    Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing
    the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
    Protection (01-MAY-07, GAO-07-591).

    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) developed limits on pathogens that states
    use to assess beach water quality. EPA can also provide grants to
    states to develop water quality monitoring and public
    notification programs. GAO was asked to assess (1) the extent to
    which EPA implemented the BEACH Act including how it allocated
    grants to the states, (2) the monitoring and notification
    programs developed by Great Lakes states, and (3) the effect of
    the BEACH Act on water quality monitoring and contamination at
    Great Lakes beaches.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-591
        ACCNO:   A68947
      TITLE:     Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in
    Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve
    Public Health Protection
         DATE:   05/01/2007
      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-07-591

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]EPA Has Taken Steps to Implement the BEACH Act, but Its Gran

              * [4]EPA Has Implemented Some but Not All BEACH Act Requirements
              * [5]EPA's BEACH Act Grant Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect St

         * [6]Great Lakes States' Beach Monitoring and Public Notification

              * [7]Great Lakes States Used BEACH Act Grants to Develop Beach Mo
              * [8]Variation in Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Method

         * [9]The BEACH Act Has Helped Identify the Scope of Contamination

              * [10]Increased Monitoring Has Helped States Identify the Scope of
              * [11]Most of the Underlying Causes of Contamination Remain Unknow

         * [12]Conclusions
         * [13]Matter for Congressional Consideration
         * [14]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [15]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

              * [16]EPA's BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula
              * [17]Simulations of Alternative BEACH Act Distribution Formulas

         * [18]GAO Contact
         * [19]Staff Acknowledgments
         * [20]GAO's Mission
         * [21]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [22]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [23]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [24]Congressional Relations
         * [25]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    May 2007

    GREAT LAKES

    EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but
    Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection
    GAO-07-591

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 4
    Background 6
    EPA Has Taken Steps to Implement the BEACH Act, but Its Grant Distribution
    Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect States' Monitoring Needs 11
    Great Lakes States' Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Programs Vary
    Across Localities and May Not Provide Consistent Levels of Public Health
    Protection 21
    The BEACH Act Has Helped Identify the Scope of Contamination, but
    Underlying Causes Remain Unaddressed 31
    Conclusions 40
    Matter for Congressional Consideration 41
    Recommendations for Executive Action 41
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42
    Appendix I Scope and Methodology 45
    Appendix II Map of 35 States and Territories with Coastal Recreational
    Waters 49
    Appendix III GAO's Calculations for an Alternative BEACH Act Grant
    Distribution Formula 50
    Appendix IV Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 57
    Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

    Tables

    Table 1: BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula 19
    Table 2: BEACH Act Funding Formula Inputs for Great Lakes States 20
    Table 3: Number of Great Lakes Beaches Identified, Number and Percentage
    of Beaches Being Monitored for the 2006 Beach Season 23
    Table 4: Great Lakes Prioritized Beaches Reported by States for Monitoring
    Using BEACH Act Grant Funds as of October 2006 24
    Table 5: Monitoring Frequency of Great Lake Beaches by Priority 26
    Table 6: Variation in Great Lakes States' Pathogen Indicator (E. coli)
    Thresholds and Responses to Water Quality Exceedances 29
    Table 7: Great Lakes Beaches Reported Monitored by EPA in 2005, GAO
    Sample, and Sample Disposition by State 46
    Table 8: EPA Beach Season Length Factor and States Associated Funding
    Levels 50
    Table 9: EPA's Formula for Distributing $30 Million in BEACH Act Grants 51
    Table 10: EPA's Formula for Distributing $10 Million in BEACH Act Grants
    52
    Table 11: Factors Used in BEACH Act Formula Allocations and Resulting 2006
    Grants by State and Territory 52
    Table 12: Difference in Allocations Using Current and Alternative Formulas
    55

    Figures

    Figure 1: Map of the Five Great Lakes and Eight Great Lakes States with
    Population Density by County 7
    Figure 2: Potential Sources of Fecal Contamination at Beaches in the Great
    Lakes 9
    Figure 3: Time Lag Associated with Current Water Quality Monitoring and
    Public Notification Methods 17
    Figure 4: Reported Depth of Water Quality Sampling at Great Lakes Beaches
    28
    Figure 5: Variation in Public Notification Signs at Great Lakes Beaches 30
    Figure 6: Number of Identified Beaches and Number of Identified Beaches
    Monitored in the Great Lakes from 1999 to 2005 32
    Figure 7: Estimated Changes in Frequency of Monitoring at Great Lakes
    Beaches Since Passage of the BEACH Act 33
    Figure 8: Number of Great Lakes Identified Beaches Monitored and Monitored
    Beaches with at Least One Closure or Advisory from 1999 to 2005 34
    Figure 9: Estimated Change in Ability to Make Decisions Based on Water
    Quality Data Since Passage of the BEACH Act 35
    Figure 10: Changes to Beach Grooming Process at a Racine, Wisconsin, Beach
    37
    Figure 11: Estimated Change in Public Awareness of Personal Actions on
    Water Quality at Great Lakes Beaches Since Passage of the BEACH Act 38

