The BEACH Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made Progress	 
Implementing the Act, but Further Actions Could Increase Public  
Health Protection (12-JUL-07, GAO-07-1073T).			 
                                                                 
Waterborne pathogens can contaminate water and sand at beaches	 
and threaten human health. Under the Beaches Environmental	 
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, the Environmental	 
Protection Agency (EPA) provides grants to states to develop	 
water quality monitoring and public notification programs. This  
statement summarizes the key findings of GAO's May 2007 report,  
Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing	 
the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection. In this report GAO assessed (1) the extent to which  
EPA has implemented the Act's provisions, (2) concerns about	 
EPA's BEACH Act grant allocation formula, and (3) described the  
experiences of the Great Lakes states in developing and 	 
implementing beach monitoring and notification programs using	 
their grant funds.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1073T					        
    ACCNO:   A72555						        
  TITLE:     The BEACH Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made Progress 
Implementing the Act, but Further Actions Could Increase Public  
Health Protection						 
     DATE:   07/12/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Contamination					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Grants to states					 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Pollution monitoring				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Public health					 
	     Water pollution control				 
	     Water quality					 
	     Water quality standards				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     E. coli Bacteria					 
	     Great Lakes					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1073T

   

     * [1]Background

          * [2]EPA Has Implemented Some But Not All of the BEACH Act Provis
          * [3]EPA's BEACH Act Grant Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect St
          * [4]Experiences of the Great Lakes and Other Eligible States in

     * [5]GAO Contacts
     * [6]GAO's Mission
     * [7]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [8]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [9]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [10]Congressional Relations
     * [11]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office
GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT
Thursday, July 12, 2007

THE BEACH ACT OF 2000

EPA and States Have Made Progress Implementing the Act, but Further
Actions Could Increase Public Health Protection

Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director
Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-07-1073T

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the
implementation of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Act, known as the BEACH Act. Congress passed the BEACH Act in 2000, to
improve states' beach monitoring programs and processes for notifying the
public of potential health risks from beach contamination. As you know,
waterborne pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites can
contaminate the water and sand at beaches and threaten human health.
Contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated water can cause
vomiting, diarrhea, and other illnesses, and may be life-threatening for
susceptible populations such as children, the elderly, and those with
impaired immune systems. State and local health officials may issue health
advisories or close beaches when they believe levels of waterborne
pathogens are high enough to threaten human health. Under the Clean Water
Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for
publishing water quality criteria that establish thresholds at which
contamination--including waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health.

Our testimony is based on GAO's recently issued report^1 on BEACH Act
implementation in the eight Great Lakes states and will cover three issues
(1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the provisions of the Act, (2)
concerns about EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act grants, and (3)
states' experiences in developing and implementing beach monitoring and
notification programs using BEACH Act grants. Although, our testimony and
recent report addressed the Great Lakes states, published EPA data and
information presented at EPA-sponsored BEACH Act conferences suggest that
the findings are applicable nationwide. In summary, we found the
following:

           o EPA has implemented seven of the BEACH Act's nine requirements
           and provisions, but has missed statutory deadlines for two
           critical requirements. Among other things, EPA promulgated water
           quality standards for the 21 states and territories that had not
           adopted EPA's water quality criteria and developed a national list
           of beaches. However, EPA has not (1) completed the pathogen and
           human health studies that were required by 2003 or (2) published
           new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen
           indicators that were required by 2005. EPA told us that the
           required studies are ongoing and that the development of new
           pathogen indicators would follow completion of the studies, but
           completing these actions may take an additional 4 to 5 years. We
           recommended that EPA establish a definitive time line for
           completing the studies required by the BEACH Act and for
           publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and
           pathogen indicators. EPA concurred with this recommendation.

