Professional Documents
Culture Documents
July 2010
Authors
Mark Dorfman
Jon Devine
Natural Resources Defense Council
Michelle Mehta
Natural Resources Defense Council
About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than
1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have
worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City,
Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org.
Acknowledgments
NRDC wishes to acknowledge the support of The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Campbell
Foundation, Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc., Bernard F. and
Alva B. Gimbel Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, The Pisces Foundation, The Prospect Hill Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Mary Jean Smeal Clean
Water Fund, and The Summit Foundation of Washington.
NRDC would like to thank Henry Henderson, Josh Mogerman, and Mariya Stepanenko for researching and
reviewing various aspects of the report this year and Carol James for distributing the report nationwide. Thank you
to Alexandra Kennaugh for managing the production of the report, to Bonnie Greenfield for designing it, and to
Kathryn McGrath, Will Tam, and Auden Shim for creating a dynamic presentation of the report on the NRDC
website. We would also like to thank Ynes Cabral and Linda Escalante for their skillful Spanish translations and
Grace Murray and Elise Marton for their proofreading assistance. Many thanks to members of our media team
Sherry Goldberg, Courtney Hamilton, Elizabeth Heyd, Serena Ingre, Valerie Jaffee, Jessica Lass, Josh Mogerman,
Jenny Powers, and Kate Slusark for orchestrating the release of the report to the press. Thanks to Sarah Chasis,
Noah Garrison, Allen Hershkowitz, Larry Levine, Leila Monroe, Adrianna Quintero, Suzanne Struglinski, and
Andrew Wetzler for releasing and blogging about the report for NRDC this year and Christy Leavitt and Piper
Crowell for arranging releases by chapters of Environment America.
We wish also to thank the U.S. Environmentl Protection Agency for sharing data with us again this year, and to
the state program coordinators, who provided information for the state chapters along with review of the monitoring
and notification data. Thanks, especially, to all those federal, state, and local officials who work hard every day to keep
our beaches clean and to clean up the sources of beachwater pollution.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................... v
National Overview............................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1
Sources of Beachwater Pollution......................................................................................................................................14
Chapter 2
The Impacts of Beach Pollution......................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3
Plan of Action.................................................................................................................................................................32
Chapter 4
Beachwater Quality Monitoring Programs and State-by-State Results.............................................................................44
Alabama Florida Louisiana Minnesota North Carolina South Carolina
Alaska Georgia Maine Mississippi Ohio Texas
California Hawaii Maryland New Hampshire Oregon Virginia
Connecticut Illinois Massachusetts New Jersey Pennsylvania Washington
Delaware Indiana Michigan New York Rhode Island Wisconsin
Figures
Figure N-1. Regional Differences in Closing/Advisory Days, 2006–2009..........................................................................1
Figure N-2. Regional Differences in Percent Exceedance of National Standards, 2006–2009............................................2
Figure N-3. Total Closing/Advisory Days, 2000–2009 (excluding extended and permanent)............................................4
Figure N-4. Reported Reasons for Closings/Advisories in 2009.........................................................................................5
Figure N-5. Report Reasons for Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009......................................................................................5
Figure N-6. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories in 2009......................................................................6
Figure N-7. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009...............................................................6
Figure N-8. Percent Exceedance for All Coastal and Great Lakes States Combined, 2006–2009.......................................7
(based on 2,655 beaches reported in each of the four years)
Figure 1-1. A Rough Illustration of the Prevalence of Combined Sewer Systems in the United States..............................15
Figure 2-1. Influence of Heavy Rainfall on Occurrence of E. coli Infections....................................................................22
Figure 2-2. Expansion of HAB Problems in the United States.........................................................................................25
Figure 2-3. The Value of the Coastal Economy (2007)....................................................................................................27
Figure 3-1. A Re-Engineered Stormwater Outfall in Racine, Wisconsin..........................................................................33
Figure 3-2. Lag Time Associated With Current Water Quality Monitoring and Public Notification Methods.................39
Figure 4-1. Why Don’t 2009 Percent Exceedances Match?..............................................................................................49
Executive Summary
Twentieth Annual Report
In 2009, beach closings and advisories hit their sixth-highest level in the 20 years the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) has been tracking them. The continuing high number of closing and advisory days, combined with a relatively
constant level of bacterial contamination at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches, suggests that our nation’s beaches
require a more concerted effort to identify and control the
sources of water pollution that put swimmers at risk. Even in the relatively dry 2009 beach
For the fifth consecutive year, we were able to season, stormwater runoff contributed
determine not only the number of closings and advisories,
but also the number of times that each beach violated to more than 80% of the closing
current public health standards. The percent of beach and advisory days with a reported
monitoring samples exceeding national health standards contamination source.
remained steady at 7% in 2009, equal to the level in 2008
and 2007 and down from 9% in 2006. More frequent monitoring plus 17% fewer preemptive rainfall closing and
advisory days due to drier weather in some parts of the country translated into a better beach season last year for
swimmers in many coastal communities. But relying on dry weather to keep contaminated runoff from polluting
beachwater is not a long-term public health protection strategy. When the rains return, so do the beach closings and
advisories. For example, in the Delmarva Peninsula near Washington, D.C., wetter-than-average conditions contributed
to nearly three times as many closing/advisory days in 2009 as in 2008. During 2009, stormwater runoff was identified
as a source of more than 80% of the closing/advisory days for which a source was identified. This indicates that there
are sources of human or animal wastes that are not being adequately addressed and that are getting washed into the
ocean when it rains.
In its most recent report on waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with recreational water, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the incidence of infections associated with recreational water use has
steadily increased over the past several decades.1 Data on the incidence of waterborne illness in the United States are
notoriously bad because many people who get sick have no idea that ingesting contaminated water was the cause,
but epidemiological studies like those that the EPA has conducted in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10% of
beachgoers report getting sick after swimming at beaches that are open for swimming. With population growing in
U.S. coastal areas, we can expect to see more Americans getting sick from beachwater until the sources of contamination
are addressed.
Dirty coastal waters not only threaten our health but also hurt our economy. A stark illustration of the devastation that
polluted ocean water can wreak on coastal economies is playing out this summer as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal “tourism and recreation is one of the fastest-growing business sectors, enriching
economies and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the shores of the United States and its
The federal public health standard is more than 20 years old, does not provide information on the full range of waterborne
pathogens that make beachgoers sick, and requires test methods that take 24 hours to complete. Closing and advisory
decisions are based on yesterday’s samples. So even if a beach is deemed “safe” under the federal public health standard,
it may still contain human or animal waste that can make swimmers sick. Under the BEACH Act, which passed in 2000,
Congress required the EPA to modernize this outdated standard, but the agency has not yet done so. Four summers ago,
NRDC sued the EPA to force it to comply with the BEACH Act by accelerating its timetable for proposing new standards,
setting standards that fully protect the public, and establishing testing methods that will enable public health officials to
make prompt decisions about closing beaches and issuing advisories. As a result of NRDC’s lawsuit, the EPA is moving
forward in developing an improved public health standard and approving faster test methods. For the first time, a rapid
test method is being used to make beach closing and advisory decisions as part of a pilot study this summer at several
beaches in Orange County, California. Americans need to know that the waters in which we swim, surf, and dive are safe.
At a minimum, that means that recreational waters must be tested regularly, and the results must be measured against
effective health standards. When waters do not meet these standards, authorities must promptly and clearly notify the public.
While authorities are doing a better job monitoring beaches than in the past, this monitoring reveals the extent to which
our beachwaters continue to be polluted. Unfortunately, the monitoring does not reveal the cause of beachwater pollu
tion. In 2009, more than half of beach closing/advisory days were reported as due to unknown sources of contamination.
Beach officials cannot clean up sources of pollution if they cannot identify them. One problem is that BEACH Act
grants are currently not available for source identification and correction. NRDC is supporting federal legislation, the
Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act, that would increase the funding authorized for BEACH Act grants
and allow them to be used for sanitary surveys, source tracking, and other means of identifying and addressing the
direct sources of contamination. In the meantime, steps are being taken to support source identification and correction
activities with federal funding: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grants provide significant funding for bacterial source
identification, and many entities have won Recovery Act funding to correct sources of beachwater contamination. The
Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act would provide funding to pursue these activities throughout the
United States. Expanded funding should allow monitoring to cover all designated coastal beaches. Finally, it is time for
the EPA and state and local authorities to seriously address the sources of beachwater pollution, which most often are
stormwater and sewage pollution. Prevention is the best way to make sure that a day at the beach will not turn into a
night in the bathroom or, worse, in a hospital emergency room. We have a myriad of solutions – collectively called
“green infrastructure” – available today that can stop stormwater runoff and sewage overflows before they happen.
Utilizing methods like green roofs, permeable pavement, roadside plantings and rain barrels – these methods are often
the cheapest and most effective way to address these problem pollution sources. By stopping rain where it falls – allowing
it to filter into the ground or storing it – green infrastructure prevents runoff and overflows from the start.
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed, and the Senate is now considering, legislation that would cap
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to gradually cut global warming pollution, invest in clean energy technologies, and create
millions of jobs in the new energy economy. Passing such legislation is critical to addressing a wide range of impacts of
• The EPA and states should tighten and enforce controls on all sources of beachwater pollution. . The most economical
and effective way to do this in many cases is to boost green infrastructure in coastal communities that control sewage
overflowsand stormwater runoff which are consistently the largest known sources of beachwater pollution. The best way
to prevent swimmers from getting sick is to clean up the water.
• The EPA should propose new health standards for beachwater quality that fully protect the public and establish testing
methods that will enable public health officials to make prompt decisions about closing their beaches and issuing advisories.
• Congress should pass the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act (H.R. 2093/S. 878), which would
reauthorize the federal BEACH Act of 2000, increase the authorized funding and allow that funding to be used for
identifying and correcting sources of beachwater contamination, require the EPA to approve and states to use rapid
test methods for monitoring beachwater pollution, and improve coordination between the public health officials who
monitor beachwater and the environmental agencies who regulate the sources of beachwater pollution.
• Because climate change will exacerbate some communities’ beachwater pollution problems, Congress should also
enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce emissions of global warming pollution and help
communities prepare for flooding, sea level rise, increased stormwater pollution, sewer overflows, and other adverse
impacts of climate change.
• Congress should substantially increase the federal appropriations available to meet clean water and beach protection
needs through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, federal BEACH Act grants, and a Clean Water Trust Fund or
other dedicated source of clean water funding.
• Congress should pass the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 753/S. 937), which would require
quick reporting of sewage overflows to public health authorities and to the general public, allowing prompt response to
overflows in order to minimize human exposure and environmental harm.
• State and local governments should issue preemptive advisories where a correlation between rainfall and elevated
bacteria levels exists or when sewer overflows or other catastrophic events jeopardize beachwater safety.
• A portion of the revenues generated by tourism should be allocated to monitoring and prevention programs to ensure
that swimming in coastal waters does not jeopardize the health of beachgoers.
• Voters should support increased federal, state, and local funding for urban stormwater programs and for repairing,
rehabilitating, and upgrading our aging sewer systems. The public also should support funding for maintaining and
expanding natural areas—such as wetlands, shoreline buffers, and coastal vegetation—that trap and filter pollution
before it reaches the beach.
* Individuals can help clean up beach pollution. Simple measures, including conserving water, redirecting runoff, using
such natural fertilizers as compost for gardens, maintaining septic systems, and properly disposing of animal waste, litter,
toxic household products, and used motor oil can reduce the amount of pollution in coastal waters.
National Overview
In 2009, the number of closing and advisory days at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches reached 18,682 days nation
wide, their sixth-highest level since NRDC began tracking these events 20 years ago.1 The record high of 25,643 days
was reached in 2006, when a dramatic increase in the amount of rain in some parts of the country contributed to the
large increase in closing/advisory days.
The overall 8% decrease in closing/advisory days from 2008 levels was dominated by decreases in the number
of closing and advisory days in the West and in the Territories; many parts of the country experienced a sharp increase
in the number of closing and advisory days. In the West,
relatively dry conditions in Hawaii and reduced monitor During 2009, there were 18,682 days
ing in Southern California due to budget cuts likely con of closings and advisories at U.S.
tributed to a 24% decrease in the number of closing and
ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches.
advisory days compared with 2008 (–1,695 days). In the
Great Lakes region there was a modest 4% decrease (–137 days) in 2009. Four U.S. territories (Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) reported drier conditions and a 33% decrease (–1,187 days)
in 2009. Wetter-than-usual conditions may have contributed to the Delmarva peninsula’s having nearly three times
as many closing and advisory days as in 2008 (+177 days) and a 31% increase in New England (+482 days). Increases
in the number of closing and advisory days were also seen in the southeastern United States, which had a 43% increase
(+185 days), and the Gulf Coast beaches, which had an 18% increase (+491 days). The New York/New Jersey coastal
area remained virtually unchanged, with an increase of 2% (+25 days).
Nationally, there was a 17% decrease in the number of preemptive closing/advisory days 4,517 in 2009 from 5,452
in 2008. More than 80% of preemptive closing/advisory days were issued because of heavy rainfall in both years.
12000
2006
Closing/Advisory Days
2007 Region
10000 2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 vs. 2008
2009 Delmarva 360 303 101 278 +175%
Great Lakes 3,003 3,043 3,437 3,300 –4%
Closing/Advisory Days
4000
2000
0
Delmarva Great Lakes Gulf New England NY-NJ Southeast West
16%
National Exceedances
2006 Region
2006 2007 2008 2009
14% 2007
Delmarva 4% 3% 2% 3%
2008
Great Lakes 14% 15% 13% 13%
2009
Gulf 6% 8% 7% 6%
12%
New England 5% 4% 6% 8%
NY-NJ 7% 8% 5% 6%
10% Southeast 3% 2% 3% 3%
Exceedance
West 8% 5% 7% 7%
8%
15%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Delmarva Great Lakes Gulf New England NY-NJ Southeast West
The portion of all samples exceeding national health standards remained essentially unchanged at 7% in 2009, 2008,
and 2007, from 9% in 2006 (these multiyear graphs include only those beaches with monitoring data reported in each
of the four years). Regionally, the Great Lakes had the highest exceedance rate (13%) in 2009, followed by New England
(9%), the Gulf Coast (7%), the NY-NJ coast (6%), western states (6%), the southeast (3%), and the Delmarva
peninsula (3%).
Although it is tempting to expect a correlation between year-to-year changes in water quality and year-to-year
changes in closing/advisory days, there are confounding factors that make such correlations unlikely. While year-to-year
changes in the percent of monitoring samples that exceed health standards is an objective assessment of water quality,
year-to-year changes in the total number of closing/advisory days is subject to differences in programs and practices.
For example:
• Some states or localities take multiple samples at each monitoring station. When making closing/advisory decisions,
beach officials might use the average value of all samples taken that day. Using this method, the average value may not
exceed the standard even though one (or more) of the multiple samples does. In such a case, the beach would not be
closed or put under advisory. While this is an acceptable procedure for making closing/advisory determinations, NRDC
includes the results of every reported sample when calculating the percent of all samples that exceed the standard in a
given year.
• Some states or localities will resample a beach after an exceedance before issuing a closing or advisory. If the resample
does not exceed the standard, the beach is not put under closing or advisory.
• Many states or localities preemptively close a beach or issue an advisory without waiting for the results of beachwater
monitoring if they suspect that pollution has affected beachwater quality. The reasons for these preemptive actions are
highly variable, including heavy rainfall events, known sewage leaks, chemical spills, and high winds and waves.
• Some states or localities continue monitoring at beaches that are closed for more than six consecutive weeks during
the reporting year; NRDC does not include extended or permanent beach closings or advisories when comparing
closing/advisory days from year to year, but the monitoring data that are collected at these beaches are included in
the percent exceedance analysis.
• Year-to-year changes in beach monitoring frequency could impact the total number of closing/advisory days, but not
the percentage of samples that exceed health standards. For example, increasing routine monitoring from once every two
weeks to once a week could decrease the number of closing/advisory days for the same number of events because the
duration of many events could go from two weeks to one week.
Beach officials in all states continue to use traditional methods approved by the EPA that require about 24 hours
to quantify bacterial indicator levels in beachwater samples. In July 2010, a pilot project was launched at several
beaches in Orange County, California, to demonstrate the use of qPCR, a rapid method of determining bacterial
levels that allows beachwater quality warning decisions to be made on the same day a sample is taken. Traditional
methods will be used to analyze the samples alongside qPCR analysis, but the qPCR results will be used to determine
whether warnings about beachwater quality will be issued and signs posted at the pilot study beaches. This is the
first use of a rapid test method for issuing beachwater quality notifications at coastal beaches in the United States.
In Pennsylvania, qPCR is used in the event of a preemptive advisory issued by the Presque Isle Beach manager to
confirm within four hours that E. coli concentrations warrant issuing an advisory.2 Advisories or restrictions based on
monitoring data in Pennsylvania, however, are determined solely by using the standard culture-based method, not by
qPCR analysis.
Puerto Rico and a number of states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and
Rhode Island, have participated in the EPA’s National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational
(NEEAR) Water Studies. These studies, which were urged on by an agreement that resulted from an NRDC lawsuit
against the EPA for failing to fulfill the terms of the BEACH Act, are being conducted to help gain a better understand
ing of bacterial indicators, swimming at the beach, and people’s health. Beachgoers are interviewed and water samples
are collected and analyzed for bacteria using several analysis methods, including rapid testing. In addition to the NEEAR
project, several states have conducted their own studies of rapid test methods. California has invested an estimated
$3 million in rapid test method investigations, and other states that have conducted or participated in rapid test method
research outside of the NEEAR studies include Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Beachwater quality generally depends on many complex factors, but for some beaches, predictions of beachwater
quality based on a few physical measurements of daily conditions can be fairly accurately calculated. Some states have
taken advantage of this and have created computer models that rely on data from physical measurements such as
rainfall levels, wind speed and direction, tides, wave heights, and currents. These models rapidly prepare predictions
of beachwater quality and allow beaches to be closed or placed under advisory the day that bacterial levels are
expected to be high, rather than 24 hours after high levels of bacteria are present. States using computer models to
inform closing and advisory decisions for at least some of their beaches in 2009 were California, Illinois, Indiana, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Other states, including Rhode Island, Michigan, and New Hampshire, are
gathering data and investigating the use of beachwater quality computer models for at least some of their beaches.
Because the water quality at many beaches is adversely impacted by contaminated stormwater runoff, another,
less sophisticated means of protecting public health is to preemptively close beaches or issue advisories when indicator
bacteria levels are expected to be high after rainfall events. Twelve states reported preemptive rainfall closures or
advisories at specific beaches in 2009: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Many states report that they have developed standards for
issuing preemptive rainfall advisories based on rainfall intensity or some other rain-related factor for at least some of
their eaches. States with quantitative rainfall standards include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Rainfall
standards are under development in New Hampshire. Some states, including California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Rhode
Island, and Washington, issue standing advisories warning the public to avoid beachwater contact after heavy rainfall or
when storm drains are running. These standing advisories are not reported in the closing and advisory data that the states
send the EPA. In North Carolina, standing rainfall advisories take the form of permanent signs posted on either side of
Major Findings
This section provides a national perspective on the major findings of NRDC’s Testing the Waters report regarding 2009
beachwater quality, closings and advisories, and the sources of pollution that caused them. For more information on
state programs and specific beaches, consult the individual state summaries.
• 74% (13,801 days) were based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding beachwater quality standards (an
increase from 73% in 2008, 71% in 2007, and 68% in 2006).
Figure N-3. Total Closing/Advisory Days, 2000–2009 (Excluding Extended and Permanent)
30 3.0
25
Thousands of Beaches Monitored
2.5
Beaches monitored
at least weekly 18.68
20
2.0
15
1.5
10
1.0
5
0 0.5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Because of inconsistencies in monitoring and closing/advisory practices among states and the different levels of data submission
over time, it is difficult to make comparisons between states or to assess trends based on the closing/advisory data.
• 2% (412) were due to other causes, such as dredging and algal blooms (unchanged from 2008 and 2007 levels).
• 1% (265 days) were in response to known pollution events, such as sewage treatment plant failures or breaks in sewage
pipes. In other words, in these cases localities did not wait for monitoring results to decide whether to close beaches or
issue advisories (no change from 1% in 2008, and down from 3% in 2007 and 2006).
100%
90%
80% 74%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
21%
20%
10%
1% 2% <1% 2%
0%
Preemptive due In response to Based on monitoring Other reason Predictive modeling No data
to rain known to known pollution that detected
carry pollution to event without relying bacteria levels
swimming waters on monitoring exceeding standard
30
25 A-Monitoring
Thousands of Closing/Advisory Days
B-Response
C-Preemptive Rainfall
D-Other
20
E-Modeling
15
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Key: (A) Based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standards. (B) In response to known pollution event without
relying on monitoring. (C) Preemptive due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters. (D) Other reason. (E) Real-time,
predictive computer modeling.
Major pollution sources listed as responsible for 2009 beach closings and advisories include the following. The total
is greater than 18,682 days and 100% because more than one source contributed to some beach closings and advisories
(see Figure N-6).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 53%
50%
39%
40%
30%
20%
9% 10% 9%
10%
0%
Unknown Polluted runoff, Sewage spills Other Wildlife
stormwater, and overflows (excluding wildlife)
or preemptive
due to rain
Total exceeds 100 percent because more than one source of contamination was reported for some events.
