United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-98/079Environmental Protection Development March 1999Agency Office of Water www.epa.gov/

ORD/publications

Action Plan for Beaches andRecreational Waters

i

EPA /600/R-98/079March 1999

EPA Action Plan for Beaches andRecreational Waters

Reducing Exposures to Waterborne Pathogens

Office of Research and Developmentand

Office of WaterU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

ii

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Water and Office of Re-search and Development, generated the information described in this plan for beach and recreationalwaters. This plan has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review process and hasbeen approved for publication as an EPA document.

Notice

iv

EPA recognizes the need for stronger beach monitoring programs, improved water quality standards,and broader public guidance relating to the use of recreational waters in the United States. In re-sponse to national directives such as the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health(BEACH) Program and the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA has prepared this Action Plan for Beachesand Recreational Waters (the “Beach Action Plan”)—a multi-year strategy for reducing risks ofinfection to recreational water users through improved recreational water quality programs, riskcommunication, and scientific advances.

The Beach Action Plan describes EPA’s actions to improve and assist in state, tribal, and localimplementation of recreational water monitoring and public notification programs. It describes re-lated activities of the Office of Water (OW) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

As long as contamination of ambient waters remains a threat, more and more Americans face risk ofexposure to waterborne microbial pathogens as increasing numbers of people visit or move to coastalareas, lakes, and rivers. Exposure to pathogens can occur during swimming or other recreationalactivities via ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with polluted water. Despite the potential risks tothe public from gastrointestinal illness and other infections, water quality monitoring programs varywidely at the state and local levels.

The Beach Action Plan’s first objective, therefore, is to enable consistent management of recre-ational water quality programs. EPA will sponsor conferences and meetings with federal, state,tribal, and local representatives to identify the needs and deficiencies of recreational water qualitymonitoring programs. Based on this information, EPA will strengthen water quality standards andimplementation programs by developing policies and assisting local managers in their transition torecommended criteria. EPA will also develop and issue guidance on managing risk at recreationalwaters and on using monitoring methods and indicators developed during subsequent research.

To expedite the pace at which states and tribes strengthen their water quality standards, EPA willdevelop policies to ensure that states and tribes adopt the currently recommended Ambient WaterQuality Criteria for Bacteria–1986 and make the transition to monitoring for E. coli and enterococciindicators rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms.

EPA recognizes that the science and policies related to the protection of recreational waters willconstantly evolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and support training as needed. These efforts mayinvolve training in new methods, other technology transfer opportunities, and guidance documents.

Because recreational waters are primarily managed by local agencies, risk communication practicesvary widely throughout the United States. EPA will provide risk communication tools to regionaland local authorities to promote consistent effectiveness. EPA will maintain a website to communi-cate timely recreational water quality information to beach managers and the public. The “BEACHWatch” website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches) will provide real-time details on advisories andclosings to authorities as well as to members of the public with access to the Internet. Input fromother EPA programs, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects will be used to develop the site.

Executive Summary

v

Regional managers will be able to provide this information to the public in a format deemed locallyfeasible.

EPA will conduct a National Beach Health Survey annually to collect detailed data on state andlocal monitoring efforts, applicable standards, water quality communication methods, the natureand extent of contamination problems, and any protection activities.

EPA will develop a national inventory of digitized beach maps. These maps will be linked withlocations of pollution sources through a Geographic Information System. They are expected to be-come an invaluable source of information to local organizations and the general public.

EPA will develop and support strong regional and local partnerships through the EnvironmentalMonitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking Program (EMPACT). Current beach-spe-cific EMPACT projects with EPA offices in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, theGreat Lakes region, the South, the West, and the Gulf Coast region are investigating the use of betterbacterial indicators, exploring improved monitoring methods, developing site-specific predictivetools, and making timely beach information available to the public.

The second objective of the Beach Action Plan is to improve the science that supports recreationalwater monitoring programs. The Beach Action Plan’s scientific research addresses three broad ar-eas:

(1) Water Quality Indicators Research. Rapid analytical methods are needed to identify risk beforeexposure takes place. Real-time or near-time analytical methods would trigger warnings or closuresor set in motion a more rigorous monitoring protocol.

Although the 1986 criteria are an improvement over prior ones, better indicators of the potentialpresence of enteric pathogens must be developed and assessed for their public health risk predictivevalue. Discriminating between human and animal sources of contamination is important not only tolocate sources, but because not all animal pathogens cause human disease and their presence maylead to unnecessary precautions. Furthermore, current indicator microbes are based solely on fecalcontamination and may not accurately assess the risk of disease due to a myriad of other potentialpathogens that cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases.

Finally, EPA will assess whether currently used indicator bacteria proliferate naturally in soil andwater under tropical conditions. If they do so, their use as indicators in tropical climates would beineffectual.

(2) Modeling and Monitoring Research. Although some local water quality managers estimate im-pending beach pollution through computer models or other tools, most must wait for laboratory testresults before they can make a determination of health risk. In the meantime, this leaves the potentialfor exposing the public to pathogens. EPA will assess the utility of existing models; those thatprovide improved assessments of water quality will be recommended to local authorities.

EPA will assemble a workgroup with expertise in monitoring recreational waters, determining therisks associated with currently used indicator levels, and determining the need for public health con-trols at recreational waters. The workgroup will recommend guidelines for new testing protocol. Theprotocol will address the timing and locations of samples and other factors influencing the levels andtypes of fecal indicators in recreational water samples. Guidance will be developed for public healthprofessionals on when, where, and how to set up and conduct an appropriate monitoring program fortypical beaches.

vi

(3) Exposure and Health Effects Research. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are mixed dis-charges of storm water and domestic waste that occur when the flow capacity of a sewer system isexceeded during rainstorms. They are potentially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather dis-charges from other point sources. The effects of CSO discharges on recreational waters need to bequantified. EPA will conduct research to determine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationshipsassociated with wet weather flows.

The zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed by waves or tides offers micro-habitats whereorganic matter may collect and where warm, moist sand may be conducive to the growth of certainbacterial pathogens protected from dilution with open waters. EPA will conduct research necessary todetermine if special consideration of this interstitial zone and its impact on children and other sensi-tive populations is warranted.

A significant uncertainty in recreational water risk assessment is the actual exposure level associatedwith ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contaminated water and the corresponding level ofillness. EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establish the link between water quality indica-tors and disease.