           o Although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH
           Act grants between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and
           territories, EPA's formula for distributing BEACH Act grant funds
           does not reflect the states' varied monitoring needs. EPA's
           formula is based on three factors--length of beach season; beach
           miles, as measured by length of shoreline; and beach use, as
           measured by coastal population. If the program had received its
           full funding of $30 million annually that EPA used to develop the
           formula, each of the formula factors would have had a roughly
           equal impact on the grant allocations made to states. However, the
           program has received only about $10 million annually.
           Consequently, the beach season factor which EPA uses as a baseline
           for calculating states' grants has had a greater influence (about
           82 percent) on the total BEACH Act grants each state received,
           while beach miles and beach use, which vary widely among the
           states and can impact the public health risk, have had a
           significantly smaller impact (about 9 percent each). As a result,
           states that have greater beach monitoring needs because of their
           longer coastlines and larger coastal populations, receive almost
           the same amount of funding as those states with smaller coastlines
           and coastal populations. We recommended that EPA reevaluate the
           funding formula it uses to distribute BEACH Act grants. While EPA
           concurred in the need to reevaluate the formula, it stated that
           some states were reluctant to make any significant changes to the
           formula.

           o States' use of BEACH Act grant funds to develop and implement
           beach monitoring and public notification programs has generally
           increased the extent of beach monitoring. However, states vary
           considerably in the frequency with which they monitor beaches, the
           monitoring methods used, and the means by which they notify the
           public of associated health risks. These differences are due, in
           part, to the current BEACH Act funding levels, which some state
           officials said are inadequate for sufficient monitoring. Moreover,
           while increased frequency of monitoring has helped states and
           localities identify the scope of contamination, in most cases, the
           underlying causes of the contamination remain unknown and
           unaddressed. Local officials from within the Great Lakes states
           told us that they generally do not have the funds to investigate
           and identify sources of contamination or to take actions to
           mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that states can not
           use BEACH grants for this purpose. To assist states and localities
           nationwide in identifying and addressing sources of beach
           contamination, we recommended that the Congress consider allowing
           states some flexibility to use their BEACH Act grants to undertake
           limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at
           monitored beaches and take certain actions to mitigate these
           problems. In addition, we recommended that EPA provide states and
           localities with specific guidance on monitoring frequency and
           public notification.

^1 Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection,
[12]GAO-07-591  (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2007).

Background

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for publishing water quality
criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination--including
waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health. States are required to
develop standards, or legal limits, for these pathogens by either adopting
EPA's recommended water quality criteria or other criteria that EPA
determines are equally protective of human health. The states then use
these pathogen standards to assess water quality at their recreational
beaches. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act to require the 35
eligible states and territories to update their recreational water quality
standards using EPA's 1986 criteria for pathogen indicators. In addition,
the BEACH Act required EPA to (1) complete studies on pathogens in coastal
recreational waters and how they affect human health, including developing
rapid methods of detecting pathogens by October 2003, and (2) publish new
or revised water quality criteria by October 2005, to be reviewed and
revised as necessary every 5 years thereafter.

The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to award grants to states, localities,
and tribes to develop comprehensive beach monitoring and public
notification programs for their recreational beaches. To be eligible for
BEACH Act grants, states are required to (1) identify their recreational
beaches, (2) prioritize their recreational beaches for monitoring based on
their use by the public and the risk to human health, and (3) establish a
public notification program. EPA grant criteria give states some
flexibility on the frequency of monitoring, methods of monitoring, and
processes for notifying the public when pathogen indicators exceed state
standards, including whether to issue health advisories or close beaches.
Although the BEACH Act authorized EPA to provide $30 million in grants
annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2005,^2 since fiscal year 2001,
congressional conference reports accompanying EPA's appropriations acts
have directed about $10 million annually for BEACH Act grants and EPA has
followed this congressional direction when allocating funds to the
program.

EPA Has Implemented Some But Not All of the BEACH Act Provisions

EPA has made progress implementing the BEACH Act's provisions but has
missed statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. Of the nine
actions required by the BEACH Act, EPA has taken action on the following
seven:

Propose water quality standards and criteria--The BEACH Act required each
state with coastal recreation waters to incorporate EPA's published
criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators, or criteria EPA considers
equally protective of human health, into their state water quality
standards by April 10, 2004. The BEACH Act also required EPA to propose
regulations setting forth federal water quality standards for those states
that did not meet the deadline. On November 16, 2004, EPA published in the
Federal Register a final rule promulgating its 1986 water quality
standards for E. coli and enterococci for the 21 states and territories
that had not adopted water quality criteria that were as protective of
human health as EPA's approved water quality criteria. According to EPA,
all 35 states with coastal recreational waters are now using EPA's 1986
criteria, compared with the 11 states that were using these criteria in
2000.

