Accomplishments

Beach Fecal Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
As of this year, all of the beach fecal bacteria TMDLs for Los Angeles County have been completed. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant, in this case fecal bacteria, that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards set to protect the beneficial uses of that water body. The most recent TMDL approved by the state was for Cabrillo Beach and the main channel in San Pedro Harbor. Historically, Cabrillo Beach has been one of the most polluted beaches in the state for fecal bacteria. The TMDL was very similar to those approved by the state for Santa Monica Bay and Marina Del Rey with specific deadlines for summer dry weather compliance, year round dry weather compliance and wet weather compliance within 3 years, 6 years and 10-18 years respectively.

The TMDLs adopted for Los Angeles and Ventura County waterbodies are a result of a 1998 consent decree entered into between Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica Baykeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Fecal Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plans
The Santa Monica Bay watershed cities and L.A. County have completed the first draft implementation plans for compliance with the wet weather requirements for the Santa Monica Bay and Marina Del Rey fecal bacteria TMDLs. The initial drafts largely focused on an institutional controls approach to reducing bacteria, namely educational programs. Concurrently, some site specific best management practices (BMPs) are to be implemented to help reduce bacterial densities. In the event the approach does not lead to attainment of bacteria water quality standards, then local governments would take more of a regional BMP approach to reducing bacterial densities. Unfortunately, the implementation plans do not include an engineering or scientific analysis of the proposed approach or its likelihood of reaching water quality standards attainment. Heal the Bay is urging the cities to take a more scientific approach that relies on integrated water resources management solutions that treat multiple pollutants and provide additional benefits such as open space, water reuse and aquifer recharge. The final plans are due to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) this summer.

Malibu Creek Fecal Bacteria TMDL
In November, 2004 the LARWQCB approved new limits for fecal bacteria in the Malibu Creek watershed. Malibu Creek and Lagoon are polluted with fecal bacteria at levels that often greatly exceed the state health standards for swimming. The pollution could be coming from manysources, including urban runoff, agriculture, horse-related activities, and malfunctioning septic systems. The new TMDL regulation will replace the flawed TMDL developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year (reported in last year's annual BRC).

The Malibu Creek TMDL, modeled after the Santa Monica Bay Beaches TMDL, requires the water in Malibu Creek and its tributaries to meet the State health standards at all times during the summer dry weather (April through October) by 2007 to 2010, depending on the compliance progress achieved by the implementing agencies. For the winter season, the regulation allows for some exceedances of the health standards to account for fecal bacteria from birds and other natural sources. For example, during winter dry weather (November through March) the Malibu Creek watershed may not exceed bacterial standards on more than three days by 2010. During wet weather conditions, 17 days of exceedances are allowed to account for natural sources. These wet weather season targets must be met by 2014 unless an integrated water resources approach is adopted, in which case an extra 7 years could be allotted for final compliance with the TMDL during the winter season.

The TMDL is currently awaiting State Water Resources Control Broad (SWRCB) approval, largely because the County of Los Angeles has yet to commit to a way to reduce pollution from septic systems in the watershed. The County is opposed to the RWQCB proposals of either requiring disinfection at high risk systems defined as within 250 feet of impaired waters, or having to identify high risk systems in the watershed that would require disinfection upgrades. The TMDL will be heard at the SWRCB this summer.

State Ocean Plan Amendment
The California Ocean Plan now contains the California Beach Bathing Water Quality numeric standards for state coastal waters. This year, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved amendments to the water quality standards of the Ocean Plan to make sure that the bacterial objectives are consistent with the AB 411 California Department of Health Services standards and the Environmental Protection Agency enterococcus criteria. These changes were long overdue and highly commendable. However, the SWRCB weakened the sanitary survey requirement portion of the Ocean Plan. The SWRCB removed the section that stated that a sanitary survey to identify fecal pollution sources must be completed when geometric mean water quality objectives are exceeded. This provision of the Ocean Plan has never been implemented and the SWRCB and the coastal RWQCBs have neglected similar requirements under AB 538 (Wayne) to implement sanitary surveys. The end result is that there is no clear Ocean Plan requirement for action to stop beach pollution even when water quality standards for protecting human health are exceeded. Also, since the State has refused to implement the sanitary survey provisions of AB 538, the public continues to be needlessly and illegally placed at risk to exposure of unsafe beach water quality.