EPA intends to coordinate with other agencies in recreational water related activities. The next phaseof the Beach Action Plan will integrate EPA activities with those carried out by agencies such as theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,the U.S. Geological Survey, and state environmental and public health departments.

vii

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Quality Programs ............... 3 2.1.1 Program Development Activities ....................................................................... 3 Conferences and Meetings ................................................................................. 3

Guidance Documents ......................................................................................... 4 Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs ............ 4 Training and Technology Transfer ..................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities ......................................................................... 5 Beach Watch Website ......................................................................................... 5 National Beach Health Survey ........................................................................... 5 Beach Maps ........................................................................................................ 5 Regional and Local Partnerships ........................................................................ 5 Risk Communication Guidance ......................................................................... 6 2.2 Improving the Science that Supports Recreational Water Monitoring Programs ......... 6 2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research ..................................................................... 6 Rapid Indicators of Fecal Pollution ................................................................... 6 Enhanced Analytical Methods for Detecting Intestinal Pathogen Presence ...... 6 Indicators that Distinguish Between Human and Animal Fecal

Contamination ............................................................................................... 6 Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing Non-Enteric Diseases .................... 7 Tropical Indicators ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research .................................................................. 7 Improvement of Predictive Models .................................................................... 7 Experimental Validation of Models ................................................................... 7 Monitoring Strategy ........................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research .............................................................. 8 Combined Sewer Overflows .............................................................................. 8 Shoreline Interstitial Water ................................................................................. 8 Human Exposure Factors ................................................................................... 8 Epidemiological Studies .................................................................................... 9

Beach Action Plan Implementation Table .................................................................................... 10

Appendix A: Overview of the Science and Regulatory History .................................................. 12Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................. 14Appendix C: Agency Contacts .................................................................................................... 16

Principal Authors .......................................................................................................................... 19

Contents

1

1.0 Introduction

As growing numbers of persons move to coastal areasand pollution continues to threaten the waters in whichwe swim and play, many Americans still risk illnessfrom exposure to contaminated recreational waters.While there is no true measure of the magnitude ofdisease associated with recreational water exposures,epidemiology studies in the United States and abroadhave consistently found an associated disease burden.In addition, thousands of beach advisories and clos-ings are issued at recreational rivers, lakes, and oceansevery year throughout the United States. According tothe Natural Resources Defense Council’s eighth an-nual survey on beach water safety, at least 4,153 daysof beach closings and advisories were caused by pol-lution in 1997 alone, and “adequate monitoring andnotification procedures are still lacking at many of thenation’s most popular beaches.” This number of advi-sories may be an underestimate of incidents of con-tamination because many states and localities do notconduct, nor are they required to have, regular recre-ational water quality monitoring programs.

Beach advisories and closings in the United States aregenerally due to elevated levels of indicator organismswhich may indicate the presence of pathogens, dis-ease-causing microorganisms. The source of these in-dicator organisms can be discharges of untreated orpartially treated sewage into ambient waters. Recre-ational water users are at risk of infection from water-borne pathogens through ingestion or inhalation of con-taminated water or through contact with the water.Some people may face a disproportionate risk fromexposure to the pathogens because of heightenedsusceptibility. For example, children may be morevulnerable to environmental exposure due to their ac-tive behavior and their developing immune systems.

Adverse events at treatment plants can lead to recre-ational water users being exposed if there is inadequatemonitoring or untimely notification. Currently, moni-toring programs vary widely at the local level. While

they may have prevented some exposure and illness inthe past, many of these programs are not using the bestpossible indicators of microbial pathogens presence.Beginning in 1976, EPA recommended fecal coliformsto the regulatory community as indicator organismsfor the presence of pathogens in recreational waters.Coliforms are bacteria found in the intestinal tract ofhumans and animals; therefore their presence in am-bient water indicates fecal pollution and the potentialpresence of pathogens. In 1986, based on new researchdata, EPA recommended new monitoring guidelines,including the use of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and en-terococci as indicators to replace fecal coliforms. Thepresence of these bacteria in recreational waters cor-relates with swimming-associated gastrointestinal dis-ease better than a total fecal coliform count. About one-third of all states have adopted either E. coli or entero-cocci for monitoring fresh and marine waters. How-ever, other states have continued to use fecal coliforms,and a small number still use total coliforms to indicatewater quality.

The inconsistent use of indicator organisms for moni-toring recreational waters has resulted in occurrencesof one state prohibiting use of recreational waters thatwere considered safe by a neighboring state. A scien-tifically based investigative process to determine po-tential health risks and eliminate their sources in rec-reational waters is sorely needed in order to foster con-sistent use of indicators. To be effective, this processmust be recognized and accepted by state and localofficials. Flexibility in the program would allow fordifferences in health risk from differing sources, sourceelimination as an alternative to monitoring, and re-gional differences in climate, resources, and geogra-phy. Research is needed to improve the scientific ba-sis of monitoring programs. This will include identi-fying appropriate indicators, determining relationshipsbetween indicators and risk levels for disease, and de-veloping more accurate models and faster analyticalmethods to ensure timely notification of problems.

2

Recognizing the need for consistent and improvedmonitoring programs, EPA’s Administrator, CarolBrowner, announced the Beaches EnvironmentalAssessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Programon May 23, 1997. The goal of this program is to sig-nificantly reduce the risk of disease to users of thenation’s recreational waters through improvements inrecreational water programs, communication, and sci-entific advances. The BEACH Program applies to freshwater recreational areas such as lakes, ponds, and riv-ers, as well as marine waters such as oceans and bays,as does the Beach Action Plan. They do not apply topublic or private swimming pools or water parks.

The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), released onFebruary 14, 1998, describes a series of actions neededto strengthen clean water programs, including the re-lease of a plan for federal, state, tribal, and local imple-mentation of beach monitoring and notification pro-grams. This Action Plan for Beaches and RecreationalWaters, referred to hereafter as the Beach Action Plan,lays out EPA’s strategy to implement the BEACH Pro-gram as mandated by the CWAP.

The actions of the federal government are directly af-fected by the requirements of the Government Perfor-mance and Results Act (GPRA), which sets perfor-mance goals throughout the government. The BEACHProgram and this Beach Action Plan address, in part,three of EPA’s performance goals. These GPRA goalsare:

• Clean and Safe Water

• Empowering people with information and expand-ing their right to know

• Provide sound science to improve understandingof environmental risk and develop and implementinnovative approaches for current and future en-vironmental problems

The Beach Action Plan furthers the three main themeslaid out in the BEACH Program:

• Strengthen beach programs and water quality stan-dards;

2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview

• Inform the public about recreational water quality;and

• Conduct research to improve the scientific basisfor beach programs.

The Beach Action Plan is a dynamic, multi-year strat-egy governing all EPA activities protecting the public’shealth from pathogens in recreational waters. This fo-cus enables rapid progress on the issue and provides aworking point from which a broader plan, includingthe contributions of other organizations and other rec-reational water health issues, can be developed.

Of course, the most desirable solution to protect publichealth is to eliminate the need for beach closings throughthe effective control of pollution sources. This need isbeing addressed by several programs within EPA. TheBeach Action Plan focuses on identifying and reduc-ing the risk of exposure to pathogens should they con-taminate recreational waters. The Beach Action Plandoes not address the ecological impacts of pathogensor the control of harmful algal blooms, because theseactivities are planned or have begun in other programsat EPA and other agencies.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, andEPA’s Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Childrenmandate that EPA standards, rules, and risk assess-ments evaluate and characterize risks to children. There-fore, the elements of the Beach Action Plan addressspecific issues that relate to children’s health.