Provide BEACH Act grants--The BEACH Act authorized EPA to distribute
annual grants to states, territories, tribes and, in certain situations,
local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring and
notification programs. Since 2001, EPA has awarded approximately $51
million in development and implementation grants for beach monitoring and
notification programs to all 35 states. Alaska is the only eligible state
that has not yet received a BEACH Act implementation grant because it is
still in the process of developing a monitoring and public notification
program consistent with EPA's grant performance criteria. EPA expects to
distribute approximately $10 million for the 2007 beach season subject to
the availability of funds.

^2 Although the BEACH Act was originally authorized through 2005, Congress
continued to fund EPA's efforts under the act in 2006 and 2007.

Publish beach monitoring guidance and performance criteria for grants--The
BEACH Act required EPA to develop guidance and performance criteria for
beach monitoring and assessment for states receiving BEACH Act grants by
April 2002. After a year of consultations with coastal states and
organizations, EPA responded to this requirement in 2002 by issuing its
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. To
be eligible for BEACH Act grants, EPA requires recipients to develop (1) a
list of beaches evaluated and ranked according to risk, (2) methods for
monitoring water quality at their beaches, such as when and where to
conduct sampling, and (3) plans for notifying the public of the risk from
pathogen contamination at beaches, among other requirements.

Develop a list of coastal recreational waters--The BEACH Act required EPA
to identify and maintain a publicly available list of coastal recreational
waters adjacent to beaches or other publicly accessible areas, with
information on whether or not each is subject to monitoring and public
notification. In March 2004, EPA published its first comprehensive
National List of Beaches based on information that the states had provided
as a condition for receiving BEACH Act grants. The list identified 6,099
coastal recreational beaches, of which 3,472, or 57 percent, were being
monitored. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to periodically update its
initial list and publish revisions in the Federal Register. However, EPA
has not yet published a revised list, in part because some states have not
provided updated information.

Develop a water pollution database--The BEACH Act required EPA to
establish, maintain, and make available to the public an electronic
national water pollution database. In May 2005, EPA unveiled "eBeaches," a
collection of data pulled from multiple databases on the location of
beaches, water quality monitoring, and public notifications of beach
closures and advisories. This information has been made available to the
public through an online tool called BEACON (Beach Advisory and Closing
Online Notification). EPA officials acknowledge that eBeaches has had some
implementation problems, including periods of downtime when states were
unable to submit their data, and states have had difficulty compiling the
data and getting it into EPA's desired format. EPA is working to
centralize its databases so that states can more easily submit information
and expects the data reporting will become easier for states as they
further develop their system.

Provide technical assistance on floatable materials--The BEACH Act
required EPA to provide technical assistance to help states, tribes, and
localities develop their own assessment and monitoring procedures for
floatable debris in coastal recreational waters. EPA responded by
publishing guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris in
August 2002. The guidance provided examples of monitoring and assessment
programs that have addressed the impact of floatable debris and examples
of mitigation activities to address floatable debris.

Provide a report to Congress on status of BEACH Act implementation--The
BEACH Act required EPA to report to Congress 4 years after enactment of
the act and every 4 years thereafter on the status of implementation. EPA
completed its first report for Congress, Implementing the BEACH Act of
2000: Report to Congress in October 2006, which was 2 years after the
October 2004 deadline. EPA officials noted that they missed the deadline
because they needed additional time to include updates on current research
and states' BEACH Act implementation activities and to complete both
internal and external reviews.

EPA has not yet completed the following two BEACH Act requirements:

Conduct epidemiological studies--The BEACH Act required EPA to publish new
epidemiological studies concerning pathogens and the protection of human
health for marine and freshwater by April 10, 2002, and to complete the
studies by October 10, 2003. The studies were to: (1) assess potential
human health risks resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal waters;
(2) identify appropriate and effective pathogen indicator(s) to improve
the timely detection of pathogens in coastal waters; (3) identify
appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-effective methods for
detecting the presence of pathogens; and (4) provide guidance for state
application of the criteria. EPA initiated its multiyear National
Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water Study
in 2001 in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. The first component of this study was to develop faster
pathogen indicator testing procedures. The second component was to further
clarify the health risk of swimming in contaminated water, as measured by
these faster pathogen indicator testing procedures. While EPA completed
these studies for freshwater--showing a promising relationship between a
faster pathogen indicator and possible adverse health effects from
bacterial contamination--it has not completed the studies for marine
water. EPA initiated marine studies in Biloxi, Mississippi, in the summer
of 2005, 3 years past the statutory deadline for beginning this work, but
the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA initiated two
additional marine water studies in the summer of 2007.