    Abbreviations

    BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
    EPA Environmental Protection Agency
    NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    USGS United States Geological Survey

    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.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    May 1, 2007

    Congressional Requesters

    There are hundreds of beaches along the 5,000 miles of Great Lakes'
    shoreline that spans eight states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
    New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These beaches provide
    recreational opportunities to more than 30 million residents and visitors
    each year. However, waterborne pathogens--bacteria, viruses, and parasites
    that live in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and other warm-blooded
    animals--can contaminate the water and sand at these beaches and threaten
    human health. The key contributors to this contamination are partially
    treated discharges from wastewater treatment plants; droppings from
    wildlife, such as gulls and geese; and agricultural and municipal waste
    that is often transported to beach-area waters by rain and storm water
    runoff. 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. The Natural Resources
    Defense Council reported that, in 2005, the Great Lakes beaches had at
    least 2,740 days of health advisories or beach closures. There are
    hundreds of beaches along the 5,000 miles of Great Lakes' shoreline that
    spans eight states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These beaches provide recreational
    opportunities to more than 30 million residents and visitors each year.
    However, waterborne pathogens--bacteria, viruses, and parasites that live
    in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and other warm-blooded
    animals--can contaminate the water and sand at these beaches and threaten
    human health. The key contributors to this contamination are partially
    treated discharges from wastewater treatment plants; droppings from
    wildlife, such as gulls and geese; and agricultural and municipal waste
    that is often transported to beach-area waters by rain and storm water
    runoff. 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. The Natural Resources
    Defense Council reported that, in 2005, the Great Lakes beaches had at
    least 2,740 days of health advisories or beach closures.

    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. 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. However, because
    many pathogens are difficult and costly to detect, state and local
    officials have typically used more easily identified organisms that
    indicate that pathogens may be present. During the 1960s and 1970s, EPA
    evaluated several types of bacteria for use as pathogen indicators and
    recommended using fecal coliforms--bacteria found in the intestines of
    humans and warm-blooded animals--as a pathogen indicator for states'
    recreational water quality standards. By 1986, new research questioned the
    reliability of using fecal coliforms as a pathogen indicator, prompting
    EPA to recommend new criteria using E.coli and enterococci as pathogen
    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. 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. However, because
    many pathogens are difficult and costly to detect, state and local
    officials have typically used more easily identified organisms that
    indicate that pathogens may be present. During the 1960s and 1970s, EPA
    evaluated several types of bacteria for use as pathogen indicators and
    recommended using fecal coliforms--bacteria found in the intestines of
    humans and warm-blooded animals--as a pathogen indicator for states'
    recreational water quality standards. By 1986, new research questioned the
    reliability of using fecal coliforms as a pathogen indicator, prompting
    EPA to recommend new criteria using E.coli and enterococci as pathogen
    indicators. However, as of 2000, only 11 states had adopted EPA's
    recommended 1986 criteria for testing their recreational waters.

    Recognizing the need for consistent water quality criteria at recreational
    beaches, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
    Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 to improve states' beach monitoring programs
    and processes for notifying the public of potential health risks from
    contamination at beaches. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act to
    require the 35 eligible states and territories--including the 8 Great
    Lakes states--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 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. The BEACH
    Act authorized EPA to provide $30 million in grants annually for fiscal
    years 2001 through 2005.^1 However, since fiscal year 2001, congressional
    conference reports accompanying EPA's appropriations acts have directed
    about $10 million annually for grants under the act. EPA has followed this
    congressional direction when allocating funds to the program.

    In the context of continuing health advisories and beach closures at Great
    Lakes beaches since passage of the BEACH Act, you asked us to (1)
    determine the extent to which EPA has implemented the act and evaluate
    EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act grants, (2) describe and evaluate
    the monitoring and notification programs the eight Great Lakes states have
    developed using BEACH Act grants, and (3) determine the effect that the
    BEACH Act has had on water quality monitoring and contamination at Great
    Lakes beaches.

