ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
sure decisions must be based on the exper- tise of state and local public health depart- ments. Regular sampling is still needed after adoption of preemptive closure thresholds to detect contamination events from unknown causes, to track the quality of beach water over time, and to provide data for analyses to update preemptive closure thresholds. There is a relational, human component of successful public health policy change. Preemptive beach closures are not widely popular with communities and political lead- ership, as closures can be disruptive to daily life and the economy of coastal jurisdictions. Furthermore, change can create fear, which makes it essential to engage with people in the community who use the recreational bathing areas in question. This engagement needs to clearly communicate how the pro- posed policy—guided by science—is needed to protect public health, while at the same time listening to community concerns. Prior to this project, the health department held informal conversations with key collabo- rators—including the mayors and members of local government boards, town parks and rec- reation departments, local state legislature rep- resentatives, and community associations— regarding our concerns that existing beach closure policies were inadequate for protecting
public health. We publicly stated our intent through established public health and town public meeting venues to investigate root cause solutions, ensuring any policy changes would be grounded in solid data and science. In open and transparent discussions, we communicated the draft beach closure policy changes to town- governing entities, to the public through a pub- lic meeting process with the health department board of directors, and to community networks associated with our department’s citizen sci- ence projects. Based on feedback, we improved our beach closure notification protocol to the public and town stakeholders. Future research could investigate inclu- sion of additional variables in predictive con- tamination models, such as beach-specific variables, known contamination events, tides, and time-stamped sample and weather data. Investigation of rapid testing technol- ogy (e.g., qPCR) and live weather and water monitoring technology could in the future decrease the lag between sampling and avail- ability of results. These improvements could potentially allow health departments to close beaches the same day as sampling and bet- ter inform weather-based preemptive closure. Incorporation of shellfish contamination data can provide additional insight. Predictive modeling and development of thresholds for
preemptive beach closure could be extended to other coastal health departments. Finally, to account for temporal changes in precipi- tation patterns and in other factors influenc- ing contamination, models could be updated regularly with new data. Through collaboration and transparency with communities, practicable, research- based preemptive beach closure policies can be implemented, as was demonstrated in two Connecticut towns. These changes could improve on the benefits of preemptive beach closure and increase the safety of bathers in local recreational waters. Acknowledgements: This project is a col- laborative partnership with Yale University, town partners, the Connecticut Public Health Department, coastal health department col- leagues, and local communities with full transparency to empower resident involve- ment in improving the water quality of their neighborhoods. Robert Dubrow received funding from the High Tide Foundation. Corresponding Author: Michael A. Pascucilla, CEO/Director of Health, East Shore District Health Department, 688 East Main Street, Branford, CT 06405. Email: mpascucilla@esdhd.org.
References
Byappanahalli, M.N., Nevers, M.B., Korajkic, A., Staley, Z.R., & Harwood, V.J. (2012). Enterococci in the environment. Microbiol- ogy and Molecular Biology Reviews , 76 (4), 685–706. https://doi. org/10.1128/MMBR.00023-12 Fewtrell, L., & Kay, D. (2015). Recreational water and infection: A review of recent findings. Current Environmental Health Reports , 2 (1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0036-6 Heaney, C.D., Exum, N.G., Dufour, A.P., Brenner, K.P., Haugland, R.A., Chern, E., Schwab, K.J., Love, D.C., Serre, M.L., Noble, R., & Wade, T.J. (2014). Water quality, weather and environmental fac- tors associated with fecal indicator organism density in beach sand at two recreational marine beaches. Science of the Total Environment , 497–498 , 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.113 Kay, D., Fleisher, J.M., Salmon, R.L., Jones, F., Wyer, M.D., God- free, A.F., Zelenauch-Jacquotte, Z., & Shore, R. (1994). Predict- ing likelihood of gastroenteritis from sea bathing: Results from randomised exposure. Lancet , 344 (8927), 905–909. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92267-5
Morrison, A.M., Coughlin, K., Shine, J.P., Coull, B.A., & Rex, A.C. (2003). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of beach water quality indicator variables. Applied and Environmen- tal Microbiology , 69 (11), 6405–6411. https://doi.org/10.1128/ AEM.69.11.6405-6411.2003 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2023). Fifth National Climate Assessment report (NCA5), Chapter 21: North- east . Accessed through the U.S. Global Change Research Program Review and Comment System. Pond, K. (2013). Water recreation and disease: Plausibility of associ- ated infections: Acute eects, sequelae and mortality . IWA Publish- ing. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780405827 Shehane, S.D., Harwood, V.J., Whitlock, J.E., & Rose, J.B. (2005). The influence of rainfall on the incidence of microbial faecal indi- cators and the dominant sources of faecal pollution in a Florida river. Journal of Applied Microbiology , 98 (5), 1127–1136. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02554.x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). National beach guid- ance and required performance criteria for grants, 2014 Edition
28
$3091* • 91'*6
Powered by FlippingBook