Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-0987-5

Improving water quality through California’s CleanBeach 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(CBI) funds projects to reduce loads of fecalindicator bacteria (FIB) impacting beaches,thus providing an opportunity to judge theeffectiveness of various CBI water pollutioncontrol strategies. Seventeen initial projectswere selected for assessment to determine theireffectiveness on reducing FIB in the receivingwaters along beaches nearest to the projects.Control strategies included low-flow diversions,sterilization facilities, sewer improvements, pierbest management practices (BMPs), vegetativeswales, and enclosed beach BMPs. Assessmentswere based on statistical changes in pre- andpostproject mean densities of FIB at shorelinemonitoring stations targeted by the projects. Mostlow-flow diversions and the wetland swale projectwere effective in removing all contaminatedrunoff from beaches. UV sterilization waseffective when coupled with pretreatmentfiltration and where effluent was releasedwithin a few hundred meters of the beach toavoid FIB regrowth. Other BMPs were lesseffective because they treated only a portion ofcontaminant sources impacting their target beach.

J. H. Dorsey (B)Department of Natural Science, LoyolaMarymount University, One LMU Drive,Los Angeles, CA 90045, USAe-mail: jdorsey@lmu.edu

These findings should be useful to other coastalstates and agencies faced with similar pollutioncontrol problems.

Keywords Water quality · Fecal indicatorbacteria · Beach pollution · BMPs

Introduction

The US Congress demonstrated that having goodwater quality at recreational beaches is a nationalpriority when they amended the Clean Water Actin 2000 by passing the Beaches Environmental As-sessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. Thislegislation addressed the problem of pathogensand pathogen indicators in coastal waters by:

1. Requiring new or revised water quality stan-dards for pathogens or their indicators

2. Requiring the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to conduct studies associatedwith pathogens and human health

3. Directing the US EPA to award grants todevelop and implement beach monitoring andassessment programs (US EPA 2006a)

To implement this Act, the US EPA works withstate and local government agencies to improvepollution control efforts, thus reducing potentialadverse health effects along the nation’s beaches

96 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

(US EPA 2006a). Water quality problems stem-ming from contamination by sewage and runoffcontaining pathogenic organisms increase the in-cidence of illnesses among swimmers (e.g., Cabelliet al. 1982; Haile et al. 1999) potentially leadingto extensive beach closures. Both illnesses andclosures result in economic losses (Given et al.2006). The public is keenly aware of potentialhealth risks from swimming in contaminated wa-ter and use available water quality information indetermining when and where to go to the beach,especially if they plan on swimming or surfing(Hanemann et al. 2004). For these reasons, main-taining good water quality at beaches is a primarygoal for beach and resource managers.

There can be many sources of the fecal bacteriathat cause beaches to exceed water qualitycriteria. Runoff from urbanized areas typicallyhas elevated levels of enteric organisms, especiallyas the amount of impervious area increases withurban development (Young and Thackston1999) and the potential for contamination fromaccidental spills of sewage increases. AlongCalifornia coastal areas, runoff from stormdrains and river inputs has been shown to bea significant source of fecal indicator bacteria(FIB) and associated pathogens (e.g., see Goldet al. 1990; Jiang et al. 2001; Reeves et al. 2004;Stein and Tiefenthaler 2004; Ackerman et al.2005). An epidemiological study conducted inSanta Monica Bay and proximity to storm drainscorrelated swimmer illness to FIB densities (Haileet al. 1999) and was the basis for the Californiabathing water standards. Wildlife feces, mainlyfrom birds, are another source of FIB impactingbeaches (Ricca 1998; Alderisio and DeLuca 1999;Ferguson et al. 2003; Grant et al. 2001; Surbecket al. 2006). Similarly, resuspended sedimentswith attached FIB can be washed from wetlandor estuarine areas, increasing levels of thesemicroorganisms in adjacent beach waters (e.g.,Steets and Holden 2003; Surbeck et al. 2006).Beach sediments, inoculated by FIB from varioussources, can be reservoirs for viable populationsof fecal microorganisms due to regrowth (Davieset al. 1995; Ferguson et al. 2005; Lee et al.2006; Yamahara et al. 2007). Finally, swimmersthemselves can be a source of FIB and pathogens(e.g., Makintubee et al. 1987), especially at

enclosed beaches where very young children playin the water. Given the variety of potential FIBsources, improving and maintaining good beachwater quality is a challenge for beach managers.

The Clean Beach Initiative

Shortly after the BEACH Act was adopted,California established the Clean Beach Initiative(CBI) in 2001, which dedicated grant funding tothe State’s most polluted beaches for source con-trol studies and capital projects to reduce beachfecal pollution (Gold 2005). Projects receivinggrant funding typically comprised one to severalbest management practices (BMPs) designed totreat or divert contaminated water to removeimpacts on nearby beaches. Ideally, successfulprojects would allow beaches to more consistentlymeet bathing water quality criteria, compared topreproject periods when beaches were frequentlyclosed or posted with warnings about healthrisks to swimmers. To date, approximately $55.6million has been allocated to 94 projects.

As part of the CBI program, an assessment wasperformed of 17 initial projects to determine ifthey effectively reduced densities of FIB at targetbeaches. These assessments provide opportunitiesto learn what projects successfully reduce beachpollution based on a range of strategies andgive insights into the necessary ingredientsfor success. Several of these projects, such asthose at piers or within enclosed beaches, hadmultiple BMPs. Three projects were located incentral California with the remainder in southernCalifornia (Fig. 1). Projects fell into the followingsix categories (Table 1):

Diversions In most of California, the sanitaryand storm water sewers are separate systems.Runoff entering the storm water system eventu-ally will reach the ocean from coastal watersheds,collecting pollutants along the way. Low-flow di-versions are designed to redirect runoff frombeach waters into sanitary sewers for treatmentat nearby sewage treatment facilities. They gen-erally operate during the summer months whenrainfall is limited and beach usage is the highest.Because of the relatively limited capacity of their

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 97

Fig. 1 Location of CBIprojects assessed in thisreport and monthlyaverage rainfall for SanFrancisco and LosAngeles Counties for theyears 1961–2000.Numbers correspond totabular entries in Table 1(source of rainfall data,http://www.weather.com;image from GoogleEarth)

AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL (IN)

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun Ju

lAu

gSe

pt Oct

Nov

Dec

Rai

nfa

ll (i

n) Los Angeles

Co.

San FranciscoCo.

8

10 12 13

9

15

24 20

19

21

23

26

29

28

38

40

39

100 MI

collection systems, most diversions operate onlyduring the dry season, defined by CaliforniaAB411 legislation as the period from April 1through October 31. If rainfall occurs during thisperiod, excess flows are bypassed around the sys-tem to the beach. Nearly half the projects assessedin this project were diversions, with a total of 21diversions in eight separate projects (Table 1).