Publish new pathogen criteria--The BEACH Act required EPA to use the
results of its epidemiological studies to identify new pathogen indicators
with associated criteria, as well as new pathogen testing measures by
October 2005. However, since EPA has not completed the studies on which
these criteria were to be based, this task has been delayed.

In the absence of new criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators,
states continue to use EPA's 1986 criteria to monitor their beaches. An
EPA official told us that EPA has not established a time line for
completing these two remaining provisions of the BEACH Act but estimates
it may take an additional 4-5 years. One EPA official told us that the
initial time frames in the act may not have been realistic. EPA's failure
to complete studies on the health effects of pathogens for marine waters
and failure to publish revised water quality criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to file
suit against EPA on August 2, 2006, for failing to comply with the
statutory obligations of the BEACH Act.

To ensure that EPA complies with the requirements laid out in the BEACH
Act, we recommended that it establish a definitive time line for
completing the studies on pathogens and their effects on human health, and
for publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators.

EPA's BEACH Act Grant Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect States' Monitoring
Needs

While EPA distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants
between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and territories, its grant
distribution formula does not adequately account for states' widely varied
beach monitoring needs. When Congress passed the BEACH Act in 2000, it
authorized $30 million in grants annually, but the act did not specify how
EPA should distribute grants to eligible states. EPA determined that
initially $2 million would be distributed equally to all eligible states
to cover the base cost of developing water quality monitoring and
notification programs. EPA then developed a distribution formula for
future annual grants that reflected the BEACH Act's emphasis on beach use
and risk to human health. EPA's funding formula includes the following
three factors:

           o Length of beach season--EPA selected beach season length as a
           factor because states with longer beach seasons would require more
           monitoring.

           o Beach use--EPA selected beach use as a factor because more
           heavily used beaches would expose a larger number of people to
           pathogens, increasing the public health risk and thus requiring
           more monitoring. EPA used coastal population as a proxy for beach
           use because information on the number of beach visitors was not
           consistently available across all the states.

           o Beach miles--EPA selected beach miles because states with longer
           shorelines would require more monitoring. EPA used shoreline
           miles, which may include industrial and other nonpublicly
           accessible areas, as a proxy for beach miles because verifiable
           data for beach miles was not available.

Once EPA determined which funding formula factors to use, EPA officials
weighted the factors. EPA intended that the beach season factor would
provide the base funding and would be augmented by the beach use and beach
mile factors. EPA established a series of fixed amounts that correspond to
states' varying lengths of beach seasons to cover the general expenses
associated with a beach monitoring program. For example, EPA estimated
that a beach season of 3 or fewer months would require approximately two
full-time employees costing $150,000, while states with beach seasons
greater than 6 months would require $300,000. Once the allotments for
beach season length were distributed, EPA determined that 50 percent of
the remaining funds would be distributed according to states' beach use,
and the other 50 percent would be distributed according to states' beach
miles, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula

Formula factor      Amount of grant                                        
Beach season length Less than 3 months: $150,000^a                         
                                                                              
                       3-4 months: $200,000                                   
                                                                              
                       5-6 months: $250,000                                   
                                                                              
                       Greater than 6 months: $300,000                        
Beach use           50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season 
                       length funding.                                        
Beach miles         50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season 
                       length funding.                                        

Source: EPA.

aStates with less than a 3-month beach season only receive the $150,000 in
beach season length funding.

EPA officials told us that, using the distribution formula above and
assuming a $30 million authorization, the factors were to have received
relatively equal weight in calculating states' grants and would have
resulted in the following allocation: beach season--27 percent (about $8
million); beach use--37 percent (about $11 million); and beach miles--37
percent (about $11 million). However, because funding levels for BEACH Act
grants have been about $10 million each year, once the approximately $8
million, of the total available for grants, was allotted for beach season
length, this left only $2 million, instead of nearly $22 million, to be
distributed equally between the beach use and beach miles factors. This
resulted in the following allocation: beach season--82 percent (about $8
million); beach use--9 percent (about $1 million); and beach miles--9
percent (about $1 million).