30
A-Sewage
Thousands of Closing/Advisory Days
25 B-Rain/Runoff/Stormwater
C-Unknown
D-Other
20
15
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total days shown are greater than annual totals because more than one pollution source may have contributed to each closing/
advisory. Key: (A) Sewage spills and overflows. (B) Polluted runoff, stormwater, or preemptive due to rain. (C) Unknown. (D) Other
reasons (including those with no source information provided).
• Polluted runoff and stormwater caused or contributed to 7,282 closing/advisory days (39%) in 2009, a decrease from
7,324 days (36%) in 2008 and 10,394 days (40%) in 2007.
• Sewage spills and overflows caused or contributed to 1,667 closing/advisory days (9%) in 2009, a decrease from 1,710
days (8%) in 2008, and 4,097 days (16%) in 2007 (includes combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, breaks
or blockages in sewer lines, and faulty septic systems);
• Elevated bacteria levels from miscellaneous sources, such as boat discharges or wildlife, accounted for 3,184 closing/
advisory days (17%) in 2009, an increase from 2,137 days (11%) in 2008 and 3,087 days (12%) in 2007. More than
half were wildlife sources (an increase to 1,704 days in 2009 from 1,588 days in 2008).
Beachwater Quality
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC used the percentage of all beachwater samples collected in 2009 that exceeded the
BEACH Act’s single-sample maximum standards for designated beach areas to compare water quality at beaches ringing
our nation from the Pacific Northwest to Southern California, from New England to the Florida Keys, and all along the
U.S. Great Lakes shoreline. For marine waters, the standard for enterococcus density is 104 per 100 milliliters (ml); for
freshwater, the standard is 235 E. coli per 100 ml.
For the 2009 beach season, the NRDC data set includes monitoring results for 126,551 samples at 3,333 beaches and
beach segments (most state and local officials divide longer beaches into manageable monitoring segments), down from
132,465 samples at 3,601 beaches and beach segments in 2008, 131,977 samples at 3,516 beaches and beach segments
in 2007, and 106,417 samples at 3,500 beaches and beach segments in 2006. The percent of all samples exceeding
national health standards remained generally unchanged at 7% from 2007 through 2009, down from 9% in 2006.
(Note: to make this four-year comparison, NRDC includes only the 2,655 beaches reported in each of these four years.)
In 2009, beaches in Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Illinois had the highest percent of samples exceeding the EPA’S single-
sample maximum standard for designated beach areas. It is important to note that while a high percent exceedance rate is a
clear indication of dirty coastal recreational waters, it is not necessarily an indication that the state’s beachwater quality
monitoring program is deficient or fails to protect public health when beachwater quality is poor. For example, four of the
five states with the dirtiest beachwater always or almost always close a beach or issue an advisory when a sample exceeds the
standard; that is, they do not wait for the results of a resample or check other conditions first, as some other states do. (Only
a few states generally resample before issuing an advisory: Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington.) Three of the four
states with the highest exceedance rates have among the highest percent of Tier 1 beaches, which are monitored more
frequently than once a week (Tier 1 beaches are pop
ular and/or have known pollution sources in the Figure N-8. Percent Exceedance for All Coastal and
vicinity of the beach), a practice that is more pro Great Lakes States Combined, 2006–2009 (Based
tective of human health. on 2,655 Beaches Reported in Each of the 4 Years)
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC highlighted
beaches exceeding the national daily standard more 10%
than 25% of the time. In 2009, this list included
8%
162 beaches in 20 states: AL, CA, CT, FL, HI, IL,
Exceedance
Notes
1 NRDC reports closing/advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less. Extended events (lasting between 7 and 13 consecutive weeks)
and permanent events (lasting more than 13 consecutive weeks) are reported separately and are not included in this total.
2 Doug Range, Erie County Department of Health, personal communication, June 2009.
URBAN RUNOFF
The EPA estimates that more than 10 trillion gallons of untreated stormwater make their way into our surface waters
each year.1 Contaminated urban stormwater contributes to the degradation of many of our nation’s polluted rivers,
estuaries and lakes and is a significant source of bathing-beach pollution in many regions.2
Stormwater runoff starts as rain or snowmelt. As it washes over roads, rooftops, parking lots, construction sites, and
lawns, it becomes contaminated with oil and grease, pesticides, litter, and pollutants from vehicles. On its way to storm
drains, it also can pick up fecal matter from dogs, cats, pigeons, other urban animals, and even humans. In Los Angeles
County, for instance, the sewer system is separate from the storm drain system, yet storm drains leading to Santa Monica
Bay have been found to contain human enteric viruses, indicating the presence of human waste.3 Human waste may also
find its way into storm drain systems from adjacent sewage pipes that leak, or from businesses or residences that have
illegally connected their sewage discharge to the storm drains. Illicit discharges also occur when people empty holding
tanks from recreational vehicles and trailers into storm drains.
Stormwater runoff is not the only type of urban runoff that can carry bacterial pollution to the coast. In dry weather,
runoff occurs as a result of landscape irrigation, the draining of swimming pools, car washing, and various commercial
activities. Even though it is much smaller in volume than stormwater runoff, dry weather runoff can be a significant
source of beachwater contamination, especially along the coast of California, which is usually dry during the summer
when the beaches are most heavily used.
Elevated levels of bacterial pollution correlate to increased illness rates among swimmers. For example, one Southern
California study showed the direct effect on coastal water quality of urban runoff draining from the Santa Ana River:
where the river meets the ocean, fecal indicator bacteria concentrations were found to be as much as 500% above
California’s ocean bathing water standards.4 (For a full discussion of the health and economic effects of beachwater
pollution, see Chapter 2).
The amount of pollution present in urban runoff tends to correlate with the amount of impervious cover. Impervious
cover is anything that stops water from soaking into the ground, like roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings. A
HUMAN SEWAGE
Sewage overflows from aging sanitary and combined sewer systems, leaking sewage pipes, and malfunctioning sewage
treatment plants and pump stations have always been a major cause of pollution at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches.
As demonstrated at Rancho Santa Margarita, California in March of 2010, a single ruptured sewer line can quickly spill
hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage into coastal waters and result in contaminated beachwater along
miles of beaches.9
Figure 1-1. A Rough Illustration of the Prevalence of Combined Sewer Systems in the United States10
Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Discharges from Sewer-Line Breaks: Sanitary sewer systems carry human and
industrial waste from buildings to sewage treatment plants where it is treated. These sewer systems can discharge
untreated sewage when the treatment plants are overwhelmed or malfunction or when sewer lines break, posing a threat
to bathing beach safety.
Separate sanitary sewers serve approximately 164 million people nationwide.16 Although most of these systems were
built more recently than the combined sewer systems,
they are aging and deteriorating rapidly.17 A nationwide Sanitary sewer overflows discharge
survey of 42 treatment plants found some that have been between 3 billion to 10 billion gallons
in use for as long as 117 years; the average is 33 years.18 As of untreated sewage per year.
population and sewer load increases and rehabilitation
and maintenance schedules lag, pipes can deteriorate and break, spilling sewage directly onto streets or into waterways.
The EPA has estimated that 23,000 to 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) occur annually, discharging a total of
3 billion to 10 billion gallons per year.19
Nearly 70% of sewage overflows from human-waste sewage lines are due to obstructions such as tree roots or grease
clogs, line breaks, and mechanical failures.20 Wet weather places demands on sanitary sewer systems even though these
systems do not treat stormwater runoff. This is because even when there are no improper connections between storm
water and sanitary sewers, water seeps through manholes and into the sewer lines and also falls onto the surface of the
treatment units during rain events. This can lead to the discharge of raw sewage from manholes, overflowing pipes, and
treatment-plant bypasses. Although only 26% of sanitary sewer overflows nationwide were caused by wet weather events
and related inflow and infiltration, these events accounted for nearly 75% of the total SSO volume discharged.21 In
January 2001, the EPA proposed SSO regulations that would have required improved capacity, operation, and main
tenance as well as public notification when overflows occur. The Bush administration shelved this initiative, but the
Obama administration’s EPA recently announced that it is considering a suite of actions to address SSOs.22
Inadequately Treated Sewage: Sewage plants near coastal waters tend to serve densely populated, rapidly growing
urban areas. When too many homes and businesses are hooked up to a sewage treatment plant, the plant is prone to
more frequent bypasses and inadequate treatment. Moreover, sewage treatment plants can, and often do, malfunction
as the result of human error, breakage of old equipment, or unusual conditions in the raw sewage. When that happens,
raw or partially treated sewage may be discharged into coastal waterways and their tributaries. Some sewage systems also
bypass all or a portion of their treatment plants when flows exceed capacity during rain events. This practice can also put
pathogens in waterways and should be phased out.
Under section 301(h) of the federal Clean Water Act, sewage treatment plants may obtain a waiver allowing them
to forgo basic federal secondary treatment requirements, discharging into marine waters wastes that have undergone
only primary treatment. Releasing primary-treated sewage into water bodies degrades receiving waters and poses serious
risks to public health and the marine ecosystem. The vast majority of pathogens are not removed by primary treatment
of wastewater.23 For example, 85% of Shigella bacteria, 85–100% of Salmonella, 50–100% of Entamoeba histolytica, and
more than 90% of fecal coliform may remain in wastewater even after primary treatment.24 In contrast, secondary
treatment removes suspended solids in the waste stream and is significantly more effective than primary treatment in
Septic Systems
About one-third of new construction and 25% of existing U.S. dwellings use some kind of septic tank or on-site waste
disposal system.27 If not sited, built, and maintained properly, septic systems near the coast can leach wastewater into
coastal recreational waters, contaminating bathing beaches with fecal matter. Malfunctioning septic systems at just a few
near-shore properties can result in beachwater contamination that is significant enough to trigger a beach closure. Runoff
can also carry bacteria from failing inland septic systems into streams that empty into recreational waters. Unfortunately,
homeowners often do not adequately maintain their septic systems. “Studies reviewed by [the EPA] cite failure rates
ranging from 10–20%.”28 Despite this, there is no federal regulatory program to control waste from septic systems, and
local governments and states rarely inspect these systems sufficiently to prevent septic system failures.
Boating Waste
Marinas are generally located in areas that are naturally sheltered or where a breakwater has been constructed. This shelter
results in reduced circulation of clean water around the docks, which allows boating waste to accumulate and pose a serious
health threat. Also, waste may also be discharged improperly from boats that are in use, posing a health and aesthetic
threat to bathing beaches. Elevated concentrations of fecal coliform have been found in areas with high boating density.29
Federal law requires boats with onboard toilets either to treat the waste with chemicals before discharging it or to hold the
waste and later pump it out into a sewage treatment plant. Also, the federal Clean Vessel Act (CVA) of 1992 provides federal
grant money to states for building pump-out and dump stations in marinas so boaters can dispose of human wastes in an
environmentally sound manner.30 However, there is limited oversight of the adequacy of pump-out facilities in many areas.31
Military warships are not subject to the federal law requiring storage or treatment of human wastes before discharging them.
BEACHGOERS
In the 2005 study “Outbreaks Associated With Recreational Water in the United States,” researchers found that bathers
themselves are an important localized source of contamination leading to illness outbreaks.32 All swimmers release fecal
organisms when they enter the water in a process called bather shedding. Results from one study showed that bathers
shed on the order of 600,000 colony-forming units, or cfu, per person of enterococci bacteria during the first 15 minutes
of water contact.33 Beachgoers who swim while ill can spread diseases to other bathers. Fecal accidents are also a health
risk, as are diaper-aged children if care isn’t taken to ensure that their wastes are kept from entering the water. The
presence of E. coli and coliform bacteria has been shown to correlate to the number of visitors and periods of high
recreational use (generally the summer and weekends).34
Municipalities sometimes list waterfowl as the cause of beach closings or advisories. During migration season, large or
excessive populations of waterfowl can gather at beaches or in suburban areas that drain into recreational waters. These
dense clusters can occur when other potential waterfowl habitats are unavailable, often because wetlands have been filled
or ecological conditions have been altered (for example, when Canada geese that were previously migratory become
resident). Seagulls are a source of bacterial contamination at some coastal beaches.
Pet waste deposited on or near the beach also carries pathogens that can wind up in beachwater when pet owners do not
pick up and properly dispose of their pet’s waste. The fecal matter from these animals can overload the normal capacity of a
beach to absorb wastes, degrading water quality, particularly if there is no vegetation around the waterway to absorb the waste.
Runoff from farms and animal feeding operations may contain high concentrations of pathogenic animal waste, fertilizers, and
pesticides. Agricultural pollution is responsible for nearly 40% of all water quality problems in the country’s polluted rivers and
streams.35 The production of farm animals has increasingly shifted toward huge, industrial-scale operations where large numbers
of animals are confined together. These confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) often produce vast quantities of manure
that far exceed the assimilation capacity of neighboring crops and pastures and have been estimated to be a contributing source
in 20% of impaired rivers and streams.36 Animal waste from large feedlots has been linked to outbreaks of a toxic micro
organism, Pfiesteria piscicida,in the Chesapeake Bay region and in North Carolina, causing numerous waterway closings and
serious human and aquatic health impacts. Animal waste can also contain pathogens usually not found in human waste, such
as E. coli 0157:H7, which contaminated baby spinach in 2006 and resulted in 205 confirmed illnesses and three deaths.37
Beachwater quality is generally adversely affected by increased rainfall. Scientists agree that in many regions of the United
States, climate change will cause increased frequency and magnitude of rain and large storms; increased runoff, coastal
flooding, and coastal erosion; and warmer water and air temperatures.38 These changes will exacerbate existing causes of
beachwater pollution that threaten public health. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that “[w]ater-
borne diseases and degraded water quality are very likely to increase with more heavy precipitation.”39
The number and intensity of combined sewer overflow events is directly related to climate—especially increased precipi
tation, which causes greater runoff.40 As more high-intensity rainfall events occur, the risk increases that combined sewer
systems will overload, discharging untreated stormwater runoff and wastewater directly into lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Global climate change is predicted to increase the amount of rainfall in the Great Lakes region and the Northeastern
United States. Since these are the regions where the
majority of combined sewer systems are concentrated, an
The IPCC found that “[w]ater-borne
increase in CSOs can be expected.41 Indeed, in the Great diseases and degraded water quality
Lakes region, climate modeling predicts that the regional are very likely to increase with more
average annual CSO frequency between 2060 and 2099
heavy precipitation.”
will increase between 13% and 70%.42 Given the
uncertainty in predicting future climate, communities must decide whether to ensure mitigation effectiveness based on
predicted changes, or face potentially significant retrofit costs in the future to maintain effective mitigation.
Even in areas that have separate sewer systems, like much of the West, an increase in extreme rainfall events can still lead
to more pollution in coastal waters via increased stormwater runoff. For instance, in California, warmer temperatures can
mean more winter precipitation that falls as rain and less that falls as snow, leading to more winter runoff.43 More winter
runoff over saturated soils will result in larger sediment flows and more bacteria in beachwaters.44
In some coastal areas, the impacts of stormwater runoff on beachwater quality are mitigated by tidal wetlands that
filter the runoff before it is discharged to coastal waters. Climate change is predicted to result in a rise in sea levels that
will submerge these tidal wetlands.
Climate change is also expected to result in an increase in the population of some disease-causing organisms in coastal
waters and might already be expanding the range of harmful algal blooms in some parts of the country, as discussed in
the Health Effects section of Chapter 2.
Notes
1 EPA, “Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs,” April 26, 2004, EPA 833-R-04-001, p. 4-29, available at: http://cfpub.epa
.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm.
2 EPA, “National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle,” EPA 841-R-08-001, January 2009.
3 Bartlett, Gold, McGee, and Deets, “Pathogens and Indicators in Storm Drains Within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed,” Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project, 1992, p. 18. See also R. Haile et al., “An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica
Bay,” Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1996.
There is usually a delay of several days to two weeks between contact with contaminated water and expression of
symptoms, and most people who get sick from swimming are not aware of the link. In Australia, a study of 600 families
over 15 months showed that ocean swimmers are nearly twice as likely as nonswimmers to suffer from a case of gastro
enteritis in the two weeks following their dip.4
Since 1971, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the EPA, and the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists have worked to maintain the Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System for collecting and
reporting waterborne diseases and outbreak-related data. Their most recent report, released in 2008, summarizes findings
for January 2005–December 2006. During this survey period, 78 waterborne disease outbreaks were reported. These
outbreaks caused illness in 4,412 people, resulting in 116 hospitalizations and 5 deaths. The CDC concluded that this
was the largest number of outbreaks reported to them in a two-year period. The increase is attributed to “a combination
of factors, such as the emergence of pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium), increased participation in aquatic activities,” and
better reporting.5
Because the CDC relies on voluntary reporting of outbreaks, not individual illnesses, the incidences may be much
higher than those cases accounted for. In addition, outbreaks of gastroenteritis associated with large venues that draw
[Researchers] compared rates of reported health symptoms among surfers in urban North Orange County (NOC) and rural
Santa Cruz County (SCC), California, during two winters (1998 and 1999) to determine whether symptoms were associated
with exposure to urban runoff. NOC participants reported almost twice as many symptoms as SCC participants during the
1998 winter. In both study years, risk increased across symptom categories by an average of 10% for each 2.5 hours of weekly
water exposure. [Their] findings suggest that discharging untreated urban runoff onto public beaches can pose health risks.9
60 100
50 Number of cases
Rainfall 80
40
Number of cases
60
Rainfall (ml)
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
May 1 May 4 May 7 May 10 May 13 May 16 May 19 May 22 May 25 May 28 May 31
The graph shows the relationship between unusually heavy rainfall and the number of confirmed cases of E. coli infection that
occurred during a massive disease outbreak in Ontario, Quebec, in May 2000. The incubation period for E. coli is usually three to
four days, which is consistent with the lag between extreme precipitation events and surges in the number of cases. Source: Amy
Greer, Victoria Ng, and David Fisman, “Climate Change and Infectious Diseases in North America: The Road Ahead,” CMAJ, March 11, 2008, 178(6):
715–722.
seafood contaminated by algal toxins.21 Toxins produced by harmful algae can aerosolize and cause respiratory distress
even in beach visitors who do not enter the water.
The incidence of HABs has increased dramatically over the past 30 years (see Figure 2-2).22 Indeed, analyzing data
over nearly 50 years from the southwest coast of Florida, researchers at the University of Miami determined that K. brevis
red tides are occurring with greater frequency, closer to shore, and during more months of the year. They attribute this
phenomenon to greater inputs of nutrients into coastal waters due to increased agricultural runoff and sewage discharges
in the watershed over that time period.23 K. brevis red tides are also becoming more common elsewhere in the Gulf of
Mexico. For example, along the Texas coast, red tide blooms occurred in all but one year between 1995 and 2002.24 In
August and September of 2007, red tides occurred off the coast of Delaware, the first documented occurrence of K. brevis
north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.25
While red tides are a natural phenomenon, they are exacerbated by human impacts such as nutrient overloads into
coastal waters, which spur their growth. Land use and development practices along coastlines and in watersheds can
lead to increased runoff into water bodies and result in a greater number of red tide events. Man-made alterations to
hydrology, such as dredging and filling, can slow water circulation and thus impede the ability of the water body to
cleanse itself of harmful algae. Filter-feeding shellfish serve as natural cleansers of phytoplankton, so human activities
that diminish shellfish populations reduce an ecosystem’s capacity to naturally cleanse itself of toxic algae.
Pre-1972 2002
Pfiesteria complex
NSP
NSP Ciguatera
PSP
PSP Brown tide
Fish kills
Fish kills ASP
Ciguatera
HI Occasional anoxia
Occasional anoxia PR HI PR
DSP (unconfirmed)
Marine mammal mortalities (whales,
manatees, sea lions, dolphins)
Noxious blooms (aesthetics)
Macro algal blooms
Abbreviations: NSP: Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning, PSP: Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, ASP: Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, and
DSP: Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning. Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Bad Water 2009: The Impact on Human Health in the Chesapeake
Bay Region,” July 2009, p. 9. Source: Anderson, D.M., “Harmful Algal Blooms: An Expanding Problem in the U.S. Coastal Zone,” Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, presented to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy at the Northeast Regional Meeting July 23–24, 2002, Boston, MA,
available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov/meetings/jul23_24_02/anderson_testimony.pdf.
Advisories, Closings, and Notices Issued at Beaches Due to Oil Spil in the Gulf
Since the April 20, 2010 explosion and subsequent failure of emergency containment measures at the Deepwater
Horizon oil rig, hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. Damage to Gulf and
shoreline life and the people who depend on these resources has been profound.
As of July 15, the federal government had prohibited commercial and recreational fishing across an
83,927 square mile area, representing roughly 35% of the Gulf.a The likely economic impact of this closure
is hard to overstate; according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
In 2008, commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico harvested 1.27 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish
that earned $659 million in total landings revenue.
There were 3.2 million recreational fishermen who took a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico region, and
they took 24 million fishing trips in 2008.b
The spill is also harming shoreline recreation, as oil washes ashore at Gulf Coast beaches in Alabama,
Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi (at the time of this writing, beaches in Texas have been only minimally
affected). State and local officials have issued beach advisories, closures, and notices in response to oil on
beaches and in coastal waters, because exposure to this oil can cause a variety of adverse human health
effects. Besides being a beloved source of recreation for local residents, tourism at these beaches is an
important part of the region’s economy. In 2004 alone, tourism and recreation contributed $26.5 billion to
the GDP for the Gulf region (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas) and eastern Florida.
