1000Manteo, NC 27954E-mail: mollyf@co.dare.nc.us

Judy GallizziCity of St. Petersburg-Public UtilitiesDepartment1635 3rd Avenue NorthSt. Petersburg, FL 33713E-mail: jgallizzi@ij.netOtto E. GeorgiPasco County Health Department7623 Little Road, Suite 100BNew Port Richey, FL 34654E-mail:George GilbertNorth Carolina State GovernmentShellfish Sanitation3441 Arendell StreetMorehead City, NC 28557E-mail:George_Gilbert@ss.enr.state.nc.usDr. Lou GlatzerUniversity of Toledo/Lake Erie Center6200 Bayshore RoadOregon, OH 43618E-mail: lglatze@utoledo.eduRuben GonzalezEnvironmental Quality BoardP.O. Box 11488San Juan, PR 00910E-mail: JCAaqua@prtc.netLouis GossonFlagler County Health DepartmentP.O. Box 847Bunnell, FL 32110E-mail: Louis_Gosson@doh.state.fl.usHolly GreeningTampa Bay Estuary Program100 8th Street Ave. S.E.St. Petersburg, FL 33701E-mail: hgreening@tbep.orgDena Gross Leavengood3207 San Jose StreetTampa, FL 33629E-mail: leavengood@worldnet.att.netGeoffrey GrubbsUSEPA-Office of Science and Technology401 M Street, SWWashington, DC 20460E-mail:Jeff HagertyFlorida Department of Health, VolusiaCounty501 S. Clyde Morris Blvd.Daytona Beach, FL 32114E-mail: Jeff_Hagerty@doh.state.fl.us
1
2*

)

Doug HainesHealth CanadaPL 1904B, Jeanne Mance BuildingOttawa, Ontario, Canada K1A0K9E-mail: Doug_Haines@hc-sc.gc.caMark HammondSouthwest Florida Water ManagementDistrict7601 Highway 301 NorthTampa, FL 33637-6759E-mail:mark.hammond@swfwmd.state.fl.usJoel Aaron HanselUSEPA Region 461 Forsyth St., 15th FloorAtlanta, GA 30303E-mail: hansel.joel@epamail.epa.govCraig HatfieldThe University of Toledo2928 SherbrookeToledo, OH 43606E-mail: chatfie@geology.utoledo.eduNancy HatfieldBioCheck Labs & The University ofToledo2928 SherbrookeToledo, OH 43606E-mail: nhatfie@uoft02.utoledo.eduPhil HecklerNYC Department of EnvironmentalProtection96-05 Horce Harding ExpresswayCorona, NY 11368E-mail: pheckler@nysnet.netRick HoffmannUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St. SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: Hoffmann.Rick@epa.govBarbara HoggardPalm Beach County Health Department345 S. Congress AvenueDelray Beach, FL 33445E-mail:Nanette HollandTampa Bay Estuary ProgramMS I-1/NEP100 8th Avenue, S.E.St. Petersburg, FL 33701E-mail: nanette@tbep.orgPaul HorvatinUSEPA, Great Lakes National ProgramOffice77 West Jackson St. (G-17J)Chicago, IL 60604E-mail: horvatin.paul@epa.gov

Robert HowardConnecticut Dept. of Public HealthLaboratory10 Clinton St.Hartford, CT 06106E-mail: robert.howard@po.state.ct.usLeonard HugginsUniversity of Pittsburg114-6001 St. Marie St.Pittsburg, PA 15206E-mail: lenhuggins@hotmail.comAlesia JonesEnvironmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County1900 9th AvenueTampa, FL 33605E-mail: Jones@EPCJanus.EPCHC.ORGJake JoyceUSEPA Region 7/WWPD901 North Fifth StreetKansas City, KS 66101E-mail: joyce.jake@epa.govBrad KaffenbergerRIDOHCannon Building3 Capitol HillProvidence, RI 02908E-mail: ronl@doh.state.ri.usKeith KeeneCharlotte County Health Department18500 Murdock CirclePort Charlotte, FL 33948E-mail: kkeene@thenuthouse.comTim KellyHillsborough Co. Health DepartmentPO BOX 5135Tampa, FL 33675-5135E-mail:George KennedyHampton Roads Sanitation DistrictP.O. Box 5911Virginia Beach, VA 23471E-mail: gkennedy@hrsd.dst.va.usDon KillingerCuyahoga County Board of Health1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524Cleveland, OH 44115E-mail: estaff@neticom.comBenjamin KirsnerFlorida Department of Health/Miami-Dade County1725 NW 167th StreetMiami, FL 33056E-mail:

Barbara KlieforthUSEPA-ORD/OSP1300 Pennsylvannia Ave., MC 8104RWashington, DC 20004E-mail: klieforth.barbara@epa.govBernadette KolbCamp Dresser and McKee Inc.Ten Cambridge CenterCambridge, MA 02142E-mail: kolbbh@cdm.comFred KopflerUSEPA - Gulf of Mexico Program OfficeBuilding 1103, Room 202Stennis Space Center, MS 39529E-mail: kopfler.fred@epa.govCharles KovatchUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St., SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: kovatch.charles@epa.govPaul KuehnertState of Maine, Bureau of Health157 Capitol StreetAugusta, ME 04333-0010E-mail: Paul.Kuehnert@state.me.usRaymond C. Kurz, Ph.D.Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc.4013 E. Fowler Ave.Tampa, FL 33617E-mail: rkurz@scheda.comPeter LaFlammeVermont Dept. of Enviromental Conservation103 South Main StreetWQ DivisionWaterbury, VT 05671-0408E-mail: petel@dec.anr.state.vt.usLaura LandryRhode Island Department of HealthCannon Building, 3 Capitol HillProvidence, RI 02908E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.usArnold LederUSEPAWC 15-J77 West Jackson AveChicago, IL 60604E-mail: leder.arnold@epa.govRonald LeeRhode Island Department of HealthCannon Building, 3 Capitol HillProvidence, RI 02908E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.us

!"
 #" 

Cristina LegarzaInstitute of Marine AffairsHilltop LaneChaguaramas, Trinidad West IndiesE-mail: alegarza@trinidad.netRobert F. LevySarasota County Health Department1301 Cattleman RdPO BOX 2658Sarasota, FL 34230-2658E-mail:Jordan LewisFlorida Department of Health,Hillsborough County1105 E. Kennedy Blvd.P.O. Box 5135Tampa, FL 33675-5135E-mail: jordan_lewis@doh.state.fl.usMatt LiebmanUSEPA Region 1One Congress Street, Ste. 1100Boston, MA 02114-2023E-mail: liebman.matt@epa.govDaniel V. LimUniversity of South Florida, Departmentof Biology4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA 110Tampa, FL 33620-5200E-mail: Lim@chuma1.cas.usf.eduDr. Erin LippUniversity of South FloridaDepartment of Marine Science140 7th Ave SSt Petersburg, FL 33701E-mail: elipp@marine.usf.eduJill LisCuyahoga County Board of Health1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524Cleveland, OH 44115E-mail: estaff@neticom.comKathy LutherIndiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement504 North BroadwaySuite 418Gary, IN 46402E-mail: kluther@dem.state.in.usThomas MahinMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection205A Lowell St.Wilmington, MA 01887E-mail: thomas.mahin@state.ma.us

-

Mary MaloneyFlorida Department of Health1190 W. Leonard St., Suite 2Pensacola, FL 32501E-mail: robert_merritt@doh.state.fl.usChristopher MantoothSouth Carolina Dept. of Health andEnvironmental Control1362 McMillan Avenue, Suite 300Charleston, SC 29405E-mail: mantooca@nochas30.chec.state.sc.usKelli McGeeAmerican Oceans Campaign600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 210Washington, DC 20003E-mail: aockm@wizard.netTrish McKenzieUSEPA401 M Street SW, 2222AWashington, DC 20460E-mail: mckenzie.trish@epa.govDiane W. MealoReedy Creek Imrpovement DistrictP.O. Box 10170Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830E-mail: diane_mealo@rcid.dst.fl.usB.J. MederCyahoga County Board of Health1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524Cleveland, OH 44115E-mail: bjmeder@neticom.comPat MetzIllinois Department of Public Health525 West JeffersonSpringfield, IL 62761E-mail: pmetz@idph.state.il.usKimberly MikitaFlorida Coastal Management Program2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100E-mail: kimberly.mikita@dca.state.fl.usThomas MorrisNorth Carolina Department of Health &Human DervicesDivision of Public Health1912 MSCRaleigh, NC 27699-1912E-mail: thomas.morris@ncmail.netJoanna MottTexas A&M University - Corpus ChristiBiology Program6300 Ocean DriveCorpus Christi, TX 78412E-mail: jmott@falcon.tamucc.edu

