E N V I R O N M E N T R E P O R T
BEACH REPORTSUMMER
2000-2001
ENVIRONMENT REPORT
BEACH REPORT SUMMER2000-2001
EPA Victoria40 City Road, SouthbankVictoria 3006 AUSTRALIA
December 2001
ISBN 0 7306 7610 2Publication 818
i
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
EPA Victoria once again ran a very successful Beach Report Program, sampling the water quality and litter at many
Port Phillip Bay beaches and reporting the results to residents around Port Phillip Bay regularly.
Beach Report enables residents of, and visitors to, Port Phillip Bay to make informed choices and take full
advantage of the Bay’s many great beaches. It also helps to educate people about the link between activities in
the catchment and beach water quality.
Considering the size of Melbourne’s population and its associated peninsulas, the results of this report should be
viewed as very positive. However, the increase in litter on beaches, particularly cigarette butts, indicates that
people are continuing to practice irresponsible waste disposal habits.
Water Quality
• This year’s Beach Report summary shows very similar overall results to previous years. Whilst 2000-2001 had
a number of unusual events, they were isolated and beaches returned to normal levels. As always, beach
conditions are drastically affected by the weather, with rain and wind being major influences on water quality.
• Regular assessments of both short-term and long-term water quality were made at 36 Port Phillip Bay
beaches during summer 2000-01.
• Over four months of sampling, 33 out of 36 beaches were found to have acceptable levels of faecal
contaminants with only temporary rises in E. coli levels observed.
• Three beaches, Werribee South, Mentone and Fairy Dell, had elevated E. coli levels over a longer period which
required EPA Victoria to issue public warnings against swimming in these areas and commence
investigations to ascertain possible origins.
• In all three instances, EPA Victoria worked with the local council to identify and fix any source of
contamination.
• At Mentone, the source of the high E. coli levels was found to be a blocked sewer in front of the Mentone Life
Saving Club which was fixed after which bacterial levels returned to an acceptable level.
• At Werribee South, the elevated bacterial levels were linked to a nearby stormwater drain. As Werribee South
beach had presented problems with elevated levels over the previous year, EPA Victoria commenced an
extensive, on-going investigation into the source of the contamination in the stormwater drains.
• At Fairy Dell, the water quality returned to acceptable levels after seven days of elevated bacterial levels and
remained so for the rest of the season. Even after the levels returned to an acceptable level, extensive
investigations at Fairy Dell beach could not identify the source of the elevated E. coli levels. As a conservative
ii
measure, EPA Victoria closed the beach while investigations occurred and until analysis of the long-term
levels indicated that the problem was transient in nature, and may have come from an offshore source.
• The State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria) – Schedule F6 Waters of Port Phillip Bay, sets
long term objectives for E. coli as an indicator of water quality. There are two objectives:
1. A geometric mean of 200 organisms/100ml; and
2. An 80th percentile of 400 organisms/100ml.
Both of these are tested over a 42-day period using at least six samples. Twenty-four beaches met both SEPP
objectives for long-term beach water quality. Six beaches (Rosebud, Carrum, Aspendale North, Middle Park,
Portarlington and Queenscliff) showed breaches of one of the long-term objectives at some point during
summer. Only six beaches (Mentone, Rye, Altona, Mornington, Werribee South and Fairy Dell) showed
breaches of both objectives over the period.
Litter
• This report also summarises the results of litter surveys of 12 Port Phillip Bay beaches during the 2000-01
summer.
• Cigarette butts were, again, the most common litter item at all beaches, followed by plastic items and
confectionary wrappers. The amount of litter found on beaches increased since the previous year.
• Popular beaches like St Kilda, Williamstown and Sandringham were the most littered beaches. Despite
thorough cleaning regimes, these beaches were also the three most littered beaches in 1999-2000. Werribee
South, with its lower use, was the least littered beach.
• The report clearly shows that litter quantities increase during peak school holiday periods. At most beaches,
more litter was found near shops or kiosks. Both these outcomes indicate that education programs can be
targeted at these areas to improve.
• Almost 50 Beach Report volunteers helped monitor 33 beaches over the season and provided valuable
additional information to the scientific sampling program. EPA also launched the beach clean-up program,
‘Clean Up Your Beach,’ in 2001.
C O N T E N T S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... I
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. I
LITTER .........................................................................................................................................................II
INTRODUCTION................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1
MONITORING WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3
THE SCIENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 3
SHORT AND LONGER-TERM WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 3
THE RISK INDEX ............................................................................................................................................. 4
VOLUNTEERS – OUR ‘EYES AND EARS’................................................................................................................... 4
LITTER SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2000-2001 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6
PORT PHILLIP BAY RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 6
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................ 6
LITTER SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................ 7
RESULTS BY REGION................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 10
REGION 1: PORTSEA TO ROSEBUD ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................10
Short term ...........................................................................................................................................10
Longer term: SEPP compliance ..............................................................................................................10
LITTER SURVEY: SORRENTO AND RYE................................................................................................................... 11
Sorrento .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Rye......................................................................................................................................................12
REGION 2: DROMANA TO MORNINGTON ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................14
Short term ...........................................................................................................................................14
Longer term: SEPP compliance ..............................................................................................................14
LITTER SURVEY: MT MARTHA ............................................................................................................................14
REGION 3: CANADIAN BAY TO MENTONE................................ ................................ ................................ . 16
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................16
Short term ...........................................................................................................................................16
Longer term: SEPP compliance ..............................................................................................................16
LITTER SURVEY: SEAFORD AND MORDIALLOC ......................................................................................................... 17
Seaford ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Mordialloc ...........................................................................................................................................18
REGION 4: BEAUMARIS TO SANDRIDGE ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19
FIGURE 15. MAP OF BEACH REPORT REGION 4 – BEAUMARIS TO SANDRIDGE ..................................................................19
WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................19
Short term ...........................................................................................................................................19
Longer term: SEPP compliance ..............................................................................................................19
LITTER SURVEY: SANDRINGHAM, ST KILDA AND PORT MELBOURNE............................................................................. 20
Sandringham ...................................................................................................................................... 20
St Kilda .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Port Melbourne ................................................................................................................................... 22
REGION 5: WILLIAMSTOWN TO WERRIBEE SOUTH ................................ ................................ ..................... 24
WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Short term .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Longer term: SEPP compliance ............................................................................................................. 24
LITTER SURVEY: WILLIAMSTOWN AND WERRIBEE SOUTH........................................................................................... 25
Williamstown ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Werribee South ................................................................................................................................... 26
REGION 6: ST HELENS TO QUEENSCLIFF................................ ................................ ................................ ..27
WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Short term .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Longer term: SEPP compliance ............................................................................................................. 27
LITTER SURVEY: EASTERN BEACH AND QUEENSCLIFF................................................................................................ 28
Eastern Beach..................................................................................................................................... 28
Queenscliff ......................................................................................................................................... 29
BEACH REPORT PARTNERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31
LOCAL GOVERNMENT – BAYSIDE COUNCILS ..........................................................................................................31
MEDIA.......................................................................................................................................................31
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32
1
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Each summer, EPA Victoria conducts its Beach
Report program. Beach Report provides Victorians
with information about water quality and beach
conditions at 36 Port Phillip Bay beaches. Another
major objective of Beach Report is to raise public
awareness about human activities that contribute to
water pollution in the Bay, while also encouraging
actions to improve water quality.
