|
All beaches should be monitored at point zero.
Los Angeles County is one of the first in the state to modify their monitoring program to collect samples directly in front of flowing stormdrains and creeks. This change was as a result of the Santa Monica Bay Beach Bacteria TMDL. Children play directly in front of stormdrains and some kids even play in the runoff filled ponds and lagoons. Monitoring at “point zero” is the most protective way to ensure the health risks to swimmers are minimized.
Continue advocating for year-round postings at beaches with flowing stormdrains.
In Southern California, there is little consistency among counties monitoring stormdrain 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 stormdrain 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 stormdrains 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 the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, and represents a change from the current posting protocol implemented by health agencies. The study investigated how the dispersion of fecal bacteria discharged from stormdrains 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 numerous factors including 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:
- The beach adjacent to a polluted stormdrain 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.
- 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.
- Routine monitoring should be 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 system, 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 choose to not notify the public about water quality exceedances in a timely manner, yet those states will continue to receive full funding compared to states like California, that 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 no one can complete a status and trends analysis of stormwater in the state. 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:
- Standardized methods for collection of stormwater samples;
- Standardized methods for analysis of stormwater samples;
- Requirement that sample analysis be completed by a state certified laboratory;
- Standardized reporting format;
- Standard Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs;
- Minimum detection limits.
Cal. Water Code Section 13383.5 required that the above requirements be addressed by January 2003, which was over four 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 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) still has the opportunity to add SB72 standardization requirements in to the General Industrial Stormwater Permit, but the draft from over a year ago did not include meaningful requirements. Currently, the State has failed to comply with SB72 requirements. The State’s failure to comply with the SB72 requirements is causing major problems in the current stormwater permit cycle that started with San Diego County and will be followed by Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. The monitoring programs must assure compliance with water quality standards and they should be comparable from county to county.
The State Water Board must release final AB885 regulations.The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is still completing an Environmental Impact Report on the final draft AB885 (Jackson) regulations. The document should be completed and released this summer. The law required for the SWRCB to set final regulations for siting, monitoring and water treatment performance for California’s on-site water treatment systems (OWTS) by January of 2004. The regulatory process has been extremely controversial and incredibly slow. Lobbying efforts by county health departments and others led to a major weakening of the draft regulations. One of our greatest concerns is that the regulations do not require on-site system upgrades for all systems within 600 feet of fecal bacteria and nutrient impaired waters or tributaries upstream of the impaired waters. Also, the regulations apply only to new systems, not the existing systems that have degraded water quality and pose health risks. The latest draft shifted the burden of proof to the Regional Boards to identify on-site wastewater treatment systems that are degrading water quality. The Regional Boards do not have the resources to meet this requirement. The draft regulations do not apply to tributaries that cause or contribute to fecal bacteria and/or nutrient impairment problems downstream. The draft regulations were also weakened in the area of monitoring and performance standards. Although these regulations would apply throughout the state, they will have special importance at California beaches and coastal watersheds that are impaired for fecal bacteria. Based on the SWRCB’s continual backsliding on the proposed regulations, Heal the Bay is extremely concerned that the last six years of negotiations and debate on AB 885 regulations will not result in improved water quality and reduced public health risks.
Improve the State’s funding process through the Clean Beach Initative so more Proposition 50 funding can be used for enclosed beach water quality improvement projects:
- Extending timelines to allow for adequate planning of complex projects
- Earmark a limited amount of funding for feasibility studies that are especially critical for enclosed beaches that require innovative projects because traditional mitigation approaches developed for open coastal beaches are not effective at these beaches
- Make allowances for adaptive management because innovative projects require flexible implementation
Improve communication between project proponents, the SWRCB and the Clean Beach Task Force (or CBTF, a technical advisory board) by creating a pre-proposal review, provide a mechanism for selected CBTF members (or other experts) to play an active liaison and advisory role on specific projects, increase communication methods and opportunities such as web pages, email list-serves and periodic workshops and symposiums.
Encourage applications for state funding from cities and counties that have responsibility for high priority beaches.
Promote scientific study in critical areas of uncertainty including the role of sediment and wrack on poor water quality, methods for improving water circulation at very shallow swimming depths, methods for measuring indicator bacteria rapidly, and improved protocols and methods for source identification.
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, so all of these ocean enthusiasts have the right to know about water quality at their favorite beaches on a year-round basis.
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 states 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) 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% of testing days that produce an exceedence of those standards.” Although there have been a number of source identification efforts for chronically polluted beaches throughout the state, many chronically polluted beaches have never been investigated. Examples of completed sanitary surveys are Mission Bay, Huntington Beach, Rincon, Campbell Cove, Baby Beach, Kiddie Beach, Malibu Lagoon, Santa Monica Canyon, Cabrillo Beach, Avalon, and a few other locations. However, source identification efforts are sorely needed at Long Beach, Redondo Pier, Topanga Beach, Santa Ynez and Castlerock stormdrains, Latigo and Solstice Canyons, Marie Canyon, Doheny, Pillar Point Harbor and Frenchman’s Creek in San Mateo County. Identifying sources of fecal bacteria pollution is critical before successful source abatement efforts can be undertaken.
|