Several organizations within EPA have principal rolesin implementing the Beach Action Plan. The Office ofWater (OW) is providing the overall leadership forplanning and developing the BEACH Program. OW’sprimary responsibility lies with developing and pro-mulgating protective standards for recreational waterquality, and providing the tools and guidance neces-sary for implementing those standards. The Office ofResearch and Development (ORD) is working closelywith scientists in OW and in other agencies to planand conduct the research necessary to support the sci-

3

entific needs of the Beach Action Plan. Both OW andORD will participate in training programs designed tocommunicate the standards and underlying science toenvironmental managers and stakeholders within andoutside of the EPA.

EPA’s ten Regional Offices are the Agency’s primarycontacts with state and local water quality managers,public health professionals, and the general public. TheRegions will disseminate the tools and information thatstate and local managers need to implement the recre-ational water standards and the science developed byOW and ORD. They will also convey information tothe states and local governments that they, in turn, cancommunicate to the beach-going public. The Regionswill also relay back the needs and problems identifiedat the state and local levels, which will drive futureresearch and regulatory activities. Agency-wide con-tacts are provided in Appendix C.

The following sections discuss specific EPA activitiesthat meet the BEACH Program’s goal through im-proved recreational water quality programs, riskcommunication, and scientific advances. These effortswill improve local management of recreational waterquality programs through program development, train-ing for beach monitoring program managers, and com-munication of risks to the public.

The schedule for completion of the activities that sup-port this plan can be found in the table on Page 10.EPA is committed to working with federal, state, andlocal agencies on the implementation of this Plan andhas begun a dialogue with other federal agencies. EPAwill update the plan as needed to reflect the latest sci-ence, changes in policy, and progress. For an overviewof the science and regulatory history behind the BeachAction Plan, please see Appendix A.

2.1 Enabling Consistent Management ofRecreational Water Quality Programs

EPA will implement activities to enable consistent man-agement of recreational water quality programs acrossthe United States. These activities emphasize programdevelopment and communication of risks to the pub-lic. The proposed program development activities re-sult from EPA’s long involvement with water qualitycriteria and state-adopted standards. The risk commu-nication activities reflect the federal government’s sup-port for the public’s “right to know” about pollutionproblems. To identify other priorities, EPA reviewedavailable information on existing local and state beach

programs and consulted other external reviews, suchas the “Testing the Waters” reports published by theNatural Resources Defense Council.

After developing a preliminary list of activities, EPAgave it a detailed public review at the first nationalBEACH conference in October 1997, hosted by EPAand the Association of State and Territorial HealthOfficials. The conference was attended by representa-tives from federal, state, and local governments, as wellas from environmental, academic, and industry groups.Participants were asked to identify needs for technicalassistance, assign priorities for short- and long-termactions, and, where possible, recommend protocols andprocedures to encourage greater consistency amongjurisdictions.

Conference participants strongly supported EPA’s ef-forts to improve consistency and research, but askedthat more flexible implementation be allowed. Theystressed a need for guidance on water quality samplingprotocols, predictive modeling, and adequacy of moni-toring programs. They also supported additional re-search to improve the science behind beach health is-sues (Section 2.2). Risk assessment and communica-tion was another key area of consensus, and the con-ference supported consistent but flexible guidance onrisk assessment approaches; criteria for closing andreopening beaches; assessing risks on human versusnonhuman sources; and simplified forms of public riskcommunication.

A complete report of the conference is available inEPA’s publication National Beach Conference–Reporton Action Items, EPA/823/R-98/004. EPA incorporatedits main priorities into the following programmatic ac-tivities and into the scientific research activities de-scribed in Section 2.2.

2.1.1 Program Development Activities

Conferences and MeetingsEPA will arrange a series of technical conferences in-tended for state and local recreational water qualitymanagers. The first national conference in October1997 defined current issues and activities related tobeach health; provided a forum for learning aboutbeach health initiatives across the country; identifiedunaddressed beach health needs; assigned priorities toshort-term and long-term actions; and recommendedprotocols and procedures to encourage greater consis-tency among jurisdictions in beach monitoring andnotification.

4

EPA is arranging four regional conferences and a sec-ond national conference with objectives similar to thefirst. The regional conferences will emphasize regionalissues and implementation of national guidance.

Guidance DocumentsEPA will coordinate the planning and issuance ofBEACH Program guidance documents addressing rec-reational water quality monitoring, risk assessment, riskmanagement, and risk communication and incorporat-ing results of ORD’s research, input from OW, andtechnical input from state and local participants. Thefirst integrated guidance document will be a nationaloverview of current beach advisory practices.

During Fiscal Years (FY) 1999 and 2000, EPA willprepare and issue guidance that includes:

• Adjustments in the risk-based criteria to reflect rec-reational water use and acceptable risk;

• An evaluation and recommendation of scientifi-cally valid tools for predicting health risks to rec-reational water users;

• Strategies for monitoring recreational waters andconducting beach sanitary surveys (see Section 2.2,Improving the Science that Supports RecreationalWater Monitoring Programs);

• Guidance on assessing and managing risk at rec-reational waters; and

• Case examples of effective recreational water man-agement programs.

Strengthening Water Quality Standards andImplementation ProgramsStrong state and tribal water quality standards providethe scientific and programmatic framework for enhanc-ing protection of beaches and recreational waters. Wa-ter quality standards provide the legal basis for regula-tory and water quality improvement programs. Attain-ment of beach and recreational water quality standardsprovides a benchmark for measuring the success of EPAand state programs in meeting the Government Perfor-mance and Results Act goal of reducing exposure tomicrobial and other types of contaminants in recre-ational waters and increasing the percentage of watersdesignated acceptable for recreational use. The waterquality standards program framework is flexible, al-lowing for revisions as new bacteriological indicators,monitoring protocols, and models are developed.

To expedite the pace at which states and tribesstrengthen their beach and recreational water qualitystandards, EPA will develop policy to ensure that statesand tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor Bacteria–1986 and make the transition to monitor-ing for its recommended E. coli and enterococci indi-cators, rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms,by FY2003. EPA intends to complete development andpublication of this policy as soon as possible but notlater than the end of FY1999. The policy will:

• Affirm the scientific validity of the Ambient Wa-ter Quality Criteria for Bacteria–1986.

• Supplement the criteria with a literature review ofstudies since 1986.

• Outline an approach for monitoring the safety ofrecreational waters in tropical climates where E.coli and enterococci may occur in the soil envi-ronment.

• Identify appropriate approaches for managing riskin non-primary contact recreational waters (e.g.,boating waters).