Chris MurrayOhio State University2120 Fyffe Rd.Columbus, OH 43210E-mail: murray.255@osu.eduJudith F. NelsonWestport Weston Health District180 Bayberry LaneWestport, CT 06880E-mail: jnelson@wwhd.orgDavivd Nichols, P.E.CDS Technologies, Inc.1255 La Quinta Drive, Suite 218Orlando, FL 32809E-mail: dnichols@iag.netRobert Nobles IIFlorida Department of Health2020 Capital CircleTallahassee, FL 32399E-mail: robert_nobles@doh.state.fl.usRobert NuzziSuffolk County Department of HealthServicesCounty CenterRiverhead, NY 11901E-mail: robert.nuzzi@co.suffolk.ny.usEllen J. O’NeillFlorida Department of Health1190 W. Leonard St, Suite 2Pensacola, FL 32501E-mail: ellen_o’neill@doh.state.fl.usRichard O’RourkeMiami-Dade Water & Sewer Department4200 Salzedo Street, Rm 112Coral Gables, FL 33146-0316E-mail: richor@co.miami-dade.fl.usSandy OestreichAgency on Bay Management/EstuaryProgram305 173rd AveSt. Petersburg, FL 33708E-mail: 76762@compuserve.comKate OrellanaFlorida Department of EvironmentalProtection3804 Coconut Palm DriveTampa, FL 33619E-mail: katherine.orellana@dep.state.fl.usMark A. PabstPinellas County Health Department4175 E. Bay Drive, Suite 300Clearwater, FL 33764E-mail: mark_pabst@doh.state.fl.us
1
2*



Latisha ParkerUSEPA-Office of Science and Technology401 M. Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20460E-mail: parker.latisha@epamail.epa.govJoan PerryHolmes Beach Civic Association507 74th StreetHolmes Beach, FL 34217E-mail: perrybeach@worldnet.att.netPatrick PhillipsMissouri Department of HealthDepartment of Epidemiology920 Wildwood DriveJefferson City, MO 65109E-mail: phillp@mail.health.state.mo.usJonathan PhinneyCente of Marine Conservation1725 DeSales St NW #600Washington, DC 20036E-mail: jphinney@dccmc.orgDennis W. Pyburn, Jr.New England Interstate Water PollutionControl CommissionBoott Mills South100 Foot of John StreetLowell, MA 01852-1124E-mail: dpyburn@neiwpcc.orgNia RhodesBrown UniversityBox 0839, Brown UniversityProvidence, RI 02912E-mail: Nia_Rhodes@brown.eduL. James RidgeSouth Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201E-mail: ridgelj@columb32.dhec.state.sc.usKevin RiskowitzCity of St. Petersburg1635 3rd Avenue NorthSt. Petersburg, FL 33713E-mail:William RobertsonHealth Canada-Environmental Health1205C Jeanne Mance Bldg. 1912AOttawa, Canada KIAOK9E-mail: will.robertson@hc-sc.gc.caDavid RockwellUSEPA Great Lakes National ProgramOffice77 West Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604E-mail: rockwell.david@epa.gov

Joan RoseUniversity of FloridaDepartment of Marine Sciences140 7th AvenueSt. Petersburg, FL 33701E-mail: jrose@marine.usf.eduMolly Rose McLaughlinUniversity of South Florida Departmentof Marine Science140 7th Ave SouthSt. Petersburg, FL 33701E-mail: mclaughlin@seas.marine.usf.eduDavid RosenblattNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, DWM/ACBPO Box 418401 E. State St.Trenton, NJ 08625-0418E-mail: drosenbl@dep.state.nj.usNancy RoyEnvironmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County1900 9th AvenueTampa, FL 33605E-mail: Roy@EPCJanus.EPCHC.ORGCindy RupertTampa Tribune4243 Henderson Blvd.Tampa, FL 33601E-mail:Christopher RutherfordFlorida Dept. of Health- Hillls County1105 E. Kennedy Blvd.Tampa, FL 33602E-mail:Micheal RybolowikFlorida Health Department, Miami-Dade1725 NW 167 St.Miami, FL 33056E-mail:Stephen SchaubUSEPA - Office of Science and Technology401 M St. SW (4304)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: schaub.stephen@epamail.epa.govKeith SepulvadoLouisiana Department of EnvironmentalQuality7290 Bluebonnet3rd Floor P&ABaton Rouge, LA 70810E-mail: keith_s@deq.state.la.us

Harvey Shear, Ph.D.Department of the Environment4905 Dufferin StreetToronto, Canada M3H5T4E-mail: harvey.shear@ec.gc.caSeba B. SheavlyCenter for Marine Conservation1432 N. Great Neck Road #103Virginia Beach, VA 23462E-mail: ssheavly@vacmc.orgMary SheppardSarasota Sierra Club3120 38th Ave. E.Baradenton, FL 34208E-mail: msheppard1@juno.comLisa ShimatzkiClearwater Marine Aquarium249 Windward PassageClearwater, FL 33767E-mail: mla@cmaquarium.orgRobin A. Silva-WilkinsonGreat Lakes Environmental Center739 Hastings StreetTraverse City, MI 49690E-mail: rswglec@mich.comRajenra SinhaWayne County Department of PublicHealthEnvironmental Health Division5454 S. Venoy RoadWayne, MI 48184E-mail:Thomas D. SmithU.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 4970Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019E-mail: thomas.d.smtih@saj02.usace.army.milHelena Solo-GabrieleUniversity of MiamiP.O. Box 248294Coral Gables, FL 33124-0630E-mail: hmsolo@miami.eduWade SparkmanNassau Department of Health1015 South 14th StreetPO Box 15100Fernandina Beach, FL 32035E-mail: wade_sparkman@doh.state.fl.usMark E. SpringorHernando County Health Department300 South Main St.P.O. Box 277Brooksville, FL 34601E-mail:

!"
 #" 

Paul StanekFlorida Department of Health, PinellasCounty4175 E. Bay Dr., Suite 300Clearwater, FL 364624E-mail: paul_stanek@doh.state.fl.usLillian M. StarkFlorida Department of Health, Bureau ofLaboratories3952 West Dr. M.L. King Jr. Blvd.Tampa, FL 33614-8404E-mail: Lillian_stark@doh.state.fl.usCara StielerETI, Environmental Professionals4902 Eisenhower BlvdSuite 150Tampa, FL 33634E-mail: cstieler@etipros.comKevin SummersUSEPA/ORD/NHEERL/GED1 Sabine Island Dr.Gulf Breeze, FL 32561E-mail: summers.kevin@epa.govRichard W. SvensonNew York State Department of HealthFlanigan Square547 River Street, rm. 515Troy, NY 12180E-mail: RWS04@health.state.ny.usDr. J Shannon SwannDept of the Interior-Lake Mead NRA601 Nevada HighwayBoulder City, NV 89005E-mail: shannon_j._swann@nps.govJack N. TeagueFlorida Department of Health - MonroeCounty Health DepartmentP.O. Box 6193Key West, FL 33041-6193E-mail: jack_teague@doh.state.fl.usJack TowleVolusia County Environmental HealthLab1250 Indian Lake RoadDaytona Beach, FL 32124E-mail: jack_towle@doh.state.fl.usDean TuomariWayne County Department of Environment3600 Commerce CourtWayne, MI 48184E-mail: dtuomari@co.wayne.mi.us

$

David TurinUSEPA Region 1One Congress Street (CRI)Boston, MA 02114E-mail: turin.david@epa.govRonald S. UlinskyNew Jersey State Department of Health3635 Quakerbridge RdPO BOX 369Trenton, NJ 08625E-mail: rsu@doh.state.nj.usGeorge VaughnCDC/NCEH/NPSAFC1924 Building100 Alabama StreetAtlanta, GA 30303E-mail: george_vaughn@nps.govBob VincentCharlotte County Health Department18500 Murdock CirclePort Charlotte, FL 33948E-mail: robert_vincent@doh.state.fl.usJoseph VogelErie County Department of Health606 West 2nd StreetErie, PA 16507E-mail:Edward WardygaRhode Island Department of HealthCannon Building, 3 Capitol HillProvidence, RI 02908E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.usHelen WarrenSt. Petersburg Audubon Society7227 4th Avenue, NorthSt. Petersburg, FL 33710E-mail: helenkwarren@mindspring.comJeff WatersLake Pontchartrain Basin FoundationP.O. Box 6965Metrairie, LA 70009-6965E-mail: lpbfprog@communique.netKim WeaverCoastal Carolina UniversityP.O. Box 261954Conway, SC 29528-1954E-mail: weaver@coastal.edu

Howard WensleyMA Dept. of Public Health305 South St.Jamaica Plain, MA 02130E-mail: howard.wensley-dph@state.ma.usGary R. WhiteMacomb County Health Department43525 Elizabeth RoadMt. Clemens, MI 48043E-mail:Richard WhitmanLake Michigan Ecological Research Station,USGS1100 N. Mineral Springs RdPorter, IN 46304E-mail: richard_whitman@nps.govJennifer WigalUSEPA OST401 M Street SW (MC 4305)Washington, DC 20815E-mail: wigal.jennifer@epa.govLeslee WilliamsFlorida Dept. of Environmental Protection2600 Blairstone RDTallahassee, FL 32399-2400E-mail: leslee.williams@dep.state.fl.usDavid WingfieldFlorida Department of Health3952 W. Dr. M.L. King, Jr. Blvd.Tampa, FL 33614E-mail: david_wingfield@doh.state.fl.usHolly WirickUSEPA Region 577 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604E-mail: wirick.holiday@epa.govVictoria WithingtonUniversity of South Florida4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA 110Tampa, FL 33620E-mail: vwagner@chuma.cas.usf.eduJames WoodleyUSEPA-Office of Wetlands, Oceans andWatersheds401 M Street, SW (4504F)Washington, DC 20460E-mail: woodley.james.epamail.epa.gov