Tourists are being driven away by the specter of oil “mousse,” tar balls, tar mats and even liquid oil on the
sand and in the water. Unfortunately, there has been a dearth of accurate and comprehensive information about
which beaches have been affected by the oil spill. This information is important not only to those contemplating
a visit to the Gulf, but for understanding the impacts of the spill. Accordingly, NRDC, as part of this year’s
Testing the Waters effort, has tracked the history of oil spill-related beach closures, advisories, and notices in
the areas that have been affected by the oil spill. This information is available online at http://www.nrdc.org/
energy/gulfspill/beaches.asp, and is regularly updated.
Pulling this information together is challenging. Information is spotty, dynamic, and sometimes hard to come
by, as the status of local beaches is reported typically at the local government level. But NRDC has made every
effort to use a combination of official websites as well as telephone calls to local officials to create an inter
active, map-based picture of where beaches have been closed or advisories issued related to oil. The good
news is that many beaches remain open; the bad news is that far too many have been affected.
As of July 23, 2010, 49 of the 253 beach segments that are monitored for bacteria in Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, and western Florida have had oil spill-related closures, advisories, and notices. Up to that date,
these beaches have had a total of 1,755 days of closings, advisories, and notices related to the oil spill, com
pared with 205 closing and advisory days at this time last year for any reason.
a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10-064,
BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico, July 13, 2010, available at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-064_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_071310.pdf.
b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA’s Oil Spill Response: Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, available at http://response.restoration.
noaa.gov/book_shelf/1886_Fish-Stocks-Gulf-fact-sheetv2.pdf.
climate change might be expanding the range of a few new toxic species of algae into the estuary, and causing others to bloom
earlier, according to a 2008 report by a scientific advisory committee of the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. For example, a
toxic alga normally associated with Florida and the Gulf Coast, Alexandrium monilatum, in 2007 was believed to have been
responsible for killing whelks (a species of sea snail) in the York River in Virginia. It was the first known bloom in this area, and
it represented a potential shift northward, according to the EPA committee report. A large bloom of a toxic alga normally found
in the Caribbean Sea, Cochlodinium polykrikoides, killed young fish and oysters in the lower Chesapeake Bay in August 2007.31
Efforts to deal with red tides have focused on mitigating the effects of these events, primarily through improved
systems to monitor for harmful algal blooms, educate and communicate the risks to the general population, and learn
more about the causes of harmful algal blooms and how they affect humans and aquatic life. Other techniques to
prevent HABs involve restricting the movement of harmful algal species via the shellfish market and ship ballast water.
For example, ballast water may be heated or chemically treated to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and
trade may be restricted in shellfish from areas experiencing red tides. Strong efforts need to be made to control nutrient
pollution from nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural runoff and septic tank runoff ) as well as from point sources (e.g.,
sewage treatment and aquaculture facilities) to reduce the number of red tide events.32
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Beaches, rivers, and lakes are the number one vacation destination for Americans; about one-fourth of the population
goes swimming in our waterways every year. Approximately 85% of all U.S. tourism revenue is received in coastal states.
Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips annually—or an average of approximately six trips per person per year—to
$15 140
135.4
Gross domestic product
$13.74 120
Jobs generated by geographic area
$12
Millions of jobs
$9
80
$7.85
69.2 60
$6 $6.68
57.0
$5.57
47.1 40
$3
20
$0 0
Total Total Coastal Watershed Coastal Zone Shoreline-Adjacent
U.S. Economy Coastal States Counties Counties Counties
Source: National Ocean Economics Program, Market Data, Ocean Economy Data, accessed at http://noep.mbari.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp in
July 2009.
Nutrient pollution in runoff plays a role in one of the Type of Illness Cost Per Illness
most serious coastal pollution threats these industries face: Gastrointestinal Illness $36.58
the creation of “dead zones.” Besides posinf a pathogenic Acute Respiratory Disease $76.76
threat to swimmers from urban and agricultural runoff, Ear Ailment $37.86
sewage, and animal wastes, these streams are rich in Eye Ailment $27.31
nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous. When excessive Source: Ryan H. Dwight, Linda M. Fernandez, Dean B. Baker, Jan
nutrients are discharged into aquatic ecosystems, C. Semenza, and Betty H. Olson, “Estimating the Economic Burden
from Illnesses Associated with Recreational Coastal Water Pollution:
eutrophication occurs and aquatic plants become more A Case Study in Orange County, California,” in Journal of Environmental
abundant. As these plants die, they sink to the bottom Management, 76 (2): 95–103, 2005, p.1–9.
Plan of Action
When NRDC first issued Testing the Waters in 1991, most beaches in the United States were rarely, if ever, monitored
for pollution, and the public was usually not informed whether the beaches were safe for swimming. That situation
has improved considerably due to years of public education and advocacy by NRDC and other public health and
environmental organizations. While concerns about the adequacy of water quality standards and water quality test
methods remain, the NRDC has largely shifted its focus to addressing the sources of beachwater pollution.
Strategies for reducing contamination carried by stormwater runoff fall into three categories: stormwater reduction,
stormwater treatment, and reduction of the sources of contamination in stormwater.
Stormwater Treatment
There are many means of treating stormwater to reduce bacterial contaminants, such as installing filters into outfall catch
basins and using UV disinfection. In North Carolina, a $1.1 million treatment unit for treating bacteria in a stormwater
outfall began operating in Dare County in the fall of 2009. In this system, the stormwater enters a central chamber and
is routed to an outfall at the beach after passing through filters lining the central chamber. The water quality from this unit
will be monitored, and if the device is successful, more of these units will be installed statewide.5
A stormwater treatment system installed in Racine, Wisconsin, is pleasing to the eye in addition to being a very
effective means of improving beachwater quality. In late 2000, a reengineering effort began on a stormwater outfall
(a) Installation of a system for (b) The infiltration/evaporation basins (c) The infiltration/evaporation basins
removal of solids from stormwater. after planting with native wetland as they appear today.
The photo was taken in late 2000. species.
Source: Kinzelman, J., City of Racine Health Department, personal communication, July 2009.
Preventing Contamination
EPA regulations require cities and industrial and construction sites to obtain permits, develop stormwater management
plans, and implement best management practices to control pollutants in stormwater runoff. However, only limited
progress has been made to date. Vigorous implementation and enforcement and ambitious pollutant reduction goals
are necessary to make this effort successful.
Although the EPA’s combined sewer overflow policy has been in place since 1994, many of the roughly 772 communities
nationwide that are served by combined stormwater and sewage systems have not yet begun implementation of a long-
term plan to control combined sewer overflows and to include in such plans low-impact development approaches that
provide more environmental benefits per dollar expended.11
Sanitary sewer overflows are illegal, yet the EPA has estimated that there are more than 23,000 sanitary sewer over
flows every year into rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters.12 The EPA needs to enhance its implementation and
enforcement of this provision of the law. Also, the “ocean waiver” provision of the Clean Water Act gives the EPA
administrator the authority to grant sewage treatment plants a waiver from secondary treatment requirements. The
City of San Diego’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant has been granted such a waiver since 1995. The waiver
was renewed in 2002 and again in 2010.13 This waiver allows the treatment plant to discharge up to 240 million gallons
a month of sewage that has not undergone secondary treatment through its ocean outfall.14
The EPA needs to plug the loopholes that allow industrial livestock operations to continue to discharge animal wastes
into waterways. The EPA estimates that confined livestock produce about three times the amount of waste as people do
nationwide; however, these facilities lack treatment facilities for livestock waste even remotely comparable to those that
treat human sewage.18 Moreover, many large feedlot operations historically avoided getting Clean Water Act permits,
something made easier by lax federal regulation. The EPA needs to revise its rules to close the loopholes and require all
large feedlots to keep animal waste out of waterways. Right now, the public is bearing the true cost of these feedlots
because of their degradation of water quality.
When a sewer overflow threatens beachwater quality, there needs to be immediate communication between those respon
sible for the overflow and those charged with protecting public health. The public has the right to know that an overflow
or discharge has occurred and should be informed when it happens, not several days later, after beachwater monitoring
Often, manmade modifications and activities that are intended to make a beach more attractive or accessible to visitors
backfire because they are conducive to poor water quality. Breakwaters, for example, make water less turbulent for
swimmers, but they also reduce natural water circulation and trap polluted waters in areas where bathers congregate.
Ironically, many “mother’s beaches” that are frequented by families with small children because of their quiet waters are
prone to exceeding water quality standards. From a water quality standpoint, beach infrastructure that interferes with
water exchange is undesirable.
The beaches in East San Pedro Bay along Long Beach, California, illustrate the impact that infrastructure designed to
reduce waves can have on beaches. After considering a reconnaissance phase analysis, the Army Corps of Engineers has
leant its support of further study concerning the reconfiguration of the 2.2-mile breakwater off the coast of this bay.20
This World War II-era breakwater has been blamed for trapping water pollution from various sources, including the
Los Angeles River, resulting in water quality exceedances at the beaches as well as wreaking ecological damage to the near-
coast environment. The reconnaissance analysis estimated that the “maximum improvement scenario” for reconfiguring the
breakwater could result in “increases of approximately $52 million per year in local spending and economic activity, and
nearly $7 million per year in taxes and parking fees” because of the increased recreational value of the Long Beach shoreline.21
A beach amenity that can contribute to degradation of beachwater is parking lots. Parking lots are often constructed at
the edge of beaches for ease of access, but pavement prevents water from soaking into the ground when it rains. Simple
strategies like separating roads and parking lots from the beach with a strip of vegetation can prevent contaminated
runoff from reaching the beachwater.
Waterfowl also contribute to pollution. Birds are attracted by food sources, including handouts from misguided
visitors as well as trash left on beaches and in overflowing garbage cans. Where there are birds there is fecal contamina
tion. Waterfowl congregate more freely when areas adjacent to beaches have been cleared of trees and bushes that would
provide cover for predators. Frequently, parking lots at the beach are attractive to shoreline birds as well as people, and
parking lot runoff washes fecal matter from the birds into the beachwater.
Beach maintenance strategies can have a huge impact on beachwater quality. Beachgoers might appreciate a long
expanse of relatively flat and tightly packed sand, but sand harbors bacteria,22 and beach grooming techniques that pack
and level the sand can increase the density of bacteria in sand.23 Switching to beach grooming techniques that deeply
groom the sand without leveling it can have a positive impact on beachwater quality.24
to humans, they indicate the likely presence of fecal contamination, are relatively easy to test for, and are typically found
in the presence of harmful pathogens. Testing for the full range of pathogens found in beachwater is difficult, partly
because if they are present they are at very low concentrations.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to develop water quality criteria for pollutants based on their impact
on human health and aquatic life. States then create limits, or standards, for these pollutants using the EPA’s recom
mended water quality criteria or other criteria that the EPA deems as protective. In 1986, the EPA developed criteria
for testing recreational waters using E. coli and enterococci bacteria as pathogen indicators in the Great Lakes (fresh)
waters, and enterococci as indicators in marine and fresh waters, based on prior scientific research (see Table 3-1).
As of 2000, only 11 states had adopted the 1986 criteria. Recognizing the need for consistent water quality criteria
at recreational beaches, Congress passed the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in
2000, amending the Clean Water Act to improve
beachwater quality monitoring programs and processes If a family of four were to swim once
for notifying the public of health risks from a week in June, July, and August
contamination at beaches. Under the BEACH Act, states
in ocean waters that just met the
were pushed to adopt standards based on the EPA’s 1986
criteria for pathogen indicators.25 In addition, the EPA EPA’s current bacteria standard, one
was required to complete studies on the human health member of the family would probably
effects of pathogens in coastal recreational waters and to become ill.
develop new criteria and methods for detecting pathogens
by 2005.26 The EPA did not meet this deadline. As a result of a settlement of an enforcement action brought by NRDC
four years ago to enforce the BEACH Act requirements, the EPA has conducted epidemiological studies and is now
analyzing data from those studies and studies conducted by others in order to set new water quality criteria. It is also
working to validate quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), a rapid test method.27
The gastrointestinal illness rates predicted by the fecal indicator bacteria concentrations set by the EPA in 1986 have
been confirmed throughout the world.28 However, the acceptable illness rate for full-body water contact that was used
when setting the standards is high. Under the levels set by the EPA in the 1986 criteria, 19 out of 1,000 people
swimming in ocean waters and 8 out of 1,000 swimmers in fresh waters just meeting these standards will become ill.29
Put another way, if a family of four were to swim once a week in the summer (June, July, and August) in ocean waters
that just meet the EPA’s standard, one member of the family would probably become ill. The EPA is committed to a
common level of risk protection in all waters of the United States that is at least as protective as the old standards as it
prepares its new standards.30 The new standards will probably be similar to the old standards in that they will have a
standard for a short-term measure of water quality and a longer-term measure as well.
According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the current water quality criteria have
other significant limitations.31 The GAO concluded that the current indicators may not identify all health risks. For instance,
the standards were developed primarily to address the risk of contracting gastroenteritis but not necessarily to address rashes,
earaches, pinkeye, respiratory infections, or very serious illnesses such as hepatitis and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
An epidemiological study at four Great Lakes beaches noted that rates of gastrointestinal illness correlated with enterococcus
levels, but other illnesses known to be associated with swimming did not.32 New standards being developed by the EPA will
focus on gastroenteritis, with other illnesses included if they are “significant and have indicators that reflect risk.”33
Monday morning: Collect water 24 to 48 hours: Samples are incubated Tuesday morning to Wednesday
samples. and tested. afternoon: Advisory/closure decision
made and public notified.
pilot tests of rapid test methods. For example, the City of Racine, Wisconsin, has been testing and piloting different
rapid detection technologies since 2006.44 In July of 2010, a pilot project was launched at several beaches in Orange
County, California, in order to demonstrate the use of qPCR for making beachwater quality warning decisions on the
same day a sample is taken. Traditional methods will be used to analyze the samples alongside qPCR analysis, but the
qPCR results will be used to determine whether or not warnings about beachwater quality will be issued and signs
posted at the pilot study beaches. This is the first use of a rapid test method for issuing beachwater quality notifications
at coastal beaches in the United States.
Beachwater quality generally depends on many complex factors, but for some beaches, predictions of beachwater
quality based on a few physical measurements of daily conditions can be fairly accurately calculated. Some states
have taken advantage of this and have created computer beachwater quality models that rely on data from physical
measurements such as rainfall levels, wind speed and direction, tides, wave heights, and currents. These models prepare
rapid predictions of beachwater quality and allow for beaches to be closed or placed under advisory the day that bacterial
levels are expected to be high, rather than 24 hours after samples with high bacteria concentrations are taken. The
importance of predictive models in protecting public health was illustrated by one local beach manager who demon
strated that at his or her beach, advisories and closings based on monitoring results were issued inaccurately 100%
of the time.45 In other words, samples taken when the beach was under advisory or closure due to the previous day’s
monitoring results showed that the beachwater quality met standards on the days that the beach was under advisory
or closure in every case.
Because the water quality at many beaches is adversely affected by stormwater runoff, another less sophisticated
means of protecting public health is to preemptively close beaches or issue advisories when indicator bacteria levels
are expected to be high after rainfall events. These preemptive rainfall advisories can be based on rainfall intensity or
some other rain-related factor. States should always provide adequate warnings to swimmers when there has been a
sewage spill.
Information about sources of contamination is invaluable in terms of addressing poor water quality, but determining
sources of contamination can take time, money, and expertise that beach managers do not have at their disposal. One
simple way to identify sources is to conduct a sanitary survey. Beach sanitary surveys involve collecting information at
the beach, and sometimes information about the surrounding watershed. Information collected at the beach may include
data regarding discharge from any outfalls, the number of birds at the site, the amount of litter, and the presence of
seaweed or algae. Information about the watershed may reflect land use, the use of residential septic tanks, and locations
of wastewater treatment facilities. After a pilot study of sanitary surveys was conducted at 36 beaches in Wisconsin, the
number of closing and advisory events attributed to unknown sources decreased from 84% to 24%.46 Sanitary surveys
Everyone can help reduce beachwater pollution. For example, we can all take steps to reduce the amount of water sent to
sewage treatment plants—which have the potential to overflow—and we can all play a part in reducing polluted runoff.
Individuals can also make a difference by becoming educated and expressing their desire for clean, healthy water. Below
are 10 simple actions individuals can take to improve our beachwater.
3. Conserve water.
Extra water overwhelms sewage treatment plants and contributes to raw sewage overflows. Here are some ways you can
reduce the amount of water you use at home:
• Scrape–don’t rinse–dirty dishes before loading them into the dishwasher.
• Do not let water run unnecessarily when brushing your teeth or shaving.
• Install a water-saving toilet to conserve thousands of gallons annually.
• Install faucet aerators and a water-efficient showerhead to cut the amount of water you use and to save energy by
reducing hot water use.
9. Support local, state, and federal legislation that promotes the cleanup of pollution
sources.
Write to your representatives and senators and let them know you support strong beach legislation and clean water
protections. Tell your local government to move forward quickly to address sewage overflows and stormwater. Make sure
you tell officials that you are willing to pay for programs to monitor beaches and reduce runoff pollution.
10. Learn about the water quality at local beaches and choose your beach carefully.
Go to NRDC’s vacation beaches website (www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp), the EPA’s Beach Advisory and
Closing Online Notification website (http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/beacon_national_page.main), or your local beach
manager (usually the local public health authority), all of which have data on beach monitoring and notification policies
and on closings and advisories. Also, to show your concern, ask the local beach manager the following questions: What
are the sources of pollution affecting the waters where I swim? What sort of water quality monitoring is performed at
these beaches? Are beaches always closed when monitoring shows that the bacterial standard is exceeded? What is the
current status of these waters (are they closed or open?), and what warning signs can I look for? Whenever possible, swim
at the beaches that your research shows have the cleanest waters or are carefully monitored with strict closure or advisory
procedures in effect. Stay away from beaches with visible discharge pipes, and avoid swimming at urban beaches after a
heavy rainfall.
For more ways you can prevent beachwater pollution visit NRDC’s Your Oceans website (http://oceans.nrdc.org/)
Notes
1 See NRDC’s report Rooftops to Rivers, http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftops/contents.asp
2 U.S. EPA, E-media kit, Hermosa Beach Strand Gets $1.3M in Recovery Act Funds For “Green” Improvements to Protect Pacific Ocean, January 8, 2010,
available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/F4C80640683FAFE4852576A5006A7F0D.
3 U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Redondo Beach celebrate stormwater pollution control project groundbreaking, February 9, 2010, available at http://yosemite.epa.
gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/400d957999f19b75852576c5006b0ae5!OpenDocument.
4 Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication, June 2010.
Beachwater Quality
Monitoring Programs
and State-by-State Results
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The BEACH Act authorizes the EPA to award grants to states for implementing programs to monitor coastal recreational
waters adjacent to beaches used by the public for compliance with the standards for pathogen indicators. Grant funds are
also used to notify the public promptly of any exceedances
through posting or equivalent means. Many states and localities supplement
While the BEACH Act authorizes $30 million a year their BEACH Act funding so that they
for state grants for monitoring and public notification,
appropriations have funded only about one-third of that can achieve the objectives of their
level each year. Since Fiscal Year 2002, EPA awarded beachwater monitoring program..
between $9.75 and $10 million in grants to states, tribes,
and territories. The allocations for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 are included in Table 4-1. Many states and localities
supplement their BEACH Act funding so that they can achieve the objectives of their beachwater monitoring programs.
Table 4-1. State Distribution of BEACH Act Funding for Beachwater Quality Monitoring and
Notification for 2009 and 2010
State or Territory 2009 Allocation 2010 Allocation
Alabama $262,000 $264,000
Alaska $150,000 $86,000
American Samoa $302,000 $303,000
California $517,000 $520,000
Connecticut $223,000 $225,000
Delaware $211,000 $212,000
Florida $528,000 $531,000
Georgia $286,000 $288,000
Guam $303,000 $304,000
Hawaii $323,000 $326,000
Illinois $243,000 $245,000
Indiana $206,000 $207,000
Louisiana $322,000 $323,000
Maine $255,000 $256,000
Maryland $269,000 $271,000
Massachusetts $254,000 $257,000
Monitoring
There is a considerable amount of variability among state beachwater monitoring protocols. Some states perform
additional monitoring after exceedances and when they expect beachwater to be contaminated. Others adhere to a
schedule that doesn’t vary with circumstances. Some states take multiple samples that are composited before analysis, or
analyze multiple samples and average the results before applying them to the water quality standard.
States also vary as to how often they sample. Some states monitor their high-priority beaches almost daily, while
other states monitor their high-priority beaches once or twice a week. Although the EPA has recommended daily
beach monitoring of high-priority beaches, some local governments have stated that they lack the necessary staff and
funding to carry this out. As a result, beaches may remain open during a contamination event that occurs between
sample collections.
STATE-BY-STATE RESULTS
The following pages contain the summaries of state beachwater quality standards, monitoring and closing/advisory
practices, and NRDC’s 2009 monitoring results and closings and advisories, listed alphabetically by state. It is impossible
to make direct comparisons between states or to assess trends over time on the basis of advisory and closure data. Standards,
monitoring, and closing/advisory practices vary from state to state, making it difficult to know, for example, whether
a state with many closings has vigilant health officials or has more coastal pollution. High numbers of closings and
advisories, while indicating pollution problems, may also
indicate that the state or county is making a good effort to High numbers of closings and
protect the public health by vigilantly monitoring its advisories may indicate that the state
waters and informing the public when they are polluted. or county is making a good effort
States with comprehensive programs and closure practices
should be commended for their efforts. to protect public health by vigilantly
The most meaningful way of comparing beachwater monitoring its waters and closing
quality between states or tracking it over time is to beaches when they are polluted.
compare the percent of monitoring samples taken at each
beach that exceed the single-sample maximum standard for designated beach areas. For the fifth consecutive year, thanks
to provisions of the BEACH Act that require the EPA to make beach monitoring data available from all states receiving
BEACH Act grants, NRDC was able to provide these values for beaches in all 30 coastal and Great Lakes states.