    ^1Although the BEACH Act was originally authorized through 2005, Congress
    continued to fund EPA's efforts under the act in 2006 and 2007.

    To determine the status of EPA's implementation of the BEACH Act, we
    analyzed the act, obtained and analyzed relevant agency documentation, and
    interviewed officials from EPA headquarters and Region 5 (Chicago)
    offices. To evaluate EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act grants, we
    obtained and analyzed EPA data on funding levels, interviewed officials
    that developed the allocation formula, and conducted simulations to
    demonstrate how alterations of the formula would shift funding and
    potentially affect current allocations. To evaluate the programs the eight
    Great Lakes states have developed using their BEACH Act grants, we
    conducted a survey of a random sample of 140 of the 563 beaches EPA
    identified as being monitored in the Great Lakes in 2005. Information
    obtained through this survey was used to produce estimates^2 of beach
    monitoring and notification activities at monitored Great Lakes beaches
    for the 2006 beach season. We distributed an electronic questionnaire via
    e-mail to local officials at a random sample of 140 beaches, and 93
    percent of those surveyed responded to our questionnaire. Information
    obtained through this survey was used to produce estimates of beach
    monitoring and notification activities for the entire population of
    monitored Great Lakes beaches for the 2006 beach season. In addition, we
    interviewed BEACH Act administrators from each of the Great Lakes states.
    To determine the effect the BEACH Act has had on Great Lakes beach
    monitoring and contamination levels, we analyzed the results of our
    questionnaire and the information provided by the eight state BEACH Act
    administrators. We also met with and gathered information from other
    agencies and nonprofit organizations working on Great Lakes issues, such
    as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS), the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
    Greater Chicago, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. We took steps
    to assess the reliability of EPA data on monitored beaches. Appendix I
    includes more information about our scope and methodology. We conducted
    our work from June 2006 through March 2007 in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards.

    ^2In this report, all percentages based on our survey are estimates and
    subject to sampling error. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage
    estimates from this survey have 95 percent confidence intervals of within
    plus or minus 10 percentage points of the estimate.

    Results in Brief

    EPA has implemented seven of the BEACH Act's nine requirements and
    provisions. For example, EPA promulgated water quality standards for the
    21 states and territories that had not adopted EPA's 1986 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, but may take an additional 4 to 5 years to
    complete, and that the development of new pathogen indicators would follow
    completion of the studies. 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 considered
    the BEACH Act's emphasis on beach use and risk to human health in
    developing the formula, which 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, each of the three factors would have had
    approximately the same level of influence on the amount of BEACH Act grant
    funds allocated to the states. However, because funding allocations have
    only been about $10 million annually, the beach season factor 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, while the Great Lakes
    state's beach monitoring needs vary widely because of their differing
    coastlines and coastal populations, the amount of each state's BEACH Act
    grant is almost the same. For example, 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.

    Each of the eight Great Lakes states has used its BEACH Act grant funding
    to develop beach monitoring and public notification programs, but these
    programs vary across states and localities and may not consistently
    protect public health. Prior to the BEACH Act, only five of the eight
    Great Lakes states had water quality monitoring programs, and now all
    eight have a program in place. However, the Great Lake states' monitoring
    and notification programs vary considerably in the frequency with which
    they monitor their beaches, their monitoring methods, and their means of
    notifying the public of health risks. For example, some states monitor
    beaches they have designated as high priority as little as one or two
    times per week, while others monitor their high-priority beaches daily.
    These differences are due, in part, to the current BEACH Act funding
    levels, which some Great Lakes state officials reported are inadequate for
    sufficient monitoring. In addition, when local officials review water
    quality results, they may make different decisions on whether or not to
    issue a health advisory or close a beach even though the results show the
    same level of contamination. This happens because, according to Great
    Lakes states BEACH Act administrators, two states only issue health
    advisories, two states only close beaches, and four states may take either
    of these actions when water quality standards have been exceeded.

