Beach Report Card section(new window) 13th Annual Beach Report Card , 2002-2003
May 21, 2003
Table of Contents
Cover Page
Executive Summary
Introduction
About the Beach
Report Card
2002-2003 Analyses
Beach Pollution
Patterns
Del Norte, Humboldt
& Mendocino
Sonoma
Marin
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
Monterey
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Los Angeles
Orange
San Diego
State & Federal
Legislation
Accomplishments &
Recommendations
Appendix A:
Thresholds-Grading
Appendix B:
Downloads for
Printing
Appendix C:
Acknowledgements
About the Beach Report Card

What type of water quality is measured?
Runoff from creeks, rivers or storm drains is the largest source of pollution to California beaches. Runoff may contain toxic heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, animal waste, trash and even human sewage. The Beach Report Card includes an analysis of shoreline (ankle-deep) water quality data collected by various county and city public agencies for fecal indicator bacteria. At present, the report card contains no information on toxins or trash in the water.

Currently, there are over 400 shoreline monitoring locations analyzed in the California Beach Report Card from Del Norte County south to San Diego County. Shoreline water samples are analyzed for three indicator bacteria: total coliform, fecal coliform (or E.coli) and enterococcus. Total coliform, which contains coliform of all types, originates from many sources, including soil, plants, animals and humans. Fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria are found in the fecal matter of mammals and birds. This fecal matter does not necessarily come from humans, although numerous prior studies have demonstrated that there is a significant possibility of human sewage contamination in storm drain runoff at any given time.

The amount of indicator bacteria present in runoff, and consequently in the surfzone, is currently the best indication of whether or not a beach is safe for recreational contact. Indicator bacteria are not usually the microorganisms that cause illness in swimmers. Instead, their presence indicates the potential for water contamination with other pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa that do pose a health risk to humans. The link between swimming in waters containing elevated levels of bacteria indicators and health risk was confirmed in the groundbreaking 1996 Epidemiological Study conducted by USC, the Sanitation District of Orange County, the City of Los Angeles, and Heal the Bay, under the auspices of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project.

Most sample locations are selected by monitoring, health, and regulatory agencies to specifically target popular beaches and/or those beaches frequently affected by runoff. Water quality samples were collected by the appropriate agency at a minimum of once a week from April through October, as required under AB411. Many agencies conducted year-round sampling, while others scaled back their monitoring program from November through March. All counties that have beach monitoring programs and provide the data to the public were included in the Beach Report Card.

Water quality thresholds
Concentrations of total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria are typically measured in colony-forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters of ocean water. Colony-forming units are the number of bacteria in a given volume of ocean water that are capable of reproduction during the course of sample analysis. The Beach Report Card methodology utilizes four thresholds, or specific bacterial densities, that are associated with increased health risks. These thresholds were derived from California Department of Health Services standards set forth in AB411 and findings from the 1996 SMBRP Epidemiological Study on swimmers at urban runoff polluted beaches. The four exceedance thresholds for various indicator bacteria can be found in Appendix A.

Heal the Bay's Grading System
Heal the Bay's grading system takes into consideration the magnitude and frequency of an exceedance above indicator thresholds over the course of a year. Furthermore, those beaches that exceed multiple indicator thresholds in a given day received lower grades than those beaches that exceeded just one indicator threshold.

The grades are based on a 100-point scale. For each monitoring location, points are subtracted from a perfect score of 100 points depending upon where the data falls within the designated thresholds. As the magnitude or frequency of bacteria density threshold exceedance increases, the number of points subtracted increases. The threshold points and grading system can be found in Appendix A.

Water quality drops dramatically during and immediately after a rainstorm, but often rebounds to its previous level within a few days. For this reason, wet weather data was analyzed separately in order to avoid artificially lowering a location's grade. A wet weather data point is any sample collected during or for three days following the cessation of a rainstorm. Heal the Bay's annual report card and weekly report cards utilized a definition of a significant rainstorm as precipitation more than or equal to one tenth of an inch (>=0.1"). Also, in response to requests from health agency officials, the BRC now analyzes dry weather water quality data for two time periods, 1) April 2002 to October 2002 (AB411 time period), and 2) April 2002 to March 2003.

What does this mean for the beach user?
Simply put, the higher the grade a beach receives, the better the water quality at that beach. The lower the grade, the greater the health risk. Potential illnesses include stomach flu, ear infection, upper respiratory infection and major skin rash (full body). The known risks of contracting illnesses associated with each threshold are based on a one-time, single day of exposure (head immersed while swimming) in polluted water. Increasing frequency of exposure or the magnitude of bacteria densities may significantly increase an ocean user's risk of contracting any one of a number of these illnesses.

It is important to note that the grades derived for the California Beach Report Card represent the most current available information to the public, but they do not represent real-time water quality conditions. Currently, laboratory analyses of beach water quality samples take 18 to 48 hours to complete, then the data must be entered into a database before it is sent to Heal the Bay for a grade calculation. However, the Report Card on the Heal the Bay web site includes real-time information on beach closures because most closures are due to sewage spills and all health agencies close beaches immediately after a spill. The Report Card is designed to give the beachgoer historical information on the water quality at a given beach. The public can then make informed decisions about which beach to visit safely.

Go to the top of this page This page :: Top
Go to the previous section Previous section :: Introduction
Go to the next section Next section :: 2002-2003 Analyses
Why Not Test For Viruses?
A common question asked by beachgoers is "since viruses are thought to cause many of the swimming associated illnesses, why doesn't the health agency monitor directly for viruses rather than bacteria indicators?"

Although virus monitoring is incredibly useful in identifying sources of fecal pollution, there are a number of drawbacks to the currently available virus measurement methods.

Although there have been tremendous breakthroughs in the use of gene probes to analyze water samples for virus or human specific bacteria, these techniques are currently expensive, highly technical and not very quantitative.

There are two virus monitoring techniques for analyzing water samples: genetic and cultured. The genetic technique for detecting viruses can be completed in less than a day and is very sensitive to detecting a wide variety of viral pathogens. However, the tests are extremely expensive (about $500 - $1,000 per sample) and the results do not accurately quantify the number of viruses per unit volume or provide information on whether or not the virus is infectious.

The culture technique for detecting viruses is less costly (about $400 per sample) and can confirm whether or not a virus is infectious. Unfortunately, this technique is less sensitive in detecting viruses, is susceptible to water-quality-caused interference, and much slower in obtaining results (up to 6 weeks), unlike bacterial indicator analyses, which require only 18-48 hours.

Finally, interpretation of virus monitoring data is difficult because, unlike bacteria indicators, there is currently no data available that links health risks associated with swimming in beach water to virus concentrations.

Therefore, indicator bacteria monitoring is currently the best, most timely and cost effective method for protecting the health of beachgoers. Since bacteria indicator analyses cost about $10 dollars for every sample, for every one water sample analyzed for viruses, 35-50 water samples can be analyzed for bacterial indicators for the same cost.
About the Beach Report Card
13th Annual Beach Report Card, 2002-2003


Copyright © 2004 Heal the Bay. All rights reserved.
The fishbones logo is a trademark of Heal the Bay.
The Beach Report Card® is a registered servicemark of Heal the Bay.