Professional Documents
Culture Documents
California has more than 400 beaches stretching along more than 500 miles of Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay
coastline. The California Department of Health Services administers the BEACH Act grant.
Monitoring
Sampling Practices: Beachwater quality monitoring in California occurs from at least April 1 to October 31, with
most beaches in Southern California and in Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties monitored year-round.
Individual counties determine sampling locations, while sampling depth and minimum sampling frequency are
determined by state law. Most counties sample at more locations
and often more frequently than required by state law.1 Samples are
California Percent Exceedance
taken in ankle-deep water. Monitoring locations in California are
for 234 Beaches Reported 2006–2009 15
selected based on the number of visitors, the location of storm
12%
drains, NPDES effluent discharge requirements, and legislative 12
10%
requirements. Monitored beaches represent the vast majority of 9%
8% 9
beach day use in California. All beaches along the San Francisco
Bay are monitored per legislation. Funding cuts resulted in 6
reduced water quality monitoring in some areas of the state in 3
2009. For example, Ventura County did not begin monitoring
until June of 2009, and locations dropped to 40 from 53 because
2006 2007 2008 2009
of funding cuts.
Samples are usually collected in the most likely areas of possible
contamination. In Los Angeles County, for example, sampling points are located where creeks or storm drains enter the
surf zone, which are usually permanently posted as being under advisory. Most other counties may permanently post
outfalls and sample 25 yards up or down the coast from the outfall to predict further impacts to beach bathing areas.1
Shortly after an advisory is issued, immediate resampling occurs in order to lift that advisory as soon as possible. When
there is a closing, samples must meet standards for two days before the beach can be reopened. States that monitor more
frequently after an exceedance is found tend to have higher percent exceedance rates and lower total closing/advisory days
than they would if their sampling schedule were not altered after an exceedance was found.
Results: In 2009, California reported 452 coastal beaches, 10 (2%) of which were monitored daily, 14 (3%) more
than once a week, 281 (62%) once a week, 12 (3%) once a month, and 129 (28%) less than once a month; 2 (<1%)
were not monitored, and there was no monitoring information for 4 (1%) beaches. In 2008, the state reported
426 coastal beaches, 3 (1%) of which were monitored daily, 27 (6%) more than once a week, 247 (58%) once a week,
1 (<1%) every other week, 12 (3%) once a month, and 4 (1%) less than once a month; 125 (29%) of the beaches were
not monitored, for 7 (2%) beaches there was no monitoring information. Overall, there were 24% (6,405) fewer samples
reported for 2009 than for 2008, ranging from a decrease of more than 60% in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties
to a 26% increase in Sonoma County.
*Why don’t the 2009 percent exceedances match? See Figure 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this report for an explanation.
CA.1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Total Monitoring Samples Per County, 2008 vs. 2009
County 2009 Total Samples 2008 Total Samples Difference Percent Difference
Alameda 311 322 –11 -3%
Contra Costa 142 135 7 5%
Humboldt 223 221 2 1%
Los Angeles 3,746 6,059 –2,313 -38%
Marin 710 832 -122 -15%
Mendocino 165 156 9 6%
Monterey 277 276 1 0%
Orange 6,679 8,877 –2,198 -25%
San Diego 3,411 3,387 24 1%
San Francisco 929 919 10 1%
San Luis Obispo 1,096 1,044 52 5%
San Mateo 847 964 –117 -12%
Santa Barbara 335 854 –519 -61%
Santa Cruz 629 908 –279 -31%
Sonoma 306 242 64 26%
Ventura 622 1,637 -1,015 -62%
Total 20,428 26,833 -6,405 -24%
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC looked at the percent of monitoring samples that exceeded the state’s daily
maximum bacterial standards (all reported samples were used to calculate the 2009 percent exceedance values, including
duplicate samples and samples taken outside the official beach season, if any). NRDC considered a sample on a given day
at a given beach station to be in exeedance if any one of California’s bacterial standards was exceeded. If all bacterial
standards were exceeded on a given day at a given station, NRDC counted that as one exceedance. For example, if a
sample exceeded the enterococcus, E. coli, and total coliform standards on a given day, NRDC counted that as one
exceedance, not three (note that when determining California’s national beachwater quality ranking, NRDC analyzed
results based on the single-sample maximum BEACH Act standard of 104 cfu/100 ml enterococcus).