Because beach use and beach miles vary widely among the states, but
account for a much smaller portion of the distribution formula, BEACH Act
grant amounts may vary little between states that have significantly
different shorelines or coastal populations. For example, across the Great
Lakes, there is significant variation in coastal populations and in miles
of shoreline, but current BEACH Act grant allocations are relatively flat.
As a result, Indiana, which has 45 miles of shoreline and a coastal
population of 741,468, received about $205,800 in 2006, while Michigan,
which has 3,224 miles of shoreline and a coastal population of 4,842,023,
received about $278,450 in 2006. Similarly, the current formula gives
localities that have a longer beach season and significantly smaller
coastal populations an advantage over localities that have a shorter beach
season but significantly greater population. For example, Guam and
American Samoa with 12 month beach seasons and coastal populations of less
than 200,000 each receive larger grants than Maryland and Virginia, with 4
month beach seasons and coastal populations of 3.6 and 4.4 million,
respectively.

If EPA reweighted the factors so that they were still roughly equal given
the $10 million allocation, we believe that BEACH Act grants to the states
would better reflect their needs. Consequently, we recommended that if
current funding levels remain the same, that the agency should revise the
formula for distributing BEACH Act grants to better reflect the states'
varied monitoring needs by reevaluating the formula factors to determine
if the weight of the beach season factor should be reduced and if the
weight of the other factors, such as beach use and beach miles should be
increased.

Experiences of the Great Lakes and Other Eligible States in Implementing BEACH
Act Grants

States' use of BEACH Act grants to develop and implement beach monitoring
and public notification programs has increased the number of beaches being
monitored and the frequency of monitoring. However, states vary
considerably in the frequency in which they monitor beaches, the
monitoring methods used, and the means by which they notify the public of
health risks. Specifically, 34 of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH
Act grants to develop beach monitoring and public notification programs;
and the remaining state, Alaska, is in the process of setting up its
program. However, these programs have been implemented somewhat
inconsistently by the states which could lead to inconsistent levels of
public health protection at beaches in the United States. In addition,
while the Great Lakes and other eligible states have been able to increase
their understanding of the scope of contamination as a result of BEACH Act
grants, the underlying causes of this contamination usually remain
unresolved, primarily due to a lack of funding. For example, EPA reports
that nationwide when beaches are found to have high levels of
contamination, the most frequent source of contamination listed as the
cause is "unknown".

BEACH Act officials from six of the eight Great Lakes states that we
reviewed--Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and
Wisconsin--reported that the number of beaches being monitored in their
state has increased since the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000. For
example, in Minnesota, state officials reported that only one beach was
being monitored prior to the BEACH Act, and there are now 39 beaches being
monitored in three counties. In addition, EPA data show that, in 1999, the
number of beaches identified in the Great Lakes was about 330, with about
250 being monitored. In 2005, the most recent year for which data are
available, the Great Lakes states identified almost 900 beaches of which
about 550 were being monitored.

In addition to an increase in the number of beaches being monitored, the
frequency of monitoring at many of the beaches in the Great Lakes has
increased. We estimated that 45 percent of Great Lakes beaches increased
the frequency of their monitoring since the passage of the BEACH Act. For
example, Indiana officials told us that prior to the BEACH Act, monitoring
was done a few times per week at their beaches but now monitoring is done
5-7 days per week. Similarly, local officials in one Ohio county reported
that they used to test some beaches along Lake Erie twice a month prior to
the BEACH Act but now they test these beaches once a week. States outside
of the Great Lakes region have reported similar benefits of receiving
BEACH Act grants. For example, state officials from Connecticut, Florida,
and Washington reported increases in the number of beaches they are now
able to monitor or the frequency of the monitoring they are now able to
conduct.

Because of the information available from BEACH Act monitoring activities,
state and local beach officials are now better able to determine which of
their beaches are more likely to be contaminated, which are relatively
clean, and which may require additional monitoring resources to help them
better understand the levels of contamination that may be present. For
example, state BEACH Act officials reported that they now know which
beaches are regularly contaminated or are being regularly tested for
elevated levels of contamination. We determined that officials at 54
percent of Great Lakes beaches we surveyed believe that their ability to
make advisory and closure decisions has increased or greatly increased
since they initiated BEACH Act water quality monitoring programs.