Sterilization facilities These projects interceptrunoff in a waterway for disinfection using UVradiation, after which the treated effluent is dis-charged back into the drainage channel where itflows to the beach. In two of the three facilities(Moonlight Beach and Aliso Beach), the influentwas filtered prior to UV treatment.

Pier BMPs A series of BMPs were employed attwo piers in Santa Monica and Redondo Beach.BMPs focused on reducing organic wastes thatattract birds, a significant source of FIB, to wa-ters adjacent to the piers, including garbage dis-posals for fish carcasses and remains, as well asbird-proof trash cans. Other BMPs improved thecontainment of trash bins to prevent runoff andrepaired or replaced leaking sewage pipes. In ad-dition to these BMPs, an infiltration basin wasconstructed at the Redondo Pier to treat runofffrom surrounding parking areas.

Enclosed beach BMPs Enclosed beaches typi-cally have very poor water circulation, which ex-acerbates the persistence and growth of FIB in

http://www.weather.com

98 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

Table 1 CBI projects included in this assessment; State Water Resources Control Board project numbers correspond withnumbered 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 Beach9 Redondo Beach Pier City of Redondo Beach Pier BMPs Redondo Beach State Park10 Temescal Canyon City of Los Angeles Diversion Will Rodgers State Beach12 Santa Monica Canyon City of Los Angeles Diversion Will Rodgers State Beach13 Imperial Highway City of Los Angeles Diversion Dockweiler State Beach15 Avalon City of Avalon Sewer Improvement Avalon Beach19 Dana Point County of Orange Mixed BMPs Baby Beach20 Aliso Beach County of Orange Sterilization Facility Aliso Beach21 Doheny City of Dana Point Diversions (2) Doheny State Beach23 Poche Beach County of Orange Sterilization Facility Poche Beach24 Huntington Beach County of Orange Diversion Huntington State Beach26 Moonlight Beach City of Encinitas Sterilization Facility Moonlight State Beach28b Imperial Beach City of Imperial Beach Diversion Imperial Beach29 Coronado Beach City of Coronado Diversions (12) Coronado City Beach38 Pacifica City of Pacifica Vegetative Swale Linda Mar State Beach39 Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach Sewer Improvement Pismo State Beach40 Pacific Grove City of Pacific Grove Diversion Lover’s Point Beach

beach sands and waters (Ferguson et al. 2005; Leeet al. 2006; Yamahara et al. 2007). One projectfocused on reducing FIB densities at an enclosedbeach, Baby Beach in Dana Point Harbor, using aseries of BMPs including a parking lot vegetatedswale and storm water infiltration system, bird-proof trash bins, bird exclusion netting beneath asmall fishing pier, and a low-flow diversion.

Wetland swales One wetland swale project wasimplemented in Pacifica to treat runoff from theSan Pedro Creek and two urban runoff pump sta-tions. Runoff was redirected to soak into a swaleplanted with wetland species, preventing it fromflowing into the surf zone along southern LindaMar State Beach.

Sewer improvements This category included twoprojects. A lift station at Pismo State Beachwas renovated to prevent sewage spills intoPismo Creek that had been impacting the beach.The second project, in the city of Avalon onSanta Catalina Island, involved slip-lining 3,068 m(10,065 linear ft) of sewer mains and 48 man-holes. The Avalon project resealed the sewers,addressing the concern that sewage-contaminatedgroundwater was mixing with harbor water andimpacting the beach.

Methods

The primary goal of each CBI project was toreduce densities of FIB in receiving waters, thusbetter protecting swimmers and other beach go-ers. Therefore, project effectiveness was assessedin receiving waters nearest the project site ratherthan at the project site itself. A before/after strat-egy described by Madge (2004) was used in whichpre- and postproject mean densities of FIB (totaland fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, enterococci)were compared to determine project effective-ness. Only completed projects with at least 1 yearof pre- and postproject shoreline monitoring datawere used for this assessment. A similar methodwas used by Kinzelman et al. (2006) to assess ef-fectiveness of a storm water infiltration and evap-oration bed in reducing densities of FIB enteringLake Michigan. The evaluation used here focusedon FIB as opposed to pathogens because thesebacteria are the basis of most discharge permitsand state and federal water quality standards, thusforming the basis for beach postings and closures.

Shoreline data

Assessments included FIB monitoring datacollected by various public health agencies atroutine shoreline monitoring stations. At these

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 99

Tab

le2

Shor

elin

em

onit

orin

gin

form

atio

nfo

rea

chpr

ojec

tin

clud

ing

rang

eof

date

sm

onit

ored

,mea

nm

onth

lyra

infa

llfo

rpr

e-an

dpo

stpr

ojec

tpe

riod

s,an

dso

urce

for

rain

fall

data

Pro

ject

No.

Mon

itor

ing

peri

odM

ean

mon

thly

rain

fall

(in.

)N

CD

CC

OO

Pst

atio

na

mon

itor

ing

Pre

proj

ect

Pos

tpro

ject

Pre

proj

ect

Pos

tpro

ject

site

s

Tem

esca

lCan

yon

1M

ay21

,200

1to

Oct

.21,

2002

May

27,2

003

toSe

p.27

,200

40.

190.

54Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Pie

rSa

nta

Mon

ica

Can

yon

1A

pr.1

,200

1to

Oct

.31,

2002

Apr

.1,2

003

toO

ct.3

1,20

040.

190.

67Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Pie

rIm

peri

alH

ighw

ay1

Apr

.30,

2001

toN

ov.1

,200

2A

pr.2

,200

3to

Oct

.16,

2004

0.35

0.78

Los

Ang

eles

Wso

Arp

tD

ohen

y4

Apr

.3,2

001

toSe

p.9,

2003

Sep.

18,2

003

toM

ay12

,200

50.

821.

71L

agun

aB

each

Hun

ting

ton

Bea

ch2

May

1,20

01to

May

22,2

003

May

24,2

003

toM

ay31

,200

50.

620.

84N

ewpo

rtB

each

Har

bor

Impe

rial

Bea

ch1

Apr

.4,2

002

toSe

p.28

,200

4O

ct.2

6,20

04to

Aug

.1,2

006

0.44

1.02

Chu

laV

ista

Cor

onad

oB

each

2A

pr.3

0,20

02to

Apr

.26,

2004

Apr

.29,

2004

toA

pr.2

7,20

060.

530.

94C

hula

Vis

taP

acifi

cG

rove

1A

pr.1

,200

2to

May

17,2

004

May

24,2

004

toA

pr.2

4,20

061.

391.

63M

onte

rey

Alis

oB

each

1A

pr.3

,200

1to

Jul.

30,2

003

Jul.

31,2

003

toJu

n.21

,200

50.

580.

89L

agun

aB

each

Poc

heB

each

1A

pr.1

5,20

03to

Oct

.14,

2003

Apr

.19,

2004

toO

ct.1

5,20

040.

230.