    Since the passage of the BEACH Act, the frequency of water quality
    monitoring at Great Lakes beaches has increased, helping states and
    localities to identify the scope of contamination; however, in most cases,
    the underlying causes of the contamination remain unknown and unaddressed.
    Local officials reported that the frequency of monitoring had increased at
    45 percent of Great Lakes beaches since the passage of the BEACH Act. The
    increased monitoring has helped state and local officials determine which
    beaches are more likely to be contaminated. However, in most cases, local
    officials do not know the causes of contamination and, consequently, have
    not been able to take actions to address those causes. Local officials at
    67 percent of Great Lakes beaches did not know the sources of bacterial
    contamination causing their exceedances of water quality standards during
    the 2006 beach season. Furthermore, local officials indicated that actions
    to address the sources of contamination had only been taken at an
    estimated 14 percent of the monitored beaches we surveyed. Local officials
    generally stated that they do not have the funds available to do the
    investigations necessary to identify specific sources of contamination or
    to take actions to mitigate the problem, and they can not use BEACH grant
    funds for this purpose. Our review of the BEACH Act and discussions with
    EPA officials indicate that it appears EPA cannot award BEACH Act grants
    for these purposes. According to state and local officials, an overall
    improvement in water quality throughout the Great Lakes will require a
    long-term collaborative effort to address the underlying causes of
    contamination and also will require increased funding.

    To assist states and localities in identifying and addressing sources of
    beach contamination, Congress should 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 are
    recommending that EPA 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. To better account for states' varied monitoring needs, if
    current funding levels remain the same, EPA should reevaluate the funding
    formula factors to determine if the weight of the beach season factor
    should be reduced, and the weight of the other factors should be
    increased. To better ensure consistent levels of public health protection,
    EPA should also provide states and localities with specific guidance on
    monitoring frequency and methods and public notification. In commenting on
    the draft report, EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and
    agreed to (1) take actions to establish an action plan and a definitive
    time frame to complete studies and publish revised water quality standards
    and (2) revise its guidance to states. With respect to our recommendation
    to revise the current funding formula to better reflect states' needs, EPA
    agreed with this recommendation, but stated that the states were reluctant
    to make any substantial changes to the formula and were supportive of
    EPA's plan to make only minor changes to the formula.

    Background

    More than 30 million people in the United States rely on the five Great
    Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario--as a principal source
    of their drinking water, recreation, and economic livelihood. There are
    hundreds of beaches along the Great Lakes' approximately 5,000 miles of
    U.S. shoreline that spans eight states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
    Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Figure 1 shows the
    five lakes and the eight states with Great Lakes shorelines, along with
    their population concentrations.

    Figure 1: Map of the Five Great Lakes and Eight Great Lakes States with
    Population Density by County

    Development on lands adjacent to the lakes has seriously degraded the
    lakes' water quality and, in some areas, contaminated recreational waters
    with pathogens--including bacteria, viruses, and parasites--that can
    threaten human health and force restrictions on recreational activities
    such as swimming at the beaches. Contact with or accidental ingestion of
    water contaminated with these pathogens 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.
    When pathogen levels are high enough to threaten human health, officials
    from local health departments or municipalities restrict public access to
    beaches by issuing health advisories or through the use of beach closures
    to lower the risk of public exposure to these pathogens.

    One of the key contributors to this waterborne contamination is fecal
    matter from humans and other warm-blooded animals. While sources can vary
    from beach to beach, those close to urban areas are more likely to be
    affected by sources such as wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer
    overflows, and municipal storm sewer systems that can directly contribute
    to high levels of bacterial contamination. Beaches in states with large
    confined animal feeding operations may be affected by runoff from these
    operations. Many beaches are affected by nonpoint source pollution when
    storm water runs off impervious surfaces such as streets and parking lots
    and picks up pollutants along the way. In addition, wildlife--in
    particular seagulls and geese--can congregate on beaches and lead to
    significant levels of fecal contamination. Figure 2 shows some of the
    potential sources of fecal contamination at beaches in the Great Lakes.

    Figure 2: Potential Sources of Fecal Contamination at Beaches in the Great
    Lakes

    Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for publishing water quality
    criteria that identify thresholds at which pathogens may constitute a risk
    to human health. States can then use EPA's criteria, or propose other
    criteria that EPA deems are as protective of human health, to develop
    water quality standards for their recreational beaches.^3 Because
    pathogens are found sporadically in recreational waters and can be
    difficult and costly to detect, EPA has recommended other more easily
    identified organisms--called pathogen indicators--that can indicate the
    potential for the presence of pathogens. During the 1960s and 1970s, EPA
    evaluated several types of bacteria for use as pathogen indicators and
    recommended using fecal coliforms as a pathogen indicator for state
    recreational water quality standards. By 1986, new research questioned the
    reliability of using fecal coliforms as a pathogen indicator and prompted
    EPA to recommend new criteria using E. coli for freshwater and enterococci
    for fresh and marine recreational waters.