The 2000-2001 Beach Report showed water quality
at Port Phillip Bay beaches was generally good over
the summer period. Over four months of frequent
sampling, 33 of the 36 monitored beaches returned
consistently good water quality samples. When
elevated bacterial levels occurred the effects were
generally short term and could not be confirmed
after re-sampling within 24 hours, indicating a return
to acceptable water quality. Three beaches had
incidences of elevated bacterial levels that
continued over several days. In each case, EPA
Victoria issued public warnings advising against
swimming at these beaches. These events
prompted a thorough investigation and further
monitoring by EPA Victoria. Management action was
taken in conjunction with local Government and the
Department of Human Services to address the cause
of the problems and in each case water quality
returned quickly to within safe limits.
As part of Beach Report 2000-2001, EPA Victoria
commissioned Litter Analysis Australia (LAA) to look
at the amounts, types and deposition rates of litter
at 12 Port Phillip Bay Beaches (Figure 1). These
studies show that cigarette butts continue to be the
most littered item on Port Phillip Bay beaches as
Figure 1. Beach Report beaches
(Litter survey sites underlined)
2
surveys in the two previous years had also shown.
This reinforces the need for greater public education
about the fate of cigarette butts when they are
discarded on the streets and on beaches.
Confectionery wrappers and general plastic items
(for example, straws, take-away food containers,
and drink bottles) were also common litter items.
Volunteers have been an integral part of Beach
Report over the past ten years. To celebrate 2001 as
International Year of the Volunteer, EPA Victoria
introduced the ‘Clean Up Your Beach’ program as
part of Beach Report, kicking off with a launch at
Carrum beach on 4 February 2001. In addition to
participating in the ‘Clean Up’ days, 48 Beach Report
volunteers made regular visual checks of conditions
at 33 Port Phillip Bay beaches throughout the
season.
EPA Victoria looks forward to the continued success
of Beach Report over the 2001-2002 season.
3
M O N I T O R I N G W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
The Science
From December 2000 until March 2001 EPA Victoria
monitored levels of the bacterium Escherischia coli
(E. coli) at 36 Port Phillip Bay beaches. E. coli
bacteria is present in the faeces of warm-blooded
animals and is not harmful to humans, however its
presence is a good indicator of other, more harmful
micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses) that may be in
the water through faecal contamination. Elevated E.
coli levels can be caused by dog droppings left on
the beach that are then washed into the water by the
tide, or by heavy rainfall flushing large quantities of
dog faeces into the Bay via gutters, creeks and
stormwater drains. These events usually produce
increased bacterial levels for a short time which
return to low levels within 24 hours. Experience has
shown that on Port Phillip Bay beaches it is unusual
for high E. coli levels to persist for two or more
consecutive days.
From 7-21 December 2000, water samples were
taken each Thursday so that up-to-date information
was available for the weekend when beach activities
generally increased. During the school holiday
period from 21 December 2000 to the end of January
2001, sampling was done every three days in line
with the increased number of beach-goers in this
period. During February and March sampling was
done every Monday and Thursday, to provide
information to weekend beach-goers, and to assess
the condition of beach water quality after weekend
use.
For E. coli tests, 500 mL of seawater was collected in
sterile bottles from each beach at the same
collection point each time. Sampling was done early
in the morning to minimise the effect of sunlight
which can kill the bacteria and hence alter their
concentration in the bottles. Samples were stored
on ice, in the dark, and taken to the Australian Water
Technologies laboratory for processing. Samples
were analysed using the Colilert method and
results returned to EPA Victoria early the next
morning. If high E. coli levels were detected at a
particular beach, sampling would be repeated the
next day and the information published on the EPA
Victoria hotline and website, and the relevant local
council informed. If elevated levels were detected
on two consecutive days, EPA Victoria issued media
warnings to advise against swimming at that beach
until EPA Victoria was satisfied that the water quality
had returned to acceptable levels.
Short and longer-term water quality
While short-term water quality can be determined
with a single sample, EPA Victoria also monitors
longer-term beach water quality from samples taken
over several days. Longer-term water quality is
assessed against the acceptable environmental
standards set by the State Environment Protection
Policy (SEPP (Waters of Victoria) – Schedule F6
Waters of Port Phillip Bay). Calculations are based
on samples taken over 42 days, from which a
geometric mean is calculated for each beach. A new
geometric mean and 80th percentile figure is
calculated with each sampling event throughout the
season. An overall assessment is based on results
from the entire monitoring period.
The Port Phillip Bay SEPP specifies that over 42
days:
4
1) the geometric mean E. coli level should be less
than 200 organisms per 100 mL seawater; and
2) the 80th percentile the samples should have E.
coli levels less than 400 organisms per 100 mL
seawater..
The Risk Index
Each day, a ‘Risk Index’ was calculated for each
Beach Report beach by taking into account the most
recent bacterial levels, past 24 hours of rainfall,
forecast rainfall and water quality history (short and
longer-term) at each beach. Rainfall patterns and
recent water quality carried more weight than water
quality history in providing overall risk prediction.
From Monday to Saturday, each beach was rated
according to the index figure as posing a ‘very low’,
‘low’ or ‘moderate’ risk to human health, and ratings
were published in the Herald Sun.
Volunteers – our ‘eyes and ears’
EPA Victoria places a high priority on keeping the
community well informed about the state of their
environment. Volunteer groups are a valuable and
integral part of EPA Victoria environmental
programs, assisting with monitoring and community
education.
Every year, EPA Victoria receives valuable assistance
from our enthusiastic ‘Beach Reporters’ - volunteers
who live around Port Phillip Bay and who adopt one
or more Beach Report beaches during the course of
the program. Beach Reporters are trained by EPA
Victoria and provided with assessment kits to collect
information about stormwater drain conditions,
litter, sand quality and the effects of weather, such
as heavy rain, on water quality. Beach Reporters
send regular reports back to EPA Victoria, and these
reports are published on the Beach Report website
and hotline. Beach Reporters play a vital role by
complementing scientific analysis of water quality
with timely and local information on beach quality.
Working with volunteers provides EPA Victoria with
an opportunity to tap into local knowledge and work
with the community to raise awareness of water
quality issues.
A record 48 Beach Reporters took part in the 2000-
2001 program; six more than the previous season.
Of these, eight people had volunteered in previous
years, with 40 people volunteering for the first time.
All Beach Report beaches were monitored by a
volunteer except for Portsea, Blairgowrie and
Elwood. In addition to recording details about the
quality of the beach and stormwater drains, each
volunteer was asked to give a visual rating of beach
quality as ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’, or ‘very
poor’. On average, most beaches were judged as
‘good’ or ‘excellent’ while no beach was rated as
‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.