33L

agun

aB

each

Moo

nlig

htB

each

1A

pr.3

,200

0to

Aug

.6,2

002

Sep.

3,20

02to

Oct

.26,

2004

0.52

0.93

Oce

ansi

deM

arin

aSa

nta

Mon

ica

Pie

r1

Apr

.1,2

003

toO

ct.3

1,20

03A

pr.1

,200

4to

Oct

.31,

2004

0.03

0.79

Sant

aM

onic

aP

ier

Red

ondo

Bea

chP

ier

1A

pr.1

,200

3to

Oct

.31,

2004

Apr

.1,2

005

toA

ug.8

,200

60.

870.

57T

orra

nce

Dan

aP

oint

4O

ct.2

,200

3to

Jul.

13,2

004

Oct

.4,2

005

toJu

l.13

,200

60.

480.

4L

agun

aB

each

Pac

ifica

1A

pr.2

8,20

02to

Apr

.26,

2004

May

3,20

04to

Oct

.31,

2005

2.57

2.35

Pac

ifica

Ava

lon

2A

pr.3

,200

0to

Apr

.29,

2002

May

6,20

02to

May

24,2

004

0.86

0.77

Los

Ang

eles

Wso

Arp

tb

Pis

mo

Bea

ch2

Apr

.2,2

001

toSe

p.17

,200

3Se

p.18

,200

3to

Jun.

21,2

005

0.75

1.44

Pis

mo

Bea

ch

NC

DC

Coo

pSt

atio

nN

atio

nalC

limat

icD

ata

Cen

ter

Coo

pera

tive

Stat

ion

a His

tori

cm

onth

lyra

infa

llda

taav

aila

ble

from

Wes

tern

Reg

iona

lClim

ate

Cen

ter

(htt

p://w

ww

.wrc

c.dr

i.edu

/Clim

sum

.htm

l)bM

issi

ngda

tare

cord

sfo

rA

valo

nP

leas

ure

Pie

rdu

ring

mon

itor

ing

peri

ods

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html

100 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

sites, water samples were collected at ankledepth (≤0.3 m) as practiced by all sanitation andhealth agencies and discussed by Griffith et al.(2007). One to four monitoring sites were selectedthat were positioned closest to a project wheresampling was conducted on a daily to weekly basis(Table 2). Multiple sites were used when possibleto gain better resolution of pre-/postprojectdifferences and usually were within a mile of oneanother. Depending on the monitoring agency,sampling was either performed throughout theyear or was restricted to the dry season defined asthe period April 1 through October 31. Also givenin Table 2 are time periods over which monitoringdata were collected for each project and the meanmonthly rainfall for pre- and postproject periods.

Testing agencies used collection and testingmethods as defined by the following APHAStandard Methods (2005): sample collection (SM9060A,B), membrane filtration for total coliforms(SM 9222B), fecal coliforms (SM 9222D), andE. coli. (SM 9213D m-TEC Modified EPA). En-terococci were tested using membrane filtrationaccording to EPA 1600 (US EPA 2006b).

Some agencies switched from membrane fil-tration to defined enzyme substrate methods(SM 9223) using Idexx® test kits (http://www.idexx.com) based on intercalibration studiesassociated with regional shoreline monitoring(Griffith et al. 2006) and with approval fromCalifornia regulatory agencies and the EPA.Monitoring agencies substituted the Idexx resultsdirectly with those from membrane filtration al-though Griffith et al. (2006) found that the Idexxtests underestimated the other methods by around10% since it directly measures E. coli rather thanthe broader fecal coliform group.

Data analyses

We tested for differences between FIB groupmedian densities in pre- and postproject periodsusing a t test on log10-transformed data to accountvariance associated with FIB data (Quinn andKeough 2002). Only data from the dry season,defined as the period April through Octoberin California receiving-water discharge permits,were used in the pre- and postproject implemen-tation comparisons.

Because most of the BMPs assessed do notoperate during wet weather, rainy days wereexcluded from the analyses using the follow-ing procedure. Rain days to be removed fromthe data were first identified from preliminaryarchived climate data available through NationalWeather Service stations closest to a projectsite. In the Los Angeles area, for example, rain-fall data were obtained from Los Angeles In-ternational Airport (LAX) as reported by theLos Angeles-Oxnard NWS office (see prelimi-nary climatology data at http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lox). If data were ear-lier than 2004, then archived records avail-able from the Western Regional Climate Center(http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html) were ob-tained from the nearest remote automatedweather station. The day of rain plus thethree subsequent days then were removed fromthe data set to avoid the influence of rainevents.

Results

Diversions

The goal of the diversion projects was to di-vert runoff to the local sewage treatment plant,thus preventing ponding of contaminated wa-ter on the beach and contamination of mixingzones ocean water. Flows of contaminated runofftreated ranged from 189.3 m3/day for the SantaMonica Canyon low-flow diversion to a low of1.14 m3/day for the small diversion at Baby Beachin Dana Point Harbor (Table 3). This range offlow volumes places most of the diversion projectsat the lower end of the 17 assessed projects,whose collective dry-season flow averaged 770.2 ±928.2 m3/day.

Of the 14 monitoring sites associated withdiversion projects, FIB densities for all threebacteria groups were reduced during postprojectperiods by 71% (Tables 4 and 5). Diversionsat Santa Monica and Temescal Canyons werethe most successful in that densities of all FIBgroups were reduced after the projects wereimplemented, as were most exceedances of FIBstandards for single sample criteria (Table 6).

http://www.idexx.comhttp://www.idexx.comhttp://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=loxhttp://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=loxhttp://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 101

Table 3 Maximum flows as million gallons/day or cubicmeters/day diverted or treated by projects when operatingduring the dry season (April 1–October 31)

SWRCB project mg/day m3/day

8 Santa Monica Pier N/A N/A9 Redondo Beach Pier 0.0500 189.2710 Temescal Canyon 0.1403 531.2512 Santa Monica Canyon 0.8590 3,251.6713 Imperial Highway 0.0060 22.7115 Avalon N/A N/A19 Dana Pt (Baby Beach) 0.0003 1.1420 Aliso Beach 0.1000 378.5421a Doheny Beach (N. Creek) 0.0199 75.3721b Doheny Beach (Alipaz) 0.0388 146.8023 Poche Beach 0.4070 1,540.6624 Huntington Beach 0.4970 1,881.3526 Moonlight Beach 0.1930 730.5828b Imperial Beach 0.0018 6.81

The numbers preceding each project are the SWRCB’snumerical designation for the project

Successful diversion projects tended to divertnearly all runoff impacting the target beach.During rain events, diversions did not operate,bypassing runoff to the beach with consequentialincreases in FIB densities. In projects whereFIB densities were not significantly reduced,sources of FIB (usually untreated runoff) otherthan those diverted by the project impacted thebeach. For example, despite the two diversionprojects, enterococci along Doheny beach actuallyincreased in mean density during the postprojectmonitoring period, although peak densitiesdecreased as reflected by fewer exceedances ofbathing water standards for this group (Table 6).The North Creek storm drain and San Juan Creekdischarge onto Doheny State Beach. IncreasedFIB densities most likely were associated withrunoff from these two drainage systems, especiallyduring the postproject period when monthlyrainfall averaged 1.71 in., an increase of 0.89 in.from the preproject monitoring period (Table 2).