By the end of FY1999 EPA also intends to propose, inthe Federal Register, microbiological methods for wa-ter ambient monitoring using E. coli and enterococci.These methods will be proposed for promulgation of40 CFR Part 136. By the end of FY1999, EPA alsointends to announce the availability of a training videoand manual for laboratory personnel using these meth-ods.

The transition to E. coli and enterococci indicators willbe a priority for the triennial reviews of water qualitystandards that will occur in FY2000-2002. Beginningwith FY2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional Officeswill develop management agreements with the statesand tribes that will include commitments to have statesand tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteriafor Bacteria—1986. Where a state does not amend itswater quality standards to include the 1986 criteria,EPA will act under Section 303(c) of the Clean WaterAct to promulgate the criteria with the goal of assur-ing that the 1986 criteria apply in all states not laterthan 2003.

As the results of research studies become available,EPA will prepare additional policy, guidance, and train-ing to supplement the framework for managing risk atbeaches and in other recreational waters.

5

Training and Technology TransferEPA recognizes that the science and policies related tothe protection of recreational waters will constantlyevolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and supporttraining as needed. These efforts may involve trainingon new methods, other technology transfer, and guid-ance implementation. Training will be provided toRegional Offices and state and local agencies.

As noted earlier, in FY1999, EPA will produce a videothat demonstrates two indicator test methods for E. coliand enterococci, which must be filtered out of watersamples and grown in culture. The video will com-pare methods and demonstrate the use of new growthmedia—mEI for enterococci and modified mTEC forE. coli species.

The video and accompanying manual will be distrib-uted to local organizations through the partnership pro-gram.

2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities

Recreational water samples are generally collected bylocal agencies, such as county health departments andsanitation districts, which may perform all aspects ofsampling and analysis. These agencies are also respon-sible for notifying the public of water quality problemsthrough advisories or closures. Because of varying re-sources and diverse local circumstances, risk commu-nication practices vary widely throughout the UnitedStates. EPA is committed to improving the effective-ness of risk communication methods at national, re-gional, and local levels.

Beach Watch WebsiteEPA will maintain a national Internet-based “informa-tion hub” to communicate timely recreational water-quality information to the public and to local authori-ties. Regional managers will be able to provide thisinformation to the public in a format deemed locallyfeasible. The website will incorporate innovative na-tional, regional, and local efforts. The current “BEACHWatch” website (http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches) willbecome a real-time electronic database for all beachhealth-related information and will provide recreationalwater users with national and local details on adviso-ries and closings. The website will also provide infor-mation identifying those beaches where monitoring andassessment activities are conducted in a manner con-sistent with EPA’s national guidance. Survey informa-tion collection, digitized map development, andinnovative delivery of information will be expedited

at “BEACH Watch” and will link to other websitessuch as “BASINS” and “Surf Your Watershed” (http://www.epa.gov/surf). EPA regularly updates the“BEACH Watch” website to include new beach infor-mation and links to regional projects. Other EPA pro-grams, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects willbe consulted to develop the information and make itavailable to selected areas.

National Beach Health SurveyThe only practical way to assess practices and trackimprovements is to conduct a national survey. EPA willconduct an annual National Beach Health Survey tocollect detailed national data on state and local beachmonitoring efforts, applicable standards, beach waterquality communication methods, the nature and extentof beach contamination problems, and any protectionactivities. Results will be made available to local waterquality managers and the public via the Internet andthrough regional and local information outlets.

Beach MapsAn important part of EPA’s efforts to make beach in-formation available to the public is to develop a na-tional inventory of digitized beach maps. EPA willdevelop protocol for mapping beaches and start map-ping in priority areas. These easy-to-read maps willultimately be linked with locations of pollution sources,such as combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls,through a Geographic Information System (GIS) avail-able to local organizations and over the Internet to thegeneral public. EPA recognizes the need to ensure thatthe information be as up-to-date as possible. Onceinterlinked, beach maps are expected to become an in-valuable source of information to local organizationsand the general public. Research activities associatedwith CSOs are described in Section 2.2.3, on Page 8.

Regional and Local PartnershipsTo explore innovative Risk Communication methods,among other things, EPA will develop and supportstrong regional and local partnerships. The Environ-mental Monitoring for Public Access and CommunityTracking Program (EMPACT) is a relatively newAgency-wide initiative to work with communities tocollect, manage, and present real-time environmentalinformation. EMPACT and the BEACH Program sharethe mutual goal of enhanced public access to environ-mental monitoring information.

In addition to experimenting with novel public riskcommunication methods, current beach-specific

6

EMPACT projects in EPA Regions 1 (New England),3 (Mid-Atlantic), 4 (Southeast), 5 (Great Lakes), 6(South Central), 9 (Pacific Coast) and the Gulf CoastProgram Office are investigating better indicators, ge-netic fingerprinting of bacteria, improved monitoringmethods, and site-specific predictive tools in order tomake time-relevant beach information available to thepublic.

Risk Communication GuidanceGuidance on how to interpret data consistently andcommunicate water quality risks effectively is essen-tial. As noted in Section 2.1.1 (Guidance Documents),EPA will develop guidance and provide technical train-ing as methodology is developed. For the risk com-munication portion of the effort, EPA will provide state-of-the-art guidance. EPA will compile information oncurrent risk communication efforts, evaluate currentand emerging practices, and present recommendationsas part of the overall beach guidance series.

2.2 Improving the Science that SupportsRecreational Water Monitoring Programs

The research activities described in this section willbe conducted to improve the science supporting recre-ational water monitoring programs and will serve as aframework from which a logical sequence of researchcan be implemented. Toward this end, a workgroup ofORD and OW scientists outlined and conducted a peerreview of the research identified to progress from out-dated water quality monitoring methods to truer mea-sures of health risk. Relative priorities and estimatedtiming of research activities were based on scientificneed and projected availability of resources and arecharted in the table on Page 11. Initial sampling andmonitoring improvements will be concentrated on ex-isting indicator methods, i.e., enterococci.

Development of improved water quality indicator ana-lytical methods was identified as a critical early stepbecause they are an integral part of subsequent research.Another near-term priority is a scientifically defensiblemarine and fresh water sampling protocol. An appro-priate sampling protocol is essential if recreationalwaters are to be precisely monitored using currentlyrecommended methods. Work has already begun in thisarea, as well as in predictive modeling, and will con-tinue as new methods are developed. Defining the na-ture of exposures and associated health effects requiresthat these studies be done subsequent to methods de-velopment. Research results stemming from all of theabove will be field tested to validate their use by envi-ronmental risk managers in assessing the safety of rec-reational waters.

2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators ResearchRecreational water quality indicators are biological orchemical agents whose presence in water stems from,or is a surrogate for, contamination by sewage. Thehistorical use of indicators in protecting the quality ofbathing beach waters in the United States is describedin Appendix A.

