Angelos Hannides, Nicole Elko, Tiffany Roberts Briggs, Sung-Chan Kim, Annie Mercer, Kyeong Park, Brad Rosov, Ryan Searcy, and Michael Walther, 2021. “U.S. beach water quality monitoring”, Shore & Beach, 89(3), 26-35.
Access Shore & Beach Vol. 89, No. 3
ASBPA members have access to a full digital edition of Shore & Beach. Become a member now to get immediate access.
http://doi.org/10.34237/1008933
U.S. beach water quality monitoring
ASBPA Science & Technology Committee
Angelos Hannides,(1) Nicole Elko,(2) Tiffany Roberts Briggs,(3) Sung-Chan Kim,(4)
Annie Mercer,(5) Kyeong Park,(6) Brad Rosov,(7) Ryan Searcy,(8) and Michael Walther(9)
1) Department of Marine Science, Coastal Carolina University, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, SC 29528
2) American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, P.O. Box 1451, Folly Beach, SC 29439
3) Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, SE 470, Boca Raton, FL 33431
4) US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory,
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180
5) American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 1509 George II Hwy SE, Bolivia, NC 28422
6) Department of Marine and Coastal Environmental Science, Texas A&M University at Galveston,
P.O. Box 1675, Galveston, TX 77553
7) Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina Inc, 4038 Masonboro Loop Road, Wilmington, NC 28409,
8) Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA, 94305
9) Coastal Tech–G.E.C., Inc., 3625 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960
Coastal water quality is an important factor influencing public health and the quality of our nation’s beaches. In recent years, poor water quality has resulted in increased numbers of beach closures and corresponding negative impacts on tourism. This paper addresses some of the issues surrounding the management challenge of coastal water quality, in particular, beach water quality monitoring. For this effort, data on beach water quality monitoring activities conducted by states were assessed and synthesized. In total, 29 states were surveyed: 16 reported information for seawater; six reported for freshwater only; eight reported for both seawater and freshwater. Thresholds for advisories and closure vary nationally; however, all 29 states have established an online presence for their monitoring programs and display advisories and closures in real time, most often on spatial information (GIS) portals. Challenges in monitoring, prediction, and communication are assessed and discussed. Based on this assessment, the committee offers the following recommendations, as detailed in the text:
- Standardization of water quality data and the distribution medium;
- Enhanced public access to water quality monitoring data;
- Consistent thresholds for swim advisories;
- Water quality regulation reviews with stakeholder participation; • Enhanced predictive models incorporating rapid testing results;
- Holistic water quality monitoring that includes indicators beyond fecal indicator bacteria;
- Managing contaminants of emerging concern through identification, monitoring and control; and
- Funding for water quality monitoring and reporting — from federal, state, and local governments.