In 2009, 9% of all reported beach monitoring samples exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. The
beaches with the highest percent exceedance rates in 2009 were Avalon Beach-North of GP Pier in Los Angeles County
(82%), Pudding Creek Beach-Pudding Lagoon in Mendocino County (65%), Poche County Beach in Orange County
(63%), Avalon Beach-Near Busy B Cafe (52%), Santa Monica State Beach-Santa Monica Pier in Los Angeles County
(46%), Candlestick Point-Windsurfer Circle in San Francisco County (46%), Cabrillo Beach (45%), Surfrider Beach
(45%), Avalon Beach-South of GP Pier in Los Angeles County (44%), and Newport Bay-Newport Blvd. Bridge in
Orange County (43%).
San Francisco County had the highest exceedance rate (17%) in 2009, followed by Los Angeles (16%), Mendocino
(14%), Santa Cruz (11%), Humboldt (11%), San Mateo (10%), Contra Costa (10%), Orange (8%), Santa Barbara (8%),
Alameda (8%), San Diego (6%), Monterey (5%), San Luis Obispo (5%), Ventura (5%), Marin (4%), and Sonoma (4%).
Comparing percent exceedance rates with those of previous years, NRDC includes only those beaches monitored
and reported each year between 2006 and 2009. For this consistent set of 234 beaches, the percent of samples exceeding
the standard decreased to 9% in 2009 from 10% in 2008, 8% in 2007, and 12% in 2006.
Number of Closings and Advisories: Total closing/advisory days for 714 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less
decreased 30% to 2,904 days in 2009 from 4,133 days in 2008, 4,736 days in 2007, 4,644 days in 2006, and
5,199 days in 2005. Furthermore, there was a dramatic difference between northern California counties and Southern
California counties. Closing/advisory days increased dramatically in northern California counties and decreased
dramatically in Southern California, where several counties reduced monitoring frequency due to budget cuts. Heavy
first flush rain events in October of 2009 influenced northern California beaches.5 In addition, on October 30, 2009,
a tank vessel spilled an estimated 400 to 800 gallons of bunker fuel into the San Francisco Bay. The spill reached the
Total Closing/Advisory Days for Events Lasting Six Consecutive Weeks or Less by County, 2008 vs. 2009
County 2008 Days 2009 Days % Difference
Alameda 94 171 82%
Contra Costa 31 35 13%
Humboldt 21 43 105%
Los Angeles 1,438 687 -52%
Marin 22 164 645%
Monterey 22 no data
Orange 827 469 -43%
San Diego 474 364 -23%
San Francisco 69 127 84%
San Luis Obispo 12 16 33%
San Mateo 580 670 16%
Santa Barbara 206 73 -65%
Santa Cruz 118 31 -74%
Sonoma 34 30 -12%
Ventura 185 no data
In addition, there were 4 extended events (259 days total) and 1 permanent event (141 days total) in 2009. Extended
events are those in effect more than 6 but not more than 13 consecutive weeks; permanent events are in effect for
more than 13 consecutive weeks. In 2008, there were 3 extended events (148 days total) and 9 permanent events
(1,700 days total).
Causes of Closings and Advisories: For the 714 events lasting six consecutive weeks or less, 79% (2,308) of closing/
advisory days in 2009 were due to monitoring that revealed elevated bacteria levels, 1% (40) were preemptive (i.e.,
without waiting for monitoring results) due to heavy rainfall, 3% (90) were preemptive due to known sewage spills/leaks,
4% (102) were preemptive due to other reasons, and there were no data for 13% (364).
Reported Sources of Beachwater Contamination: 2% (57) of closing/advisory days were from stormwater runoff, 76%
(2,212) were from unknown sources of contamination, 3% (90) were from sewage spills/leaks, and 5% (157) were from
other sources of contamination. There was no information on contamination sources for 13% (388) of closing/advisory days.
Notes
1 Michael Gjerde, California State Water Resources Control Board, personal communication, May 2010.
2 California State Water Resources Control Board. Beach Water Quality Information, accessed at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
beaches/beach_water_quality. June 2008.
3 San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. San Diego County 2004 Beach Closure & Advisory Report. May 2008.
4 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Recreational Health Program website, FAQs, available at: http://lapublichealth.org/eh/
progs/ envirp/rechlth/ehrecocfaq.htm.
5 Robert Turner, Marin County Environmental Health Services Beach Monitoring Program Manager, personal communication, May 2010.
6 Al Hom, Alameda County, personal communication, May 2010.