Fair20%
Good50%
Excellent30%
Figure2. Summary of average ratings by Beach Report
Volunteers
5
To celebrate the International Year of the Volunteer
in 2001, EPA Victoria introduced the ‘Clean Up Your
Beach’ program as part of Beach Report. The aim of
the ‘Clean Up’ days is to promote and encourage the
participation of local bayside communities in caring
for their local beaches and foster a sense of pride in
people for their neighbouring coastal environment.
Local residents, environment groups and
representatives from local government joined forces
and donned sturdy shoes, hats and gloves to
remove litter from the beach, pathways, shrubs and
foreshore of Carrum, St Leonards and Port
Melbourne. Cigarette butts made up most of the
litter on these beaches. Bottles, cans, and
miscellaneous plastics were also very common.
Litter Surveys
During the 2000-2001 season, EPA Victoria
commissioned Litter Analysis Australia (LAA) to
investigate litter at 12 Port Phillip Bay beaches -
Sorrento, Rye, Mt Martha, Seaford, Mordialloc,
Sandringham, St Kilda, Port Melbourne,
Williamstown, Eastern Beach (Geelong), Werribee
South and Queenscliff. Litter surveys had been
done at these beaches during the previous two
Beach Report seasons. All beaches have different
levels of use and potential for litter. Beaches were
originally chosen according to their popularity with
beach-goers and to ensure that each local council
area was surveyed. Annual surveys will enable EPA
Victoria to track longer-term patterns in litter at
these beaches. Ten surveys were done between
early December 2000 and early March 2001. All
surveys were done at the same place on each beach,
and included counting and classifying litter and a
visual assessment. Visual ratings gave an estimate
of the amount of litter at each beach over a 500 m2
area from 0 (no litter) to 10 (total litter cover). For
litter counts, the number of litter items at each
beach over a 48 m2 area was counted and grouped
according to product type and material type. The
rate at which litter appeared on beaches was termed
the ‘Litter Regeneration Rate’ and was calculated for
each beach by comparing the amount of litter on the
beach between sampling events.
The morning after the night before: what it costs our
beaches.
6
2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1
P O R T P H I L L I P B A Y R E S U L T S
Water Quality
Port Phillip Bay’s inshore beach water quality was
generally very good throughout the 2000-2001
summer. Of the 1296 samples taken during 36
scheduled sampling events, 95% (1235 samples)
returned acceptable levels of E. coli. More than 90%
of beaches returned acceptable water quality 86%
of the time, and there were only two occasions when
the number of beaches with acceptable levels was
less than 80% (Figure 6).
Five percent of samples (61 samples) required
repeat sampling. Fifty-seven follow up samples of E.
coli showed that the initial levels could not be
confirmed by re-sampling, indicating the water
quality was acceptable and the first result may have
been a “false positive”. It is important for EPA
Victoria to re-sample even if sometimes a follow-up
sample shows the first result was a “false positive”.
“False positive” samples are always going to occur
in a conservative water quality monitoring program.
By applying the precautionary principle, and
sometimes getting ‘false positive” results, EPA
Victoria is acting on the safe side.
Of the four beaches requiring repeated sampling,
Middle Park showed the water quality had returned
to an acceptable level after 48 hours. The other
three exceptions relate to separate incidents
involving longer-term problems with beach water
quality at Werribee South, Mentone, Fairy Dell
beaches. In each case, the Beach Report team
worked closely with EPA Operations staff, local
government (the Cities of Wyndham, Kingston and
Greater Geelong respectively), the Department of
Human Services, and local water authorities to
identify and fix the underlying problem. EPA Victoria
also worked closely with local and state media to
provide regular updates to the public and issued
warnings against swimming at each beach until safe
swimming conditions had been restored.
The elevated bacterial levels at Werribee South
beach were linked to a nearby stormwater drain. As
Werribee South beach has presented problems with
elevated levels over the past few years, EPA Victoria
has commenced an extensive, on-going
investigation into the source of the contamination.
At Mentone, the source of the high E. coli levels was
found to be a blocked sewer in front of the Mentone
Life Saving Club. After the sewer was unblocked,
levels returned to being acceptable within a few
days. After seven days of elevated bacterial levels,
the water quality at Fairy Dell beach returned to
acceptable level. The water quality was measured
as acceptable for the remainder of the season.
While extensive investigations at Fairy Dell beach
could not identify the source of the elevated E. coli
levels, the return of long-term acceptable levels
indicates the problem was transient in nature, and
may have come from an offshore source.
Longer-term water quality, as determined by
performance against SEPP objectives, was generally
good. Twenty-four beaches met the SEPP objectives
throughout the 2000-2001 season. One objective
was exceeded at six beaches and both objectives
were exceeded at six beaches on various occasions
over the four months of sampling. These results are
discussed in the Regional Results, below.
7
Litter Surveys
Litter surveys indicated that the amount of litter on
beaches varied with location and over time. St Kilda
beach was the most littered of the 12 beaches
surveyed with an
average of 79.5 items
per 48 m2, followed by
Williamstown and
Sandringham beaches
with 59.5 and 56.9
items respectively.
These beaches were
also found to be the
most littered in the
previous year’s survey
when Sandringham was rated the most littered
beach. In 2000-2001 Werribee South beach was the
least littered site with an average of 4.2 items.
In the three month survey period more litter was left
on beaches towards the end of the school holiday
period in late January 2001. The amount of litter
peaked on the 22 January survey at an average of 27
items per 48 m2. The least amount of litter was
recorded on 5 March 2001, with an average of 23.4
items.
Analysis of regeneration rates (defined as the
number of litter items that accumulate per week)
across the summer indicated that the highest
regeneration rates occurred during the school
holiday period. The average regeneration rate
peaked on January 15 and 22 with averages of 44.9
items and 46.6 items per 48 m2. The slowest litter
regeneration rate of an average of 11.7 items rate
occurred on the last survey on 5 March 2001. This
pattern is comparable to last year’s trend, which
showed an increase in deposited litter in January.
Cigarette butts accounted for 54% of the litter
counted. Plastic items were the next most common
type of litter (10.6%), followed by confectionery
wrappers (5.5%) and bottle/can tops (4%). Of
particular interest was the increase in the amount
and percentage of glass in the litter stream.
Although the overall amount is still low in
comparison to other litter types (eg cigarette butts),
the amount of glass recorded had doubled since the
1999-2000 survey. Of significant concern is the
increase in the number of syringes counted –from
zero last year to three this year
0
20
40
60
80
100
St K
ilda
Will
iam
stow
n
San
drin
gham
Sea
ford
Por
tM
elbo
urne
Mor
dial
loc
Rye
Eas
tern
Mt M
arth
a
Que
ensc
liff
Sor
rent
o
Wer
ribeeAve
rag
e n
um
ber
of
litte
r it
ems
Figure 3. Average volume of litter, by beach
01020
304050
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Date of Survey
Ave
rag
e N
um
ber
of
litte
r it
ems
Figure 4. Average volume of litter, by sampling date
8
People’s littering behaviour was found to vary
significantly between beaches, which may explain
the different amounts and types of litter recorded in
the surveys. At some beaches (particularly
Sandringham), people were observed walking along
and collecting litter. As with previous surveys, the
surveyors suggested that kiosks located next to
beaches may be contributing to the increased
amounts of litter on the beach - ice cream sticks,
confectionery wrappers and straws in particular.
