1. BEACH Act and the EPA 2012 Recreational Criteria for Coastal Waters Joe Martin Water Quality Standards 1

2. BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. Signed into law on October 10, 2000. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act by adding the following sections: 2

3. §303(i) Requires states, tribes and territories that have coastal recreation waters to adopt new or revised water quality standards by April 10, 2004, for pathogens and pathogen indicators for which EPA has published criteria under CWA section 304(a). 3

4. §§104(v) & 304(a)(9) Requires EPA to conduct studies associated with pathogens and human health and to publish new or revised CWA section 304(a) criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on those studies. 4

5. §303(i)(1)(B) States, territories, or tribes, that have coastal recreation waters are directed to adopt new or revised water quality standards for all pathogens and pathogen indicators to which EPA’s new or revised section 304(a) criteria are applicable by no later than three years after EPA’s publication of the new or revised section 304(a) criteria. 5

6. §406 Section 406 authorizes EPA to award grants to states, territories, tribes, or local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring and assessment programs. 6

7. §502 Defines "coastal recreation waters" as the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) designated under the CWA section 303(c) for swimming, bathing, surfing, or other water contact activities. "Coastal recreation waters" does not include inland waters or waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream that has an unimpaired connection with the open sea. 7

8. BEACH Act Required EPA to publish new or revised criteria no later than five years after the date of enactment. EPA was sued in 2006 for not meeting deadlines for completing epidemiological studies or publishing new criteria. 8

9. BEACH Act Consent Decree –Required EPA to publish new or revised water quality criteria recommendations by October 15, 2012. –Required EPA to complete epi studies in marine waters in a tropical region and in marine waters impacted by urban runoff in a temperate region. 9

10. Epidemiological Studies 10

11. Great Lakes Epidemiological Study Conducted in 2003 & 2004. One Lake Erie beach & three Lake Michigan beaches. Beaches impacted by point source WWTP effluent. Samples tested for Enterococcus (Entero) & Bacteroides using qPCR. Samples also tested for Entero using EPA Method 1600. 11

12. 0.3 m 1.0 m 0.3 m – shin deep 1.0 m – waist deep 0.3 m 1.0 m 1 liter samples collected at: 8AM, 11AM and 3PM 0.3 m 1.0 m 60 m 12

13. Great Lakes Epidemiological Study Results: No statistically significant results. Positive associations with Entero qPCR and GI illness. –Health effects more pronounced in children under 10. Culturable Entero weaker predictor than qPCR. 13

14. Marine Epidemiological Studies 2005 Edgewater Beach, MS. 2007 Fairhope Beach, AL & Goddard Beach, RI. Samples tested for Entero & Bacteroidales using qPCR. In 2007, subgroups of Bacteroides and Clostridium spp. by qPCR. Samples also tested for Entero using EPA Method 1600. 14

15. Marine Epidemiological Studies Results: Risk of GI illness significantly correlated with Entero and Bacteroidales qPCR. Association with GI illness and Bacteroides were generally positive but not statistically significant. Association with GI illness and culturable Entero were positive but not statistically significant. No increased susceptibility among children. 15

16. Study Limitations This study was conducted at beaches in a temperate climate with nearby treated point source sewage discharges and results may not be directly applicable to sites affected by fecal contamination from other types of sources or sites with different climates. 16

17. Consent Decree Epidemiological Studies Surfside Beach, South Carolina (urban runoff). Boqueron Beach, Puerto Rico (tropical). Samples tested for Entero & Bacteroidales using qPCR. Samples also tested for Entero using EPA Method 1600. Indicators using qPCR had considerably higher non-detects than other epi studies. 17

18. Consent Decree Epidemiological Studies Results: Surfside Beach, South Carolina Association with GI illness and culturable Entero were positive but not statistically significant. Risk of GI illness was positive but not statistically significant with Entero and Bacteroidales qPCR. 18

19. Consent Decree Epidemiological Studies Results: Boqueron Beach No positive trends were observed between GI illness and any of the indicators. Skin rash was the only symptom significantly elevated among swimmers. Interpretation between water quality and health effects complicated by poor recovery of control (salmon DNA) indicating potential inhibition or interference. 19

20. 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria 20

21. EPA 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) Consists of a geometric mean (GM) and statistical threshold value (STV). STV is a single sample criterion based on the 90 th percentile with a 10% excursion rate (EPA states this approach encourages more monitoring). Includes two sets of criteria values. No longer different criteria recommendations for the STV based on use intensities. TCEQ removed assessment based on a single sample in the 2010 TSWQS. 21

22. 2012 RWQC Water Quality Standards should consist of a magnitude, duration, and frequency. Magnitude – GM and STV. Duration – Period of time samples are assessed. Frequency – Excursion rate (10% based on 90 th percentile STV). 22

23. 2012 RWQC 23 CRITERIA ELEMENTS Recommendation 1 Estimated Illness Rate 36/1,000 Recommendation 2 Estimated Illness Rate 32/1,000 IndicatorGM (cfu/100 mL) STV (cfu/100 mL) GM (cfu/100 mL) STV (cfu/100 mL) Enterococci (marine & fresh) 3513030110 E. Coli (fresh) 126410100320 cfu/100 mL = colony forming units per 100 mL water

24. 2012 RWQC Duration – EPA suggests a 30 day duration to assess samples (could potentially extend to 90 days). GM and STV should be assessed regardless of sample size. This requires assessment of a GM on a single sample. 24

25. Deviation from Draft Criteria STV - 75 th 90 th percentile Different water quality distribution used for marine water. STV – 104 cfu 130 cfu BAV included Duration changed from 90 to 30 days. Alternate set of criteria 25