Sterilization facilities

Of the three sterilization facilities, only the projectat Moonlight Beach successfully reduced densi-ties of fecal coliforms (p99% (Cityof Encinitas 2006), the relatively short distancefrom the facility to the mixing zone (250 m), andthe absence of ponding on the beach (Table 7).In contrast, the small facility at Poche Beach con-sisted only of a UV cabinet positioned inside thePoche Creek storm drain (Volz 2005). Althoughthe distance to the surf zone was only 61 m, therelatively lower removal efficiencies (Table 7; 70–82%) and presence of a beach pond probablyallowed for rapid recontamination of the treatedeffluent.

Pier BMPs

The pier BMPs reduced the density of one or twogroups of FIB (Tables 4 and 5). This marginalsuccess reflected the fact that BMPs controlledonly some of the many sources of FIB associ-ated with these structures. It is especially difficultto control runoff flowing from the piers during

102 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

Tab

le4

Mea

nde

nsit

ies

ofpr

e-an

dpo

stpr

ojec

tFIB

dens

itie

sat

shor

elin

em

onit

orin

gsi

tes

for

each

proj

ect

Cle

anB

each

Nea

rest

Tot

alco

lifor

ms

Fec

alco

lifor

ms

Ent

eroc

occi

Init

iati

vesh

orel

ine

Pre

proj

ect

Pos

tpro

ject

Pre

proj

ect

Pos

tpro

ject

Pre

proj

ect

Pos

tpro

ject

proj

ect

mon

itor

ing

Mea

nSD

nM

ean

SDn

Mea

nSD

nM

ean

SDn

Mea

nSD

nM

ean

SDn

stat

ion(

s)

Div

ersi

ons

10T

emes

cal

DH

S103

391.

646

1.7

5316

6.7

271.

150

53.5

128.

052

24.3

25.5

5063

.910

2.3

5145

.267

.750

Can

yon

12Sa

nta

S460

5.5

1,63

3.0

406

172.

948

5.5

389

115.

024

8.7

405

55.3

103.

638

985

.315

3.5

6418

.535

.166

Mon

ica

Can

yon

13Im

peri

alS1

215

1.9

990.

740

714

8.7

1,04

7.0

391

16.8

51.5

407

39.1

39.4

391

13.5

13.5

667.

314

.364

Hig

hway

21D

ohen

yO

DB

0269

4.5

2,59

0.0

7360

5.3

1,41

9.0

4315

9.7

443.

573

411.

21,

122.

043

139.

230

9.7

7484

5.7

2,97

2.0

43O

CS2

398.

32,

251.

088

212.

462

7.7

7516

8.7

904.

388

87.1

247.

775

249.

21,

637.

088

382.

52,

012.

075

OC

S01,

537.

03,

993.

013

896

6.8

2,83

0.0

8168

8.4

2,20

1.0

138

676.

62,

336.

082

408.

71,

026.

013

878

1.2

2,92

1.0

82O

CS1

168.

959

7.3

138

142.

434

5.8

8078

.728

7.0

139

89.7

264.

380

86.7

168.

313

911

2.5

276.

680

24H

unti

ngto

n0

109.

31,

046.

023

417

4.3

1,33

4.0

231

101.

91,

040.

023

668

.020

3.8

231

15.3

45.2

236

27.1

62.5

231

Bea

chN

628

1.0

1,49

6.0

241

133.

145

5.2

226

269.

91,

503.

023

712

5.2

451.

022

645

.610

5.4

237

39.2

76.9

227

N12

69.0

238.

023

632

.537

.122

664

.823

5.7

240

27.6

26.7

226

18.0

31.4

238

10.0

15.0

226

28b

Impe

rial

EH

030

291.

81,

966.

066

1,30

3.0

4,34

2.0

3490

.037

7.9

6637

.166

.958

12.9

17.5

6610

.010

.534

Bea

ch29

Cor

onad

oE

H05

026

.120

.099

24.5

32.2

8023

.313

.399

20.7

22.4

8012

.79.

199

11.5

26.0

80B

each

IB08

056

.610

1.4

137

107.

972

0.8

136

20.8

42.9

139

21.9

55.3

137

19.7

86.0

139

12.2

17.7

137

40P

acifi

cM

ON

4094

.916

3.0

5656

.490

.645

43.3

63.6

5634

.669

.033

12.5

7.4

5613

.214

.433

Gro

ve

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 103

Ster

iliza

tion

faci

litie

s20

Alis

oO

SL09

57.4

114.

811

678

.514

2.7

116

19.6

67.9

117

14.5

27.6

8521

.259

.411

730

.413

5.2

85B

each

23P

oche

OC

B15

350.

476

2.5

5839

7.5

581.

848

71.3

123.

253

100.

520

4.3

4885

.622

0.1

5412

5.4

296.

748

Bea

ch26

Moo

nlig

htE

H42

039

7.2

618.

891

443.

81,

766.

087

93.4

157.

391

67.8

161.

887

85.2

207.

991

57.4

225.

287

Bea

chP

ier

BM

Ps

8Sa

nta

S529

9.9

523.

019

431

6.7

1,30

8.0

196

158.

024

3.0

194

134.

015

4.0

196

25.0

48.0

3316

.014

.032

Mon

ica

Pie

r9

Red

ondo

S16

929.

12,

413.

036

060

0.4

866.

221

329

4.2

960.

036

033

0.3

579.

021

337

.691

.956

38.2

55.5

213

Bea

chP

ier

Enc

lose

dbe

ach

BM

Ps

19D

ana

Poi

ntB

DP

1233

6.6

588.

632

126.

919

9.3

2612

3.1

244.

732

61.5

97.6

2665

.677

.832

70.5

193.

726

BD

P13

424.

71,

455.

034

80.5

109.

422

282.

41,

228.

034

45.9

79.7

2223

1.4

874.

133

19.7

24.6

23B

DP

1416

8.1

178.

531

120.

922

1.2

2381

.911

0.6

3171

.3

158.

424

101.

819

7.8

3133

.570

.824

BD

P15

1,47

6.0

4,53

3.0

2832

9.2

1,08

7.0

2435

8.3

1,00

8.0

2925

.424

.824

177.

850

6.9

2931

.037

.827

Wet

land

swal

es38

Pac

ifica

SMC

5075

7.7

3,51

047

157.

317

938

35.8

37.1

4724

.926

.438

21.7

32.3

4716

.325

.338

Sew

erim

prov

emen

ts15

Ava

lon

DH

S118

614.