    In 1997, EPA announced a new national program to work with state, tribal,
    and local governments to compile information on beach contamination
    defining the national extent of the problem. EPA began gathering
    information on state and local beach programs through its National Health
    Protection Survey of Beaches in 1998. The survey collected information on
    monitoring methods used to issue advisories and closures and the sources
    of contamination at swimming beaches. In 1999, EPA published a multiyear
    strategy aimed at improving recreational water quality programs. This
    action plan noted that water quality monitoring programs varied widely at
    the state and local levels, and its objective was to enable the consistent
    management of recreational water quality programs.

    Congress passed the BEACH Act in 2000, amending the Clean Water Act to
    improve beach water quality monitoring notification programs. The act
    defines coastal recreation waters as Great Lakes and marine coastal waters
    designated for swimming, bathing, or similar water contact activities;
    inland waters are not included in this definition. The BEACH Act required
    states to adopt new or revised water quality standards by April 10, 2004,
    for pathogens and pathogen indicators for their coastal recreation waters
    that were as protective as EPA's published criteria. The act required EPA
    to propose regulations setting forth new or revised water quality
    standards for states that had failed to meet this deadline. In addition,
    the BEACH Act required EPA to conduct studies of the relationship between
    pathogens and human health and to publish new or revised criteria based on
    those studies. The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to award grants to
    states, local governments, and tribes to develop and implement beach
    monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act required EPA to
    develop and publish performance criteria that recipients must meet in
    order to receive these grants.

    ^3Water quality standards include narrative and numeric criteria that
    support specific designated uses and also specify goals to prevent
    degradation of good quality waters.

    EPA Has Taken Steps to Implement the BEACH Act, but Its Grant Distribution
    Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect States' Monitoring Needs

    EPA has implemented seven of the nine BEACH Act requirements and
    provisions and has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act
    grants since 2001 and created a national water pollution database, among
    other requirements. However, EPA has missed statutory deadlines for two
    actions: (1) completing required studies on pathogens and human health for
    both marine and freshwater by 2003 and (2) using these studies to publish
    new or revised water quality criteria for pathogen indicators by 2005. In
    addition, the grant distribution formula that EPA developed to distribute
    BEACH Act grants does not adequately reflect the states' varied beach
    monitoring needs because it does not appropriately reflect the length of
    beach miles needing monitoring or the population using the beaches.

    EPA Has Implemented Some but Not All BEACH Act Requirements and Provisions

    Of the nine actions required by the BEACH Act, EPA has taken the following
    seven:

    Propose water quality standards and criteria--The BEACH Act required each
    state with coastal recreation waters^4 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.^5 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.

    ^4The BEACH Act defines coastal recreation waters as the Great Lakes and
    coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that states, territories, and
    authorized tribes officially recognize (or "designate") for swimming,
    bathing, surfing, or similar activities in the water. The BEACH Act
    applies to 30 coastal and Great Lakes states and 5 U.S. territories. See
    appendix II for a map of the 35 states and territories with coastal
    recreational waters.

    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. While the BEACH Act authorized $30 million per year
    for BEACH Act grants, actual allocations have been about $10 million a
    year in accordance with directions from Congressional conference reports.
    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.

    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, are 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.

    ^5EPA worked with the states and territories to identify their existing
    water quality standards and to review them for consistency with the BEACH
    Act requirements. On April 16, 2004, EPA sent a letter to environmental
    agencies at all 35 states with coastal recreational waters and proposed
    federal standards for those states that had not yet adopted EPA's 1986
    criteria.

    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.^6 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.

    ^6In order to house the water quality data, EPA decided to use EPA's
    previously existing STORET (STORage and RETrieval) database. For beach
    advisory and closing data, EPA created the PRAWN (Program Tracking
    database for Advisories, Water Quality Standards, and Nutrients) database.
    STORET is the repository for water quality, biological, and physical data
    and is used by EPA offices, state environmental agencies, universities,
    and other organizations. PRAWN is a repository for beach advisory and
    closing data.

    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.^7 While EPA completed
    these studies for freshwater--showing a promising relationship between a
    faster pathogen indicator and possible adverse health effects from
    bacterial contamination--they have 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 officials reported that
    additional studies are planned for the summer of 2007, pending funding.

    ^7EPA used quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method to quantify
    two types of bacteria, enterococci and bacteroides, at four freshwater
    beaches on Lake Michigan and Lake Erie. The results of the water quality
    tests were then correlated to health surveys of beachgoers who swam at the
    beaches, by interviewing beachgoers as they left the beach, and again by
    telephone 10 to 12 days after their beach visit to assess the levels of
    diarrhea and gastrointestinal illness, as well as other adverse health
    effects.