Rapid Indicators of Fecal PollutionRapid analytical methods are needed to identify riskbefore exposure takes place. Current microbial testingmethods for indication of possible pathogen presencerequire 24 to 48 hours of incubation before problemscan be detected, leaving ample time for exposure tooccur.

Real-time or near-time analytical methods, such as asimple “dipstick” color-change test for detecting hu-man fecal contamination, must be developed to pro-vide an immediate identification of potential problems.In using a real-time or near-time indicator, the mea-surement of certain levels of fecal pollution would ei-ther trigger warnings or closures or set in motion a morerigorous monitoring protocol.

Enhanced Analytical Methods for DetectingPresence of Intestinal PathogensBetter indicators of the potential presence of entericpathogens must be developed and evaluated for con-firming the risks associated with recreational waters.They should indicate the presence of pathogens thatmay have longer incubation times, lower infective doses,and/or cause more serious disease than pathogens cur-rently identified with swimming-associated illness.

This study may require the use of novel techniques forsampling and characterizing pathogens of concern.

Indicators that Distinguish Between Human andAnimal Fecal ContaminationForest, pastureland, and urban storm water runoff,which carry fecal material of domestic and feral ani-mals, often flow into recreational waters. Another moredirect source of fecal contamination is from aquaticbirds.

Analytical methods currently available for measuringwater quality are unable to distinguish between humanand animal fecal contamination. Therefore, risk asso-ciated with exposure to animal contaminants is treatedthe same as that from human contaminants. Methodsable to discriminate between human and animal fecalcontamination would provide a valuable tool to im-prove risk assessments of health effects associated with

7

polluted recreational water. Although risk of exposureto recreational waters affected by point sources of pol-lution is well characterized, the risk associated withanimal contaminated waters is unknown. New meth-ods would enable more-informed health studies to beconducted. They also would provide instructive moni-toring data as well as a potential means of trackingwater pollutants to their sources.

Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing Non-Enteric DiseasesCurrent indicator microbes of non-enteric illnesses arebased on fecal contamination and may not accuratelyassess the potential for disease from a myriad of otherpotential pathogens that may cause skin, upper respi-ratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases. A num-ber of these other pathogens may be associated withnon-fecal bodily wastes, as well as household wastes,certain types of industrial wastes, and animal wastes.Bacteria such as staphylococcus and Pseudomonasaeruginosa may indicate the presence of some of thesepathogens in areas impacted by wastewater. These andother potential indicators should be evaluated for theireffectiveness in indicating other sources of pollutionincluding storm sewers, storm water runoff, industrialwastewater, animal wastes, as well as human recre-ational contributions. The presence of specific patho-gen groups, including those causing skin infectionssuch as leptospirosis, should be well-represented bythe selected indicators.

Tropical IndicatorsCurrently recommended fecal indicators may not besuitable for assessing human health risks in the trop-ics. Studies have suggested that at tropical locales suchas Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam, E. coli and entero-cocci can be detected in waters where there is no ap-parent warm-blooded animal source of contamination.

Whether or not current indicator bacteria proliferatenaturally in soil and water under tropical conditionsmust be determined. If so, the range of conditions (suchas nutrients, temperature, pH, and salinity) under whichthe bacteria proliferate will be characterized and theirgeographical boundaries defined. If the phenomenonis widespread under tropical conditions, additional re-search will be conducted to modify approaches formonitoring, or to develop new tropics-specific indica-tors. Further evaluation of Clostridium perfringens and

other microbial indicators (including coliphages) thatdo not flourish naturally in the tropics will be con-ducted to determine their usefulness as alternative in-dicators.

2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research

Improvement of Predictive ModelsAlthough some local water quality managers estimateimpending beach pollution through computer modelsor other tools, most must wait for laboratory test re-sults before they can make a determination of healthrisk. In the meantime, the public is left with a poten-tial exposure to pathogens. A number of mathematicalmodels have been or are being developed to assess themigration of pollution near recreational waters. EPAwill assess the utility of these models; those that pro-vide acceptable assessments of water quality wouldbe recommended to local authorities.

EPA is working with interested parties to cataloguethe full range of predictive tools in current use and toevaluate and improve them. These may range from“rules of thumb” for predicting risks, such as the oc-currence of intense rainfall, to complex hydrodynamicmodels.

Experimental Validation of ModelsPredictive models are available or being designed toassess the migration of pollution near recreational wa-ters. Many of them are based on stream hydrology ortracing certain chemical and physical parameters down-stream of pollution sources.

In conjunction with the implementation of a monitor-ing strategy, EPA will assess and validate the utility ofthese models for tracking pathogens or their indicatorsto downstream recreational waters under various hy-draulic, tidal, and atmospheric conditions. Models thatprovide acceptable assessments of microbial travelwould be recommended to state and local authorities toassess when upstream conditions may adversely im-pact recreational waters. Such models could be used topreemptively post or close a beach.

Monitoring StrategyThe monitoring approach recommended by EPA in1987 uses the geometric mean of five samples takenover a 30-day period as a water quality limit. The ra-tionale for using this approach was never published in

8

regulatory guidance manuals nor in open scientific lit-erature, and is widely considered outdated. There is agreat interest in monitoring approaches that use theanalytical results of single samples, rather than fivesamples, to make risk management decisions. Theuncertainty associated with both approaches, however,must be thoroughly defined before EPA can recom-mend refined monitoring guidance to the states andregions.

To this end, EPA will assemble an expert internationalworkgroup whose members are involved with repre-sentative problems associated with monitoring recre-ational waters, determining the risks associated withindicator levels (and the statistical basis for such), anddetermining the needs for public health controls atbeaches.

After appropriate peer review, the workgroup’s rec-ommendations will be used as guidelines in develop-ing a testing protocol. The protocol will address thetiming and locations of samples, and other factors in-fluencing the levels and types of fecal indicators inrecreational water samples. Intensive field samplingstudies will be conducted at a selected number of freshand marine water sites, and the significance of indica-tor density (which varies with water depth and dis-tance to the shore, sunlight, tides, other currents, wind,waves, bather load, and rainfall) on indicator levelsduring typical beach days will be determined. Guid-ance will be developed for public health professionalson when, where, and how to establish an appropriatemonitoring program for typical beaches.

2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research

Combined Sewer OverflowsCSOs discharge a mixture of storm water and domes-tic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system isexceeded during rainstorms. Due to the presence ofuntreated sewage in CSO discharges, they are poten-tially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather dis-charges from other point sources.

The effects of CSO discharges to recreational watersneed to be quantified. Research is proposed to deter-mine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationshipsassociated with wet-weather flows.

Increased pathogen exposure at recreational areas mayalso occur due to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) orwatershed runoff during heavy rainfall. While it is

known that CSOs are capable of contributing exces-sive enteric pathogens to surface waters, the contribu-tions of SSOs and watershed runoff have not been well-characterized with respect to their contribution of en-teric or other human pathogens or indicators.