San Diego's Mission Bay Epidemiological Study
U.C. Berkeley and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) completed an epidemiology study on swimmers at chronically polluted Mission Bay beaches. This was the first west-coast study on swimmers at an enclosed salt-water beach which are often the most polluted beaches along California's coast. The epidemiology study researchers collected samples during the summer of 2003 and analyzed them for total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus bacteria. In addition, the researchers analyzed numerous samples for viruses and bacteriophages. Swimmers and non-swimmers from six different beaches in Mission Bay took part in the study.

The results of the study were that swimmers were more likely to have symptoms such as gastroenteritis than non-swimmers. This was especially true for small children. However, there were no differences in health outcomes between swimmers in waters that met state health standards for fecal bacteria and swimmers on more polluted days. Due to climate conditions and an aggressive source abatement effort by the city of San Diego, the summer of 2003 was relatively clean for Mission Bay, with few days having extremely high bacteria densities. Also, human viruses were not found in Mission Bay over the course of the study which means that swimmers were likely to have been exposed to extremely low levels (if any) of human viruses. Coliphage was found on a few occasions at some beaches and there was some association between adverse health outcomes and the presence of f+ male specific coliphages. The Mission Bay results in conjunction with other source identification and abatement efforts in the area make one realize that the fecal bacteria in the Bay during the summer is likely to come from sediments, beach wrack, and birds.

The completion of the Mission Bay study has led to a number of questions. Can the results be extrapolated to other enclosed beaches? Can the results be extrapolated to enclosed beaches that have an aggressive source abatement program and no flowing stormdrains such as Baby Beach in Dana Point? These questions have yet to be answered, but they will be discussed at length over the next year at places such as the SWRCB and Heal the Bay's enclosed beaches workshop this August in Dana Point.

Heal the Bay's Model Program for Monitoring and Public Notification Programs at Marine Beaches
Heal the Bay has developed a model monitoring program for local health agencies, beach managers, and non-profits around the country to use as a tool for improving their beach monitoring and public notification programs. Funded by the U.S. EPA, Heal the Bay developed the program to enhance and expand upon existing U.S. EPA beach monitoring guidance by providing a model program that improves the efficiency, protectiveness, and consistency of beach monitoring programs around the country. The model program is specifically designed to address three factors that significantly affect risk management at recreational beaches: the uncertainty associated with using fecal bacteria indicators, the significant variability observed in bacteria densities in marine waters, and the lag-time between sample collection and public notification. The protocols recommended in the model program are based on health risks and the most recent scientific findings related to beach pollution and recreational water epidemiology. The model calls for minimum monitoring and reporting protocols for all marine beaches throughout the country including: weekly monitoring; sampling at times and locations of highest fecal contamination; mandatory closure of beaches impacted by sewage releases; mandatory public notification within 48 hours of a health standard exceedance at medium-risk beaches; and permanent warnings along extended shoreline around flowing stormdrains and other high-risk beaches.

Heal the Bay's New Grading Methodology Endorsed by the State Water Resources Control Board
Heal the Bay has revised the BRC methodology to more accurately characterize beach water quality. Over the past year, Heal the Bay has worked with beach water quality and human health experts from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the statewide Beach Water Quality Work Group (BWQW) to refine our grading system. Major modifications to our methodology include incorporating the state and federal geometric mean health standards, and increasing the emphasis on the most recent week's sample relative to the previous three week's samples. With these improvements to the methodology, Heal the Bay's Beach Report Card grading system is now endorsed by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Beach Water Quality Workgroup as an effective way to communicate beach water quality to the public. These endorsements are particularly meaningful because the SWRCB and the BWQW are comprised of a wide range of water quality and human health professionals with expertise on beach water quality. (The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency responsible for protecting our water resources for public use and aquatic life, and the Beach Water Quality Workgroup is comprised of local health agencies, researchers, and experts from coastal Public Operated Treatment Wastewater facilities and municipalities.) Now, even more local health agencies and other local and state agencies will recommend use of the BRC grades as a way to get useful information regarding beach water quality. A detailed write up with details on the new BRC methodology will be available at www.healthebay.org in June 2005.