    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.

    An EPA official reports 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.

    In the absence of new criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators,
    states continue to use EPA's 1986 criteria. EPA reaffirmed the use of
    these indicators when it published the draft Implementation Guidance for
    Ambient Water Quality for Bacteria in May 2002 and when it set forth state
    water quality standards in November 2004. However, there are two
    significant limitations to using these indicators:

               o The current approved methods of analyzing E.coli and enterococci
               require a long incubation period, during which time the bacteria
               grow to detectable levels. Local officials at 96 percent of Great
               Lakes beaches reported that it took 18-36 hours to get results on
               water quality samples once the samples reached the laboratory.
               Consequently, water quality sample results indicate the previous
               day's bacterial levels, and health advisories or beach closures
               are based on those levels. By the time the results are compiled
               and health advisories or notices are posted, the contamination may
               or may not have cleared up. In any case, beach monitoring
               personnel would need to retest the water to determine whether
               there was still contamination and go through this 18-36 hour cycle
               again to establish the current conditions. Real-time or near-time
               analytical methods would enable officials to better protect human
               health because their actions would be based on more timely and
               current information. EPA scientists acknowledge that the public
               would like nearly immediate testing methods, but note that the
               technology does not yet exist.
               o The current pathogen indicators--E.coli and enterococci --may
               not be good indicators of the presence of pathogens or health
               risks. EPA scientists also noted that E.coli may not be an
               effective indicator because it is ubiquitous and occurs naturally
               in many environments. In addition, current testing methods cannot
               distinguish whether fecal contamination is from a human or animal
               source. Human fecal contamination may indicate the presence of
               pathogens that pose a greater risk to humans than does the
               presence of fecal contamination from pets or wildlife. While there
               are methods to determine the source of fecal contamination, such
               as microbial source tracking, scientists we spoke with noted that
               this method is time-intensive, expensive, and not readily
               available.

               The lack of a reliable indicator and the lag time for test results
               using current methods could lead to unnecessary beach closures, or
               conversely, keeping beaches open when they should have been
               closed. Because local officials generally use the same laboratory
               tests to determine the results of water quality sampling, this is
               a potential problem for all 35 states and territories with coastal
               recreational waters and not just the Great Lakes states. A time
               lag of the entire process is shown in figure 3.

    Figure 3: Time Lag Associated with Current Water Quality Monitoring and
    Public Notification Methods

    Note: Figure 3 represents a best case scenario where test results are
    available within 24 hours. In some cases, it may take officials upward of
    36-48 hours to get water quality results and make notification decisions.

    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. Beginning in 2001, EPA
    consulted with representatives from the Coastal States Organization and
    the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
    Administrators to consider the states' needs. EPA determined that
    initially $2 million would be distributed equally to all 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^8 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^9 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,^10 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 3-month, or
               less, beach season 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 are 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.

    8EPA used information on the length of beach seasons reported in the
    National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for the states or territories
    that submitted a completed survey. EPA estimated the beach season length
    for Alaska based on several factors.

    ^9EPA used the Census Bureau's 2000 Census data as a surrogate for coastal
    population.

    ^10EPA used NOAA's The Coastline of the United States to quantify
    shoreline miles.

               Table 1: BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula

    Formula factor      Amount of grant
    Beach season length Less than 3 months: $150,000

                           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, originally, the factors would have
               received relatively equal weight. Using the distribution formula
               above and assuming a $30 million authorization, this would have
               resulted in the following allocation across the 35 eligible
               states: beach season--27 percent (about $8 million); beach use--37
               percent (about $11 million); and beach miles--37 percent (about
               $11 million). However, since 2002, funding levels for BEACH Act
               grants have been about $10 million each year. Once the
               approximately $8 million, of the total $10 million 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 across the 35 eligible states: beach
               season--82 percent (about $8 million); beach use--9 percent (about
               $1 million); and beach miles--9 percent (about $1 million). As a
               result, beach use and beach miles, which vary widely among the
               states, account for a much smaller portion of the distribution
               formula and, consequently, there is little variation in grant
               amounts across the states compared with their monitoring needs.