Non-point contamination components, such as septicsystems, domestic and wild animals, and livestock, maycontribute different pathogen types, numbers of patho-gens, and human health risks. EPA will characterizeand quantify the pathogen types, concentrations, andrelationships with indicator organisms for comparisonduring dry-weather and wet-weather events under vari-ous geographical and watershed conditions.

Shoreline Interstitial WaterThe zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed bywaves or tides is simultaneously an attractive recre-ational area and a possible habitat for microbial patho-gens. This “swash zone,” as it is called by coastal sci-entists, has not received the research attention it de-serves. The interstices, or spaces between the sandgrains, offer micro-habitats where organic matter maybe filtered out, and where warm, moist sand may beconducive to the growth of certain bacterial pathogensprotected from dilution with open waters. When stormsor increased wave energy resuspend sand and trappedparticles, these pathogens are released into the envi-ronment.

These interstitial waters may pose an increased riskfor toddlers and young children who play, wade, andswim in the swash zone. Research is needed to deter-mine if special consideration of interstitial water andits impact on sensitive populations is warranted.

Human Exposure FactorsA significant uncertainty in recreational water risk as-sessments is the actual exposure level associated withingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contami-nated water and the corresponding level of illness. Al-though the frequency of illness or infections can be de-termined through epidemiological studies, the factorsthat contribute to these adverse health effects—otherthan entering the water—are largely unknown.

Behavioral patterns, such as time spent in the waterand the volume of water swallowed, have not beenwell-defined. Skin abrasions or cuts also may contrib-ute to swimming-associated infections, but are seldomdocumented. The personal hygiene of swimmers whilein the water also is poorly documented for natural rec-

9

reational waters. However, there is evidence fromswimming pool studies that accidental fecal releasesare not uncommon.

Another uncertain situation is the crowding togetherof swimmers at smaller recreational areas (bather load)during hot weather, weekends, and holidays. The in-creased proximity of people within an area may pro-mote swimmer-to-swimmer transmission of disease.

All of these factors can be correlated to swimming ac-tivities, especially those of children. More definitiveassessments of health risks associated with swimmingwill be possible with a better understanding of the ex-posure-effect process. The following research projectsare proposed:

• Characterize swimmer behavioral patterns thatmay affect risk characterization activities and riskmanagement practices with regard to recreationalwater safety.

• Characterize typical exposures that may be expe-rienced through recreational water use and deter-mine the exposure-response and mode of infec-tion during these events. For instance, do skin in-fections occur predominantly if sores or abrasionsare present? It has been estimated that only 100mL of water enters the mouth and nasopharynxduring a typical swimming episode. Although thisamount is considered sufficient to cause gastro-intestinal disease, it is not known whether it isadequate to cause other types of infections, giventhe expected pathogen density, their mode of ac-tion, and the disease threshold levels. The modeof action in upper respiratory tract infections needsto be investigated. Studies will be conducted todetermine the mechanisms of infection from thesetypes of exposures and determine the effective doseof enteric and non-enteric waterborne pathogens.

• Evaluate the relationship between water qualityand diseases associated with bather load. Researchwill be conducted at well-characterized marine andfreshwater beaches having low exposure risks fromcontaminant sources such as CSOs, but havinghigh bather loads. The study approach will allowthe differentiation of health risks due to bather loadfrom other pollution risks. The study will also at-tempt to detect and quantify specific bather con-tribution of pathogens of concern at the exposurelocations.

Epidemiological StudiesThere will likely be a critical need for additional epi-demiological studies in the future. They would be tar-geted at ensuring that improved or new indicator meth-ods or procedures are well-grounded in their relation-ships to health effects for the various types of diseasesrelated to recreational exposure. To fully address thisresearch need, it may be necessary for EPA to partnerwith other agencies and organizations to ensure an ad-equate level of financial and scientific support.

EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establishthe link between water quality indicators and diseaseendpoints so that the level of exposure demonstrates aspecific level of risk for disease. Epidemiological stud-ies will be conducted at selected marine, estuarine, andfresh- water recreational locations. Cohort studies willbe conducted on populations of recreational water us-ers having full-body exposures to waters known to havespecified levels of fecal contamination (or contamina-tion causing non-enteric illnesses). New and innova-tive potential indicator methods will be used to samplethe waters at representative locations in the exposurearea during the exposure periods to assess or validatetheir efficiency for determining health risks. The rela-tive risks of exposure to animal and human fecalcontamination also will be evaluated.

10

Beach Action Plan Implementation TableFY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2Activity

2.1Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Programs

2.1.1 Program Development Activities

Conferences and Meetings:National conferences ◆ ◆Regional conferences ◆ ◆

Guidance Documents ◆ ◆Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs:

Develop and issue policy memorandum ◆ ◆Reiterate policy at next triennial review ◆Prepare and issue guidance ◆ ◆

Training & Technology Transfer:Prepare new video and manual ◆ ◆Distribute video ◆ ◆

2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities

Beach Watch Website ◆ ◆National Beach Health Survey:

Initiate survey (Great Lakes and ◆ ◆coastal areas)Update and expand survey ◆ ✒

Beach Maps:Develop consistent protocol for mapping ◆ ◆beaches. Begin mapping in priority areasContinue beach maps and identifysources ◆ ✒

Regional & Local Partnerships:Boston Harbor/Charles River: Real-Time ◆ ◆Monitoring and Reporting of WaterQuality (EMPACT)Providence, RI: Improved Management of ◆ ◆beaches (EMPACT)Coastal Virginia: genetic “fingerprinting” ◆ ◆& testing of E. coliFlorida: Develop Predictive Wet Weather ◆ ◆Model for Beach Closure and Real-TimeMonitoring for Public Notification(EMPACT)NW Indiana: Develop Publicly Accessible ◆ ◆GIS database for the E. coli MonitoringNetwork (EMPACT)Lake Ponchartrain, New Orleans, ◆ ◆Louisiana: Predictive Modeling ofBacterial Indicators (EMPACT)Mississippi Gulf Coast: Beach Water ◆ ◆Quality Monitoring (EMPACT)So. California/Hawaii: Public Access to ◆ ◆Bacteriology Data (EMPACT)

Risk Communication Guidance ◆ ◆

(Continued )

11

Beach Action Plan Implementation TableFY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2Activity

2.2. Improving the Science that Supports Beach Programs

2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research

Rapid indicators of fecal pollution ◆ ✒Enhanced analytical methods for detecting ◆ ✒intestinal pathogensNew or modified indicators that distinguish ◆ ◆between human and animal fecal contaminationIndicator microbes for pathogens causing ◆ ◆non-enteric diseasesTropical indicators ◆ ◆

2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring ResearchImprovement of predictive models ◆ ◆Experimental validation of models ◆ ✒Monitoring Strategy:

Primary workshop: Identify problems ◆ ◆and issuesPilot beach sampling study ◆ ◆Workshop: Establish DQOs and design ◆ ◆comprehensive sampling planConduct comprehensive sampling study ◆ ◆multi-environments with partner citiesWorkshop: Statistical analysis of data ◆ ◆Workshop: Translate technical data and ◆ ✒design communication plan

2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects ResearchCombined Sewer Overflows ◆ ◆Shoreline Interstitial Water ◆ ◆Human Exposure Factors:

Characterize typical exposures and ◆ ✒swimmer behavioral patterns

Evaluate the types and incidence of ◆ ◆diseases associated with bather loadEpidemiological Studies ◆ ✒

NOTE: The timelines projected in this table are subject to change based on scheduling of priorities andavailability of resources.