41,

402.

060

687.

83,

330.

052

156.

115

6.1

6013

2.4

163.

152

182.

831

4.7

5855

.881

.852

DH

S120

373

502.

961

495.

61,

641.

052

113.

317

7.1

6112

1.3

118.

252

65.2

138.

159

52.5

53.8

5239

Pis

mo

Bea

chP

B3

108.

411

6.0

8911

5.6

127.

796

63.1

94.7

8371

.572

.888

13.2

9.4

8526

.653

.094

PB

423

2.8

351.

489

418.

390

3.0

112

95.9

145.

785

249.

942

0.4

103

15.4

19.0

9030

.150

.910

2

Mea

nsw

ere

base

don

data

colle

cted

duri

ngdr

yse

ason

s(A

pril–

Oct

ober

)w

ith

rain

days

(plu

sth

ree

subs

eque

nt)

excl

uded

104 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

Table 5 Ratios of mean FIB densities between pre- and postproject periods at shoreline sampling stations; based on dryperiods (April–October) with rain days excluded

Project Station Total coliforms Fecal coliforms Enterococci

Pre-/ df pb Pre-/ df pb Pre-/ df pb

post ratioa post ratioa post ratioa

Diversions10 Temescal DHS103 2.40 101 0.0018∗ 2.20 100 0.0313∗ 1.40 99 0.0883

Canyon12 Santa S4 3.20 793

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 105

Table 6 Total exceedances of California bathing water standards for single sample criteria during pre- and postprojectperiods

CBI project Total coliforms Fecal coliforms Enterococci(10,000 MPN/100 ml) (400 MPN/100 ml) (103 MPN/100 ml)

Preproject Postproject Preproject Postproject Preproject Postproject

Temescal 0 0 1 0 7 5Canyon diversion

Santa Monica 3 0 27 2 14 2Canyon diversion

Imperial 2 1 3 1 2 0Hwy diversion

Doheny diversions 10 4 38 32 127 66Huntington 3 1 22 23 34 40

diversionImperial 1 1 3 1 1 0

Beach diversionCoronado 0 0 0 1 5 2

diversionsPacific 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grove diversionAliso Creek 0 0 1 5 5 3

disinfection facilityPoche Beach 0 0 2 3 2 2

disinfection facilityMoonlight Beach 0 1 5 3 16 6

disinfection facilitySanta Monica 0 2 17 17 1 0

Pier projectsRedondo Beach 1 0 48 52 3 17

Pier projectsDana Point 1 0 9 3 28 7

projectsPacifica 1 0 0 0 2 1

vegetated swaleAvalon 0 1 10 6 30 15

sewer projectPismo Beach 0 0 4 8 0 8

sewer project

Criteria are given in the column caption for each FIB group

wash-down cleaning activities and the impact ofbirds attracted to these structures. With regard toexceedances of single sample criteria, there wasrelatively little change at Santa Monica Pier, but atRedondo Pier, postproject exceedances increasedfrom three to 17 for enterococci.

Enclosed beach BMPs

After implementing the Baby Beach BMPs inDana Point Harbor, postproject FIB densities fellat nearly all four of the shoreline monitoring sta-

tions (Tables 4 and 5), with all FIB groups display-ing a significant decrease (Table 5; p

106 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

Table 7 Summary of removal efficiencies and characteristics for UV sterilization facilities

Mean FIB (MPN) Aliso Creek Poche Creek Moonlight Beach(filtration, UV) (UV) (filtration, UV)

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent(n = 15 − 16) (n = 15 − 16) (n = 8) (n = 8) (n = 163) (n = 163)

Total coliforms 149,500 4,504 105,167 24,750 16,155 5Fecal coliforms 105,600 943 44,737 16,999 1,432 3Enterococci 31,630 810 72,550 17,566 773 3%Reduction

Total coliforms 0.97 0.76 >0.99Fecal coliforms 0.99 0.62 >0.99Enterococci 0.97 0.76 >0.99Distance 10,200 61 250

from beach (m)Outlet type Pond Pond ChannelFIB reduced? No No YesSource of data Anderson (2005) Volz (2005) City of

Encinitas (2006)

p>0.05). FIB exceedances of the single samplecriteria were slightly reduced (Table 6) althoughpreproject exceedances initially were very low forthe beach.

Sewer improvements

The two sewer improvement projects hadmixed results. Despite reconstruction of the liftstation at Pismo Beach, postproject densitiesat two shoreline stations at Pismo StateBeach increased (Table 4), some significantly(Table 5; fecal coliforms and enterococci atstation PB4), as did exceedances of standards forfecal coliforms and enterococci (Table 6). TheAvalon slip-lining project was more successfulin that fecal coliforms and enterococci werereduced at two shoreline sites (Table 5), withsignificant (p

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 107

Fig. 2 Relative success ofthe 17 CBI projects basedon lowering of FIBdensities at shorelinestations (Table 5) andmeeting single-samplewater quality criteria(Table 6). Numberspreceding the projectname refer to theSWQCB designation(Table 1)

SHORELINE FIB GENERALLY REDUCED

(NONE)

23 Poche Beach Sterilization Facility

9 Redondo Pier BMPs

PROJECT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY REDUCE POLLUTANTS

DISTANT SHORELINE FIB GENERALLY REDUCED

DISTANT SHORELINE FIB NOT GENERALLY REDUCED

No projects fell into this category

Strategy and/or employed technology failed to reduce FIB; other FIB sources entered beach waters

10 Temescal Canyon Diversion

12 Santa Monica Canyon Diversion

13 Imperial Highway Diversion

28B Imperial Bch Diversion

26 Moonlight Bch Sterilization Facility

19 Dana Pt. (Baby Bch) BMPs

38 Pacifica Wetland Swale

PROJECT SUFFICIENTLY REDUCED POLLUTANTS IN EFFLUENT OR DIVERTED FROM BEACH

SHORELINE FIB NOT GENERALLY REDUCED

COMMENTS

Post-project densities of shoreline FIB reduced, standards more frequently met.

Post-project densities of shoreline FIB generally not reduced due to other sourcesof FIB that entered beach waters.

PROJECT OUTCOME CHART

21 Doheny Diversions

24 Huntington Bch Diversions

40 Pacific Grove Diversion

29 Coronado Bch Diversions

20 Aliso Beach Sterilization Facility

8 Santa Monica Pier BMPs

15 Avalon Sewer Improvements

infiltrated runoff in the collection system dropto acceptable levels, then the diversions will bereactivated. Other municipalities using low-flowdiversions should work with their sewage agen-cies to adopt similar strategies, thus significantlyreducing health risks during dry winter days.For example, based on National Weather Servicerainfall records from Los Angeles Airport dur-ing the winter of 2007–2008 (http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lox), diversions couldhave been operating for 82 out of a possible 152

days, or 54% of the winter period. The nonoper-ational days included the day of rain plus threesubsequent to allow flows in the sanitary sewersto return to normal levels.