Recommendations for the Coming Year

• Continue Advocating for Year-Round Postings at Beaches with Flowing Storm Drains. In Southern California, there is little consistency among counties monitoring storm drain impacted beaches on where to collect a sample, when to post a warning sign, and where to post the warning sign. For example, on the issue of where to monitor on the beach, counties will collect water samples from the wave wash (where the creek, river, or storm drain meet the ocean water) to as far as 83 yards from the drain, and anywhere in between. With regards to posting, State regulations require posting a beach when a water sample exceeds the single sample standard. The State gives local health departments discretion to post a beach if the 30-day geometric mean standard is exceeded. Using both the single sample and 30-day geometric mean standards are far more protective of public health than using one standard. The following demonstrates the differences in county practices: the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach will only post a beach if there is a single sample exceedance; the County of Orange will post a beach on either a single sample or 30-day geometric mean exceedance; and the County of San Diego will initially only post a beach on a single sample exceedance but will continue that posting if subsequent sampling causes an exceedance of either the single sample or 30-day geometric mean standard. Finally, where to post the warning sign is subject to where the samples are collected and therefore highly variable.

To address these three points, Heal the Bay recommends permanently posting warning signs along the entire length of beach adjacent to flowing storm drains where water quality may fail to meet the State health standards for both the single sample and 30-day geometric mean. This recommendation is based on the results of the Storm Drain Plume Dispersion study Heal the Bay completed with SCCWRP, and represents a change from the current posting protocol implemented by health agencies. The study investigated how the dispersion of fecal bacteria discharged from storm drains into Santa Monica Bay is affected by ocean and discharge conditions. The results of this study demonstrate that the length of beach unsafe for swimming is beach-specific depending on local beach topography, and can vary over the course of a few hours. The study results also indicate that exceedances of the health standards can occur along the beach at distances much greater than the distance covered by monitoring stations routinely sampled by local health agencies. Based on these results, Heal the Bay believes the protocol typically used by County health agencies for posting warning signs may not be adequately notifying swimmers of potential health risks around freshwater outlets in Southern California.

We have the following three sequential recommendations to improve the current system warning the beach-going public that water quality may exceed State health standards:

1. The beach adjacent to a polluted storm drain or freshwater outlet should be posted with warning signs over the entire length of beach where water quality is affected by the plume of fecal bacteria discharging from the drain.
   
2. Since the length of beach where water quality may be impacted by high fecal bacteria levels is beach-specific, we recommend this length be determined by completing multiple sampling events at multiple locations around the drain under varying oceanographic conditions.
   
3. Once the length of beach impacted has been determined, routine monitoring locations should be moved to the location of the warning sign placed furthest from the drain. Routine monitoring is conducted to make sure the length of beach impacted by the drain is posted with warning signs so that swimmers can identify which portion of the beach may not be safe for swimming. Under the current scenario, signs may be posted only directly in front of a drain, even though unsafe water quality conditions may persist 100 yards or more from the drain.

• Advocate for increased funding for California's shoreline monitoring program from EPA's BEACH program. Last year, the State received less than $535,000 to implement a statewide shoreline water quality monitoring and public notification program at popular beaches. State allotments are based on three criteria: the length of the beach season, the amount of beach miles, and estimated beachgoers. Although California received one of the largest grants for this program, the allotment criteria used by EPA has two shortcomings that have prevented California from receiving additional funds to cover the cost of monitoring. The first problem with the allotment methodology is the lack of criteria for strength of monitoring program or public notification. EPA does not provide an incentive or disincentive to move states beyond the basic baseline water quality monitoring and public notification program. For example, states may monitor for only one fecal indicator or may not notify the public about water quality exceedances in a timely manner, yet those states will continue to receive full funding compared to states, such as California, which monitor for three fecal criteria, and notify the public immediately of any water quality exceedances. The EPA needs to provide greater proportional funding to those states that implement the aforementioned model program in order to provide an incentive for improving public health protection. The second problem with the allotment methodology is that it is inherently subjective, and the EPA has no mechanism to confirm that its methodology is truly ensuring funds are going to the most appropriate states. Because these shortcomings have yet to be addressed by EPA, many of the State's coastal counties will be receiving less money to implement water quality monitoring programs this year. This means that counties will either have to reduce the number of locations sampled or reduce the time-period of coverage.