Litter patterns in 2000-2001 were similar to those of
the previous summer however there was a
significant increase in the amount by an average 9.6
items per site. Summer temperatures were
unusually high over the sampling period with more
people visiting the beach. LAA suggests that this is
the reason for the increase with the amount of litter
correlating with the number of beach-goers. They
found the greatest amount of litter was left behind
on the hottest days.
Cigarette butts
Other Plastic
Confectionery Wrappers
Bottle Can/Tops
Other Paper
Straws
Styrene foam cups, etc
Ice Cream Sticks
Other Glass
Tissues/Serviettes
Figure 5. Average proportions of litter, by product type
9
% beaches returning E. coli<1000
0
20
40
60
80
1002/
11/0
0
9/11
/00
16/1
1/00
23/1
1/00
30/1
1/00
7/12
/00
14/1
2/00
21/1
2/00
28/1
2/00
4/01
/01
11/0
1/01
18/0
1/01
25/0
1/01
1/02
/01
8/02
/01
15/0
2/01
22/0
2/01
1/03
/01
8/03
/01
15/0
3/01
22/0
3/01
29/0
3/01
sampling date
% b
each
es <
1000
org
s
Figure 6. Beach E.coli levels verses sampling date
10
R E S U L T S B Y R E G I O N
R E G I O N 1 : P O R T S E A T O R O S E B U D
Figure 7. Map of Beach Report Region 1 – Portsea to Rosebud
Water quality
Short term
Overall, the southern Mornington Peninsula beaches
had good water quality over the 2000-2001 summer.
Of the 180 samples taken in this region 5% returned
high E. coli levels and required repeat sampling. Of
the nine repeat samples, two were required at
Rosebud (2.11.00 -pre-season sampling, 22.3.01),
five at Rye (11.1.01, 26.1.01, 29.1.01, 12.3.01
22.3.01), and one at Portsea (20.1.01) and
Blairgowrie (26.1.01). In each case, acceptable
levels returned within 24 hours. The repeat samples
required at Rosebud and Rye are indicative of
longer-term problems with beach water quality,
particularly at Rye, which EPA Victoria is currently
addressing in conjunction with the Mornington
Peninsula Shire Council (see below).
Sorrento beach had acceptable bacterial levels
throughout the Beach Report period.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
The southernmost Mornington Peninsula beaches
had good longer-term water quality and complied
with SEPP objectives. Rye beach breached SEPP
objectives over 11 consecutive sampling events, and
at Rosebud there were seven consecutive breaches
of the 80th percentile. Longer-term beach water
quality has been a problem at these two beaches in
11
previous years, and it is now believed that this is
related to the method of sewage disposal in this
area; currently by septic tank and soak pits. EPA
Victoria is working with Mornington Peninsula Shire
Council to fix the problem by connecting the entire
area to a reticulated sewerage system.
Litter Survey: Sorrento and Rye
Sorrento
Despite the popularity of Sorrento beach with
beach-goers, the amount of litter observed on the
beach was comparatively low and Sorrento rated as
the second least littered beach of the 12 beaches
surveyed. The litter surveyors noted that people on
Sorrento beach tended were responsible with their
waste and in most cases took their litter away with
them. The low number of potential litter sources
such as stormwater outlets and kiosks may also
explain the low level of litter on Sorrento beach.
According to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council,
Sorrento beach was cleaned fortnightly with a surf
rake and by hand when necessary.
Visual ratings ranged from 0.75 (18.12.00) to 1.75 out
of 10 (2.01.01, 5.02.01, and 19.02.01) The quantity of
litter peaked on 22 January when 20 items were
found. Over half the items counted on this date
were cigarette butts. The litter regeneration rate at
Sorrento peaked between 8-15 January 2001 at 20
items per week. The average regeneration rate of
9.4 items per week at Sorrento is a marked increase
from the previous year’s figure of 5.5 items.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
Visual Rating
Number of litteritems
Figure 8. Litter patterns at Sorrento beach
12
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
at Sorrento beach (65% of litter), followed by
confectionery wrappers (14%) and general paper
items (8%). The overall amount of litter at Sorrento
increased in the past year from an average of 7.6
items to 13.3 items per site.
Rye
Rye beach was the 7th most littered of the 12
beaches surveyed. A lot of Rye’s litter was
attributed to medium-large pieces of litter caught up
in newly-erected barricades, but much of the litter
recorded from Rye was cigarette butts. Litter at Rye
is generally the same as for 1999-2000 however the
number of cigarette butts has increased.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council state that
cleaning at Rye beach was done every second week
with large items collected by hand and smaller litter
removed with a mechanical surf rake. The
mechanical surf rake could not reach the edges of
the barricades between the beach and the
foreshore, and while large items could be removed
by hand, small to medium sized litter was left to
accumulate in this area.
Visual ratings surveys ranged from 1.25 (5.03.01) to
3.5 (4.12.00) out of 10 with an average rating of 2.8.
The quantity of litter peaked on 15 January 2001 at
75 items, with an average of 41.1 items per site. The
litter regeneration rate at Rye beach peaked
between January 8 and 15 at 45 items per week.
Average regeneration rates were similar to those in
the 1999-2000 season.
Cigarette butts accounted for most of the total litter
collected (62%). Confectionery wrappers were the
second most common litter item (7.8%).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
Visual Rating
Number of litteritems
Figure 9. Litter patterns at Rye beach
13
LAA suggested that recently erected barricades
between the beach and the foreshore made access
to the bins more difficult for beachgoers and may
cause increased littering on Rye beach in the future.
Beach-goers appeared reluctant to make the extra
effort to reach the bins or take their litter with them,
instead creating litter piles along the barricade.
At Rye beach there was a noticeable decrease in
litter following New Years Eve compared to 1999-
2000. The overall visual rating was also lower than
the previous year, suggesting that steps had been
taken to rectify the litter problem.
14
R E G I O N 2 : D R O M A N A T O M O R N I N G T O N
Figure 10. Map of Beach Report Region 2 – Dromana to Mornington
Water quality
Short term
The four middle Mornington Peninsula beaches had
acceptable beach water quality for most of the
2000-2001 season. Of 144 samples, nine (6%) had
high bacterial levels and required repeat sampling.