Rainfall in central and northern California isgreater than that of southern California. Basedon rainfall records for the period 1971–2000, themean monthly rainfall (inches) for San FranciscoCounty was 1.86 in. compared to 1.26 in. in LosAngeles County (Table 1). Considering the win-ter of 2007–2008, diversions in the San Francisco

http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=loxhttp://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lox

108 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

coastal area could have been operating for a totalof 72 out of 152 days, or 47% of the time. Opera-tional days in this example were only ten fewer forSan Francisco than Los Angeles. This example,however, is based on a “dry year” typical of a LaNiña climatic condition when winters in Californiaare cooler and drier than normal. In contrast, cli-matic conditions can shift into much warmer andwetter winters, particularly in southern California,when El Niño events periodically occur. Whenbeach managers are deciding whether or not toinstall low-flow diversion systems, they need tobalance the potential operational days given cli-matic swings between dry and wet winters with re-duced risk to swimmers by diverting contaminatedrunoff.

The wetland swale project was very successful,but more projects of this type must be imple-mented to better judge their success at filteringrunoff and reducing FIB densities along beaches.Evidence from other studies, summarized byRifai (2006), shows that constructed wetlandssuccessfully reduce FIB densities. He reportedthat average wetland efficiency at reducing patho-genic organisms and FIB was 88.3% (n = 15 stud-ies). The dominant mechanisms removing theseorganisms were adsorption/settling/sedimentationprocesses, death from visible and UV light, andcompetition and predation from other microor-ganisms. Muthukrishnan et al. (2004) describehow vegetated swales, small treatment wetlands,and other biofiltration systems are being usedmore frequently to infiltrate and remove conta-minants in runoff, especially in urban settings.In contrast, Grant et al. (2001) found that en-terococci emerging from the Talbert Marsh, asaltwater marsh in southern California, impactedthe surf zone of the adjacent Huntington Beach.The source of these bacteria most likely was fromurban runoff and bird activity. However, as moreof the contaminated runoff impacting the TalbertMarsh was diverted into the sewers for treat-ment during dry weather, the levels of enterococciand other bacterial indicators fell, demonstratingthe cleansing action of the marsh system Jeonget al. (2008).

Overall, utilizing vegetated areas and wet-land systems would appear to effectively protectbeaches from FIB contamination in coastal wa-

tersheds having suitable land for locating projects.The added value to this type of BMP is increasedhabitat for wetland biota, especially birds, and thecorresponding aesthetic appeal.

Sterilization facilities appear promising pro-vided that the influent is pretreated with filtrationto reduce suspended solids prior to UV disinfec-tion, the discharge point is as close to the surf zoneas possible, and the effluent is not allowed to pondon the beach. The Moonlight Beach UV facilitycombined these design features to significantlylower FIB counts at the beach.

Pretreatment filtration in sterilization facilitiesis needed to reduce suspended solids that canshield microorganisms from UV radiation. Boththe Aliso Creek and Moonlight Beach facilitiesemployed the use of multimedia filters that re-move particles as small as 20–50 μm. However,bacteria and viruses not attached to larger par-ticles would still pass through the filters, thusrequiring the effluent to pass through a UV orother disinfection stage. Both facilities achievedremoval efficiencies exceeding 97% for all indi-cator groups (Table 7) compared to the facilityat Poche Beach (62–76% removal efficiency) thatlacked a pretreatment filtration. While both facili-ties at Aliso Creek and Moonlight Beach achievedremoval efficiencies ≥97%, effluent from theAliso facility still did not meet water quality cri-teria for two of the FIB groups. This result mayreflect the greater concentration of FIB in theinfluent treated by Aliso relative to that at Moon-light Beach and also engineering and operationaldetails of the filtering and UV systems.

Even though a disinfection facility can pro-duce good quality effluent, the cleaned watercan be recontaminated by FIB after dischargeback into the waterway from a variety of sources.In studying a small subwatershed in southernCalifornia, Jiang et al. (2007) found that the ma-jor contributors to fecal coliforms in downstreamreaches were droppings from birds and otherwildlife, soil amendments, and regrowth of thesebacteria within the storm drains. This situationwas demonstrated by Anderson (2005) for theUV facility on Aliso Creek where cleaned runoffbecame rapidly recontaminated within meters ofthe discharge point, thus limiting its ability toreduce FIB densities at the receiving beach. The

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 109

potential for regrowth is high not only in water-ways but also in beach ponds where the watercan stagnate, becoming further contaminated byFIB populations residing in sediments (e.g., seeDesmarais et al. 2002; Ferguson et al. 2003, 2005;Yamahara et al. 2009) and within the water col-umn (Jiang et al. 2007). Therefore, when designinga disinfection facility, factors such as levels of nat-ural turbidity, distance to the beach, and regrowthpotential must be considered.

Other categories of projects were less success-ful mainly because they focused on only one ora few sources of contamination when many werepresent. Piers are challenging given the varietyof FIB sources such as feces from birds, rodents,growth on organic matter from fish cleaning anddiscarded bait, domestic pets, leaks from agingsewer systems, and runoff from trash containmentareas. Bird feces could be a prime source of fecalmaterial, driving up FIB densities on the piersand in surrounding water (e.g., see Alderisio andDeLuca 1999; Ricca 1998), and are difficult to con-trol. The sewer improvement projects may haverepaired local problems in the collection systems,but other sources of FIB still remained uncon-trolled.

The ultimate goal of these projects is toincrease the safety of swimmers, surfers, andother beach users by reducing or eliminatingpathogens from the water. Overall water quality inCalifornia has improved since passage of theClean Water Act in 1972 owing to improvementsin sewage treatment and disposal and implemen-tation of State and Federal regulations to controlnonpoint runoff pollution. Sources of fecal con-tamination to California’s inshore coastal waterstherefore have shifted from the disposal of sewageeffluent via offshore outfalls to nonpoint runoff,particularly from developed watersheds (Dojiriet al. 2003). For example, in the waters offshoreHuntington Beach, California, Boehm et al.(2002) noted that levels of fecal coliforms fellover the past 43 years, but transient poor waterquality did exist around storm drains, river outlets,and adjacent submarine outfalls. Water qualityimprovements continue to be made as programslike the CBI are implemented to control runoffpollution, but these improvements are realizedmainly during the dry season.

