Improving Water Quality Through California's Clean Beach Initiative
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-0987-5 Improving water quality through California’s Clean Beach Initiative: an assessment of 17 projects John H. Dorsey Received: 4 September 2008 / Accepted: 13 May 2009 / Published online: 3 June 2009 © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract California’s Clean Beach Initiative These findings should be useful to other coastal (CBI) funds projects to reduce loads of fecal states and agencies faced with similar pollution indicator bacteria (FIB) impacting beaches, control problems. thus providing an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of various CBI water pollution Keywords Water quality · Fecal indicator control strategies. Seventeen initial projects bacteria · Beach pollution · BMPs were selected for assessment to determine their effectiveness on reducing FIB in the receiving waters along beaches nearest to the projects. Introduction Control strategies included low-flow diversions, sterilization facilities, sewer improvements, pier The US Congress demonstrated that having good best management practices (BMPs), vegetative water quality at recreational beaches is a national swales, and enclosed beach BMPs. Assessments priority when they amended the Clean Water Act were based on statistical changes in pre- and in 2000 by passing the Beaches Environmental As- postproject mean densities of FIB at shoreline sessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. This monitoring stations targeted by the projects. Most legislation addressed the problem of pathogens low-flow diversions and the wetland swale project and pathogen indicators in coastal waters by: were effective in removing all contaminated runoff from beaches. UV sterilization was 1. Requiring new or revised water quality stan- effective when coupled with pretreatment dards for pathogens or their indicators filtration and where effluent was released 2. Requiring the US Environmental Protection within a few hundred meters of the beach to Agency (EPA) to conduct studies associated avoid FIB regrowth. Other BMPs were less with pathogens and human health effective because they treated only a portion of 3. Directing the US EPA to award grants to contaminant sources impacting their target beach. develop and implement beach monitoring and assessment programs (US EPA 2006a) J. H. Dorsey (B) To implement this Act, the US EPA works with Department of Natural Science, Loyola state and local government agencies to improve Marymount University, One LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA pollution control efforts, thus reducing potential e-mail: [email protected] adverse health effects along the nation’s beaches 96 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 (US EPA 2006a). Water quality problems stem- enclosed beaches where very young children play ming from contamination by sewage and runoff in the water. Given the variety of potential FIB containing pathogenic organisms increase the in- sources, improving and maintaining good beach cidence of illnesses among swimmers (e.g., Cabelli water quality is a challenge for beach managers. et al. 1982; Haile et al. 1999) potentially leading to extensive beach closures. Both illnesses and The Clean Beach Initiative closures result in economic losses (Given et al. 2006). The public is keenly aware of potential Shortly after the BEACH Act was adopted, health risks from swimming in contaminated wa- California established the Clean Beach Initiative ter and use available water quality information in (CBI) in 2001, which dedicated grant funding to determining when and where to go to the beach, the State’s most polluted beaches for source con- especially if they plan on swimming or surfing trol studies and capital projects to reduce beach (Hanemann et al. 2004). For these reasons, main- fecal pollution (Gold 2005). Projects receiving taining good water quality at beaches is a primary grant funding typically comprised one to several goal for beach and resource managers. best management practices (BMPs) designed to There can be many sources of the fecal bacteria treat or divert contaminated water to remove that cause beaches to exceed water quality impacts on nearby beaches. Ideally, successful criteria. Runoff from urbanized areas typically projects would allow beaches to more consistently has elevated levels of enteric organisms, especially meet bathing water quality criteria, compared to as the amount of impervious area increases with preproject periods when beaches were frequently urban development (Young and Thackston closed or posted with warnings about health 1999) and the potential for contamination from risks to swimmers. To date, approximately $55.6 accidental spills of sewage increases. Along million has been allocated to 94 projects. California