               Across the Great Lakes, there is significant variation in coastal
               populations and in miles of shoreline, but the current BEACH Act
               grant allocations are relatively flat. For example, 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. If EPA were to reweight the factors so
               that they were still roughly equal given the $10 million
               appropriation, states' grants would better reflect these
               variations.^11 Table 2 shows the Great Lakes states' beach season
               lengths; beach use, as indicated by coastal populations; and beach
               miles, as indicated by shoreline miles; and compares their current
               BEACH Act grants with estimates of how much their grants would be
               if EPA reweighted the formula given the current appropriation
               levels of approximately $10 million.^12

    Table 2: BEACH Act Funding Formula Inputs for Great Lakes States

                                                                    Estimated
                                                                        grant
                                                                   allocation
                                                                        using
                         Beach use      Beach            Grant     reweighted
                  Beach   (coastal      miles allocation(based factors (based
                 season population (shoreline   on $10 million on $10 million
    State        length   in 2000)     miles)   appropriation) appropriation) Estimateddifference
    Illinois          4  6,021,097         63         $246,646       $250,310              $3,664
    Indiana           4    741,468         45          206,304         91,485            -114,819
    Michigan          4  4,842,023      3,224          285,214        402,148             116,934
    Minnesota         4    236,946        189          204,639         84,932            -119,707
    New York^a        4 16,088,089      2,625          361,565        702,739             341,174
    Ohio              4  2,767,328        312          225,694        167,821             -57,873
    Pennsylvania      4  2,946,892        140          224,471        163,007             -61,464
    Wisconsin         4  1,992,393        820         $227,448       $174,729            -$52,719

    Sources: EPA and GAO.

    ^aIncludes Atlantic and Great Lake coasts.

    Because of the current formula allocations, some states and localities
    have expressed concerns that their BEACH Act grants are insufficient to
    adequately monitor their beaches. For example, state officials in Michigan
    and Wisconsin reported that, due to limited financial resources and the
    large number of beaches in their states, they are unable to test all of
    their beaches, or to test them more than once per week. Similarly, local
    officials at 44 percent of the beaches we surveyed reported that their
    BEACH Act grants were either inadequate or very inadequate for the purpose
    of monitoring their beaches; while 31 percent reported that their BEACH
    Act grants were adequate or very adequate.^13 One state official indicated
    that if their state's funding level decreases, several of their localities
    would prefer to end their beach monitoring programs.

    ^11We conducted a simulation to allocate funding based on the ratios
    obtained when the $30 million authorizations was anticipated. We
    constructed the formula to maintain the 27 percent weight for beach season
    while allocating a $10 million appropriation amount. This simulation
    demonstrates how altering the formula would shift funding, affecting
    current allocations for the Great Lakes states.

    ^12GAO conducted a simulation for all 35 coastal states and territories to
    determine how their grants funding levels would change if EPA reweighted
    the formula given the current appropriation levels of approximately $10
    million. See appendix III for a description of this simulation and results
    for all states.

    EPA recognizes that there are limitations to the factors in its grant
    distribution formula and that, as a result of current funding allocations,
    the factors are no longer relatively equally weighted. Beginning in
    February 2006, EPA convened six workshop meetings to evaluate potential
    changes to the formula, with 25 of the 35 eligible states participating.
    The work group considered several modifications to the formula including:
    (1) reducing the fixed factor based on beach season length from a base of
    $150,000 to $100,000, so that other factors have more weight; (2)
    replacing shoreline miles data with actual beach length data now available
    from the BEACON database; and (3) replacing coastal county population with
    data from a NOAA marine survey of the number of participants in beach
    recreation activities. EPA notes that the work group has also discussed
    including a factor related to the number of water samples collected. At
    the time of this report's release, EPA had not changed the funding
    formula.

    Great Lakes States' Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Programs Vary
    Across Localities and May Not Provide Consistent Levels of Public Health
    Protection

    All eight Great Lakes states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach
    monitoring and public notification programs. However, the frequency with
    which they monitor their beaches, the methods to monitor beaches, and the
    processes for notifying the public of health advisories and beach closures
    vary within and across states. These variations may lead to inconsistent
    levels of public health protection across beaches in the Great Lakes.

    ^13Based on our survey, an estimated 41 percent believe that their grants
    were inadequate, and an estimated 3 percent believe that these grants are
    very inadequate. Further, about 30 percent believe that their grants were
    adequate, and 1 percent believe that these grants are very adequate.