The new challenge for storm water programswill be to reduce risk to beach users, particularlysurfers, during wet weather. During winter con-ditions, Noble et al. (2003) found that the per-centage of southern California coastline meetingwater quality criteria fell from 95% to 60% ascontaminated runoff impacted greater stretchesof coastline. Surfers were shown to experiencedhigher rates of illness during wetter winters andat beaches in urbanized watersheds (Dwight et al.2004). Reducing FIB in storm runoff to meetwater quality criteria may prove to be impos-sible given the uniqueness of FIB on surfacesthroughout watersheds and the volumes encoun-tered (Surbeck et al. 2006), at least for end-of-pipeprojects like diversions and filtration/sterilizationfacilities described in this paper. Perhaps the bestapproach in reducing FIB and potential pathogensin runoff will be by increasing the use of vegetatedareas and treatment wetlands throughout urbanwatersheds. Using methods similar to those ofJeong et al. (2008), engineered wetlands could beproperly sized to determine their carrying capacityfor contaminated runoff. A side benefit would bethe great esthetic appeal of such areas and theiruse by migrating and resident biota.

Conclusion

Of the 17 projects assessed for their effectivenessin reducing densities of fecal indicator bacteria inbeach receiving waters, the most effective werelow-flow diversions and a wetland swale thatremoved all contaminated runoff from beachwaters. Ultraviolet sterilization was effective pro-vided runoff was first filtered to reduce suspendedsolids, and effluent was released close to thesurf zone to avoid FIB regrowth. Other projects,such as pier BMPs and sewer improvements, hadlimited success because receiving beach waterswere impacted by other sources of FIB fromcontaminated runoff, regrowth in sediments orwater, or feces from birds and other animals.Lessons learned from this assessment can beused to better design the BMPs to enhance theiroperations and to reduce beach pollution.

110 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111

Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the manyhours of work by my LMU undergraduate research as-sistants, Genesee McCarthy and Patrick Carter. MikeGrimmer (Heal The Bay) kindly supplied all shorelinedata in highly manageable data sets programmed byLarry Cooper (SCCWRP). Laura Peters and her staffof the SWRCB provided individual project reports andfinancial data. Finally, Drs. Brock Bernstein and SteveWeisberg (SCCWRP) and an anonymous reviewer pro-vided many excellent suggestions in reviewing the manu-script. This work was done under a contract to the SouthernCalifornia Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)from the California State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB).

References

Ackerman, D., Stein, E. D., & Schiff, K. C. (2005).Dry-season water quality in the San Gabriel RiverWatershed. Bulletin of the Southern CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences, 104, 125–145. doi:10.3160/0038–3872(2005)104[125:DWQITS]2.0.CO;2.

Alderisio, K. A., & DeLuca, N. (1999). Seasonal enumer-ation of fecal coliform bacteria from the feces of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) and Canada Geese(Branta canadensis). Applied and Environmental Mi-crobiology, 65, 5628–5630.

Anderson, M. (2005) Aliso Beach Clean Beaches Initiative.J01p28 interim water quality improvement package bestmanagement practices. Agreement: 01-227-550-0. Finalreport submitted to the SWRCB. County of OrangeResources and Development Management Depart-ment, Watershed and Coastal Resources.

Boehm, A. B., Grant, S. B., Kim, J. H., Mowbray, S. L.,McGee, C. D., Clark, C. D., et al. (2002). Decadal andshorter period variability of surf zone water quality atHuntington Beach, California. Environmental Scienceand Technology, 36, 3885–3892.

Cabelli, V., Dufour, A. P., McCabe, J. L., & Levin, M. A.(1982). Swimming-associated gastroenteritis and wa-ter quality. American Journal of Epidemiology, 115,606–616.

City of Encinitas (2006) Moonlight Beach urban runofftreatment facility. Final Report. Prepared for the StateWater Resources Control Board. City of EncinitasClean Water Program, 505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas, CA 92024.

Davies, C. M., Long, J. A., Donald, M., & Ashbolt, N.J. (1995). Survival of fecal microorganisms in marineand freshwater sediments. Applied and EnvironmentalMicrobiology, 61, 1888–1896.

Desmarais, T. R., Solo-Gabriele, H. M., & Palmer, C. J.(2002). Influence of soil on fecal indicator organismsin a tidally influenced subtropical environment. Ap-plied and Environmental Microbiology, 68, 1165–1172.doi:10.1128/AEM.68.3.1165-1172.2002.

Dojiri, M., Yamaguchi, M., Weisberg, S. B., & Lee, H. J.(2003). Changing anthropogenic influence on theSanta Monica Bay watershed. Marine EnvironmentalResearch, 56, 1–14.

Dwight, R. H., Baker, D. B., Semenza, J. C., &Olson, B. H. (2004). Health effects associated withrecreational coastal water use: Urban versus ruralCalifornia. American Journal of Public Health, 94,565–567.

Ferguson, D. M., Zhowandai, M. H., Getrich, M. A.,Moore, D. F., Lissner, A., Haimann, R., et al. (2003).Bacteriological monitoring studies to identity sourcesof fecal pollution at Baby Beach, Dana Point Harbor,California. OCEANS 2003. Proceedings, pp. 2797–2800.

Ferguson, D. M., Moore, D. F., Getrich, M. A., &Zhowandai, M. H. (2005). Enumeration and spe-ciation of enterococci found in marine and in-tertidal sediments and coastal water in SouthernCalifornia. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 99, 598–608. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02660.x.

Given, S., Pendleton, L. H., & Boehm, A. B. (2006).Regional public health cost estimates of contami-nated coastal waters: a case study of gastroenteritis atSouthern California Beaches. Environmental Science&Technology, 40, 4851–4858. doi:10.1021/es060679s.

Gold, M. (2005) California’s Clean Beach Initiative. In U.S.EPA. March 2005. Proceedings of the 2004 nationalbeaches conference, 13–15 October 2004 (pp. 192–196).EPA-823-R-05-001.

Gold, M., Bartlett, M., Dorsey, J. H., & McGee, C. D.(1990) An assessment of inputs of fecal indicator organ-isms and human enteric viruses from two Santa MonicaBay storm drains. Monterey Park, CA: Santa MonicaBay Restoration Project Commission.

Grant, S. B., Sanders, B. F., Boehm, A. B., Redman,J. A., Kim, J. H., Mrse, R. D., et al. (2001). Gen-eration of enterococci bacteria in a coastal saltwa-ter marsh and its impact on surf zone water quality.Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 2407–2416.doi:10.1021/es0018163.

Griffith, J. F., Aumand, L. A., Lee, I. M., McGee, C.,Othman, L. L., Ritter, K. J., et al. (2006). Comparisonand verification of bacterial water quality indicatorsmeasurement methods using ambient coastal watersamples. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,116, 335–344. doi:10.1007/s10661-006-7571-z.

Griffith, J. F., Schiff, K. C., Weisberg, S. B., McGee, C.,& Clifton, C. (2007) Southern California Bight 2003Regional Monitoring Program: VI. Shoreline microbi-ology. Costa Mesa, CA: Southern California CoastalWater Research Project.

Haile, R. W., Witte, J. S., Gold, M., Cressey, R.,McGee, C. D., Millikan, R. C., et al. (1999).The health effect of ocean water contaminatedby storm drain runoff. Epidemiology, 10, 355–363.doi:10.1097/00001648-199907000-00004.