NRDC included U.S. territories for the purpose of comparing total closing/advisory days in the national overview
with earlier years. However, we do not prepare individual summaries for each territory as we do for each U.S. state; the
state summaries follow in this chapter.
Sources of Information
For the seventh consecutive year, our research for Testing the Waters is based primarily on the EPA’s electronic reporting
system designed to implement provisions of the federal BEACH Act. Information from the electronic reporting system
has been supplemented by NRDC surveys of state and local officials. Beach monitoring coordinators in nearly every state
cooperated with NRDC with a great deal of patience and grace and provided interesting and meaningful information for
this report. NRDC is thankful for their time and their openness.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: In this section, the state’s beach monitoring season is given along with the level of control that the
state’s program has over local beach monitoring and notification practices. Sampling protocols and factors the states use
to determine which beaches to monitor and how frequently to monitor them are also described. This section tells if a
state chooses to sample when and where the water quality is suspect, or if monitoring is conducted more frequently after
a closing or advisory is issued.
Results: This section describes the number of beaches monitored in the state and how frequently they are monitored.
For the fifth year in a row, NRDC was able to provide the percent of samples that exceeded state standards, in addition
to providing data on the percent of samples exceeding national standards. Information on monitoring frequency and
percent exceedance is organized by county with beaches in alphabetical order. For this section, NRDC calculated percent
exceedance by taking the number of samples exceeding the state’s daily maximum standards and dividing that number
by the total number of samples collected during the calendar year (replicate samples on the same day are each counted
as an individual sample). These exceedance determinations are used for tracking water quality over time; NRDC does
not compare these calculations with specific beach closings or advisories. The list of dirtiest beaches in the state excludes
beaches with less than 12 monitoring samples reported during the year.
This section also shows the trends in beachwater quality from 2006 to 2009. When making year-to-year comparisons,
NRDC only includes beaches that were sampled all four years. Thus, each state summary has three 2009 percent exceedance
rates that might not agree: one that was calculated based on national single-sample maximum water quality standards for desig
nated beach areas, one that was calculated based on the state’s single-sample maximum standard, and one that was calculated
based on the state’s single-sample maximum standard for the set of beaches that appear in all four years from 2006 to 2009.
FLORIDA
10th in Beachwater Quality
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
FL.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
For example, the EPA’s daily maximum bacterial standard for “designated beach areas” in marine waters is a desnity
of 104 enterococcus per 100 milliliters of beachwater. However, along with enterococcus, Florida beach officials also test
for the presence of fecal coliform. The state’s fecal coliform standard is 400 cfu/100ml. County officials can close a beach
or issue an advisory if either one of these standards is exceeded. In 2009, 5% of beachwater samples exceeded either the
federal enterococcus and/or the state fecal coliform standard, whereas 4% or samples exceeded only the federal entero
coccus standard. Florida’s national rank among the 30 states is based on the 4% exceedance rate. See Figure 4-1 for an
explanation of any differences you might see in a state’s 2009 percent exceedance values.
Number of closings and advisories: The total number of beach closing and advisory days for each beach is included in
the monitoring results table mentioned above. In an effort to be consistent in tabulating closings and advisories, NRDC
used the following guidelines:
Causes of closings and advisories: The EPA asks states to report a cause and a source for each closing and advisory
event. This information is given in this section. In 2008, some states began systematically reporting factors important in
diagnosing sources of contamination at some of their monitored beaches to the EPA based on sanitary surveys. Results
from this initial reporting effort are not included in the state summaries in this chapter as they are incomplete.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986. EPA440/5-84-002. January 1986.
Alabama has 97 coastal beaches stretching along 50 miles of Gulf Coast and 70 miles of bay and island shoreline.
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) administers the state’s beachwater quality moni
toring program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Monitoring is conducted throughout the year, with more frequent monitoring from May
to September.
ADEM determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices throughout
the state. Samples are collected 6 to 12 inches below the surface of the water, usually in knee-deep water. Monitoring
frequency is determined using a quantitative ranking scheme that
weighs three factors: the amount of use, a measure of risk, and the
presence of important factors such as high use by the elderly or the Alabama Percent Exceedance
for 25 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
very young.1
8% 8%
Once an exceedance is reported, samples are collected daily 7% 7% 8
until the standard is met.2 States that monitor more frequently
6
after an exceedance is found tend to have higher percent
exceedance rates and lower total advisory days than those that do 4
not alter their sampling schedule after an exceedance is reported.
2
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Alabama does not issue beach closings; the state’s policy is to issue advisories only.2 An
enterococcus single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100ml is the standard used to issue beach advisories in Alabama.
When a sample exceeds the standard, there are no overriding factors that can be taken into account before issuing
an advisory. Beaches are given green status when sampling results meet the standard. When sample results exceed the
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from
unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Baldwin County Health Department, Risk Based Beach Evaluation and Ranking, not dated.
2 Suzi Rice, Senior Environmental Scientist, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, personal communication, June 2010.
Alaska has nearly 34,000 miles of coastal shoreline. While low water temperatures discourage swimming, recreational
shoreline activities do occur, and more than 200 recreational beaches have been identified. The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation administers the state’s beachwater quality program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Agencies that choose to participate in the program are encouraged to sample for eight weeks during
the summer season.
Sampling practices are uniform throughout the state. Samples are collected 12 inches below the surface in water that
is three feet deep, at high tide if possible. When selecting which beaches to monitor, factors such as proximity to an estab
lished road system and distance from a laboratory are considered,1 along with the types of recreational activities that
occur, the levels of use, and the types of nearby pollution sources.2
If a beach is placed under advisory, monitoring occurs daily
Alaska Percent Exceedance
until standards are met.3
for 2 Beaches Reported 2007–2009
6%
Results: In 2009, Alaska reported 18 coastal beaches, of which 6.0
5 (28%) were monitored once a week; 13 (72%) were not moni
4.5
tored. Alaska monitored a few beaches in 2006, and began its
full monitoring program in 2007. For the third consecutive year, 3.0
NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded 1.5
the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples 0% 0%
were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including
2007 2008 2009
duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach
season, if any). In 2009, Kanakanak Beach in Bristol Bay County
was the only beach with exceedances (11%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2007 and 2009. For this consistent set of two beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 6% in 2009 from 0% in 2008 and 2007.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Alaska’s program recommends advisories rather than closings, and does so based on water
quality. Water quality standards for the monitoring program include Alaska’s fecal coliform standard (in a 30-day period,
the geometric mean of five samples may not exceed 100 cfu/100 ml, and not more than one sample may exceed
200 cfu/100 ml) and an enterococcus standard (single-sample maximum of 276 cfu/100 ml, 30-day 5-sample geometric
mean of 35 cfu/100 ml). The enterococcus standards are the BEACH Act–required standards for moderately and lightly
used beaches. Alaska does not have an E. coli standard, but the results from field-based analysis methods for quantifying
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
AK.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
E. coli can be used as a stand-in for analysis methods for quantifying fecal coliform in remote locations. If this were to
occur, the fecal coliform standard would be applied to E. coli results. Thus far, all monitoring locations use membrane
filtration methods for analyzing samples; E. coli has not been used as
a stand-in for fecal coliform.
While the state encourages participating municipalities to issue Alaska’s beach monitoring program
an advisory when a sample exceeds the standards, the authority for issued no advisories in 2009.
issuing advisories is delegated to the local governments that choose
to participate in the program. A bacterial exceedance is one of many factors that can be used to determine whether to
issue a beach advisory.3
Alaska has no preemptive standards for issuing beach closings or advisories due to rainfall or known sewage spills.3
Number and Causes of Advisories: NRDC received no data about beach notifications in Alaska from the EPA. A
warning was issued at Kanakanak Beach in July because two beluga whale carcasses had washed up on the beach. The
year’s only exceedance of bacterial water quality standards was observed at that time, but a sign had already been posted
at the beach entrance warning potential users of the whale carcasses and no further action was taken.4
Notes
1 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Annual Performance Report for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
BEACH Monitoring Program (Agreement #CU97023701) Activity Period FFY 2007: October 1, 2006–September 30, 2007. Not dated.
2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Beach Water Quality Monitoring and Pathogen Detection 2007 Quality Assurance Program
Plan, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., April 2007.
3 Erin Strang, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication, February 2009.
4 Annual Performance Report for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) BEACH Monitoring Program, Activity Period FFY
2009: October 1, 2008-September 30, 2009. Not dated.
California has more than 400 beaches stretching along more than 500 miles of Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay
coastline. The California Department of Health Services administers the BEACH Act grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Beachwater quality monitoring in California occurs from at least April 1 to October 31, with
most beaches in Southern California and in Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties monitored year-round.
Individual counties determine sampling locations, while sampling depth and minimum sampling frequency are
determined by state law. Most counties sample at more locations
and often more frequently than required by state law.1 Samples are
California Percent Exceedance
taken in ankle-deep water. Monitoring locations in California are
for 234 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 15
selected based on the number of visitors, the location of storm
12%
drains, NPDES effluent discharge requirements, and legislative 12
10%
requirements. Monitored beaches represent the vast majority of 9%
8% 9
beach day use in California. All beaches along the San Francisco
Bay are monitored per legislation. Funding cuts resulted in 6
reduced water quality monitoring in some areas of the state in 3
2009. For example, Ventura County did not begin monitoring
until June of 2009, and locations dropped to 40 from 53 because
2006 2007 2008 2009
of funding cuts.
Samples are usually collected in the most likely areas of possible
contamination. In Los Angeles County, for example, sampling points are located where creeks or storm drains enter the
surf zone, which are usually permanently posted as being under advisory. Most other counties may permanently post
outfalls and sample 25 yards up or down the coast from the outfall to predict further impacts to beach bathing areas.1
Shortly after an advisory is issued, immediate resampling occurs in order to lift that advisory as soon as possible. When
there is a closing, samples must meet standards for two days before the beach can be reopened. States that monitor more
frequently after an exceedance is found tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days
than they would if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, California reported 452 coastal beaches, 10 (2%) of which were monitored daily, 14 (3%) more
than once a week, 281 (62%) once a week, 12 (3%) once a month, and 129 (28%) less than once a month; 2 (<1%)
were not monitored, and there was no monitoring information for 4 (1%) beaches. In 2008, the state reported
426 coastal beaches, 3 (1%) of which were monitored daily, 27 (6%) more than once a week, 247 (58%) once a week,
1 (<1%) every other week, 12 (3%) once a month, and 4 (1%) less than once a month; 125 (29%) of the beaches were
not monitored, for 7 (2%) beaches there was no monitoring information. Overall, there were 24% (6,405) fewer samples
reported for 2009 than for 2008, ranging from a decrease of more than 60% in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties
to a 26% increase in Sonoma County.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
CA.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Total Monitoring Samples Per County, 2008 vs. 2009
County 2009 Total Samples 2008 Total Samples Difference Percent Difference
Alameda 311 322 –11 -3%
Contra Costa 142 135 7 5%
Humboldt 223 221 2 1%
Los Angeles 3,746 6,059 –2,313 -38%
Marin 710 832 -122 -15%
Mendocino 165 156 9 6%
Monterey 277 276 1 0%
Orange 6,679 8,877 –2,198 -25%
San Diego 3,411 3,387 24 1%
San Francisco 929 919 10 1%
San Luis Obispo 1,096 1,044 52 5%
San Mateo 847 964 –117 -12%
Santa Barbara 335 854 –519 -61%
Santa Cruz 629 908 –279 -31%
Sonoma 306 242 64 26%
Ventura 622 1,637 -1,015 -62%
Total 20,428 26,833 -6,405 -24%
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily
maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance values, including
duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). NRDC considered a sample on a given day
at a given beach station to be in exeedance if any one of California’s bacterial standards was exceeded. If all bacterial
standards were exceeded on a given day at a given station, NRDC counted that as one exceedance. For example, if a
sample exceeded the enterococcus, E. coli, and total coliform standards on a given day, NRDC counted that as one
exceedance, not three (note that when determining California’s national beachwater quality ranking, NRDC analyzed
results based on the single-sample maximum BEACH Act standard of 104 cfu/100 ml enterococcus).
In 2009, 9% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The
beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Avalon Beach-North of GP Pier in Los Angeles County
(82%), Pudding Creek Beach-Pudding Lagoon in Mendocino County (65%), Poche County Beach in Orange County
(63%), Avalon Beach-Near Busy B Cafe (52%), Santa Monica State Beach-Santa Monica Pier in Los Angeles County
(46%), Candlestick Point-Windsurfer Circle in San Francisco County (46%), Cabrillo Beach (45%), Surfrider Beach
(45%), Avalon Beach-South of GP Pier in Los Angeles County (44%), and Newport Bay-Newport Blvd. Bridge in
Orange County (43%).
San Francisco County had the highest exceedance rate (17%) in 2009, followed by Los Angeles (16%), Mendocino
(14%), Santa Cruz (11%), Humboldt (11%), San Mateo (10%), Contra Costa (10%), Orange (8%), Santa Barbara (8%),
Alameda (8%), San Diego (6%), Monterey (5%), San Luis Obispo (5%), Ventura (5%), Marin (4%), and Sonoma (4%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 234 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard decreased to 9% in 2009 from 10% in 2008, 8% in 2007, and 12% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 714 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
decreased 30% to 2,904 days in 2009 from 4,133 days in 2008, 4,736 days in 2007, 4,644 days in 2006, and
5,199 days in 2005. Furthermore, there was a dramatic difference between northern California counties and Southern
California counties. Closing/advisory days increased dramatically in northern California counties and decreased
dramatically in Southern California, where several counties reduced monitoring frequency due to budget cuts. Heavy
first flush rain events in October of 2009 influenced northern California beaches.5 In addition, on October 30, 2009,
a tank vessel spilled an estimated 400 to 800 gallons of bunker fuel into the San Francisco Bay. The spill reached the
Total Closing/Advisory Days for Events Lasting Six Consecutive Weeks or Less by County, 2008 vs. 2009
County 2008 Days 2009 Days % Difference
Alameda 94 171 82%
Contra Costa 31 35 13%
Humboldt 21 43 105%
Los Angeles 1,438 687 -52%
Marin 22 164 645%
Monterey 22 no data
Orange 827 469 -43%
San Diego 474 364 -23%
San Francisco 69 127 84%
San Luis Obispo 12 16 33%
San Mateo 580 670 16%
Santa Barbara 206 73 -65%
Santa Cruz 118 31 -74%
Sonoma 34 30 -12%
Ventura 185 no data
In addition, there were 4 extended events (259 days total) and 1 permanent event (141 days total) in 2009. Extended
events are those in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for
more than 13 consecutive weeks. In 2008, there were 3 extended events (148 days total) and 9 permanent events
(1,700 days total).
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 714 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 79% (2,308) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 1% (40) were preemptive (i.e.,
without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, 3% (90) were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks,
4% (102) were preemptive due to other reasons, and there were no data for 13% (364).
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 2% (57) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff, 76%
(2,212) were from unknown sources of contamination, 3% (90) were from sewage spills/leaks, and 5% (157) were from
other sources of contamination. There was no information on contamination sources for 13% (388) of closing/advisory days.
Notes
1 Michael Gjerde, California State Water Resources Control Board, personal communication, May 2010.
2 California State Water Resources Control Board. Beach Water Quality Information, accessed at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
beaches/beach_water_quality. June 2008.
3 San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. San Diego County 2004 Beach Closure & Advisory Report. May 2008.
4 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Recreational Health Program website, FAQs, available at: http://lapublichealth.org/eh/
progs/ envirp/rechlth/ehrecocfaq.htm.
5 Robert Turner, Marin County Environmental Health Services Beach Monitoring Program Manager, personal communication, May 2010.
6 Al Hom, Alameda County, personal communication, May 2010.
Connecticut has 66 public beaches stretching along 18 miles of Long Island Sound coastline. The Connecticut
Department of Public Health (CT DPH) administers the state’s BEACH Act grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Connecticut’s monitoring season stretches from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Monitoring practices at coastal beaches are the responsibility of local health authorities (for municipal beaches)
and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) (for state park beaches), who are encouraged
to follow state guidelines that samples be taken in water that is 3–4 feet deep at a depth of 12–18 inches.2 Beaches
are assigned to tiers at the end of the bathing season. These tiers do not determine sampling frequency,1 are are assigned
instead on the basis of the sampling frequency reported by local
health departments and the CT DEP for their respective beaches
and the number of beach closing events for those beaches. Beaches Connecticut Percent Exceedance
for 48 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
that were sampled weekly and had no more than one closure event
6%
during the previous swim season are assigned Tier 1 status, beaches 6.0
5% 5%
that were sampled weekly and had two or three closure events during
4% 4.5
the previous swim season are assigned Tier 2 status, and beaches
that were not sampled weekly or that had more than three closure 3.0
events during the previous swim season are assigned Tier 3 status.2
1.5
Sampling frequency and monitoring station locations are not
necessarily adjusted or changed when a beach’s tier status changes.1
2006 2007 2008 2009
When there are higher bather loads, state guidelines suggest
additional sampling, at culverts and drainage pipes after rains and
sewage spills or other pollution events, as well as when waterfowl congregate in the area or when sanitary survey information
indicates potential for non-point contamination after a rain event.2 At the four state park marine beaches monitored by the
CT DEP, resampling is done every day once a beach is closed.3 States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance is
found or after heavy rains will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they
would have had if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found or after heavy rainfall occurred.
Results: Although Connecticut’s 66 public coastal beaches were reported as monitored at least once a week in 2009,
the state’s level of BEACH Act funding allowed it to maintain and report laboratory results for 65 beaches. For the fifth
consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance values, including duplicate samples
and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 5% of all reported beach monitoring samples
exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards.
The beaches with the highest percent exceedance in 2009 were Kiddie Beach in New London County (50%), Marvin
Beach in Fairfield County (17%), Eastern Point Beach in New London County (16%), Byram Beach in Fairfield County
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
CT.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
(15%), Green Harbor Beach in New London County (13%), Westbrook Town Beach/West Beach in Middlesex County
(13%), Calf Pasture Beach in Fairfield County (12%), and Jacobs Beach (Town Beach) in New Haven County (10%).
Dubois Beach in New London County had no monitoring data reported for 2009.
Middlesex County had the highest exceedance (9%) in 2009 followed by New London (8%), Fairfield (4%), and
New Haven (3%).
Comparing percent exceedance values with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 48 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard decreased to 4% in 2009 from 5% in 2008, 6% in 2007 and 5% in 2006.
When routine samples exceed the state standards, the state recommends
that a resample be taken and a sanitary survey be conducted to determine if
raw or partially treated sewage is contributing to the elevated bacterial con
centrations. If the survey reveals discharges of raw or partially treated sewage,
then the state recommends closing the bathing area. If sample results exceed the standards and a sanitary survey reveals
no evidence of sewage contamination, the state recommends that the bathing area be examined on an individual basis
with consultation from CT DPH before any decision about closure is made. A beach whose samples exceed the standards
may remain open if a sanitary survey reveals no sign of a sewage spill.2 Local authorities may adopt standards more
protective of public health than the state standards and may issue advisories. Most municipalities resample before issuing
an advisory and conduct a sanitary survey to determine if sewage is contributing to the elevated bacterial concentrations.
Some municipalities collect multiple samples at each monitoring event, and in most cases, if more than one sample
exceeds the standard, they will close the beach without resample.1
Local jurisdictions are also responsible for determining their own preemptive closing and advisory practices. State
guidance allows preemptive beach closings based on rainfall data2 and many municipalities have adopted a preemptive
rainfall threshold. When rainfall thresholds are reached at beaches with preemptive rainfall advisories, beaches are
automatically closed until test results indicate that there is no bacterial violation.1 State guidance says that preemptive
closures may be recommended by local jurisdictions if there is a known waste contamination event such as a sewage
bypass, mechanical failure at a sewage treatment plant, or a sewer line break.2 If the beach is impacted by a mass of
floating debris, the beach can be closed for safety reasons.2 In addition, local health departments may post an advisory
or closure that responds to local conditions and protects public health. Local health departments may also post an
advisory at a beach or close it if there is a harmful algal bloom.1
Shoreline municipalities are sensitive to reports of swimmer’s itch. Swimmer’s itch, also called cercarial dermatitis,
appears as a skin rash caused by an allergic reaction to certain parasites that infect some birds and mammals. These
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 75 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
decreased 20% to 108 days in 2009 from 135 days in 2008, 108 days in 2007, 224 days in 2006, and 200 days in
2005. In addition, there were no extended events and no permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are
those in effect more than 6 weeks but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more
than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 75 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 26% (28) of closing/advisory
days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, and 74% (80) were preemptive (i.e., issued
without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 81% (88) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
and 19% (20) were from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Jon Dinneen, Connecticut Department of Public Health, personal communication, May 2010.
2 Connecticut Department of Public Health. Connecticut’s 2009 Annual Report for the US EPA BEACH Grant With Summary Data for 2003–2009.
January 10, 2010.
3 Connecticut Dept. of Public Health and Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for
Indicator Bacteria Monitoring at Public Bathing Beaches, available at http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/quality_assurance/qaap_water/qapp_indbac.pdf,
February 2003.