Dromana had high E. coli levels on two days (2.11.00
-pre-season sampling, 22.3.01) as did Mt Martha
(30.12.00, 22.3.01). Safety Beach had one day of
high E. coli (27.12.00) while Mornington beach had
four days of high bacterial levels (2.11.00 -pre-
season sampling, 26.1.01, 29.1.01, 22.3.01). Heavy
rainfall the day before two sampling periods is
thought to have been responsible for elevated
bacteria in five of the samples. In each case, high E.
coli levels could not be confirmed by re-sampling
within 24 hours.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
Only Mornington beach breached SEPP objectives
over the Beach Report season. The 80th percentile
objective was breached over eight consecutive
sampling events, and the geometric mean once
during this period. This was the result of elevated E.
coli levels on two consecutive sampling events .
Dromana, Safety Beach and Mt Martha beaches had
good longer-term water quality and complied with
SEPP objectives for the entire season.
Litter Survey: Mt Martha
LAA found a comparatively small amount of litter at
Mt Martha. This beach stood out as it had very few
cigarette butts in comparison with the other
beaches. According to the Mornington Peninsula
Shire Council, Mt Martha beach was cleaned
15
fortnightly, using a combination of a mechanical surf
rake and cleaning by hand.
Most beachgoers were observed taking their litter
with them when they left the beach which reduced
the amount of visible litter. Litter was mostly small
to medium in size. Mt Martha beach was
considerably cleaner following the 2001 New Year's
celebrations compared to the previous year.
Visual surveys ranged from one (29.01.01) to 2.25
(22.01.01, 2.02.01) out of 10. The low average site
rating of 1.7 can be attributed to beach-goers who
were generally responsible in disposing of their
litter. The quantity of litter peaked on 22 January
2001 at 36 items, with an average of 14.4 items per
48 m2.
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
counted (24.3%) followed by other plastic (19.4%).
The proportion of cigarette butts at Mount Martha
had declined by 7% since the 1999-2000 survey. A
similar decrease (8.43%) was also observed in the
preceding year.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
(/1
0)
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRatingNumber oflitter items
Figure 11. Litter patterns at Mt Martha beach
16
R E G I O N 3 : C A N A D I A N B A Y T O M E N T O N E
Figure 12. Map of Beach Report Region 3 – Canadian Bay to Mentone
Water quality
Short term
There was some variation in water quality at
Northern Mornington Peninsula beaches over the
Beach Report season. While beaches had
acceptable water quality for most of the summer,
elevated bacterial levels were found at six of the
eight beaches, although in most instances the
increases lasted less than 24 hours. Of 288
samples, 4% had elevated E. coli levels and required
repeat sampling. Elevated E. coli levels were found
once at Canadian Bay (2.11.00 -pre-season
sampling, four times at Frankston Pier (16.11.00 -
pre-season sampling, 5.1.01, 20.1.01, 22.3.01) once
at Long Island Beach (2.11.00 - pre-season
sampling, twice at Carrum (2.11.00 - pre-season
sampling, 11.1.01), and three times at Aspendale
North (11.1.01, 20.1.01, 19.3.01). Of the 11 required
repeats, three can be attributed to a day of heavy
rainfall (Canadian Bay, Long Island and Carrum) and
two can be linked to a sewer spill at Mentone in
early January 2001. At Mentone, the source of the
high E. coli levels was found to be a blocked sewer
in front of the Mentone Life Saving Club. After the
sewer was unblocked, levels returned to being
acceptable within a few days. Except for this
incident, bacterial levels had returned to within
acceptable beach water limits within 24 hours.
Seaford and Mordialloc beaches had good water
quality for the entire Beach Report season.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
The 80th percentile SEPP objective was breached at
Carrum on 12 consecutive sampling events, and
twice at Aspendale North on 14 and three
consecutive sampling events. The breaches can be
17
attributed to a number of samples with elevated E.
coli levels that, while acceptable by short-term
objectives, were elevated in relation to the longer-
term SEPP objectives. Mentone beach also breached
the geometric mean objective over four sampling
events and had 12 consecutive breaches of the 80th
percentile objective. These breaches were linked to
the sewer incident described above. Shortly after
the sewer was fixed Mentone’s SEPP breaches
ceased.
Mordialloc, Seaford, Long Island Beach, Frankston
Pier and Canadian Bay beaches had good long-term
water quality and complied with SEPP objectives for
the entire Beach Report season.
Litter Survey: Seaford and Mordialloc
Seaford
Seaford was rated as the fourth most littered beach
of the twelve beaches surveyed. LAA suggest this
may be because the survey site was located in front
of the Life Saving Club, right next to Seaford Pier,
which the mechanical beach cleaner was unable to
access. This area was heavily used because of its
proximity to the Life Saving Club, the pier and car
parking facilities. The high litter regeneration rate at
Seaford beach may be due to shops located at the
end of the beach access path. On a number of
occasions people were seen dropping cigarette
butts and drink bottles off the pier, indicating a
need for bins on the pier.
Visual ratings ranged from 1.5 (5.03.01) to 3.75
(15.01.01) out of 10, an average rating of 2.5. The
average amount of litter at Seaford beach was 43.7
items per sample area, and peaked on 15 January at
121 items. Most of the litter recorded was deposited
at the high tide mark. In 1999-2000, the average
litter regeneration rate of 4.3 items per week was
significantly lower than the previous year’s average
of 23.9. However, in the 2000-2001 survey the
average rate had increased again to 24.3. A large
number of cigarette butts contributed to the
increased rating.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 13. Litter patterns at Seaford Beach
18
Litter at Seaford was mainly made up of medium to
large items such as plastic bottles, plastic bags and
straws. These were found washed up on the beach
and concentrated around the high tide mark.
Cigarette butts were the most littered product
(53.2%) with other plastic (4.8 items) and
confectionery wrappers (2.9 items) also common.
Mordialloc
The overall appearance of Mordialloc beach was
good during the 2000-2001 season with small-sized
items such as cigarette butts and bottle tops
accounting for most of the litter. A concrete divider
between the beach and the footpath acted as a
potential litter trap however extensive beach
cleaning by the City of Kingston Council ensured
Mordialloc beach was kept relatively free of litter.
The Council raked the beach twice a week with a
mechanical beach cleaner and removed medium
and large litter items by hand from around walls,
pathways and poles. Large bins at the
entrances/exits of the beach and along the walls
were well used by beach-goers and helped to
minimise beach litter.
Visual ratings ranged from one (4.12.00) to 2.75
(5.01.01) out of 10 with an average rating of 1.8.
The average amount of litter was 38.3 items which
peaked on 4 December 2000 at 64 items per site.
This peak was attributed to a major public event
taking place the day before the survey. The highest
regeneration rate occurred between 22 January and
29 January 2001 at 64 items per week. The slowest
regeneration rate was 14 items per week between 5
February and 19 February 2001.