• Continue advocating for the implementation of a Statewide Comprehensive Stormwater Monitoring Program (SB72). SB72 (2001 Kuehl) (Cal. Water Code Section 13383.5) was sponsored by Heal the Bay. This law standardizes stormwater monitoring. A uniform and comprehensive monitoring program is critical to the success of the State's stormwater programs. Currently, every county or municipality covered under the municipal stormwater permit requirements has different monitoring programs - this is the reason why a status and trends analysis of stormwater in the state cannot be completed. The data are not comparable from permittee program to permittee program, and often not even from year to year. SB72 also clarifies what information to consider when determining which constituents should be monitored in municipal runoff. This law set clear and specific minimum requirements for municipalities and industries for sampling:

1. Standardized methods for collection of storm water samples;
   
2. Standardized methods for analysis of storm water samples;
   
3. Requirement that sample analysis be completed by a state certified laboratory;
   
4. Standardized reporting format;
   
5. Standard QA/QC programs;
   
6. Minimum detection limits.

Cal. Water Code Section 13383.5 required that the above requirements be addressed by January, 2003, which was over two years ago. To date, a technical working group has only provided partial recommendations for the municipal stormwater program requirements of SB72, and the State has done nothing to set up a similar process for industrial stormwater. The SWRCB still has the opportunity to add SB 72 standarization requirements in to the General Industrial Stormwater Permit, but the draft did not include meaningful requirements. Another draft will be released before the end of the year. Currently, the State has failed to comply with SB72 requirements.

•  Continue to ensure that best management practices are implemented at enclosed beaches, and develop and implement tidal circulation improvements to reduce bacterial indicator densities. Beaches such as Mothers' Beach in Marina del Rey, Cabrillo Beach in Los Angeles Harbor, Baby Beach in Dana Point Harbor and a number of beaches in Mission Bay all received fair-to-poor water quality marks. Whether the pollution problem is due to a lack of tidal circulation or a beach's proximity to a pollution source, young beachgoers are far too frequently exposed to unhealthful water quality conditions. One of Heal the Bay's highest priorities for the year is to ensure that these chronically polluted beaches are cleaned up. To this end, we have partnered with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to co-sponsor a conference on enclosed beaches to be held this August 2005. The CBI Enclosed Beach Workshop mission is to share and evaluate current scientific research and methodology used to restore California 's coastal water quality by unifying CBI grant recipients, academics, organizations, regulators and agencies so that as a community we can assess the most successful restoration methods. The focus of the CBI workshop is to assist in the development of reasonable circulation solutions to the State's enclosed/sheltered beaches (AB411 beaches), but to also recognize contamination problems at a diversity of beach types.

• Continue to encourage monitoring agencies to monitor water quality at popular beaches yearround (beyond the AB411 required dates of April-October). Year-round monitoring provides winter beachgoers, oftentimes surfers who frequent the beach for winter swells, with important information about water quality. In California there is no set beach season. Surfers, swimmers, divers, wind-surfers, and kayakers use the water year-round. All of these ocean enthusiasts have the right to know about water quality at their favorite beaches on a year-round basis.

• Continue to work with the Northern California Coastal Counties to assist in developing their monitoring programs and database. Heal the Bay will continue to work, where needed, with the Environmental Health Departments in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo to ensure that the necessary resources exist for them to develop adequate monitoring and public notification programs, and database systems.

• Continue to advocate for the State to enforce Sanitary Survey Protocol requirements as established in AB538 and the California Ocean Plan. In an effort to do more than just notify beachgoers of potential water quality problems at their favorite beaches per AB411, AB538 was passed to require sanitary surveys (source investigations) to be completed at those beaches where water quality problems persisted. The idea was to identify the sources causing beach water quality impairment, and implement necessary strategies to abate the pollution source. The requirement of a source investigation was not a new concept created by AB538 in 1999-the Ocean Plan has required this procedure since 1988. The issue is that the State never enforces or requires municipalities to implement these surveys when exceedances occur. The Ocean Plan used to state that ".if a shore station consistently exceeds a coliform objective or exceeds a geometric mean.the Regional Board shall require the appropriate agency to conduct a survey to determine if that agency's discharge is the source of the contamination" (State Water Resources Control Board Ocean Plan 1997). This section was inexplicably deleted in the latest amended Ocean Plan (2005).

However, AB538 states that source investigations shall be conducted "if bacteriological standards are exceeded in any three weeks of a four-week period, or, for areas where testing is done more than once a week, 75 percent of testing days that produce an exceedence of those standards." These requirements still have not been implemented statewide as required by law.

	This page :: Top
	Previous section :: State Legislation
	Next section :: Appendix A: Thresholds & Grading