Delaware has about 25 miles of Delaware Bay coastline, 26 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline, and 115 miles of inland
bay shoreline. The state’s marine beachwater monitoring program is administered by the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: In 2009, the monitoring season extended from May 11 to September 30, two weeks longer than
the 2008 monitoring season. DNREC hopes to extend the 2010 bacterial monitoring season into October.1 In 2009,
the program continued to sample seven ocean sites in the off-
season in conjunction with the Delaware Surfrider Chapter and
the University of Delaware. The state’s Floatables and Debris Delaware Percent Exceedance
for 19 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
Program has a vessel in the water year-round to monitor oil spills,
3%
harmful algae blooms, sewage treatment discharges, nutrient 3.00
runoff, and industrial discharges.
2% 2.25
The DNREC determines sampling practices, locations, stan
dards, and notification protocols and procedures throughout the 1.50
1% 1%
state.2 Samples are taken in knee-deep water.1 Marine beaches with
0.75
lifeguards are monitored twice a week.
Once an advisory or closing is issued, resampling to confirm the
2006 2007 2008 2009
exceedance is conducted immediately and the beach is monitored
more frequently until the advisory can be lifted.3 States that monitor
more frequently after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/
advisory days than they would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, Delaware reported 25 coastal beaches, all in Sussex County and all monitored once a week. For the fifth
consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and
samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 2% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the
state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Delaware
Seashore State Park, Tower Road Bayside (17%), Slaughter Beach (8%), Broadkill Beach (8%), and Prime Hook Beach (7%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 19 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 2% in 2009 from 1% in 2008 and 2007 and 3% in 2006.
which can be taken into account before issuing an advisory when a sample
exceeds standards, but these are rare exceptions. Circumstances that would
suggest an imminent health threat result in a closing rather than an advisory.
Delaware has a standard for issuing preemptive rainfall advisories. For
marine waters, the DNREC has determined that 3.5 inches of rainfall within 24 hours or 3 inches within 12 hours may
trigger a closing.2 Preemptive closings are issued in the case of a known sewage spill.2
The Recreational Water Program has been providing support and funding for research into analysis of marine
and inland bay waters for the presence of pathogenic and pathogen-like bacteria, including Heliobacter pylori and
Campylobacter jejuni. The goal is to be able to quickly identify harmful bacteria and improve the safety of recreational
waters.The program plans to provide support for research to test marine and inland bay waters for the presence of
pathogenic and pathogen-like Epsilonproteobacteria, which are associated with human gastric disease and gastroenteritis.
Results will be compared with standard methods for indicators of fecal contamination.1
Number of Closings and Advisories: Because of concerns about water quality, there is a permanent caution regarding
swimming in Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay, and Little Assawoman Bay. This permanent advisory includes Tower Road
Bayside in Rehoboth Bay and Holts Landing Beach in Indian River Bay. Contaminants in these bays come from many
sources in the watershed, including failing septic systems, farm and lawn fertilizers, and runoff from poultry operations.
In addition, the sewage treatment plants in Lewes and Rehoboth discharge treated effluent into the Lewes and Rehoboth
Canal, which feeds into the bays. Poor flushing of the shallow waters in these bays allows pollutants to linger; it takes
120 days for water to move out of the inland bays.2 Signs are posted at popular access points around Rehoboth Bay,
Indian River Bay, and Little Assawoman Bay to warn potential swimmers of the risks associated with swimming in these
bodies of water, particularly after a heavy rain.1
Total closing/advisory days for 16 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less increased more than 8-fold higher
in 2009 than in 2008, increasing to 94 days in 2009 from 11 days in 2008, 10 days in 2007, 0 days in 2006, and
0 days in 2005. In addition, there were no extended events and 2 permanent events (730 days) in both 2009 and
2008. Extended events are those in effect more than 6, but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events
are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 98% (92) of closing and advisory days in 2009 were from storm
water runoff, and 2% (2) were from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2009 Recreational Water Year-End Report. Not dated.
2 Debbie Rouse, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, personal communication, June 2010.
3 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2008 Recreational Water Year-End Report. Not dated.
4 Michael Bott, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, personal communication, July 2009.
With its year-round swim season and more than 1,000 miles of beach, Florida has the most coastal swimmers in the
nation.1 The state has more than 600 public coastal beaches stretching along its Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastline.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Monitoring occurs year-round, and peak season from April to mid-September.
The beachwater quality monitoring program is administered by the Florida Department of Health, which determines
sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices throughout the state.2 Samples are
collected 18 inches below the surface in water that is approximately 36 inches deep, usually in the morning. Beaches
are prioritized for monitoring on a county-by-county basis. Criteria for monitoring are population served, pollution
potential, and rainfall. While this ensures that the most critical
beaches in each county are monitored, there are a wide variety of
beach characteristics in Florida, and beaches chosen for monitoring Florida Percent Exceedance
for 299 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
in one county may not be as important as beaches left
6%
unmonitored in another county. 6.0
5%
Sampling frequency does not increase after an advisory is issued.
4% 4% 4.5
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
FL.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: The Department of Health does not Florida Sources of Contamination
have the authority to close Florida beaches; instead, advisories (for (Number of Days) 1880
enterococcus exceedances) and warnings (for fecal coliform 1,504 1,436 1504
exceedances) are issued. All advisories and warnings are referred to 1,226
934 1128
in this report as “advisories.” In 2010, Florida started using the
term “advisories” exclusively. Florida applies the EPA standard for 567 752
enterococcus of a single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and
376
a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml, as well as a fecal coliform
single-sample standard of 400 cfu/100 ml. 0
Stormwater Sewage Wildlife Other Unknown
In most coastal counties, officials issue an advisory if any one
Total days associated with sources exceeds reported total
of the three standards is exceeded. However, if a sample exceeds a closing/advisory days because more than one source of
standard and the county can conduct a follow-up sample within contamination was reported for some events.
Number of Advisories: Total advisory days for 248 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less increased 8% to 2,201 days
in 2009 from 2,067 days 2008, 3,139 days in 2007, 2,686 days in 2006, and 2,991 days in 2005. In addition, in 2009
there were 11 extended events (778 days total) and 3 permanent events (411 days total), compared with 13 extended
events (845 days total) and 11 permanent events (2,470 days total) in 2008. Extended events are those in effect for more
than six but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 248 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 98% (2,151) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, and 2% (50) were preemptive due
to other reasons.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 68% (1,504) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
26% (567) were from unknown sources of contamination, 42% (934) were from sewage spills/leaks, 65% (1,436) were
from wildlife, and 56% (1,226) were from other sources of contamination. Totals exceed total days and 100% since more
than one contamination source was reported for most events.
Notes
1 NOAA, Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation, November 2001.
2 David Polk, Florida Department of Health, personal communication, June 2010.
Georgia has 41 public beaches along 118 miles of Atlantic Coast and barrier islands. The Coastal Resources Division of
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources administers Georgia’s beach monitoring and notification program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Most of the monitored beaches are sampled year-round. Beaches that are not monitored year-round
are sampled from April through November.
The Coastal Resources Division determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols
and practices throughout the state. Samples are taken in about three feet of water (from wavetop) at a depth of
15–30 centimeters. Beaches that are monitored the most frequently
often are easily accessible and often have large populations nearby,
tourist accommodations, and the most amenities. Georgia Percent Exceedance
for 27 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
The monitoring frequency for a beach increases when an
4% 4% 4%
exceedance occurs. States that monitor more frequently after an 4
exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance
3
rates and lower closing/advisory days than they would have had
2%
if their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance 2
was found.
1
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Georgia’s beachwater monitoring program issues advisories only. Georgia applies the EPA
standard for enterococcus of a single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml.
When either the single-sample or geometric mean standard is exceeded, the Coastal Resources Division notifies the
Georgia Department of Health and the local beach management entity, which issues an advisory. There is no protocol
Number of Advisories: Total advisory days for 26 events lasting six consecu
tive weeks or less were nearly threefold higher in 2009 than in 2008, increasing
to 209 days in 2009 from 72 days in 2008, 181 days in 2007, 203 days in
2006, and 528 days in 2005. In addition, there were no extended events and 2 permanent events (484 days total) in
2009, compared with no extended events and 1 permanent event (365 days total) in 2008. Extended events are those
in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecu
tive weeks.
Causes of Advisories: All advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from
unknown sources of contamination (most likely nonhuman sources of contamination).1
Notes
1 Elizabeth Cheney, Beach Water Quality Manager, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, June 2010.
Hawaii has more than 400 public beaches stretching along nearly 300 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline. Its beachwater
monitoring program is administered by the Clean Water Branch of the Hawaii Department of Health.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season in this tropical state is year-round.
Sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices are uniform throughout the state.
Samples are taken one foot below the surface in water that is knee-to-waist deep. Hawaii’s beach monitoring program
prioritizes sampling efforts based on the risk of illness to swimmers and the frequency of use.
If a warning is posted, daily monitoring is performed until bacterial levels no longer exceed action levels and the beach is
reopened.1 States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance
is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and
lower total warning/advisory days than they would have had if Hawaii Percent Exceedance
for 45 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 11.25
their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance
9%
was found. 9.00
6.75
Results: In 2009, Hawaii reported 462 coastal beaches, 51 (11%)
of which were monitored more than once a week, 57 (12%) once 4% 4% 4.50
a week, 21 (5%) every other week, 13 (3%) once a month, and 2%
2.25
104 (23%) less than once a month; and 192 (42%) were not
monitored, and there was no monitoring information for 24 (5%)
2006 2007 2008 2009
beaches. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the
percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily
maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including
duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 3% of all reported beach
monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent
exceedance rates in 2009 were Kuli’ou’ou (58%) on Oahu; Hanalei Beach Co. Park-End of Weke Road (40%) on Kauai;
Ke’ehi Lagoon (29%) on Oahu; and Hanama’ulu Beach Co. Park (24%), Kalihiwai Bay (18%), and Hanalei Beach Co.
Park-Hanalei Bay Landing (16%) on Kauai.
The Island of Kauai had the highest exceedance rate (8%) in 2009 followed by Oahu (3%), Maui (2%), and the
Big Island (2%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 45 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 4% in 2009, from 2% in 2008, 9% in 2007, and 4% in 2006.
Hawaii reports that although beaches are set to be sampled at a specified frequency, circumstances such as lab closure,
sampler illness or vacation, or beach inaccessibility may prevent those frequencies from being maintained.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
HI.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Warnings and Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Hawaii’s Department of Health does not have the authority to close beaches; instead, it
posts warnings and issue advisories. Hawaii recently revised its water quality standards to match the national standard,
and the enterococcus standards used during the 2009 season are a single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100ml (for
beaches that are not sampled at least five times a month) and a geometric mean standard of 35 cfu/100ml (for beaches
that are sampled at least five times a month).2
At beaches that are monitored at least five times a month, a warning is Hawaii
Sources of Contamination
posted when the enterococcus geometric mean is exceeded.2 There is no pro
tocol for forgoing a warning when the standard is exceeded. For beaches that
are monitored less frequently than five times a month, a beach is resampled
before posting a warning based on the single-sample maximum standard,
unless the cause of the exceedance was noted by the sampler. Stormwater 99%
Sewage 1%
Hawaii tests for human health pharmaceuticals, wastewater compounds, Wildlife 0%
and isotopes of nitrogen that are found in sewage sludge if the source of Other 0%
elevated bacteria levels cannot be found. The pharmaceuticals cotinine (a Unknown 0%
Number of Warnings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 223 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
decreased 15% to 2,352 days in 2009 from 2,766 days in 2008, 4,134 days in 2007, 6,507 days in 2006, and 2,228 days
in 2005. In addition, there was one permanent event (359 days) but no extended events in 2009. Extended events are
those in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than
13 consecutive weeks. In 2008, there was one extended event (44 days total) and no permanent events.
Causes of Warnings and Advisories: For events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 99% (2,340) of closing/advisory
days in 2009 were preemptive (i.e., issued without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, and 1% (12)
were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 99% (2,340) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff
and 1% (12) were from sewage spills/leaks.
Notes
1 Hawaii Department of Health Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act 2009 Notification Report to EPA. Not dated.
2 Watson Okubo, Hawaii Department of Health, personal communication, June 2010.
Illinois has 52 public Great Lakes swimming beaches along approximately 60 miles of the Lake Michigan shoreline.
The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) administers the state’s coastal beach monitoring program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season extends from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Samples are taken in water that is knee to waist deep. The managing entity for each beach determines when to issue
closings and advisories, depending upon EPA guidance and their own policies.1
Most coastal swimming beaches in Illinois are sampled seven days a week, since Illinois believes that daily monitoring
is most protective of public health. Areas of shoreline that are not
used for swimming because they are rocky or otherwise unsuitable
are not monitored.3 Monitoring on a daily basis continues when a Illinois Percent Exceedance
for 46 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 30
beach is closed.
24%
24
Results: In 2009, Illinois reported 67 coastal beach segments,
15% 15% 16% 18
of which 7 (10%) were monitored twice a day, 12 (18%) daily,
30 (45%) more than once a week, and 3 (4%) once a week; 12
15 (22%) were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year,
6
NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples
2006 2007 2008 2009
were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including
duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach
season, if any). In 2009, 16% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards.
The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Jackson Park Beach (63rd Street Beach) in Cook
County (66%); North Point Marina North Beach in Lake County (55%); Winnetka Elder Park Beach (50%), 57th Street
Beach (49%), Calumet South Beach (38%), Winnetka Centennial Dog Beach (35%), Rainbow Beach (34%), Montrose
Beach (31%), South Shore in Cook County (26%); and Great Lakes Naval Nunn Beach in Lake County (25%).
Lake County had the highest percent exceedance rate in 2009 (17%), followed by Cook (16%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 46 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 16% in 2009 from 15% in 2008, 24% in 2007, and 15% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 350 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 8% to 576 days in 2009 from 534 days in 2008, 793 days in 2007, 591 days in 2006, and 585 days in 2005.
In addition, there was one extended event (51 days) and no permanent events in 2009; in 2008, there were no extended
or permanent events. Extended events are those in effect more than 6 but less than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent
events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All events lasting six consecutive weeks or less were due to monitoring that revealed
elevated bacteria levels.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 1% (7) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff, 81%
(465) were from unknown sources of contamination, 8% (46) were from sewage spills/leaks, 7% (40) were from wildlife,
and 3% (18) were from other sources of contamination.
Notes
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000 (Report to Congress), October 2006.
2 Justin DeWitt, Illinois Department of Health, personal communication, June 2010.
3 Cathy Breitenbach, Chicago Park District, personal communication, June 2010.
Indiana has 30 Great Lakes beaches stretching along 64 miles in three counties that have Lake Michigan shoreline.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) administers the state’s beach monitoring and
notification program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Generally, the monitoring season is from late May through the first week of September, but at some
beaches sampling may begin and end a week earlier or later.
Sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols are set by the state or in consultation with the
state. Specific monitoring locations are used each year to ensure consistency and representativeness of data. Samples
are taken in knee-deep water. Monitoring frequencies are based on
a prioritized ranking of the beaches, with higher-priority beaches
receiving more frequent sampling. The rankings are based on Indiana Percent Exceedance
for 23 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 18.75
many variables, which include, but are not limited to, bather
15%
use, the proximity to known point and non-point sources, 13% 15.00
13%
and likely effects from heavy rainfall events.1 Seven Indiana
11.25
Dunes National Lakeshore beach sites (Kemil, Lake View, Mount 8%
Baldy, Dunbar, West, Central, and Porter) are monitored and
voluntarily post monitoring and notification data to the Indiana
BeachGuard website, even though they are not eligible for BEACH
Act funding.1
2006 2007 2008 2009
Some beaches are routinely sampled seven days a week, and their
monitoring schedules do not change when they are closed or under
advisory. At some of the beaches that are not sampled seven days a week, additional samples may be collected during
a closing or advisory; at other beaches, the monitoring frequency is not changed.
Results: In 2009, Indiana reported 28 Great Lakes beaches, 6 (21%) of which were monitored daily, 15 (54%) more
than once a week, and 7 (25%) once a week. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring
samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009
percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In
2009, 13% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The
beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Jeorse Park Beach I (76%), Jeorse Park Beach II (63%),
and Buffington Harbor Beach in Lake County (31%), and Washington Park Beach in La Porte County (19%).
Lake County had the highest exceedance rate (16%) in 2009, followed by La Porte (9%), and Porter (8%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 23 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard decreased to 8% in 2009 from 13% in 2008, 15% in 2007, and 13% in 2006.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
IN.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Closings and Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Both closings and advisories are issued in Indiana. The state has an E. coli single-sample
maximum standard of 235 cfu/100 ml. The BEACH Act’s freshwater beach E. coli standard for the geometric mean of
five samples taken over a 30-day period of 126 cfu/100 ml is not applied when making closing and advisory decisions.
Beach managers issue an advisory or closing if monitoring results indicate
the presence of E. coli in concentrations greater than 235 cfu/100ml.1 There is Indiana
no protocol for forgoing a closing or advisory when a single-sample exceedance Sources of Contamination
occurs, and resampling to confirm an exceedance is not done before a closing
or advisory is issued.
BEACH Act grants have been used to partially fund the development of
models that predict beachwater quality. These models make predictions based
Stormwater 14%
on current conditions, turbidity, chlorophyll content, and color. A model Sewage 0%
called Project SAFE was used in 2009 for Ogden Dunes, Wells Street, Wildlife 0%
Other 0%
Marquette, and Lake Street beaches. Each morning, Monday through Friday, Unknown 86%
beach managers were given the model’s predicted likelihood that the E. coli
count would exceed safe limits. On that basis, the beach manager chose
whether to issue an advisory or closing. Physical bacterial monitoring con
tinued at these beaches to complement the predictive modeling information.
Beach managers have the discretion to preemptively issue advisories or
closings if conditions that may result in elevated E. coli levels exist, such as heavy rainfall or combined sewer overflow
events.1 La Porte County issues an advisory if excessive debris, such as oil globules or algae, are found in the lake or
on the beach. Beach managers can also close a beach for weather and current conditions, such as a rip current.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 184 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 16% to 387 days in 2009 from 333 days in 2008, 213 days in 2007, 111 days in 2006, and 131 days in
2005. There were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than
six but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 184 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 97% (377) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, and 3% (10) were preemptive
(i.e., issued without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 14% (55) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
and 86% (332) were from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Michelle Caldwell, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, personal communication, June 2010.
Most of Louisiana’s coastline is wetlands. However, there are at least 19 coastal beaches lining nearly 30 miles of Gulf of
Mexico and estuarine shoreline, including the barrier island Grand Isle, as well as some beaches near the Texas border and
on the shore of the estuary of Lake Pontchartrain. The state’s
coastal monitoring program is administered by the Louisiana Louisiana Percent Exceedance
Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH). for 21 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 38.75
31%
31.00
Monitoring 25%
23.25
Sampling Practices: Monitoring is conducted from April 1
16%
through October 31. 15.50
The LDHH determines sampling practices, locations, 8%
7.75
standards, and notification protocols and practices at Louisiana
beaches monitored through the BEACH Act. Samples are collected
2006 2007 2008 2009
12 inches below the surface in water that is approximately three
feet deep. Levels of beach use and perceptions of water quality
determine monitoring priorities. Monitoring frequency does not increase after a beach is placed under advisory unless
the contamination source has been identified and corrected, in which case more intensive sampling may be conducted.
In addition to beaches monitored by LDHH under the BEACH Act, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation,
a nonprofit, membership-based citizens’ organization, has monitored additional beaches and sites around Lake Pont
chartrain since 2000, but because NRDC was unable to retrieve those monitoring results from the U.S. EPA, those
beaches are not included in this summary.
Results: In 2009, Louisiana reported 29 coastal beach segments, 27 (93%) of which were monitored once a week and
1 (3%) once a month; 1 (3%) was not monitored due to access constraints resulting from previous hurricanes. For
the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum
bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate
samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 25% of all reported beach monitoring
samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates
in 2009 were Cypremort Point State Park in St. Mary Parish (46%); South Beach & Rabbit Island in Calcasieu Parish
(43%), Holly Beach 5 (42%), Holly Beach 6 (41%), and Rutherford Beach (36%) in Cameron Parish).
St. Mary Parish had the highest exceedance rate (46%) in 2009 followed by Calcasieu (39%), Cameron (32%),
Orleans (21%), Lafourche (13%), Jefferson (12%), and St. Tammany (7%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 21 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard decreased to 25% in 2009 from 31% in 2008, 16% in 2007, and 8% in 2006.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: LDHH issues beach advisories, but it is state policy not to issue closings.1 Water quality
standards are not met if any of the following are exceeded: 1) an enterococcus single-sample maximum standard of
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 35 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
more than doubled to 472 in 2009 from 221 days in 2008, 459 days in 2007, 5 days in 2006, and 406 days in 2005.
In addition, there were 25 extended events (1,494 days total) and 5 permanent events (631 days total) in 2009. Extended
events are those in effect more than 6 weeks but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect
more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks. There were 11 extended events (672 days total) and 17 permanent
events (2,282 days total) in 2008. More beaches monitored in Louisiana contributed to the increase in closing/advisory
days in 2009.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days for 35 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less in
2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Jerry Freedman, Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals, personal communication, March 2008.
2 Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. Louisiana BEACH Grant Report 2009 Swimming Season. March 2010.
Maine’s public access beaches stretch along more than 30 miles of Atlantic waters, including bays, sounds, and estuaries.