Cigarette butts (44.6%) were the most common type
of litter at Mordialloc beach, followed by other
plastic (24.3%).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 14. Litter patterns at Mordialloc beach
19
R E G I O N 4 : B E A U M A R I S T O S A N D R I D G E
Figure 15. Map of Beach Report Region 4 – Beaumaris to Sandridge
Water quality
Short term
Water quality at north eastern Port Phillip Bay
beaches was acceptable for most of the summer. Of
the 360 samples taken, only 1% required repeat
sampling because of high E. coli levels. Repeated
sampling was required at Beaumaris (2.11.00) -
pre-season sampling, Hampton (20.1.01), Elwood
(22.3.01), St Kilda (15.2.01), and Middle Park
(7.12.00) beaches. Bacteriological levels at these
beaches returned to acceptable limits within 24
hours. The E. coli levels at Middle Park beach
remained elevated for 48 hours before returning to
within acceptable limits. At all other beaches
requiring follow-up sampling, E. coli levels could not
be confirmed by re-sampling within 24 hours.
Half Moon Bay, Sandringham, Brighton, Port
Melbourne and Sandridge beaches had acceptable
beach water quality for the entire Beach Report
period.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
Middle Park was the only beach in this region to
breach SEPP objectives. The 80th percentile
objective was breached during four consecutive
sampling events due to high E. coli levels in early
December. All other beaches in this region complied
with SEPP objectives over the Beach Report period.
20
Litter Survey: Sandringham, St Kilda and Port
Melbourne
Sandringham
Bayside City Council cleaned Sandringham beach
each week with a mechanical surf rake. Many
people walking along the beach were seen
collecting and removing litter. Despite this collective
effort, Sandringham beach was found to be the
second most littered beach in the 2000-2001
summer litter surveys. Within the litter survey site, a
retaining wall next to the beach acted as a litter trap
and had a large amount of small-sized litter built up
against it. Sandringham was one of the few beaches
on which a syringe was found.
Visual ratings ranged from 1.75 (8.01.01) out of 10 to
5.25 (2.01.01) with an average of 3.1. The size of
litter on Sandringham beach varied over time.
During peak periods a large quantity of medium to
large-sized litter was found along the high tide mark.
The amount of litter collected during the surveys
peaked on 18 December 2000 with 95 items per site,
with an average of 56.9 items.
The highest regeneration rate occurred between 22
January and 29 January 2001 at 92 items per week.
The slowest regeneration rate was between 5
February and 19 February 2001 at 12 items per week.
The average regeneration rate of 36.8 items per
week was only a slight decrease on last year’s
average of 39.3.
Cigarette butts were the most common litter type
(32.9%) followed by general plastic items (19.2%)
and bottle and can tops (9%). The proportion of
plastic had increased by 6% compared to the
previous year.
St Kilda
As one of Melbourne’s most popular beaches, St
Kilda beach is particularly vulnerable to littering by
people using the beach. According to the City of Port
Phillip, beach cleaning was done each day over the
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 16. Litter patterns at Sandringham beach
21
2000-2001 summer with a mechanical surf rake and
by manual collection with a ‘grappa’. Despite a high
level of cleaning effort, St Kilda rated as the most
littered beach of all those surveyed during the 2000-
2001 summer. A large number of cigarette butts
were recorded at St Kilda beach with only a few
larger items recorded during each litter survey.
The quantity of litter peaked at 126 items on 19
February 2001. Of these 126 items, 95 were
cigarette butts. The average quantity of 79.5 litter
items per 48 m2 was significantly higher than the
previous year’s average of 53 items. Throughout the
survey area there was usually a moderate amount of
small and medium sized litter and a few large items
as well. Litter accumulated along the high tide mark
with plastic bags at the water’s edge and paper
streamers scattered throughout the site. A large
proportion of the rubbish at St Kilda beach was
found at the base of the concrete wall which ran
along the pedestrian path. Most of this litter was
cigarette butts.
The greatest rate of litter deposition on the beach
occurred between 8 January and 15 January at 103
items per week. The slowest regeneration rate was
25.5 items per week between 19 February and 5
March 2001. There has been an increase in the
average regeneration rate at St Kilda over the past
three years from 24.4 in the 1998-1999, 44.4 in
1999-2000 and 53.6 in 2000-2001.
Cigarette butts made up most of the litter (65%)
followed by general plastic items (11.8%). The
average number of cigarette butts counted at St
Kilda beach was 52 compared to 33 in the 1999-
2000 survey.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
Visual Rating
Number oflitter items
Figure 17. Litter patterns at St Kilda beach
22
Port Melbourne
Port Melbourne beach is close to the mouth of the
Yarra River and the Docklands precinct. Because it is
an area of high human use the beach is potentially
vulnerable to litter. The beach was cleaned regularly
throughout the 2000-2001 summer, usually every
Monday morning. Despite the regular cleaning
efforts by the City of Port Phillip council, Port
Melbourne beach received the second highest visual
rating (ie, visually it was the second most littered)
beach surveyed.
LAA noted that while the main beach area was
usually reasonably clean, items of various sizes
accumulated on other parts of the beach such as
against the steps to the Surf Club where the
mechanical cleaner could not access. In the morning
of each survey and/or after a high tide, plastic bags,
plastic confectionery wrappers, plastic bottles,
straws, and other plastic material were abundant on
Port Melbourne beach. Litter was particularly
obvious after high tides, with a lot of rubbish
deposited at the high tide mark and plastic bags
observed drifting in the water. LAA identified a small
kiosk near the local Life Saving Club as a potential
contributing factor to the high litter levels observed
at Port Melbourne beach.
The quantity of litter at Port Melbourne averaged
39.2 items per 48 m2 and a peak of 60 pieces on 5
February 2001, when 32 plastic items and 16
cigarette butts were counted.
Most of the small items counted were cigarette
butts, while the most of the medium sized litter
items were tissues/serviettes, takeaway cups or
containers, straws, confectionery wrappers, lollipop
sticks and bottle/can tops, possibly from the kiosk
by the Life Saving Club. On 2 January 2001, Port
Melbourne was littered with streamers and party
poppers, the obvious result of New Year’s Eve
celebrations.
Regeneration rates were comparable to those of
1999-2000. The highest rate in both years was 24
items deposited each week. In 2000-2001 this peak
occurred between 2-8 January.
Cigarette items were the most abundant type of litter
(42%) followed by plastic items (17%) and beverage
packaging (16%). Plastic items had increased over
the past year by 8.9%.
LAA suggested that large open bins positioned
around the steps of the Life Saving Club and the
kiosk may help reduce litter at Port Melbourne
Beach.
23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 18. Litter patterns at Port Melbourne beach
24
R E G I O N 5 : W I L L I A M S T O W N T O W E R R I B E E S O U T H
Figure 19. Map of Beach Report Region 5 – Williamstown to Werribee South
Water quality
Short term
Water quality at the three north western Port Phillip
Bay beaches was acceptable for most of the 2000-
2001 season. However, longer-term problems with
water quality at Werribee South beach became
apparent this season. Of the 108 samples taken in
this region, 8.3% required repeat sampling due to
the presence of high E. coli levels in the water. Of
these, seven were required for Werribee South
beach (16.11.00, 23.11.01 - pre-season sampling,
14.12.01, 21.12.01, 8.2.01, 19.2.01, 19.3.01). On all
but one of these occasions, high E. coli levels could
not be confirmed by re-sampling within 24 hours.