However, because EPA's grant criteria and the BEACH Act give states and
localities some flexibility in implementing their programs we also
identified significant variability among the Great Lakes states beach
monitoring and notification programs. We believe that this variability is
most likely also occurring in other states as well because of the lack of
specificity in EPA's guidance. Specifically, we identified the following
differences in how the Great Lake states have implemented their programs.

Frequency of monitoring. Some Great Lakes states are monitoring their
high-priority beaches almost daily, while other states monitor their
high-priority beaches as little as one to two times per week. The
variation in monitoring frequency in the Great Lakes states is due in part
to the availability of funding. For example, state officials in Michigan
and Wisconsin reported insufficient funding for monitoring.

Methods of sampling. Most of the Great Lakes states and localities use
similar sampling methods to monitor water quality at local beaches. For
example, officials at 79 percent of the beaches we surveyed reported that
they collected water samples during the morning, and 78 percent reported
that they always collected water samples from the same location.
Collecting data at the same time of day and from the same site ensures
more consistent water quality data. However, we found significant
variations in the depth at which local officials in the Great Lakes states
were taking water samples. According to EPA, depth is a key determinant of
microbial indicator levels. EPA's guidance recommends that beach officials
sample at the same depth--knee depth, or approximately 3-feet deep--for
all beaches to ensure consistency and comparability among samples. Great
Lakes states varied considerably in the depths at which they sampled
water, with some sampling occurring at 1-6 inches and other sampling at
37-48 inches.

Public notification. Local officials in the Great Lakes differ in the
information they use to decide whether to issue health advisories or close
beaches when water contamination exceeds EPA criteria and in how to notify
the public of their decision. These differences reflect states' varied
standards for triggering an advisory, closure, or both. Also, we found
that states' and localities' means of notifying the public of health
advisories or beach closures vary across the Great Lakes. Some states post
water quality monitoring results on signs at beaches; some provide results
on the Internet or on telephone hotlines; and some distribute the
information to local media.

To address this variability in how the states are implementing their BEACH
Act grant funded monitoring and notification programs, we recommended that
EPA provide states and localities with specific guidance on monitoring
frequency and methods and public notification.

Further, even though BEACH Act funds have increased the level of
monitoring being undertaken by the states, the specific sources of
contamination at most beaches are not known. For example, we determined
that local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes' beaches did not know
the sources of bacterial contamination causing water quality standards to
be exceeded during the 2006 beach season and EPA officials confirmed that
the primary source of contamination at beaches nationwide is reported by
state officials as "unknown." For example, because state and local
officials in the Great Lakes states do not have enough information on the
specific sources of contamination and generally lack funds for
remediation, most of the sources of contamination at beaches have not been
addressed. Local officials from these states indicated that they had taken
actions to address the sources of contamination at an estimated 14 percent
of the monitored beaches.

EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grant funds generally may be used only
for monitoring and notification purposes. While none of the eight Great
Lakes state officials suggested that the BEACH Act was intended to help
remediate the sources of contamination, several state officials believe
that it may be more beneficial to use BEACH Act grants to identify and
remediate sources of contamination rather than just continue to monitor
water quality at beaches and notify the public when contamination occurs.
Local officials also reported a need for funding to identify and address
sources of contamination. Furthermore, at EPA's National Beaches
Conference in October 2006, a panel of federal and academic researchers
recommended that EPA provide the states with more freedom on how they
spend their BEACH Act funding.

To address this issue, we recommended that as the Congress considers
reauthorization of the BEACH Act, that it should consider providing EPA
some flexibility in awarding BEACH Act grants to allow states to undertake
limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at
monitored beaches and certain actions to mitigate these problems, as
specified by EPA.

                                   _ _ _ _ _

In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, EPA has made progress in implementing
many of the BEACH Act's requirements but it may still be several years
before EPA completes the pathogen studies and develops the new water
quality criteria required by the act. Until these actions are completed,
states will have to continue to use existing outdated methods. In
addition, the formula EPA developed to distribute BEACH Act grants to the
states was based on the assumption that the program would receive its
fully authorized allocation of $30 million. Because the program has not
received full funding and EPA has not adjusted the formula to reflect
reduced funding levels, the current distribution of grants fails to
adequately take into account the varied monitoring needs of the states.
Finally, as evidenced by the experience of the Great Lakes states, the
BEACH Act has helped states increase their level of monitoring and their
knowledge about the scope of contamination at area beaches. However, the
variability in how the states are conducting their monitoring, how they
are notifying the public, and their lack of funding to address the source
of contamination continues to raise concerns about the adequacy of
protection that is being provided to beachgoers. This concludes our
prepared statement, we would be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.