The coastal beachwater quality monitoring program, Maine Healthy Beaches, is managed by the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection and coordinated by the University of Maine Cooperative Extension/Maine Sea Grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season lasts three months, from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Monitoring
is extended to include spring wet-weather monitoring and special studies for targeted areas.1
Monitoring coastal water quality for swimming and other water contact usage is the responsibility of local juris
dictions, municipalities, or state parks and is not mandated by state law. Samples are taken in approximately three feet
of water. The Maine Healthy Beaches Program is a voluntary
program, and in order to participate in it, a beach must have
Maine Percent Exceedance
a beach management entity that can meet the program’s protocols
for 39 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 15
and conditions.
12%
Monitoring sites for each beach are selected where swimmers 11% 12
are found as well as at sources of freshwater inputs to the beach 9%
9
including storm drains and at sites where local knowledge of 7%
any conditions affecting water quality at that beach exists.2 6
For areas experiencing chronic bacterial pollution, additional 3
monitoring sites are added throughout the watershed, and/or
wet‑weather monitoring is conducted to help determine the
2006 2007 2008 2009
source(s) of pollution.1 Once a beach is closed or placed under
advisory, Maine Healthy Beaches recommends that the monitoring
frequency increase until the beach is reopened. However, not all localities have the ability to conduct increased moni
toring, and as a result the beaches in these towns cannot be reopened until the next routine sample is analyzed.1
Results: In 2009, Maine reported 60 coastal beaches, 3 (5%) of which were monitored more than once a week,
53 (88%) once a week, 2 (3%) every other week, and 2 (3%) once a month. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC
looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported
samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken
outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 11% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s
daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Goodies Beach
in Knox County (37%); Ducktrap River in Waldo County (28%); Riverside (Ogunquit) (27%), Cape Neddick Beach
(26%), York Harbor Beach (26%), Gooches Beach (23%), Libby Cove Beach (22%), Middle Beach (22%), and Sea
Point Beach (21%) in York County; and Willard Beach in Cumberland County (21%).
Knox County had the highest exceedance rate (22%) in 2009, followed by Waldo (16%), York (11%), Cumberland
(11%), Hancock (8%), Sagadahoc (5%), and Lincoln (0%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 39 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 79 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 47% to 250 days in 2009 from 170 days in 2008, 176 days in 2007, 134 days in 2006, and 92 days in 2005.
In addition, there were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more
than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
The increase in 2009 is due primarily to heavy rainfall.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Keri Lindberg, University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant, personal communication, May 2010.
2 Maine Healthy Beaches Program. 2009 Report to EPA. April 2010.
There are 72 coastal beaches in Maryland lining 20 miles of the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and other bays and sounds.
Beachwater quality is monitored in a program administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Sampling and notification activities are delegated to local health departments. Current guidance and regulation
practices remain consistent across the board and apply to all beaches in Maryland. Samples are taken in knee-deep
water, 12 inches below the water’s surface. Priority for monitoring Maryland’s coastal beaches is based on bather use
level, historical water quality, proximity of potential or actual pollution sources, human and animal fecal contamination
sources, beach structure, ecological factors, and any other factors
that may contribute to beachwater quality.1
Maryland Percent Exceedance
Maryland’s beach monitoring program recommends that local
for 56 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 11.25
health departments sample the following day after a beach is closed
9%
or placed under advisory. 9.00
6.75
Results: In 2009, Maryland reported 72 coastal beaches, 28 (39%)
4% 4.50
of which were monitored once a week, 26 (36%) every other week, 3%
and 18 (25%) once a month. For the fifth consecutive year, 2%
2.25
NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples 2006 2007 2008 2009
were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including
samples taken in triplicate and samples taken outside the official
beach season, if any). In 2009, 3% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Tolchester Estates Beach in Kent County
(36%), Red Point Beach (27%) and West View Shores (17%) in Cecil County; Tolchester Marina and Beach in Kent
County (16%); and Bayside Beach in Anne Arundel County (16%).
Kent County had the highest exceedance rate (9%) in 2009 followed by Queen Anne’s (9%), Cecil (5%), Baltimore
(5%), Calvert (4%), St. Mary’s (2%), Anne Arundel (2%), Worcester (1%), and Somerset (0%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 56 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 3% in 2009 from 2% in 2008, 4% in 2007 and 9% in 2006.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
MD.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
standard for enterococcus of 104 cfu/100 ml at Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches and
Maryland
158 cfu/100 ml at Tier 3 beaches. Three samples are taken per sampling event,
Sources of Contamination
and the average of the sampling results is used to determine whether the single-
sample standard is being met.2 The average of three samples taken per
sampling event is used when calculating the geometric mean.
If the local health department determines that sampling results indicating
an exceedance of either the single-sample maximum or geometric mean Stormwater 0%
Sewage 0%
standards are valid, a notification can be issued without resampling. If the
1
Wildlife 0%
validity of the sample is in doubt, local health departments may resample Other 0%
before issuing an advisory. Unknown 100%
Maryland does not have preemptive rainfall advisory standards, but the
MDE is working with local health departments to develop a tool to document
precipitation at their beaches so that they can analyze water quality data versus
precipitation.1
If a known pollution source exists (e.g., a combined sewer overflow, failing sewer infrastructure, or wastewater treat
ment discharge), the county must close the beach.3 Also, if there is any dangerous contaminant or condition, the local
health department or the MDE may issue an immediate closing.3
Number of Closings and Advisories: Although the total closing/advisory days for 15 events lasting six consecutive weeks
or less more than doubled to 133 days in 2009 from 61 days in 2008, the number was less than each of the three years
before that (243 days in 2007, 317 days in 2006, and 209 days in 2005). In addition, there were no extended or perma
nent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than 6 weeks but not more than 13 consecutive
weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Heather Morehead, Maryland Department of the Environment, personal communication, June 2010.
2 Maryland Department of the Environment, Guidance for County Recreational Water Quality Monitoring and Notification Programs, December
2003.
3 Code of Maryland. Subtitle 09 Water Pollution. 26.08.09 Public Bathing Beaches.
Massachusetts has 525 public and semipublic marine beaches along 204 miles of sandy beach that line Atlantic waters.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) administers the state’s monitoring program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season starts as early as Memorial Day at some beaches and lasts through Labor
Day for most beaches.
MDPH coordinates the efforts of a range of collaborators including local boards of health, the Barnstable County
Department of Health and the Environment, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. MDPH determines
sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices throughout the state. Samples are collected
in three feet of water, one foot below the surface of the water.1 State
water quality regulations require that all public and semipublic
Massachusetts Percent Exceedance
freshwater and marine bathing beaches in Massachusetts be moni
for 482 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
tored during the bathing season for bacterial contamination. The2
8%
sampling frequency for Massachusetts’ beaches is based on use and 8
the potential for pollution problems. If a beach has been monitored
5% 5% 6
weekly for two years with no exceedance being found, and a sanitary
survey reveals no potential sources of pollution at that beach, the 3% 4
beach managing entity may be allowed to sample less frequently. 2
Beachwater quality samples are required to be taken at the areas
of greatest bather load. However, beach operators are encouraged
2006 2007 2008 2009
to sample where outfalls and other sources of contamination are
present as well as the area of greatest bather load.1 When an exceed
ance is found, sampling is generally conducted every day until the standards are met and the beach is reopened.1 Also,
beaches that utilize rainfall advisories generally sample the day of or the day after the rainfall.1 States that monitor more
frequently after an exceedance is found or after rainfall will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total
closing/advisory days than they would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, Massachusetts reported 603 coastal beach segments, of which 12 (2%) were monitored daily, 536 (89%)
once a week, 7 (1%) every other week, and 48 (8%) once a month. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the
percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were
used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official
beach season, if any). In 2009, 7% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Kings at Stacy Brook in Essex County
(71%), Cockle Cove Creek-Parking Lot in Barnstable County (70%), Smith Beach in Norfolk County (50%), Willow
Avenue (38%), Independence Park (33%), and Gas House in Essex County (33%), and A Street Ocean (33%), XYZ
in Plymouth County (31%), Crocker’s Neck in Barnstable County (30%), and Grace Oliver in Essex County (30%).
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
MA.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Norfolk County had the highest exceedance rate (17%) in 2009 followed by Suffolk (11%), Nantucket (11%), Essex
(10%), Plymouth (9%), Bristol (6%), Barnstable (4%), and Dukes (1%). In some counties, such as Nantucket County,
most of the beaches have a sampling variance and are not sampled frequently because they have no potential sources of
contamination and went two years without an exceedance.1 In these counties, the exceedance rate is high in part because
the cleanest beaches in the county are not sampled frequently.
Comparing percent exceedance rates to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported
each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 482 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
increased to 8% in 2009 from 5% in 2008, 3% in 2007, and 5% in 2006. Rainfall was significantly above normal in
Massachusetts during the 2009 beach season, which likely had a major impact on beach water quality. Over thirteen
inches of rain fell in the Boston and Cape Cod areas, which is more than 35% above the historical average.
Closings
Standards and Procedures: Beaches are closed to swimming when either Massachusetts
the single-sample maximum or the geometric mean standard standards are Sources of Contamination
exceeded. Whether beach action days are reported to the EPA as closings or
advisories, restrictions and notifications are the same. For marine beaches, the
standard is a single-sample maximum of enterococcus of 104 cfu/100 ml or a
5-sample geometric mean of 35 cfu/100 ml. Stormwater 6%
There is no protocol for allowing a beach to remain open after an exceed Sewage 0%
Wildlife 0%
ance is found, and resampling to confirm an exceedance is not done before Other 0%
issuing a closure. Unknown 94%
In addition to fecal indicator bacteria monitoring, beaches must also be
tested for oil, hazardous materials, and heavy metals if there is information
indicating possible contamination.2
Preemptive rainfall standards are in use at several beaches in Boston Harbor,
and preemptive rainfall closings are issued after any significant rainstorm at a bathing beach where there has been a
history of violations of water quality standards. In addition to preemptive rainfall closings and closings due to bacterial
exceedances, the local board of health and/or the MDPH can close a beach if they determine there is a threat to human
health for any other reason, such as an oil spill.1 Local boards of health can also preemptively close beaches that have
consistently elevated bacterial indicator levels.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 582 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 34% to 1,478 days in 2009 from 1,102 days in 2008, 567 days in 2007, 1,092 days in 2006, and 680 days in
2005. In addition, there were 2 extended events (134 days total) and 3 permanent events (315 days total) in 2009 compared
to 2 extended events (117 days total) and 2 permanent events (188 days total) in 2008. Extended events are those in effect more
than 6 weeks and not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 582 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 81% (1,199) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 6% (88) were preemptive (i.e.,
without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, and 13% (191) were preemptive due to other reasons.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 6% (88) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff and
94% (1390) were from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Chris Huskey, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, personal communication, June 2010.
2 Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report 2008 Season. July 2009.
Michigan has more than 600 public beaches stretching along more than 500 miles of Great Lakes coastline. The
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) administers the state’s BEACH Act grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season runs from April to October.
Sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices are uniform throughout the state.1
Samples are taken one foot below the surface in water that is three to six feet deep. Beaches are selected for monitoring
based on location and frequency of beach use, history of bacterial
contamination, and proximity of the beach to a known bacterial
contamination source.2 Michigan Percent Exceedance
for 132 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
Depending on the local health department, the monitoring
5% 5%
frequency of a beach that has been closed or placed under advisory
can be increased. In most cases, resampling is conducted the day a 4% 4%
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
MI.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Comparing percent exceedance rates to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported each
year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 132 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard remained
steady at 5% in 2009 and 2008, from 4% in 2007 and 2006.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 58 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 95% (326) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 2% (8) were preemptive (i.e., with
out waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, and 2% (8) were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 6% (19) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
75% (257) were from unknown sources of contamination, 2% (8) were from sewage spills/leaks, 17% (57) were from
wildlife, and <1% (1) was from agricultural runoff.
Notes
1 Shannon Briggs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, personal communication, May 2010.
2 Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Michigan Beach Monitoring Year 2009 Annual Report. April 2010.
Minnesota has 79 public beaches lining approximately 58 miles along the Lake Superior coastline. The Minnesota
Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program is administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Beaches are monitored from the week before Memorial Day to the week after Labor
Day, with some beaches monitored in May and October as well because of use by kayakers, surfers,
and sailboarders.
The MPCA determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices at the
beaches monitored under the program. Grand Portage Reservation, located on the north shore of Lake Superior near the
Canadian border, has swimming beaches on Lake Superior, and
the water at these beaches is monitored in a program separate from
Minnesota Percent Exceedance
the MPCA. This summary describes the MPCA’s standards and
for 38 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 11.25
practices, but beaches in the Grand Portage Reservation are
9%
included in the monitoring and notification data. 9.00
Samples are collected at a depth of 6 to 12 inches in water that
6.75
is knee deep. In Minnesota, beaches are assigned high, medium, 5%
4% 4% 4.50
and low priority based on the potential for impacts from storm
water runoff, bather and waterfowl loads, and the location of 2.25
wastewater treatment outfalls and farms.
When a beach is placed under advisory, monitoring occurs daily 2006 2007 2008 2009
(Monday through Thursday) until the site meets the water quality
standards. States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance
is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they would have
had if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, Minnesota reported 89 coastal beaches, 8 (9%) of which were monitored more than once
a week and 41 (46%) once a week; and 40 (45%) that were not monitored. For the fourth consecutive year,
NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards
(all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and
samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 5% of all reported beach monitoring samples
exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates
in 2009 were Clyde Avenue Boat Landing Beach (44%) and Park Point 20th Street/Hearding Island Canal Beach
(20%) in St. Louis County, Burlington Bay Beach in Lake County (14%), and French River Beach in St. Louis
County (10%).
St. Louis County had the highest exceedance rate (8%) in 2009, followed by Lake (2%) and Cook (1%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches moni
tored and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 38 beaches, the percent of samples
exceeding the standard increased to 5% in 2009 from 4%in 2008, 9% in 2007, and 4% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total advisory days for 30 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less decreased
61% to 99 days in 2009 from 257 days in 2008, 195 days in 2007, 73 days in 2006, and 143 days in 2005. In addition,
there were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than six but
not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are those in effect more than 6 weeks but not more than
13 consecutive weeks. Part of the decrease may be due to 10 beaches managed by the Grand Portage Reservation that
were not included in EPA’s 2009 beach season database.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 45% (45) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff, and
55% (54) were from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Pat Carey, Manager of the Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, personal communication, May 2010.
2 Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program. Minimizing Risk. Accessed at http://mnbeaches.org, May 2008.
Mississippi has 22 beaches stretching along 43 miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline. The Mississippi Department of Environ
mental Quality (MDEQ) conducts Mississippi’s beachwater quality monitoring program in conjunction with the State
Beach Monitoring Task Force.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Mississippi’s beaches are monitored year-round, but more frequent monitoring is conducted during
the peak recreational season, which extends from May to October.
The MDEQ determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices throughout
the state. Samples are taken midwater column at wading depth (approximately 0.5 m). Monitoring frequency is based on
the period of recreational use, the nature and extent of use during
each period, and the water quality history for the beach.
Mississippi Percent Exceedance
Once a beach is placed under advisory, the monitoring
for 19 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 17.5
frequency increases until two consecutive samples meet standards
14%
and the beach is reopened.1 States that monitor more frequently 14.0
after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent 11%
10%
9% 10.5
exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they
would have had if their sampling schedule were not altered after 7.0
an exceedance was found. 3.5
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 32 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 77% to 331 days in 2009 from 187 days in 2008, 249 days in 2007, 0 days in 2006, and 41 days in 2005.
In addition, there were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect between
7 and 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing/advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 71% (235) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
23% (76) were from unknown sources of contamination, and 6% (20) were from sewage spills/leaks.
Notes
1 Emily Cotton, Regional Biologist, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, personal communication, June 2010.
New Hampshire has 16 coastal and estuarine beaches lining 18 miles of Atlantic waters. The New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (DES) administers the state’s beachwater quality monitoring program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season extends from the end of May through most of September. In 2009, the
program continued to partner with a local Surfrider Foundation chapter to monitor two beaches (North Beach in
Hampton1 and Jenness Beach State Park in Rye)2 during both the
season and parts of the off-season.
DES determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and New Hampshire Percent Exceedance
for 15 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
notification protocols and practices at coastal beaches throughout
3%
the state. Samples are taken in knee-deep water. Sampling 3.00
frequencies at beaches in New Hampshire are based on beach
2.25
history, microbial pathogen sources, and beach use.
The DES Beach Inspection Program monitors all known and 1.50
1% 1% 1%
suspected discharge sources at designated coastal beaches.3 When a
0.75
sample exceeds water quality standards, the DES resamples water
daily from the beach to determine when bacteria levels have
2006 2007 2008 2009
decreased below state standards. Extra storm event sampling may
be conducted at beaches where watershed runoff resulting from
rainfall is expected to impact beachwater quality.1 States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance is found or
after rainfall events will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they
would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, New Hampshire reported 17 coastal beaches in Rockingham County, of which 10 (59%) were moni
tored more than once a week, 5 (29%) once a week, 1 (6%) every other week, and 1 (6%) less than once a month. For
the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum
bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate
samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 1% of all reported beach monitoring
samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates
in 2009 were New Castle TB (5%), Seabrook Harbor Beach (4%), and State Beach (3%) in Rockingham County.
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 15 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard was 1% in 2009, the same as in 2008 and in 2007, and 3% in 2006.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: New Hampshire’s policy is to issue advisories, rather than closings, at its beaches.
New Hampshire applies an enterococcus single-sample maximum of 104 cfu/100 ml and a geometric mean of
35 cfu/100 ml. At beaches that are sampled in three locations, when either two or more samples collected at a beach
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 NH Department of Environmental Services. North Beach Water Quality Report Summer 2009. January 2010.
2 NH Department of Environmental Services. Jenness Beach State Park Water Quality Report Summer 2009. January 2010.
3 Jody Connor, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, personal communication, June 2009.
4 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Beach Inspection Program, accessed at http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/
wmb/beaches/samples.htm, July 2010.
New Jersey has 700 public coastal beaches lining 127 miles of Atlantic waters.1 Coastal water quality monitoring is
conducted through the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CCMP), which is administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
Sewer systems in and around the New York/New Jersey Harbor are designed so that during periods of wet weather,
excess flows are discharged to the harbor waters. These excess flows contain floating debris comprised of litter and
toilet generated waste such as hygiene products. When discharged
to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Complex, the floating debris
tends to collect into slicks that can exit the harbor and wash up New Jersey Percent Exceedance
for 209 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
on beaches.2 The multiagency Floatables Action Plan, which has
5%
been in place for 19 years,1 involves several means of controlling
4% 4%
floating debris, such as helicopter surveillance to locate slicks,
skimmer vessels fitted with nets that collect floating debris, 3%
floating booms that trap debris near sewer-system discharge points
for later collection, and sewer-system improvements intended to
maximize the ability to retain floating debris. These methods have
prevented tons of floating debris from reaching the harbor and
2006 2007 2008 2009
New Jersey beaches. The NJDEP’s Clean Shores Program, in
which state inmates remove floatable debris from the shorelines of
the Hudson, Raritan, and Delaware estuaries and barrier island bays, removes approximately 2,500 tons of trash and
debris from New Jersey shorelines each year as part of the Floatables Action Plan.1
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The sampling season runs from mid-May to mid-September. In addition to regular beachwater
monitoring for bacteria concentrations, the NJDEP conducts aerial surveillance of near-shore coastal waters six days
a week during the summer and routinely inspects the 17 wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to the ocean.
NJDEP determines sampling practices, standards, and notification protocols and practices at coastal beaches
throughout the state. Samples are taken 12 to 18 inches below the surface in water that is between knee and chest deep.
Local and county health departments determine which areas to monitor and establish ocean beach sampling stations
based on proximity to a potential pollution source. When there is no pollution source nearby, ocean sampling locations
are chosen to represent water quality at several nearby beaches. Every recreational bay beach is sampled.3
Once an exceedance of bacterial standards is found, daily monitoring is conducted until the beachwater meets standards.
States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower
total closing/advisory days than they would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, there were 700 lifeguarded, recreational ocean and bay beaches in New Jersey. Currently, NRDC’s
report contains information on 218 monitored recreational beach sites and 27 monitored nonbathing beach sites (which
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
NJ.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
are monitored once a week), but not the remaining unmonitored beaches, which are not yet in EPA’s beach database. For
those lifeguarded recreational beaches that are not monitored and do not have sources of pollution, such as storm drains,
the monitoring station nearest them is considered representative of their water quality. New Jersey is in the process of
entering all unmonitored recreational beaches into the EPA’s beach data system.
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum
bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate
samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 5% of all reported beach monitoring
samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in
2009 were Beachwood Beach West (Beachwood) (51%), Maxson Avenue (Pt Pleasant) (35%), Central (Island Heights)
(33%), River Avenue (Pt Pleasant) (33%), and West Beach (Pine Beach) (33%) in Ocean County; Wreck Pond Outfall
(Spring Lake) in Monmouth County (30%); and Anglesea Avenue (Ocean Gate) in Ocean County (30%).
Ocean County had the highest exceedance rate (11%) in 2009, followed by Monmouth (5%), Atlantic (1%), and
Cape May (0%). The Ocean County Health Department conducted additional wet-weather sampling at seven river
and back-bay beaches during the 2009 beach season, most likely because of the high rate of exceedance in the county.
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 209 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard increased to 4% in 2009 from 3% in 2008, and 5% in 2007, and 4% in 2006.
Closings
Standards and Procedures: New Jersey’s policy is to issue closings when bacteria levels exceed standards. The state’s
standard for marine beachwater quality is a single-sample maximum for enterococcus of 104 cfu/100 ml. A geometric
mean standard is not applied when making beach closing decisions.