However, the high number of repeat samples that
were required is indicative of longer-term problems
with beach water quality at Werribee South beach,
supported by many breaches of SEPP objectives
throughout this season (see below).
Williamstown (22.3.01) and Altona (23.11.00 - pre-
season sampling), beaches each required one
repeat sample, and in each case, bacterial levels
could not be confirmed by re-sampling within 24
hours.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
High E. coli levels detected at Altona beach on one
occasion in late November caused a breach of the
geometric mean and 80th percentile SEPP objectives
in early December. The six consecutive samples in
this period were acceptable, bringing Altona into
compliance with the SEPP objectives, where it
remained for the rest of the Beach Report season.
Werribee South had unacceptable longer-term water
quality on several occasions, related to seven
25
separate instances of high E. coli levels in the beach
water. The geometric mean objective was breached
on six occasions, and the 80th percentile on two
separate occasions over eight and 11 consecutive
sampling events. Longer-term water quality at
Werribee South has been below standard over the
past two years. EPA Victoria has commenced an
extensive, on-going investigation into this problem
at Werribee South (see page 7).
Williamstown beach complied with SEPP objectives
for the entire Beach Report season.
Litter Survey: Williamstown and Werribee South
Williamstown
Williamstown beach was very popular throughout
the summer, particularly on hot days. As a result,
Williamstown beach was found to be the second
most littered of the 12 beaches surveyed. The survey
area usually contained medium sized litter along the
rock wall, with larger sized items littered around the
high tide mark. On most days litter of various sizes
was seen scattered along the beach and floating in
the water. The surveyors believe that a kiosk beside
the beach may have contributed to the litter at
Williamstown beach. Litter included ice cream
sticks, lollipop sticks, confectionery wrappers and
straws.
The amount of litter at Williamstown beach
increased over the summer period, with an average
of 59.5 items per survey area, peaking at 99 items
on 22 January 2001. Visual ratings ranged from 2.25
out of 10 (8.01.01) to 5.25 (2.01.01) with an average
rating of 3.4.
The rate at which litter was deposited at
Williamstown beach peaked between 8 January and
15 January 2001 at 99 items per week. The
regeneration rate was also high between 2 and 22
January 2001, averaging 76 items per week,
compared to an overall average of 41.1 items per
week. Regeneration rates have generally increased
over the past two summers at Williamstown beach.
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
(72%) followed by icecream wrappers and sticks
(7%).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
Visual Rating
Number oflitter items
Figure 20. Litter patterns at Williamstown beach
26
Werribee South
During the surveys it was obvious that Werribee
South beach was not visited as much as the other
beaches surveyed. The beach is surrounded by
farmland and the closest township of significant
size (Werribee), is 10 km away. There are relatively
few stormwater drains or food outlets in the area
that could contribute to the littering of the beach.
According to the City of Wyndham council, Werribee
South beach was cleaned every Friday using a
manual ‘grappa’ and with a mechanical surf rake
every three weeks. LAA observed that a large
amount of litter had been blown off the beach and
onto the grassy embankment bordering the sand.
Litter was also seen entwined in the fence across the
road from the beach.
Visual ratings ranged from 1.0 out of 10 (5.02.01) to
3.25 (18.12.00). The average site rating was 1.9 over
the summer period.
The amount of litter peaked at eight items on 4
December 2000, with a low of two on 19 February
2001 and an average of 4.2 items per survey.
Regeneration rates peaked between 22 January and
29 January 2001 at eight items per week with an
average of 2.9 items per week. The average rate of
litter regeneration was 2.9 items per week, an
increase from the 1999-2000 average of 1.7.
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
(31%) found at Werribee South beach, followed by
other plastic (17%), other glass (10%) and ice cream
sticks (10%).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 21. Litter patterns at Werribee South beach
27
R E G I O N 6 : S T H E L E N S T O Q U E E N S C L I F F
Figure 22. Map of Beach Report Region 6 – St Helens to Queenscliff
Water quality
Short term
The six beaches on the Bellarine Peninsula had
acceptable beach water quality for 93% of the Beach
Report season. Of the 216 samples taken, four
repeat samples were required at St Helens (16.11.01
- pre-season sampling, 11.1.01, 8.2.01, 22.3.01) and
Fairy Dell (26.1.01, 12.2.01, 15.2.01, 19.2.01), three at
Portarlington (11.1.01, 20.1.01, 8.2.01), two at
Eastern Beach (2.11.00 - pre-season sampling,
19.2.01), and one at St Leonards (27.12.01) and
Queenscliff (5.1.01) beaches. Except the incident at
Fairy Dell, elevated E. coli levels could not be
confirmed by re-sampling within 24 hours.
After seven days of elevated bacterial levels (which
included three of the four sampling events where
repeat sampling was required), the water quality at
Fairy Dell beach returned to being acceptable and
remained acceptable for the remainder of the
season. Extensive investigations at Fairy Dell beach
could not locate the source of the elevated E. coli
levels, but the return to long-term acceptable beach
water quality indicates that the problem was
transient in nature, and possibly came from an
offshore source.
Longer term: SEPP compliance
High E. coli levels detected at Queenscliff beach in
early January 2001 led to a breach of the geometric
mean over three consecutive sampling events.
However, several acceptable samples followed and
Queenscliff satisfied the SEPP objective
requirements for the remainder of the Beach Report
season.
Portarlington had elevated E. coli levels on three
occasions between mid-January and early February
2001. Consequently, the 80th percentile was
28
breached over 10 consecutive sampling events
shortly afterwards. A number of acceptable samples
were recorded after this breach and Portarlington
complied with both SEPP objectives for the
remainder of the 2000-2001 Beach Report season.
High E. coli levels at Fairy Dell on three consecutive
sampling days in mid-February 2001 resulted in a
breach of the SEPP geometric mean objective over
10 consecutive occasions, and the 80th percentile on
14 sampling events. Following these breaches E. coli
levels returned to within acceptable limits and Fairy
Dell beach complied with both SEPP objectives for
longer-term water quality for the remainder of the
sampling period.
St Helens, Eastern Beach and St Leonards beaches
had good longer-term water quality and satisfied the
requirements of the SEPP objectives for the 2000-
2001 Beach Report season.
Litter Survey: Eastern Beach and Queenscliff
Eastern Beach
Eastern beach had low levels of litter throughout the
2000-2001 summer compared to the other beaches
surveyed. The beach and adjoining open areas
received a high number of visitors, with a large
proportion of litter discarded along a heavily-used
walkway at the edge of the survey site. One of the
paths leading to the beach acted as a litter trap
where most of the litter was recorded. Numerous
plastic bags were often seen floating in the water.
The City of Greater Geelong cleaned Eastern beach
with a mechanical rake and a magnetic broom, for
metal objects, and emptied rubbish bins daily. A
number of times residents were observed walking
along the beach and cleaning up litter. Litter items
generally tended to be small in size.