12

Regulations for protecting the quality of bathing beachwaters in the United States were first considered in 1924by the American Public Health Association’s Commit-tee on Bathing Places. They decided not to propose stan-dards because of the lack of solid epidemiological dataand their reluctance to alarm the public about dangersof outdoor bathing places without good evidence. TheCommittee maintained this position until 1936 when itproposed that bathing water quality was unacceptableif the total coliform density was greater than 1,000 per100 mL. This decision was based on the belief thattotal coliforms are intimately associated with fecalmaterial from the gut of warm-blooded animals andthat their presence in water implies the potential pres-ence of enteric pathogens. Similar legal standards weresoon proposed in California, Connecticut, and by theOhio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission inOhio.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the U.S. Public HealthService conducted a series of epidemiological studiesat bathing places in Chicago, Kentucky, and Long Is-land, New York to determine the health effects associ-ated with swimming. These studies showed that therewas a detectable health effect (e.g., diarrhea) when to-tal coliform densities were about 2,000 coliforms per100 mL of water. Based on this and the finding that thefecal subset of coliforms were better indicators for con-tact recreation, the National Technical Advisory Com-mittee of the Federal Water Pollution Administration(Department of the Interior) made criteria recommen-dations in its 1968 Report to the Committee on WaterQuality Criteria (the “Green Book”). For evaluatingthe microbiological suitability of primary-contact wa-ters, the committee proposed that fecal coliforms notexceed an average density of 200/100 mL, nor shouldmore than 10% of the samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 mL.

In 1972, EPA’s Water Quality Criteria (“Blue Book”)summarized the state of the science on microbiologicalconsiderations for recreational waters; however, no

specific recommendations concerning the microbio-logical content of recreational waters were presented.In the 1976 Quality Criteria for Water (“Red Book”),EPA proposed the criteria for fecal coliforms recom-mended previously in the Green Book.

New recommendations for maintaining the quality ofbathing beach waters were issued by the EPA in 1986;the geometric mean density of enterococci could notexceed 35 per 100 mL in marine recreational waters or33 per 100 mL in fresh waters. In addition, it was rec-ommended that the density of E. coli should not exceed126 per 100 mL in fresh water. The densities of thesetwo bacteria in recreational waters, which occur in highnumbers in the feces of warm-blooded animals and hu-mans, had been shown epidemiologically to causegastrointestinal symptoms in swimmers in marine orfresh waters. About one-third of all states have adoptedeither E. coli or enterococci for monitoring fresh andmarine waters. Other states continue to use fecalcoliforms, and a small number still use total coliforms.

The relationship between the quality of bathing waterand health effects was established in a series of studieswhich examined differences in symptomatic illness be-tween swimming and non-swimming beach-goers atmarine bathing beaches in 1972-1978 and freshwaterbathing beaches in 1978-1982. These studies showedthat: (1) swimmers who bathe in water contaminatedwith sewage are at greater risk of contracting gastroen-teritis; (2) as the quality of bathing water degrades, theswimming-associated illness rate increases; and (3) atequivalent indicator densities in marine and fresh wa-ters, the illness rate in swimmers was greater in marineswimmers than in freshwater swimmers. Other stud-ies suggest that activities such as wind surfing, snor-keling, and canoeing are also associated with an in-creased risk of contracting gastrointestinal disease.

Many other studies of recreational water quality andhealth effects have been conducted since these EPA stud-ies were completed. Two of these studies were conducted

Appendix AOverview of the Science and Regulatory History

13

in freshwater environments in Canada and in France.Both studies used a prospective cohort design. InCanada, significant associations were found betweenall symptomatic illnesses and the water quality indica-tors, Staphylococcus and fecal coliforms. In France,significant relationships between gastroenteritis and thewater quality as measured with fecal coliforms and fe-cal streptococci were also found; streptococci appearedto show a much stronger relationship to gastrointesti-nal illness than did fecal coliforms.

Additional studies in marine environments were con-ducted in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Israel,Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and SouthAfrica. Water quality was usually measured using mul-tiple microbial indicators. Fecal streptococci, fecalcoliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were the indicatorbacteria most commonly used.

All of the recreational water quality studies showed thatthere was a risk of gastrointestinal illness associatedwith swimming water contaminated by feces. Some ofthe studies also showed a dose-response type relation-ship—the illness rate increased as the water quality de-creased. Several of them indicated that enterococci orfecal streptococci have a stronger correlation with theincidence of illness than coliforms or fecal coliforms.In the many studies conducted since, there have been

no new principles defined beyond those developed bythe EPA studies in the 1970s and early 1980s.

While epidemiology studies in the United States andabroad have consistently found a surfeit of diseaseburden associated with natural recreational water ex-posures, there is no adequate estimate of the true mag-nitude of disease because of limitations in past effortsto quantify the extent of the problem. Past studies gen-erally considered acute gastrointestinal (AGI) illnessand did not look for serious disease sequelae or skin,upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, or throat infections.Based on studies conducted so far, it is evident thatthe resulting human illnesses would be substantial ifeven a small percentage of the millions of U.S. recre-ational water users became ill with AGIs caused byexposure to those waters. It is unlikely over the shortterm that the Agency will have the resources to con-duct costly large-scale epidemiology studies similarto those being done for food and drinking water, inorder to assess the national magnitude of the problem.

Research projects have been delineated in seven gen-eral areas: monitoring strategy, improved indicators,modeling, combined sewer overflows, interstitial beachzones, exposure, and epidemiology studies. Other re-search needs will be identified as work and coordina-tion progress.

14

Clostridium perfringens: A species of anaerobic (oxy-gen intolerant), spore-forming bacteria present in theintestinal tract of humans and animals. Since it doesnot flourish naturally in the tropics, it may be an ap-propriate indicator to detect possible fecal contamina-tion.

Coliforms: Group of bacteria that inhabits the intesti-nal tract of humans and animals. Their presence in waterindicates fecal contamination and the possible presenceof pathogens. Coliform bacteria may be found in wa-ter, plants, air, or soil. (See Fecal coliform, below)

Coliphage: (or bacteriophage) A virus that infectscoliform bacteria. Studies have shown that counts ofcoliphage may give a useful estimate of numbers ofpathogens in sewage-polluted water.