If bacteria levels exceed the single-sample standard, the beach is resampled New Jersey
immediately. If the second sample exceeds the standard, the beach is closed. Sources of Contamination
There is no protocol for delaying or forgoing a closing when resampling
confirms an exceedance. Resampling is conducted in conjunction with a
sanitary survey of the beach. County and local health departments are allowed,
at their discretion, to issue swimming advisories after one exceedance of the
Stormwater 0%
bathing standard. If high bacteria concentrations are found at an ocean or bay Sewage 3%
station, sampling is conducted linearly along the beach to determine the extent Wildlife 0%
Other 3%
of the affected area. This “bracket sampling” can result in an extension of a Unknown 93%
beach closing to contiguous lifeguarded beaches.3
Four ocean beaches around the Wreck Pond Outfall (Brown Avenue and York
Avenue in Spring Lake and the Terrace and Beacon Boulevard in Sea Girt) are
automatically closed for 24 hours after the end of all rainfall events greater than
0.1 inch or that cause an increased flow in storm drains; when events are greater
than 2.8 inches within a 24-hour period, beaches are closed for 48 hours from the end of all rainfalls. Lifeguards prohibit
swimming near any parts of these beaches where the stormwater plume is observed to be mixing within the swimming
area.3 L Street Bay Beach in Belmar and the Shark River Beach and Yacht Club also have preemptive rainfall standards.
Beaches in New Jersey are closed if there is a known sewage spill that is suspected of contaminating the beachwater.1
Health and enforcement agencies in New Jersey can close a beach to protect public health at any time.3
Algae samples are collected when remote sensing data indicate an increase in chlorophyll levels in a specific area. If
a harmful algal bloom is identified, county and local health officials are notified and closing information is posted on
the DEP web page and phone line; in the case of such an event, local beach managers close beaches as necessary.
Number of Closings: Only those beach closings ordered by local health officials are included here because these are the
only closings that are recorded by CCMP. Data are not available for other types of closings, such as those due to rough
seas, beach maintenance projects, shark sightings, and fish and clam wash-ups.3 The CCMP also does not include those
closings that are briefly in effect during the assessment of water conditions by local officials.3
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 180 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 23% (41) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 71% (128) were preemptive (i.e.,
issued without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, 2% (3) were preemptive due to known sewage spills,
and 4% (8) were preemptive due to other reasons.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 93% (168) of closing/advisory days were from unknown sources
of contamination, 3% (6) were from sewage spills/leaks, and 3% (6) were from other sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication, June 2010.
2 US EPA. Floatables Action Plan (website). Accessed at www.epa.gov/region02/water/, May 2008.
3 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program Summary Report for 2007 and 2008. Dec 2009.
New York is the only state in the nation with ocean, estuarine, and Great Lakes coastline. There are 127 miles of Atlantic
Ocean coastline, 231 miles of shorefront on Long Island Sound, 548 miles of Long Island bayfront, and 83 miles of
shorefront on islands off the Long Island coast. In addition to these marine waters, there are at least 200 miles of
freshwater shoreline on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.1 Nearly all of the state’s beaches are on Atlantic waters; only
39 are on Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. The New York State Department of Health administers the coastal beach
monitoring program in New York.
More than 70% of New York City’s 6,000 miles of sewer
New York Percent Exceedance
system is combined with stormwater pipes, which can discharge
for 314 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 13.75
a mixture of rainfall runoff and raw sewage into area waterways
11%
during and immediately after precipitation.2 These excess flows 10% 10% 11.00
contain floating debris comprised of litter and toilet-generated 8%
8.25
waste such as hygiene products, as well as heavy pollutant loads.
When discharged to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Complex, 5.50
the floating debris tends to collect into slicks that can wash up on 2.75
beaches. The multi-agency Floatables Action Plan employs several
means of controlling floating debris, such as: helicopter surveil
2006 2007 2008 2009
lance to locate slicks; skimmer vessels fitted with nets that collect
floating debris; floating booms that trap debris near sewer-system
discharge points for later collection; and sewer-system improvements intended to maximize the ability to retain floating
debris. These methods have prevented tons of floating debris from reaching area beaches each year.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season generally extends from May to September.
Sampling practices, locations, and notification protocols for coastal beaches in the state have been established by
each of the administering agency’s 11 contractors in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s guidance criteria for the require
ments of the BEACH Act grant. Water samples are collected 18 inches below the surface in water that is approximately
three feet deep. Monitoring locations and sampling frequency are determined by a variety of factors, including, but not
limited to, potential pollution sources, historical water quality and physical characteristics of the beach property.
Samples taken as part of sanitary surveys and special studies may be taken at outfalls and other sources.3 Some
jurisdictions sample more frequently once an exceedance of standards is found.
Results: In 2009, New York reported 350 coastal beaches, of which 3 (1%) were monitored daily, 80 (23%) more
than once a week, 125 (36%) once a week, 72 (21%) every other week, 67 (19%) once a month, and 3 (1%) which
were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded
the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance
rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 11% of all
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
NY.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest
percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Krull Park in Niagara County (57%), St. Vincent de Paul Beach in Erie County
(52%), Lake Erie State Park Beach (38%) and Blue Water Beach in Chautauqua County (38%), Ontario Beach in
Monroe County (38%), Wright Park East in Chautauqua County (38%), Tanner Park in Suffolk County (36%), Lake
Erie Beach in Erie County (36%), and Sunset Bay Beach Club in Chautauqua County (36%).
Niagara County had the highest exceedance rate (39%) in 2009 followed by Chautauqua (33%), Monroe (31%), Erie
(30%), Wayne (25%), Bronx (15%), Queens (8%), Nassau (8%), Westchester (6%), Kings (6%), Suffolk (6%), Cayuga
(5%), Jefferson (4%), Oswego (3%), and Richmond (1%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported
each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 314 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
in 2009 was 10%, up from 8% in 2008, 11% in 2007, and 10% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 964 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 10% to 1,775 from 1,610 days in 2008, 1,547 days in 2007, 1,280 days in 2006, and 827 days in 2005. In
addition, there were 2 extended events (153 days total) and 4 permanent events (1,460 days total) in 2009. Extended
events are those in effect more than 6 weeks but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 964 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 38% (679) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 56% (994) were preemptive (i.e.,
without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, 5% (82) were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks,
and 1% (20) were preemptive due to other reasons.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 76% (1,349) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
14% (243) were from unknown sources of contamination, 13% (237) were from sewage spills/leaks, 1% (20) were from
wildlife, and 1% (23) were from other sources of contamination. Totals exceed total days and 100% because more than
one contamination source was reported for some events.
Notes
1 New York State Department of Economic Development, http://www.iloveny.com/AboutNewYorkState/TopFacts.aspx as viewed on 7/7/2008.
2 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey, New York State Department of Sanitation, 1993.
3 Eric Wiegert. New York State Department of Health, personal communication. June 2010.
4 Lily Huang. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, personal communication. June 2007.
Most of North Carolina’s 240 public coastal beaches, which stretch along 320 miles of Atlantic waters, are located on
barrier islands. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) administers the
state’s BEACH Act grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: North Carolina’s swim season is from April 1 to October 31. Monitoring occurs year-round but is
less frequent during the off-season, a period when no new notifications are issued.1
NCDENR conducts sampling and notification activities throughout the state; these duties are not delegated to local
authorities. Samples are collected in the ocean surf 16 feet from the sampler’s body using a telescopic golf ball retriever in
knee-deep water, 6 to 12 inches below the surface of the water.
Approximately half of the samples are collected by boat, and these
samples are taken in water that is three feet deep, 12 inches below North Carolina Percent Exceedance
for 198 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
the surface. Samples obtained from piers must be taken at the
5%
location of the most used area 6 to 12 inches below the water’s
surface. North Carolina has prioritized its beaches based on usage 4% 4%
Results: In 2009, North Carolina reported 241 coastal beaches, 112 (46%) of which were monitored once a week
and 129 (54%) every other week. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
NC.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009
percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any).
In 2009, 2% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The
beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Swanquarter Bay-end of docks on SR 1136 in Hyde
County (17%), Sound Access at the intersection of E. Main St. and Tooley St., Belhaven in Beaufort County (17%),
Banks Channel-Waynick Blvd. approximately 150 yards north of Lula St. in New Hanover County (12%), Public
Beach south side of Dawson Creek Bridge in Pamlico County (12%), Cama Access, corner of Waynick Blvd. and
Sunset Ave. Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County (12%), Pamlico River-City Park in Beaufort County (11%),
Pamlico River-Washington-Railroad Trestle in Beaufort County (11%), East shore of Blounts Bay-Pamlico River in
Beaufort County (11%), and Cedar Island-beach area southeast of wildlife ramp adjacent to the ferry landing in
Carteret County (10%).
Beaufort County had the highest exceedance rate (7%) in 2009, followed by Pamlico (6%), New Hanover (5%),
Camden (3%), Hyde (3%), Onslow (2%), Carteret (2%), Pender (1%), Dare (1%), Currituck (1%), Brunswick (1%),
and Craven (1%). There were no exceedances in Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Tyrrell Counties.
Comparing percent exceedance rates to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported
each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 198 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
increased to 4% in 2009 from 3% in 2008, 5% in 2007, and 4% in 2006.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: The NCDENR does not have the authority to close beaches; it issues alerts and advisories
only. However, the state and county health directors do have the authority to close any body of water if necessary for
the protection of public health.2 North Carolina uses the Enterolert® method for analysis instead of membrane filtration.
This method produces bacterial counts in terms of most probable
number (mpn) rather than colony forming units (cfu), but both of North Carolina Sources of Contamination
these values are intended to represent the number of organisms in (Number of Days) 275
a sample. From May 1 to September 30, North Carolina’s water 220
220
quality standards at its Tier 1 beaches are a single-sample maxi
mum of 104 mpn/100 ml and a running monthly geometric mean 146 165
of 35 mpn/100 ml. At Tier 2 beaches, the standard is a single-sample
110
maximum of 276 mpn/100 ml, and at Tier 3 beaches, the standard
is a single-sample maximum of 500 mpn/100 ml.3 During April 55
and October, the standard for Tier 1 beaches is generally the same 0 2 0
0
as the standard for Tier 2 beaches.1 However, the NCDENR can Stormwater Sewage Wildlife Other Unknown
opt to apply Tier 1 standards during those months if the water Total days associated with sources exceeds reported total
closing/advisory days because more than one source of
temperature is warm enough for high recreational usage. 2
contamination was reported for some events.
From May 1 to September 30, an alert is issued for Tier 1 beaches
whose enterococcus levels are between 104 and 500 mpn/100 ml.
A second sample is collected immediately when an alert is issued, and if levels in the resample exceed 104 mpn/100 ml
then the alert converts to an advisory. For Tier 1 beaches that are sampled in triplicate, an advisory is issued without
resampling when two out of three simultaneous samples exceed 104 mpn/100 ml. For Tier 2 beaches, an alert is issued
if a sample is between 276 and 500 mpn/100 ml and a resample is conducted. This alert converts to an advisory if the
resample is over 276 mpn/100 ml. An advisory is issued without a resample at Tier 1 and 2 beaches if a single sample is
greater than 500 mpn/100 ml. Alerts are not issued at Tier 3 beaches. Instead, they are resampled if the levels are higher
than 500 mpn/100 ml, and if the second sample is above that level, an advisory is issued.1
The NCDENR observes fecal coliform results from the state’s shellfish-growing waters to get an indication of water
quality at nearby recreational sites.
During times with extreme rains, such as in tropical storms and hurricanes, the NCDENR sometimes issues blanket
advisories that cover large regions or all of coastal North Carolina.2 In addition, permanent signs are posted on either
side of storm drain outfalls stating that swimming between the signs is not recommended and that waters may be
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 32 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 39% to 233 days in 2009 from 168 days in 2008, 123 days in 2007, 346 days in 2006, and 197 days in
2005. There were 2 extended events (112 total days) and 1 permanent event (92 days) in 2008. Extended events are
those in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks, whereas permanent ones are in effect for more
than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 94% (220) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
63% (146) were from wildlife, and 1% (2) were from other sources of contamination. Totals exceed total days and 100%
because more than one contamination source was reported for some events.
Notes
1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Beach Monitoring Project Quality Assurance Project Plan,
revised January 4, 2005.
2 J.D. Potts, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, personal communication, June 2010.
3 North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program Sampling Data, accessed
at www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/Water_Monitoring/RWQweb/data.htm. May 2008.
Ohio has 62 public beaches lining 7.3 miles of Lake Erie shoreline. The state’s beachwater quality monitoring program
is administered by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season varies from location to location, depending on which entity is con
ducting the monitoring, but generally runs from Memorial Day through Labor Day. ODH conducts water quality
sampling at beaches in Lucas, Ottawa, Ashtabula, and Lorain Counties as well as Kelley’s Island State Park, but
because of a delay in the passage of the state budget, this subset of the state’s Lake Erie beaches were not sampled
from July 1 to July 15.
Ohio is a “home rule” state, and the state can only recommend sampling practices, standards, and notification
protocols and procedures to local entities that participate in the beachwater quality monitoring program. Guidance
recommends that samples be taken in water that is three feet deep,
one foot below the surface. For the most part, monitoring is
Ohio Percent Exceedance
conducted at the area of the beach used most by the public.
for 20 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 26.25
Nearly all beaches are already sampled daily or as frequently as
21% 21%
laboratory availability will allow. The monitoring frequency does 19% 21.00
17%
not increase after a bacterial exceedance has been found.
15.75
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
OH.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Closings and Advisories
Ohio
Standards and Procedures: Local jurisdictions have the authority to close
Sources of Contamination
beaches and to issue advisories. Ohio uses the E. coli single-sample maximum
standard of 235 cfu/100 ml for beach advisory decisions. No geometric mean
standard is applied when making closing and advisory decisions.
The state recommends that local authorities issue advisories when the
bacterial standard is exceeded, and these recommendations were followed in all Stormwater 0%
Sewage 0%
cases in 2009. Wildlife 0%
A predictive model called Nowcast uses environmental factors including Other 0%
Unknown 100%
rainfall, turbidity, and/or wave height to predict E. coli levels. Between May 18
and July 23 in 2009, Huntington Beach was placed on advisory status if
Nowcast predicted that the probability of E. coli concentrations exceeding
235 cfu/100 ml was 23 percent or greater. For the remainder of the swim
season, the beach was placed on advisory status if Nowcast predicted that the
probability of E. coli concentrations exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml was 26 percent or greater.1 Bacterial monitoring at
Huntington Beach has shown that Nowcast-based notifications are issued in a more protective pattern than if they
were issued based on bacterial monitoring.2
Edgewater Beach was placed on advisory based on Nowcast predictions as well in 2009. Between May 17 and June 8
in 2009, Edgewater Beach was placed on advisory status if Nowcast predicted that the probability of E. coli concentra
tions exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml was 22 percent or greater. From June 9 to August 10, Edgewater Beach was placed
on advisory status if Nowcast predicted that the probability of E. coli concentrations exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml was
27 percent or greater. For the remainder of the swim season, the beach was placed on advisory status if Nowcast predicted
that the probability of E. coli concentrations exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml was 32 percent or greater. In 2009, the model
predicted 36 advisory days, 20 of which were accurate, while the previous day’s bacteria count as measured by membrane
filtration would have resulted in 30 advisory days, 10 of which were accurate.1 The model also did a better job of
predicting advisory days in 2009 than qPCR, a rapid test method that failed to predict all 3 occasions (out of
18 sampling events) when E. coli counts (as measured using membrane filtration) exceeded the standard.1
There are no preemptive rainfall standards at beaches in Ohio, but preemptive rainfall advisories can be issued by
beach managers if they feel water quality has been compromised by rain.3 Beach managers may also restrict beach access
because of sewage or other pollution spills, or for any other threat to public health.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 302 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
increased 29% to 1,012 days in 2009 from 783 days in 2008, 657 days in 2007, 629 days in 2006, and 182 days in
2005. In addition, there was 1 extended event and no permanent events in 2009; there were no extended or permanent
events in 2008. Extended events are those in effect between 7 and 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect
more than six but not more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated
bacteria levels from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Ohio Department of Health. Year 2009 Bathing Beach Monitoring Program Results. Accessed at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/eh/bbeach/
beachmon.aspx. December 2009.
2 Ohio Department of Health. Year 2007 Bathing Beach Monitoring Program Results. Accessed at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/eh/bbeach/
beachmon.aspx. Not dated.
3 Barry Rice, Ohio Department of Health, personal communication, May 2009.
Oregon has 59 beaches lining 186 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline. The state’s beachwater quality monitoring program
is administered by the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: In 2009, sampling occurred from March to November, with more frequent monitoring during
the peak season from May to September. Of the beaches that were sampled, some were sampled only during the
nonpeak-use season, when they are visited by surfers and wet weather is expected to compromise water quality
(9/15/2008–11/19/2008 and 3/9/2009–5/6/2009), while others were sampled only during the peak-use season
(Memorial Day to Labor Day).1
DHS determines sampling practices, locations, standards,
Oregon Percent Exceedance
and notification protocols and practices throughout the state.
for 20 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
All samples are collected and processed by an Oregon Department
8%
of Environmental Quality employee who travels the coastline in 8
a mobile lab. Samples are collected at ankle to knee depth in the 6%
6
middle of typical bathing areas. Beaches are prioritized for sampling
based on the number of people recreating in the water, previous 3% 4
water quality data, known and suspected point and non-point 2
1%
pollution sources, and public comments.
Water samples are taken near known or potential pollution
2006 2007 2008 2009
sources. Following an advisory during the peak season, an addi
tional sample is collected within 96 hours, if resources are avail
able. The program conducts follow-up monitoring after known sewage spills and major pollution events.1 States
that monitor more frequently after an exceedance is found and after pollution events will tend to have higher percent
exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they would have had if their sampling frequency did not
increase after an exceedance was found or after pollution events.
Results: In 2009, Oregon reported 91 coastal beaches, of which 5 (5%) were monitored once a week and 19 (21%)
every other week, and 67 (74%) were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of
monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to
calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach
season, if any). In 2009, 1% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards. Four beaches had exceedances in 2009: Sunset Bay State Park Beach in Coos County (12%), Mill Beach
(9%) and Harris Beach State Park (7%) in Curry County, and D River Beach in Lincoln County (5%).
Coos County had the highest exceedance rate (5%) in 2009, followed by Curry (3%), and Lincoln (1%). Clatsop,
Lane, and Tillamook Counties had no exceedances. The beach in Douglas County was not monitored.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
OR.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 20 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard decreased to 1% in 2009 from 3% in 2008, 8% in 2007, and 6% in 2006.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: In Oregon, the public is guaranteed free and uninterrupted use of all beaches along the
coastline. Therefore, beach advisories are issued but closings are not. Oregon uses a single-sample maximum enterococcus
standard of 158 cfu/100 ml for beach advisory decisions in marine waters. This standard corresponds to the EPA’s
“Moderate Full Body Contact Recreation” value for 19 illnesses/1,000 swimmers. The DHS says its use of a standard
that is less strict than the EPA’s “Designated Beach Area” standard is protective of public health, given the small number
of swimmers and other recreational users of coastal waters in Oregon. The geo
metric mean of sampling results is calculated for tracking trends only, not for Oregon
issuing advisories. Sources of Contamination
Public notification for beach advisories occurs if a single sample result exceeds
Oregon’s action limit. Resampling, in lieu of issuing public notification, is
acceptable if there is reason to doubt the accuracy or certainty of the first
sample, but to date, there have been no exceedances attributed to sampling or
Stormwater 40%
laboratory error that required resampling prior to the issuance of an advisory.1 Sewage 19%
The state does not have preemptive standards for rainfall but does issue pre Wildlife 0%
emptive advisories after a known sewage spill or major pollution event where Other 0%
Unknown 42%
the potential exists for bacteria indicator levels to exceed the state standard.1
Number of Advisories: Total advisory days for 19 events lasting six consecu
tive weeks or less increased 23% to 106 days in 2009 from 86 days in 2008,
101 days in 2007, 66 days in 2006, and 117 days in 2005. In addition, there
were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than 6 but not more
than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Advisories: For the 19 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 42% (44) of advisory days in 2009 were
due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 40% (42) were preemptive (i.e., without waiting for monitoring
results) due to heavy rainfall, and 19% (20) were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 40% (42) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
42% (44) were from unknown sources of contamination, and 19% (20) were from sewage spills/leaks.
Notes
1 Oregon Department of Human Services. Annual Performance Report for the Oregon Department of Human Services BEACH Monitoring Program
(Agreement #CU96031701)—Activity Period October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. Not dated.
Pennsylvania has 40 miles of Lake Erie coastline, eight miles of which are permitted public bathing beaches. The
Pennsylvania Department of Health, coordinated by the Erie County Department of Health, administers the coastal
beach monitoring program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Beachwater quality monitoring activities are conducted from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Practices are regulated by the state, with permit holders allowed to monitor more frequently than the state requires
if they desire. Samples are collected in water that is approximately 30 inches deep, midway between the surface and the
bottom. By regulation, at least three samples of water are taken from each beach at least once a week. Two samples are
taken approximately 50 feet from each end of the beach and the
third sample is taken in the center. Presque Isle State Park has
established a protocol that requires two sampling events each week. Pennsylvania Percent Exceedance
for 6 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 11.25
When a sample is found to exceed bacterial standards, beaches
9%
are resampled for three consecutive days in order to lift advisories 9.00
and/or restrictions as soon as possible.1 States that monitor more
6.75
frequently after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher 5%
percent exceedances and lower total advisory days than they would 4% 4.50
have had if their sampling frequency did not change after an 2%
2.25
exceedance was found.