coastal areas, runoff from storm As part of the CBI program, an assessment was drains and river inputs has been shown to be performed of 17 initial projects to determine if a significant source of fecal indicator bacteria they effectively reduced densities of FIB at target (FIB) and associated pathogens (e.g., see Gold beaches. These assessments provide opportunities et al. 1990; Jiang et al. 2001; Reeves et al. 2004; to learn what projects successfully reduce beach Stein and Tiefenthaler 2004; Ackerman et al. pollution based on a range of strategies and 2005). An epidemiological study conducted in give insights into the necessary ingredients Santa Monica Bay and proximity to storm drains for success. Several of these projects, such as correlated swimmer illness to FIB densities (Haile those at piers or within enclosed beaches, had et al. 1999) and was the basis for the California multiple BMPs. Three projects were located in bathing water standards. Wildlife feces, mainly central California with the remainder in southern from birds, are another source of FIB impacting California (Fig. 1). Projects fell into the following beaches (Ricca 1998; Alderisio and DeLuca 1999; six categories (Table 1): Ferguson et al. 2003; Grant et al. 2001; Surbeck et al. 2006). Similarly, resuspended sediments with attached FIB can be washed from wetland Diversions In most of California, the sanitary or estuarine areas, increasing levels of these and storm water sewers are separate systems. microorganisms in adjacent beach waters (e.g., Runoff entering the storm water system eventu- Steets and Holden 2003; Surbeck et al. 2006). ally will reach the ocean from coastal watersheds, Beach sediments, inoculated by FIB from various collecting pollutants along the way. Low-flow di- sources, can be reservoirs for viable populations versions are designed to redirect runoff from of fecal microorganisms due to regrowth (Davies beach waters into sanitary sewers for treatment et al. 1995; Ferguson et al. 2005; Lee et al. at nearby sewage treatment facilities. They gen- 2006; Yamahara et al. 2007). Finally, swimmers erally operate during the summer months when themselves can be a source of FIB and pathogens rainfall is limited and beach usage is the highest. (e.g., Makintubee et al. 1987), especially at Because of the relatively limited capacity of their Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 97 Fig. 1 Location of CBI projects assessed in this 5.00 AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL (IN) report and monthly 4.50 average rainfall for San 4.00 3.50 Francisco and Los 38 Los Angeles Angeles Counties for the 3.00 Co. 2.50 years 1961–2000. San Francisco 2.00 Co. Numbers correspond to Rainfall (in) 1.50 tabular entries in Table 1 1.00 (source of rainfall data, 40 0.50 http://www.weather.com; 0.00 r t n ul g image from Google a J u ec J Feb Ma Apr May Jun A Oc Nov D Earth) Sept 39 10 12 13 24 20 8 19 9 21 15 23 100 MI 26 29 28 collection systems, most diversions operate only Pier BMPs A series of BMPs were employed at during the dry season, defined by California two piers in Santa Monica and Redondo Beach. AB411 legislation as the period from April 1 BMPs focused on reducing organic wastes that through October 31. If rainfall occurs during this attract birds, a significant source of FIB, to wa- period, excess flows are bypassed around the sys- ters adjacent to the piers, including garbage dis- tem to the beach. Nearly half the projects assessed posals for fish carcasses and remains, as well as in this project were diversions, with a total of 21 bird-proof trash cans. Other BMPs improved the diversions in eight separate projects (Table 1). containment of trash bins to prevent runoff and repaired or replaced leaking sewage pipes. In ad- dition to these BMPs, an infiltration basin was Sterilization facilities These projects intercept constructed at the Redondo Pier to treat runoff runoff in a waterway for disinfection using UV from surrounding parking areas. radiation, after which the treated effluent is dis- charged back into the drainage channel where it flows to the beach. In two of the three facilities Enclosed beach BMPs Enclosed beaches typi- (Moonlight Beach and Aliso Beach), the influent cally have very poor water circulation, which ex- was filtered prior to UV treatment. acerbates the persistence and growth of FIB in 98 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 Table 1 CBI projects included in this assessment; State Water Resources Control Board project numbers correspond with numbered locations on the map in Fig. 1 SWRCB project Grantee Project category Affected beach 8 Santa Monica Pier City of Santa Monica Pier BMPs Santa Monica State Beach 9 Redondo Beach Pier City of Redondo Beach Pier BMPs Redondo Beach State Park 10 Temescal Canyon City of Los Angeles Diversion Will Rodgers State Beach 12 Santa Monica