GAO Contacts

If you have any questions about this statement, please contact Anu K.
Mittal @ (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Other key contributors to this
statement include Ed Zadjura (Assistant Director), Eric Bachhuber, Omari
Norman, and Sherry McDonald.

(360864)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [13]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[14]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [15]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 
E-mail: [16][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [17][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [18][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

[19]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1073T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841or
[email protected].

Highlights of [20]GAO-07-1073T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives

July 12, 2007

BEACH ACT OF 2000

EPA and States Have Made Progress Implementing the Act, but Further
Actions Could Increase Public Health Protection

Waterborne pathogens can contaminate water and sand at beaches and
threaten human health. Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
provides grants to states to develop water quality monitoring and public
notification programs.

This statement summarizes the key findings of GAO's May 2007 report, Great
Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act,
but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection. In this
report GAO assessed (1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the Act's
provisions, (2) concerns about EPA's BEACH Act grant allocation formula,
and (3) described the experiences of the Great Lakes states in developing
and implementing beach monitoring and notification programs using their
grant funds.

[21]What GAO Recommends

In the May 2007 report, GAO recommended that EPA distribute grant funds to
better reflect states' monitoring needs and help states improve the
consistency of their monitoring and notification activities; and the
Congress consider providing more flexibility to allow states to use some
BEACH Act funds to investigate and mitigate contamination sources. GAO is
not making any additional recommendations in this statement.

EPA has taken steps to implement most BEACH Act provisionsbut has missed
statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. While EPA has developed
a national list of beaches and improved the uniformity of state water
quality standards, it has not (1) completed the pathogen and human health
studies required by 2003 or (2) published the new or revised water quality
criteria for pathogens required by 2005. EPA stated that the required
studies are ongoing, and although some studies were initiated in the
summer of 2005, the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA
subsequently initiated two additional water studies in the summer of 2007.
According to EPA, completion of the studies and development of the new
criteria may take an additional 4 to 5 years. Further, although EPA has
distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants from 2001-2006,
the formula EPA uses to make the grants does not accurately reflect the
monitoring needs of the states. This occurs because the formula emphasizes
the length of the beach season more than the other factors in the
formula--beach miles and beach use. These other factors vary widely among
the states, can greatly influence the amount of monitoring a state needs
to undertake, and can increase the public health risk.

Thirty-four of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH Act grants to
develop beach monitoring and public notification programs. Alaska is still
in the process of developing its program. However, because state programs
vary they may not provide consistent levels of public health protection
nationwide. GAO found that the states' monitoring and notification
programs varied considerably in the frequency with which beaches were
monitored, the monitoring methods used, and how the public was notified of
potential health risks. For example, some Great Lakes states monitor their
high-priority beaches as little as one or two times per week, while others
monitor their high-priority beaches daily. In addition, when local
officials review similar water quality results, some may choose to only
issue a health advisory while others may choose to close the beach.
According to state and local officials, these inconsistencies are in part
due to the lack of adequate funding for their beach monitoring and
notification programs.

The frequency of water quality monitoring has increased nationwide since
passage of the Act, helping states and localities to identify the scope of
contamination. However, in most cases, the underlying causes of
contamination remain unknown. Some localities report that they do not have
the funds to investigate the source of the contamination or take actions
to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grants
generally may not be used for these purposes. For example, local officials
at 67 percent of Great Lakes beaches reported that, when results of water
quality testing indicated contamination at levels exceeding the applicable
standards during the 2006 beach season, they did not know the source of
the contamination, and only 14 percent reported that they had taken
actions to address the sources of contamination.

References

Visible links
  12. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-591
  13. http://www.gao.gov/
  14. http://www.gao.gov/
  15. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  16. mailto:[email protected]
  17. mailto:[email protected]
  18. mailto:[email protected]
  19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1073T
  20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1073T
*** End of document. ***