2006 2007 2008 2009
Results: In 2009, Pennsylvania reported 13 Lake Erie beaches in
Erie County, all of which were monitored twice a week. For the
fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum
bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate
samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009, 8% of all reported beach monitoring
samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates
in 2009 were Beach 1 West Extension (20%), Beach 1 West (16%), and Barracks Beach (10%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and
reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 6 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the
standard decreased to 4% in 2009 from 5% in 2008, 2%in 2007, and 9% in 2006.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
PA.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
are also advised about the necessary precautions to take should they choose to
Pennsylvania
enter the water. If a single-sample count is 1,000 cfu/100 ml or greater, a swim
Sources of Contamination
ming restriction is posted and swimming is prohibited. Pennsylvania also uses
the 5-sample, 30-day geometric mean standard for E. coli of 126 cfu/100 ml to
post restrictions.2 There is no protocol for delaying or forgoing an advisory or
restriction when bacterial standards are exceeded.
Pennsylvania issues preemptive rain advisories at its Lake Erie beaches when Stormwater 100%
Sewage 0%
rainfall exceeds 0.5 inch in a 24-hour period.2 Beaches are also preemptively Wildlife 0%
posted with restrictions when there is a known sewage spill and when high Other 0%
waves and strong winds out of the west are present.2 Unknown 0%
Causes of Restrictions and Advisories: For 26 events lasting 6 consecutive weeks or less, 74% (25) of restriction/advisory
days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 24% (8) were preemptive based on the results
of computer modeling, and 3% (1) were preemptive (i.e., without waiting for monitoring results) due to other reasons.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: All restriction/advisory days were from stormwater runoff.
Notes
1 US EPA. Beach Sampling in Pennsylvania (Lake Erie) (website). Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/coast/beachpa.htm. July 2008.
2 Doug Range, Erie County Department of Health, personal communication, June 2009.
Rhode Island has 238 public coastal beaches along about 400 miles of Atlantic Ocean and Narragansett Bay waters. The
Rhode Island Department of Health is responsible for beachwater monitoring and water quality notifications.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The regular monitoring season runs from Memorial Day through Labor Day. The City of Newport
grants money to a local Aquidneck Island volunteer organization, Clean Ocean Access, to continue sampling Easton’s
Beach and Atlantic Beach Club Beach during the off-season when surfers utilize the beach area.1 Additional volunteer
groups including the Surfrider Foundation assist with sampling efforts throughout the year.
The Department of Health determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and
practices throughout the state. Samples are collected just below the surface of the water in water that is approximately
three feet deep. High priority for more frequent monitoring is given
to beaches with direct known sources of pollution (i.e., stormwater Rhode Island Percent Exceedance
outfalls, septic/sewer connections, population density, location of for 39 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 25
nearby sewer plants) and high usage, and to facilities that have 20%
20
exhibited poor water quality in the past.
Monitoring efforts are focused on areas of greatest concern and 12%
13% 15
target sample collection for times when high bacteria counts are
8%
most likely to be present. The number of samples collected on a
beach is dependent on the length of coastline and the presence of
physical barriers to circulation (jetties, groins, etc.) that can trap
bacterial contaminants near the shore. If a beach is closed or placed 2006 2007 2008 2009
under advisory, sampling is conducted daily until the water quality
meets standards and the beach is reopened. Extensive wet-weather sampling is conducted to determine the reopening
schedule for beaches under preemptive rainfall advisories.2 States that monitor more frequently after an exceedance
is found or after heavy rainfall will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory
days than they would have had if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found or after
heavy rainfall.
Results: In 2009, Rhode Island reported 234 coastal beaches, 15 (6%) of which were monitored more than once a
week, 7 (3%) once a week, 13 (6%) every other week, 38 (16%) once a month, and 2 (1%) less than once a month;
159 (68%) were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that
exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent
exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). In 2009,
20% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The beaches with
the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Saunderstown Yacht Club in Washington County (54%); Easton’s
Beach in Newport County (40%): Scarborough State Beach North in Washington County (38%); Third Beach in
Newport County (34%); Scarborough State Beach South in Washington County (33%); Atlantic Beach Club (33%),
Peabodys Beach (31%), and Marine Avenue Beach (27%) in Newport County; Plum Beach Club in Washington County
(25%); and King Park Swim Area in Newport County (21%).
Number of Closings: Total closing days for 79 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less increased 44% to 178 days
in 2009 from 124 days in 2008, 86 days in 2007, 256 days in 2006, and 57 days in 2005. In addition, there were no
extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than 6 but not more than
13 consecutive weeks. Rhode Island told NRDC that, historically, increased rainfall has been directly correlated with
an increase in beach closings; the increase in beach closing days and percent exceedance rates is likely attributable to
an extensive increase in rainfall in 2009.2
Causes of Closings: All closing and advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels
from unknown sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Rhode Island Department of Health. Beach Monitoring Program 2009 Season Report. March 2010.
2 Amie Parris, Rhode Island Department of Health, personal communication, June 2010.
There are 63 beaches in South Carolina lining 180 miles of Atlantic coastline (102 miles on the mainland coast, and
78 miles on islands without bridges from the mainland barrier islands or on sandbars). The state’s beachwater quality
monitoring program is administered by the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season is from May 15 to October 15. DHEC determines monitoring locations,
sampling practices, standards, and notification protocols, which are uniform throughout the state. Samples are taken in
water that is 20 to 40 inches deep, 12 inches below the surface. In
South Carolina, beaches are prioritized for inclusion in the
South Carolina Percent Exceedance
monitoring program based on level of use and water quality
for 23 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
history. Most Tier 1 beaches have stormwater outfalls.
8%
Sampling is deliberately conducted at swashes and outfalls. 7% 8
Beaches whose water quality has fallen below standards or that 6%
6
have been under a rainfall advisory are sampled daily and reopened
4%
when the standards are met. States that monitor more frequently 4
after an exceedance is found or after heavy rains tend to have 2
higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory
days than those that do not alter their sampling schedule after an
2006 2007 2008 2009
exceedance is found or after heavy rainfall.
Results: In 2009, South Carolina reported 63 coastal beaches, 7 (11%) of which were monitored once a week, 16 (25%)
every other week, and 40 (63%) were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of
monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to
calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach
season). In 2009, 4% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards.
The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were South Carolina State Park and Campground (15%),
Surfside Beach (10%), Springmaid Beach (9%), and Myrtle Beach in Horry County (7%).
Horry County had the highest exceedance rate (6%) in 2009 followed by Colleton (1%). There were no exceedances
in Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown Counties.
Comparing percent exceedance rates to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported
each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 23 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
decreased to 4% in 2009 from 7% in 2008, 6 %in 2007, and 8 %in 2006.
Advisories
Standards and Procedures: The beachwater quality monitoring program has the authority to issue advisories, but not
closings; in South Carolina, only elected officials can close a beach. South Carolina applies a single-sample maximum
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
SC.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
standard for enterococcus of 104 cfu/100 ml. Advisories are not issued in South Carolina based on the geometric mean
of five samples during a 30 day period.
The DHEC issues an advisory immediately when the enterococcus bacteria level reaches 500 cfu/100 ml and above.
If the bacteria level is above 104 cfu/100 ml but below 500 cfu/100 ml, an additional sample is collected. If the second
sample is also above 104 cfu/100 ml, then the department issues an advisory.
A rain model is used for posting preemptive advisories at Horry County’s South Carolina
Tier 1 beaches. Work to improve the accuracy of this model is underway. Sources of Contamination
Preemptive rainfall advisories are issued at certain beaches that have a
history of high bacteria levels from stormwater. Most pipe outfalls and swashes
in Horry County are under permanent rainfall advisory, with permanent
signs posted.1
Stormwater 17%
Sewage 0%
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 10 events Wildlife 0%
Other 83%
lasting six consecutive weeks or less increased 33% to 48 days in 2009 from 36 Unknown 0%
days in 2008, 108 days in 2007, 684 days in 2006, and 592 days in 2005.
In addition, there were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008.
Extended events are those in effect between 7 and 13 consecutive weeks;
permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 10 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 77% (37) of closing/advisory
days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 2% (1) were preemptive (i.e., without waiting
for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, and 21% (10) were preemptive due to a chemical oil spill.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 17% (8) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff, and
83% (40) were from other sources of contamination.
Notes
1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. BEACH Grant Semi-Annual Update. November 2009.
Texas has 169 public beaches lining 324 of the approximately 2500 miles of Texas shoreline. The Texas General Land
Office (GLO) administers the Texas Beach Watch Program.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Beaches are monitored year-round, but are most frequently monitored from May to
September as well as during the month of March, in order to coincide with spring break at Gulf of Mexico beaches.1
The GLO determines sampling practices, locations, and
standards, and recommends that local government and health
Texas Percent Exceedance
departments issue beach advisories when the bacterial standard is
for 63 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 11.25
exceeded. Samples are generally collected about one foot below the
9%
surface in water that is knee deep and in an area of high activity. If 8% 9.00
the majority of this recreational activity occurs at a depth
6% 6.75
significantly different than two feet, then samples can be collected 5%
at the location of greatest swimmer activity. Also, if the two-foot 4.50
sampling depth occurs more than 50 meters from shore, samples 2.25
can be collected 50 meters from shore or at the location of greatest
swimmer activity. Recreational beach segments that are used most 2006 2007 2008 2009
frequently by the public and where health risks are the greatest are
given priority for monitoring.
If a sample exceeds standards, monitoring is conducted daily until standards are met. States that monitor more
frequently after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory
days than they would have had if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, Texas reported 169 coastal beaches, 65 (38%) of which were monitored once a week, and 104
(62%) of which were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring
samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the
2009 percent exceedance values, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if
any). In 2009, 5% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards.
The beaches with the highest percent exceedance in 2009 were Ropes Park (37%), Poenisch Park (28%), Cole
Park (25%), JFK Causeway-SW (22%) in Nueces County; Palacios-Palacios Pavillion (22%) in Matagorda County;
Quintana (17%) in Brazoria County (17%); Galveston Island State Park Backside (17%), 45th St. (11%), and
61st St. (10%) in Galveston County; McGee Beach (9%) in Nueces County; and Rockport Beach Park (9%) in
Aransas County.
Matagorda County had the highest exceedance (9%) in 2009 followed by Aransas (9%), Nueces (8%), San Patricio
(8%), Kleberg (6%), Galveston (5%), Brazoria (4%), Jefferson (1%), and Cameron (1%).
Comparing percent exceedance values to previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored and reported
each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 63 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding the standard
decreased to 5 percent in 2009 from 6% in 2008, 9% in 2007, and 8% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 152 events
lasting six consecutive weeks or less decreased 27% to 231 days in 2009 from
318 days in 2008, 532 days in 2007, 473 days in 2006, and 420 days in 2005. In addition, there were no extended or
permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive
weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 152 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 99% (229) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, and 1% (2) were preemptive (i.e.,
issued without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 24% (55) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff,
71% (164) were from unknown sources of contamination, 2% (5) were from wildlife, and 3% (7) were from other
sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Craig Davis, Texas General Land Office, personal communication, May 2010.
Virginia has 47 public beaches stretching along 70 miles of Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay waters. The state’s beachwater
quality monitoring program is administered by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH).
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The monitoring season runs from mid-May through Labor Day, with some sites sampled
through September.
VDH determines sampling practices, locations, standards, and notification protocols and practices throughout the
state. Samples are collected in 0.5 m of water, 0.3 m from the surface.1
Sampling sites in Virginia are chosen based on proximity to wastewater outfalls, bather load, and ease of access to the
beach.1 If a beach is closed or placed under advisory, the water is resampled immediately (with a duplicate sample sent
for microbial source tracking analysis) and the monitoring
frequency is increased until the water meets water quality standards
and the beach is reopened.2 States that monitor more frequently Virginia Percent Exceedance
for 44 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
after an exceedance is found will tend to have higher percent
3%
exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days than they 3.00
would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after
2% 2.25
an exceedance was found.
1.50
1% 1%
Results: In 2009, Virginia reported 47 coastal beaches, 44 (94%)
0.75
of which were monitored once a week, and 3 (6%) of which were
not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at
2006 2007 2008 2009
the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily
maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to
calculate the 2009 percent exceedance values, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach
season, if any). In 2009, 3% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance in 2009 were Fairview Beach in King George County
(25%), Hilton Beach in Newport News (14%), and North Community Beach in Norfolk (10%).
King George County had the highest exceedance (25%) in 2009, followed by Newport News (4%), Norfolk (3%),
and Virginia Beach (0.5%). There were no exceedances at beaches in Accomack, Gloucester, Hampton, Mathews,
Northampton, and York Counties or in Hampton.
Comparing percent exceedance values with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 44 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard increased to 3% in 2009 from 2% in 2008 and 1% in both 2007 and 2006.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: All closing and advisory days in 2009
were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels from unknown
sources of contamination.
Notes
1 Dan Dietrich, Virginia Department of Health, personal communication, June 2007.
2 Virginia Department of Health. Virginia’s Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Program, Final Report on 2001–2009
EPA Beach Monitoring Grant–CU-98389606-0. January 29, 2010.
Washington State has more than 1,300 publicly accessible beaches along the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound. The state’s
beach monitoring program is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Health.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: The sampling season runs from a week before Memorial Day to Labor Day. Additionally, one
winter surfing beach at Grays Harbor and three Makah Nation beaches were sampled through December in 2009.1
The administering agency determines sampling practices, locations, and standards and recommends notification
protocols and practices throughout the state. County health
officers have the authority to close beaches, and protocols for
determining when to issue notifications vary from county to Washington Percent Exceedance
for 45 Beaches Reported 2006–2009
county. Samples are taken in knee-deep water. Beaches are chosen
6%
for monitoring based on use and the degree to which the flow 6.0
of tides and currents ensures that the water at the beach is
4% 4% 4.5
exchanged with other water, as well as the potential risks of
3%
fecal pollution from sewage treatment plants, septic tanks, 3.0
stormwater drains, freshwater discharges, marinas, pet waste,
1.5
livestock, marine mammals, and shore birds.2
An effort is made to take samples at outfalls and other sources
2006 2007 2008 2009
of contamination.3 If a beach is closed or placed under advisory,
the monitoring frequency is increased until the beach is reopened.
States that monitor more frequently after an advisory is issued will tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and
lower total closing/advisory days than they would have had if their sampling frequency did not increase after an
exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, Washington reported 1,345 coastal beaches, of which 73 (5%) were monitored once a week and
1,272 (95%) were not monitored.4 For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples
that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009
percent exceedance values, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any).
In 2009, 4% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The
beaches with the highest percent exceedance in 2009 were Freeland County Park/Holmes Harbor in Island County
(20%), Hollywood Beach in Clallam County (19%), Bayview Boat Launch in Skagit County (18%), Silverdale County
Park in Kitsap County (16%), Belfair State Park in Mason County (15%), Camp Parsons Boy Scout Brinnon Camp
in Jefferson County (15%), Pomeroy Park-Manchester Beach in Kitsap County (14%), Port Williams Boat Launch in
Clallam County (11%), Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Skagit County (10%), Sequim Bay State
Park in Clallam County (9%), and Birch Bay County Park (9%) and Larrabee State Park, Wildcat Cove (8%) in
Whatcom County (8%).
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
WA.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Skagit County had the highest exceedance (10%) in 2009, followed by Island (9%), Kitsap (7%), Whatcom (6%),
Jefferson (6%), Mason (4%), Clallam (4%), Snohomish (3%), Grays Harbor (2%), King (1%), Pierce (0.3%), and
Thurston (0%).
Comparing percent exceedance values with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 45 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard decreased to 3% in 2009 from 4% in 2008 and 2007 and 6% in 2006.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 13 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 54% (26) of closing/advisory
days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, and 46% (22) were preemptive (i.e., isssued
without waiting for monitoring results) due to known sewage spills/leaks.
Reported sources of beachwater contamination: 54% (26) of closing/advisory days were from unknown sources of
contamination, and 46% (22) were from sewage spills/leaks.
Notes
1 Washington State Department of Ecology. January-December 2009 (FFY08) Annual Report for: Washington State’s BEACH Program. Not dated.
2 Jessica Archer, Washington Department of Ecology, personal communication, June 2010.
3 Lynn Schneider, Washington Department of Ecology, personal communication, May 2007.
4 Of the beaches considered to be “unmonitored,” 310 are monitored six times per year by the recreational shellfish program at the Washington
Department of Health. They are monitored for fecal coliform rather than enterococcus, but the Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication
and Health Program considers the results of the fecal coliform tests when making beach advisory and closing decisions. However, NRDC does not
include the results of the fecal coliform tests in its calculation of percent exceedances of federal standards because there are no federal fecal coliform
standards for recreational marine waters.
Wisconsin has 193 public beaches along 55 miles of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan coastline. The Wisconsin Depart
ment of Natural Resources coordinates Wisconsin’s beach monitoring program and administers the BEACH Act grants.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Most beaches are monitored from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend, but
initiation of monitoring can be delayed when colder temperatures delay the onset of the swim season. Local health
departments conduct the actual water quality monitoring part of the effort. Samples are taken in knee-deep water, 6 to
12 inches below the surface of the water.1 Great Lakes beaches are assigned high, medium, and low priority for
monitoring based on the potential for impacts from stormwater
runoff, beach usage and population density, waterfowl loads, and
the proximity of wastewater treatment outfalls and farms.1 Wisconsin Percent Exceedance
for 110 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 21.25
Additional sampling is required following large rain events or
17%
other major pollution events,2 and beaches are resampled 15% 17.00
immediately after an advisory or closing is issued. States that 13%
12.75
monitor more frequently after an exceedance is issued will tend to
have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/ 7% 8.50
advisory days than they would have had if their sampling
4.25
frequency did not increase after an exceedance was found.
2006 2007 2008 2009
Results: In 2009, Wisconsin reported 193 coastal beaches, of
which 3 (2%) were monitored daily, 59 (31%) more than once a
week, and 58 (30%) once a week; 73 (38%) were not monitored. For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the
percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were
used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance rates, including duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official
beach season, if any). In 2009, 8% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial
standards. The beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Eichelman Beach in Kenosha County
(46%), Anclam Park Beach in Door County (29%), South Shore Beach in Milwaukee County (29%), Haines Park
Beach in Door County (24%), General King Park Beach in Sheboygan County (22%), and Ephraim Beach in Door
County (22%).
Kenosha County had the highest exceedance rate (23%) in 2009, followed by Sheboygan (14%), Milwaukee (13%),
Kewaunee (9%), Door (8%), Racine (6%), Brown (5%), Manitowoc (4%), Ashland (4%), Ozaukee (4%), Douglas
(1%), Bayfield (1%), and Iron (0%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 110 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard decreased for the third consecutive year to 7% in 2009 from 13% in 2008, 15% in 2007, and 17%
in 2006.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
WI.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Closings and Advisories
Standards and Procedures: Wisconsin issues both closings and advisories: a beachwater sample with 236 to 999 cfu/100 ml
of E. coli results in the issuance of an advisory, and a sample greater than or equal to 1,000 cfu/100 ml of E. coli results in
a closing. The geometric mean water quality standard for fresh water may be used to make closing and advisory decisions
at high-priority beaches. Resampling to confirm an exceedance is not done before an advisory or closing is issued, and
there is no protocol for delaying or forgoing an advisory or closing when a
sample exceeds standards. Some counties with longer beaches combine multiple Wisconsin
samples along the beach before analyzing for bacteria, and some take an average Sources of Contamination
value of multiple samples analyzed separately; aclosing and advisory decisions
are made for the entire beach based on the composite or average results. For
some long beaches, composite sampling is not encouraged because of the
beach’s sampling history. Local health departments with jurisdiction over these
Stormwater 20%
beaches are encouraged to close entire beaches or beach segments based on Sewage 0%
individual sample exceedances.3 Wildlife 0%
At the discretion of local beach managers, some beaches are closed or placed Other 0%
Unknown 80%
under advisory after rainfall exceeds a predetermined threshold, such as 1 inch
of precipitation in a 24-hour period. In other locations preemptive advisories
or closures are issued after sewer or stormwater overflows or incidences of
reportable illnesses.2
Milwaukee uses predictive models in addition to monitoring to determine
advisories for a few of its beaches.1 In 2008, Ozaukee County began utilizing a predictive model developed in conjunct
ion with the WI DNR (US EPA Virtual Beach) to issue advisories and closings as necessary seven days a week at Upper
Lake State Park.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 331 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
decreased 55% to 401 days in 2009 from 883 days in 2008, 747 days in 2007, 1,101 days in 2006, and 1,018 days in
2005. In addition, there were no extended or permanent events in 2009 or 2008. Extended events are those in effect
more than six but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for more than 13 consecutive weeks.
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 331 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 66% (263) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 20% (82) were preemptive (i.e.,
issued without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, 6% (25) were preemptive due to known sewage
spills/leaks, 7% (30) were preemptive due to other reasons, and less than 1% (1) were preemptive based on the results
of computer modeling.
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 80% (319) of closing/advisory days were from unknown sources of
contamination and 20% (82) were from stormwater.
Notes
1 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Annual Report Beach Season
2009. Not dated.
2 Kinzelman, J., City of Racine Health Department, personal communication, June 2010.
3 Shaunna Chase, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Beach Program Coordinator, personal communication, May 2008.