Combined sewer overflow (CSO): Discharge to wa-terways of a mixture of storm water and domestic wastethat occurs when the flow capacity of combined stormdrains and sewer systems are exceeded during rain-storms. Normally, the entire flow of a combined sewergoes to a wastewater treatment plant, but during heavystorms the higher volume may cause overflows of un-treated mixtures of storm water and sewage into water-ways. About 900 cities in the U.S. continue to use thesecombined sewer systems.

Contamination: General term referring to the intro-duction of undesirable materials (e.g., microorganisms,chemicals, toxic substances, wastes, or wastewater) intoan environment (e.g., water, air, soil, biota, or surfaceof solid objects).

Criteria: Measurable physical, chemical, or biologi-cal characteristic used to assess water quality. Com-monly used as a basis for setting legally enforceablestandards.

E. coli: Escherichia coli, a subset of the coliform groupthat is part of the normal intestinal flora in humans and

Appendix BGlossary

animals and is, therefore, a direct indicator of fecalcontamination of the water.

Enteric: Of or within the intestine.

Enterococci: Enteric streptococcal (round) bacteriaused to indicate fecal contamination and the possiblepresence of pathogens.

Enteric bacteria: Bacterial species that normally in-habit the intestinal tract of humans and animals. In-cluded in this group of organisms are some of the mostimportant intestinal pathogens of humans. Most entericbacteria do not cause disease when confined to the in-testinal tract of a healthy host, but given a susceptiblehost or an opportunity to invade other body sites, manyhave the capability to produce disease in any tissue.

Epidemiology: Study of diseases or other health-re-lated states and events as they affect populations.

Fecal coliform: Subgroup of coliform bacteria that hasa high correlation with fecal contamination associatedwith warm-blooded animals.

Fecal streptococci: Enterococci

Gastrointestinal: Of or relating to the stomach andintestines.

Guidance: Recommendations issued by EPA that donot have the force of law.

Indicator: A biological or chemical agent whose pres-ence indicates specific environmental conditions or con-taminants. Indicators of bacterial contamination of rec-reational water currently in use are the coliforms andenterococcus.

Infection: Introduction of a foreign organism into thebody that can multiply and result in a physiologicaland immunological change from normal.

15

Interstitial water: The water contained in the spacesbetween sand grains or other sediment particles.

Pathogen: Organism capable of eliciting disease symp-toms. The identification of microorganisms (e.g., bac-teria, viruses, or parasites) pathogenic to humans canbe difficult. Therefore, the presence of coliforms inwater is usually determined as an indicator of the pos-sible presence of fecal-derived pathogens.

Pollution: The presence of a harmful contaminant inthe environment.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Bacterial species found asnormal flora in the gut of humans.

Sequelae: Long-term effects and consequences of adisease.

Standard: Legally binding limit on the amount of pol-lutant or emissions produced. EPA may establish mini-mum standards, but states are allowed to be stricter.

Staphylococcus: Type of bacteria commonly foundas normal flora in the gut and other areas of humans.

Swash Zone: The area at the water’s edge that is notalways fully submerged and is influenced by tides andwaves.

Tropical: In this document, refers to a hot and humidclimate characteristic of the zone between the tropic ofCancer and the tropic of Capricorn.

Water quality criteria: Specific levels of pollutantswhich, if reached or exceeded, are expected to render abody of water unsuitable for its designated use. Com-monly refers to criteria established by EPA.

Water quality guidelines: Specific levels of waterquality criteria which, if reached or exceeded, may ad-versely affect human health or aquatic life. These areunenforceable guidelines issued by a governmentalagency or other institution.

Water quality standards: State-adopted and EPA-ap-proved standards for water quality measures.

16

Appendix CAgency Contacts

Lisa AlmodovarOffice of WaterOffice of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (4304)Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-1310

Mimi DannelOffice of WaterOffice of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-1897

Rick HoffmannOffice of WaterOffice of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (4305)Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-0642

Robin OshiroOffice of WaterOffice of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (4304)Washington, DC 20460(202-260-7278)

Office of Water

Steve SchaubOffice of WaterOffice of Science and TechnologyHealth and Ecological Criteria DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (4304)Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-7571

Office of Research and Development

Barbara KlieforthOffice of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Science PolicyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW (8104R)Washington, DC 20460(202) 564-6787

Rebecca CalderonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryMail Code MD-58AResearch Triangle Park, NC 27711(919) 966-0617

Al DufourU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research Laboratory26 West Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268(513) 569-7303

17

Agency Contacts (continued)

Office of Research and Development (continued)

Marie O’SheaU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development,National Risk Management Research Laboratory26 West Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268(732) 321-4468

Bill StelzU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance401 M Street, SW (8701R)Washington, DC 20460(202) 564-6834

Fred KopflerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGulf of Mexico ProgramBuilding 1103, Room 202Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000(601) 688-1172

Regional Offices

Matthew LiebmanU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 1JFK Federal Building CWQBoston, MA 02203(617) 565-3590(States: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)

Randall YoungU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 2290 BroadwayNew York, NY 10007-1866(212) 637-3847(States: NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

Randy BraunU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 22890 Woodbridge Avenue, Building 10Edison, NJ 08837-3679(908) 321-6692(States: NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

Brigitte FarrenU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 3841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 566-2767(States: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)

Joel HanselU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 4100 Alabama StreetAtlanta, GA 30303(404) 562-9274(States: AL, GA, FL, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN,)

David PfeiferU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 577 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604-3507(312) 353-9024(States: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)

Mike SchaubU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 61445 Ross Avenue (6WQ-EW)Dallas, TX 75202-2733(214) 665-7314(States: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)

Jake JoyceU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 7726 Minnesota AvenueKansas City, KS 66101(913) 551-7828(States: IA, KS, MO, NE)

David MoonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 8999 18th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202-2466(303) 312-6833(States: CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)

18

Janet HashimotoU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 975 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105(415) 744-1997(States: AZ, CA, HI, NM, NV)

Agency Contacts (continued)

Regional Offices (continued)

Curry JonesU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101(206) 553-6912(States: AR, ID, OR, WA)

19

Principal Authors

Thomas M. Armitage, PhDOffice of WaterOffice of Science and TechnologyStandards and Applied Science Division

Alfred P. Dufour, PhDOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research LaboratoryMicrobiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment Research Division

William F. Hoffmann, MPHOffice of WaterOffice of Science and TechnologyStandards and Applied Science Division

Barbara I. Klieforth, MSPHOffice of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Science Policy

Stephen A. Schaub, PhDOffice of WaterOffice of Science and TechnologyHealth and Ecological Criteria Division

Christopher S. ZarbaOffice of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Science Policy

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input of personnel from offices and regions across theAgency.