Visual ratings ranged from 1.5 out of 10 (18.12.00,
5.03.01) to 3.5 (2.01.01). The average visual rating of
2.4 was an increase from the 1999-2000 average of
1.95 but close to the 1998-1999 average of 2.2.
The quantity of litter at Eastern Beach peaked at 43
items on 29 January 2001, averaging 29.0 items per
survey. This was substantially higher than in
previous years (13.7 items in 1999-2000 and 24.8
items in 1998-1999).
The litter regeneration rate at Eastern beach peaked
at 43 items per week, between 15 January and 22
January 2001. The regeneration rate was highest
over the mid summer period and dropped in the last
two surveys. The litter regeneration rates at Eastern
Beach have increased substantially compared to
1998-1999 and 1999-2000. A regeneration rate of
more than 20 items per week was recorded in two-
thirds of the 2000-2001 surveys but this high rate
was recorded only once in the previous two years.
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
at Eastern Beach (81%) followed by other plastic
items (3%) and confectionery wrappers (2%). The
proportion of different litter types on the beach was
similar in 1999-2000.
29
Queenscliff
Overall Queenscliff was the 3rd least littered beach of
those surveyed. Queenscliff is a popular holiday
destination, and the beach was heavily used in the
period from Christmas to 24 January 2001. Despite
the large increase in visitors there was only a slight
increase in the quantity of litter recorded. There was
little beach cleaning undertaken at Queenscliff and
a noticeable lack of rubbish bins in the area, which
suggests that most beach-goers take their litter
away with them. In addition, two residents were
observed two to three times each week removing
rubbish with a ‘grappa’ and plastic bag. When
necessary, the Borough of Queenscliffe used a
mechanical rake to remove larger litter items and
seaweed build-up. The combination of these
various modes of litter removal resulted in
Queenscliff beach achieving the lowest visual rating.
Visual ratings surveys ranged from 0.75 out of 10
(19.02.01) to 1.75 (8.01.01, 22.01.01) with an average
rating of 1.2.
The quantity of litter peaked at 39 items on 19
February 2001 with an average of 15.5 items
recorded over the survey period.
The average regeneration rate at Queenscliff was
10.3 items per week and was greatest between 8
January and 15 January 2001 (21 items) and lowest
between the 22 January and 29 January 2001 surveys
(two items). Litter regeneration rates have increased
at Queenscliff beach over the last three years. A
regeneration rate of more than 10 items per week
was recorded on seven of the 10 surveys in 2000-
2001. This rate was only recorded once in the
previous two years.
Cigarette butts were the most common type of litter
at Queenscliff Beach (63%), based on the average of
all litter counted, followed by other plastics (9%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 23. Litter patterns at Eastern Beach
30
and confectionery wrappers (6%). While the
proportion of items in the litter was similar to
previous years, the average number of cigarette
butts had more than doubled.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.12
.00
18.1
2.00
2.1.
01
8.1.
01
15.1
.01
22.1
.01
29.1
.01
5.12
.01
19.2
.01
5.3.
01
Vis
ual R
atin
g S
core
0
30
60
90
120
150
Num
ber of litter items
VisualRating
Number oflitter items
Figure 24. Litter patterns at Queenscliff beach
31
B E A C H R E P O R T P A R T N E R S
EPA Victoria’s Beach Report Partners include
Bayside Councils around Port Phillip Bay, other
government departments such as the Department of
Human Services, local community groups, local and
metropolitan media, and the surf life saving sector.
Many people from these groups assist EPA Victoria
in monitoring bay water quality conditions. They
also help to inform the public about water quality
and educate beach-goers about the effects of
stormwater and other sources of beach water
pollution.
Local Government – Bayside Councils
The relationship between EPA Victoria and Bayside
councils is crucial to the success of Beach Report.
Bayside councils are immediately notified of E. coli
readings. When high E. coli readings are recorded
for two or more consecutive days EPA Victoria
advises councils and may recommend signs be
erected warning the public against swimming. EPA
Victoria resamples daily until water quality has
returned to an acceptable level, and notifies
councils of these results. If necessary, EPA Victoria
investigates the pollution source. EPA Victoria also
informs councils about beach litter research by
Beach Reporters such as LAA. Litter statistics help
councils identify where and at what time of year
litter may be a more significant problem. When
possible, EPA Victoria sponsors council activities
that promote anti-litter or water quality messages.
The relationship between EPA Victoria and bayside
councils is reciprocal. In addition to working closely
and co-operatively with EPA Victoria, local councils
assist Beach Report by providing facilities and office
support such as fax machines and internet access to
Beach Reporters. Council by-laws officers have
taken action in response to volunteers’ litter reports,
including erecting rubbish bins at popular beaches.
Media
Local and metropolitan media are vital to
disseminate the messages and results of Beach
Report. Water quality information is published daily
in the Herald Sun’s weather page with bay beaches
classified as posing a very low, low or moderate risk
to swimmers. Television news programs publicise
the impact of stormwater pollution on the bay and
ways the public can help improve water quality.
Public and community radio stations such as 3RRR
FM and 3CR have interviewed EPA Victoria staff to
promote Beach Report, and local newspapers
around Port Phillip Bay have profiled Beach Report,
the Beach Report volunteers, the Clean Up days and
publicised the Beach Report hotline number and
website address.
32
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
For the 2000-2001 Beach Report Season, EPA
Victoria wishes to thank:
EPA Victoria Beach Report Volunteers: Nanneke
Levy (Sorrento), Mark Ferrier (Rye), Annette Strugnell
(Rosebud), John Vosti (Dromana), Carolyn Maxfield
(Safety Beach), Elmae Brewer (Mt Martha), Gerard
Cook (Mornington), David and Sheila Harwood
(Canadian Bay), Patricia Davidson (Frankston), Clare
Nelson (Long Island), Kathleen McNeill and Angie
Hogan (Seaford), John Quinn and Alexis Colgan
(Carrum), Robert Hurtig (Aspendale), Barry Horler
(Mordialloc), Shirley Straker and Penny McGuire
White (Mentone), Ian Wade (Beaumaris),
Geoff & Cheryl Nougher (Half Moon Bay), Anne
Dunstan (Sandringham), Audrey Bujdoss (Hampton),
Peter Stevens (Brighton), Phillipa Swain (St Kilda),
Yvonne Lynch (Middle Park), Simon Howe (Port
Melbourne), Amber Perry and Andrea Bickett
(Sandridge), David Murnane (Altona), Clare Polley
(Williamstown), Joyce Molyneux (Werribee South),
Jennifer & Bengt Beck-Carlson (St Helens), Jean
Kotrba (Eastern), Norman Jeavons (Fairy Dell),
Yvonne Clark (Portarlington), Kerryn Fry (St
Leonards) and Jane Cullum (Queenscliff).
The Bayside Municipalities: City of Port Phillip, City
of Greater Geelong, Wyndham City Council, Hobsons
Bay City Council, Bayside City Council, Frankston
City Council, City of Kingston, Mornington Peninsula
Shire Council, Shire of Queenscliffe.