Hanemann, M., Pendleton, L. P., Mohn, C., Hilger, J.,Kurisawa, K., Layton, D. J. T., et al. (2004) South-ern California Beach Valuation Project. Using revealedpreference models to estimate the effect of coastal water

http://dx.doi.org/10.3160/0038--3872(2005)104[125:DWQITS]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.3160/0038--3872(2005)104[125:DWQITS]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.3.1165-1172.2002http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02660.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060679shttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0018163http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-7571-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199907000-00004

Environ Monit Assess (2010) 166:95–111 111

quality on beach choice in Southern California. Report,submitted to. U.S. Dept. Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration NOAA, U.S. Dept.of the Interior: Mineral Management Service, CADept of Fish and Game: Office of Spill Preventionand Response OSPR, CA State Water ResourcesControl Board, and Santa Monica Bay RestorationCommission.

Jeong, Y., Sanders, B. F., McLaughlin, K., & Grant,S. B. (2008). Treatment of dry weather urban runoffin tidal saltwater marshes: A longitudinal study ofthe Talbert Marsh in southern California. Envi-ronmental Science and Technology, 42, 3609–3614.doi:10.1021/es7026778.

Jiang, S., Noble, R., & Chu, W. (2001). Humanadenoviruses and coliphages in urban runoff-impacted coastal waters of southern California.Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67, 179–184. doi:10.1128/AEM.67.1.179-184.2001.

Jiang, S. C., Chu, W., Olson, B. H., He, J.-H., Choi,S., Zhang, J., et al. (2007). Microbial source track-ing in a small southern California urban watershedindicates wild animals and growth as the source offecal bacteria. Applied Microgravity Technology, 76,927–934.

Kinzelman, J. L., McLellan, S. L., & Bagley, R. C. (2006)Integrating research and beach management strate-gies for the improvement of public and environmentalhealth. A final progress report submitted to the S.C.Johnson Fund (p. 35).

Lee, C. M., Lin, T. Y., Lin, C.-C., Kohodi, G. A.,Bhatt, A., Lee, R., et al. (2006). Persistence offecal indicator bacteria in Santa Monica BayBeach sediments. Water Research, 40, 2593–2602.doi:10.1016/j.watres.2006.04.032.

Madge, B. (2004) Chapter 4. BMP Monitoring. pp. 1–30in Muthukrishnan et al., The use of best managementpractices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. U.S. EPA, Of-fice of Research and Development, Washington DC20460, EPA/600/R-04/184:30.

Makintubee, S., Mallonee, J., & Istre, G. R. (1987).Shigellosis outbreak associated with swimming.American Journal of Public Health, 77, 166–168.doi:10.2105/AJPH.77.2.166.

Muthukrishnan, S., Madge, B., Selvakumar, A., Field, R.,& Sullivan, D. (2004) The use of best managementpractices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. U.S. EPA, Of-fice of Research and Development, Washington DC20460, EPA/600/R-04/184.

Noble, R. T., Weisberg, S. B., Leecaster, M., McGee, C. D.,Dorsey, J. H., Vainik, P., et al. (2003). Storm effectson regional beach water quality along the southernCalifornia shoreline. Journal of Water and Health, 1,23–31.

Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002). Experimental designand data analysis for biologists (p. 527). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Reeves, R. L., Grant, S. B., Mrse, R. D., Oancea, C.M., Sanders, B. F., & Boehm, A. B. (2004). Scaling

and management of fecal indicator bacteria in runofffrom a coastal urban watershed in southern California.Environmental Science & Technology, 38, 2637–2648.doi:10.1021/es034797g.

Ricca, D. M. (1998). Coliphages and indicator bacte-ria in birds around Boston Harbor. Journal of In-dustrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 21, 28–30.doi:10.1038/sj.jim.2900550.

Rifai, H. (2006) Study on the effectiveness of BMPs tocontrol bacteria loads. Final Quarterly Report No.2. Prepared for Texas Commission on Environmen-tal Quality, P.O. Box 13087, MC-150, Austin, Texas78711–3087.

Steets, B. M., & Holden, P. A. (2003). A mechanistic modelof runoff-associated fecal coliform fate and transportthrough a coastal lagoon. Water Research, 35, 589–608.doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00312-3.

Stein, E. D., & Tiefenthaler, L. L. (2004) Characterizationand source identification of dry-weather metals andbacteria in Ballona Creek. In S. Weisberg, & D. El-more (Eds.), Southern California Coastal Water Re-search Project, Biennial Report 2003–2004 (pp. 192–205). Westminster, CA: Southern California CoastalWater Research Project.

Surbeck, C. Q., Jiang, S. C., Ahn, J. H., & Grant, S. B.(2006). Flow fingerprinting fecal pollution and sus-pended solids in stormwater runoff from an urbancoastal watershed. Environmental Science & Technol-ogy, 40, 4435–4441. doi:10.1021/es060701h.

US EPA (2006a). Implementing the BEACH ACT OF2000. Report to Congress. EPA-823-R-06-001, p. 111.

US EPA (2006b). Method 1600: Enterococci in waterby membrane filtration using membrane-enterococcusindoxyl-$-D-glucoside agar (mEI). EPA-821-R-06-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Water (4303T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW,Washington, DC, 20460, 42.

Volz, J. R. (2005) Final report for Poche Beach RunoffUltraviolet Light Bacteria Disinfection Project, CBIGrant No. 23, Agreement No. 01-236-550-1. Pre-pared for the State Water Resources Control Board.By: Watershed and Coastal Resources Division, Re-sources and Development Management Department,County of Orange, 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA92703.

Yamahara, K. M., Layton, B. A., Santoro, A. E., & Boehm,A. B. (2007). Beach sands along the California coastare diffuse sources of fecal bacteria to coastal waters.Environmental Science & Technology, 41, 4515–4521.doi:10.1021/es062822n

Yamahara, K. M., Walters, S. P., & Boehm, A. B.(2009). Growth of enterococci in unaltered, un-seeded beach sands subjected to tidal wetting. Ap-plied and Environmental Microbiology, 75, 1517–1524.doi:10.1128/AEM.02278-08.

Young, K., & Thackston, E. L. (1999). Housing den-sity and bacterial loading in urban streams. Jour-nal of Environmental Engineering, 125, 1177–1180.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1999)125:12(1177).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es7026778http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.1.179-184.2001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.04.032http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.77.2.166http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034797g.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jim.2900550http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00312-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060701hhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es062822nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02278-08http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1999)125:12(1177)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

c.10661_2009_Article_987.pdfImproving water quality through California's Clean Beach Initiative: an assessment of 17 projectsAbstractIntroductionThe Clean Beach Initiative

MethodsShoreline dataData analyses

ResultsDiversionsSterilization facilitiesPier BMPsEnclosed beach BMPsWetland swalesSewer improvements

DiscussionConclusionReferences