26. Deviation from Draft Criteria “Although waterbody misclassification can occur even with large datasets (e.g., 60 samples or more), the likelihood of waterbody misclassification is highest when the GM is based on a small number of samples.” 26

27. Beach Action Value (BAV) EPA suggests that states use a BAV as a conservative, precautionary tool for making beach notification decisions. The BAV is not a component of EPA’s recommended criteria, but a tool states may choose to use, without adopting it into their WQS as a “do not exceed” value for beach notification purposes (such as advisories). 27

28. BAV BAV was developed on the water quality distribution from EPA epi studies and corresponds to the estimated 75 th percentile. 70 cfu for illness rate of 36/1000 60 cfu for illness rate of 32/1000 BAV not included in draft 2012 RWQC. 28

29. National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants 2014 The Texas General Land Office (GLO) uses beach grants to fund monitoring. Requires states to adopt 2012 RWQC and BAV to be eligible for grant. States and tribes that want to use an alternative threshold must submit a written justification to EPA based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience. 29

30. The GLO collects beach samples and TCEQ assesses based on beach advisory days. A BAV for the Texas coast would become a de facto standard. Would hold Texas to a much more stringent standard than required by the 2012 RWQC. 30

31. BAV Justification YearResamples Resamples ≤ 70 cfu % ≤ 70 cfu Resamples ≤ 104 cfu % ≤ 104 cfu 200924518876.7%20182.0% 201034723567.7%26175.2% 201124217873.6%20283.5% 201231818959.4%21367.0% 201326218470.2%20779.0% 5 yr total1414974avg =69%1084avg = 77% 31

32. 32 * These components are currently in TCEQ’s Assessment Guidance. ** Located in SWQM Assessment Guidance and 307.9(e)(3) of the TSWQS states that attainment be based on a long term geometric mean. TCEQ Current Assessment of Bacteria Standards for Swimmer Advisories (Beaches) TCEQ Current Assessment of Bacteria Standards for Coastal Water EPA 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria Magnitude - GM cfu/100mL none35 Magnitude - Single Sample (STV) cfu/100mL 104 cfu for swimmer advisories and permitting (% advisories used in assessment) Single sample not used for assessment of coastal waters 130 cfu Frequency*25% excursion rate**N/A10% excursion rate Duration*7 years** 30 day

33. EPA has suggested the TCEQ could use the 104 cfu value based on their water quality distribution for beaches. 104 is approximately the 86 th percentile from the distribution derived from EPA epi studies. This would allow a 14% excursion rate (frequency). 33

34. EPA Water Quality Distribution Texas Coastal Data Water Quality Distribution 35 cfu 70 cfu 104 cfu 130 cfu 75 th 86 th 90 th 104 cfu 75 th 34

35. Site Specific Standards? Texas’ freshwater single sample is based on local water quality data. STV= antilog10 [log10(GM)+Z90*log10SD] EPA’s log standard deviation (SD) from epi studies was 0.44. 35

36. 0.3 m 1.0 m 0.3 m – shin deep 1.0 m – waist deep 0.3 m 1.0 m 1 liter samples collected at: 8AM, 11AM and 3PM 0.3 m 1.0 m 60 m 36

37. Water Quality Distribution along the Texas Coast Analyzed five years of data along the Texas coast. Variability (log standard deviation) depends on how data is pooled. All data pooled by beach = log SD 0.69 with a corresponding 102 cfu (EPA 1986 criteria found a log SD of 0.7 for marine waters). Duplicate and resamples removed, data pooled by beach = log SD 0.68 with a corresponding 101 cfu. 37

38. EPA pooled data by beach, date, time, and depth. Obtained SAS code from EPA. Pooled Texas’ data monthly by beach. –Log SD of 0.64. 1986 criteria “Each jurisdiction should establish its own standard deviation for its conditions which would then vary the single sample limit”. 38

39. Concerns EPA’s water quality distribution is not representative of the Texas coast. Assessing on 30 or 90 day duration is inconsistent with beach season along the Texas coast. Assessing GMs based on small data sets could result in spurious listings. Posting a beach advisory on a value that has not exceeded the WQS could be confusing to the public. 39

40. Concerns Epi studies did not find any statistically significant relationships with culturable entero. If no relationships exist, why hold Texas to a 90 day duration. No immediate plans to adopt qPCR, possible inhibition issues in Texas coastal waters. 40

41. Options - Magnitude Magnitude –104 cfu for beaches only. –104 cfu for beaches, bays and estuaries. –130 cfu for bays and estuaries. 41

42. Options - Duration Duration –Retain current duration. –Adopt 90 day duration. –Adopt 1 year duration – consistent with GLOs period of recreational use §406(c)(3)(A). 42

43. Options - Frequency Frequency – dependent on magnitude. –104 cfu with a 25% excursion rate. –104 cfu with a 14% excursion rate. –130 with a 10% excursion rate (bays and estuaries only). 43

44. Proposed Definition of Coastal Recreation Waters for the 2017 TSWQS Revision – Coastal recreation waters consist of marine coastal waters including oceans, coastal estuaries, and bays. Waters upstream of an unimpaired natural connection to the open sea or tidal inland waters are not considered coastal recreation waters (e.g. tidal rivers or streams). 44

45. Acknowledgements 45 Diane Evans, Kate Lavelle, Jill Csekitz, Cathy Anderson, Nichole Nunes, Chandra Bontu, Kelly Rodibaugh Photo Credits – Kate Lavelle, Elise Mills

46. Questions Joe Martin 512.239.3163 Joe.martin@tceq.texas.gov 46