    Great Lakes States Used BEACH Act Grants to Develop Beach Monitoring and Public
    Notification Programs

    All eight Great Lakes states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach
    monitoring and public notification programs. Three of the eight Great
    Lakes states--Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin--did not have water
    quality monitoring programs prior to the BEACH Act and used their BEACH
    Act grants to implement such programs. The remaining five states expanded
    their existing beach monitoring programs. In most cases, EPA gives the
    BEACH Act grants directly to state environmental protection agencies,
    which administer the grants, compile and submit water quality monitoring
    and public notification data to EPA, and prepare grant applications and
    annual reports.^14 The states usually distribute the funds they receive to
    localities who implement or develop monitoring and notification programs.
    The localities, through local health departments or other public health
    agencies, usually collect water samples at local beaches and post results.
    EPA notes that localities have traditionally played the lead role in
    implementing these programs because they are often more familiar with
    local problems and may be better suited to address them.

    To be eligible for BEACH Act grants, EPA requires states, tribes, or local
    governments to develop, among other things: (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.

    Develop a list of beaches. EPA required states and territories that
    received BEACH Act grants to develop and submit to EPA lists of their
    beaches that identified whether there was a monitoring program in place
    for each beach. EPA's BEACH Act grant performance criteria also required
    states and local government to rank their beaches based on beach use and
    risk to human health from pathogens. In developing their beach
    classification and prioritization schemes, the Great Lakes states
    considered beach use and accessibility, historical contamination problems,
    and proximity to known sources of contamination. Table 3 shows the number
    of Great Lakes beaches and the percentage being monitored, as reported by
    officials from the Great Lakes states for the 2006 beach season.

    ^14The only exception is Pennsylvania, where all of the state's beaches
    are in Erie County. As such, in 2006, Pennsylvania became the only state
    in the country with a county-run program, and Erie County is the only
    locality that receives grants directly from EPA.

    Table 3: Number of Great Lakes Beaches Identified, Number and Percentage
    of Beaches Being Monitored for the 2006 Beach Season

                        Number of Great Lakes Number of beaches     Percentage of
    State               beaches identified         monitored beaches monitored
    Illinois                            69                54               78%
    Indiana                             30                25                83
    Michigan                           905               212                23
    Minnesota                           79                39                49
    New York^a                          38                38               100
    Ohio                                54                54               100
    Pennsylvania                        12                12               100
    Wisconsin                          192               123                64
    Total                            1,379               557               40%

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state BEACH Act officials.

    ^aNew York has shoreline miles both along the Atlantic Ocean and along
    Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. There are 348 beaches in the state of New
    York, and all are monitored.

    Develop methods for monitoring water quality. EPA also recommended that
    states and localities develop a three-tiered plan that prioritizes beaches
    for monitoring. EPA intended the beach prioritization scheme to allow
    beach managers to devote more resources and intensive monitoring and
    notification efforts to those high-use and/or high-risk beaches. A tier 1
    classification indicates that the beach is a high-use and/or high-risk
    beach and, therefore, is a high priority for monitoring. A tier 2 beach is
    a medium-use and/or medium-risk beach and is a lower priority for
    monitoring. A tier 3 beach is a low-use and/or low-risk beach and is a low
    priority for monitoring. All eight Great Lakes states prioritized their
    beaches for monitoring according to EPA's suggested factors of beach use
    and risk to human health. Great Lakes beaches have varying numbers of
    high, medium, and low-priority beaches, as shown in table 4.

    Table 4: Great Lakes Prioritized Beaches Reported by States for Monitoring
    Using BEACH Act Grant Funds as of October 2006

                                Number of beaches by priority
    State        High   Medium  Low Beaches prioritized for monitoring
    Illinois^a     49        5 15^b                                 54
    Indiana         7       10    6                                 23
    Michigan      207 Varies^c  334                                207
    Minnesota       9       30    0                                 39
    New York       20       13    5                                 38
    Ohio           41        0   11                                 52
    Pennsylvania   11        1    0                                 12
    Wisconsin      34       39   50                                123

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state BEACH Act officials.

    ^aDoes not include Chicago beaches because Chicago did not originally
    apply for BEACH Act grants.

    ^bllinois does not monitor its 15 tier 3 beaches.

    ^cMichigan reported that the number of tier 2 (medium) priority beaches
    varies. Michigan does not monitor its 334 tier 3 beaches.

    Develop public notification plans. EPA's grant performance criteria
    require states and localities that find their beach water contamination
    exceeds EPA's criteria to notify the public or resample the water. EPA's
    guidelines allow states to monitor for two pathogen indicators in
    freshwater--E. coli and enterococci--using two water quality testing
    options--a single sample or a geometric mean ("geomean") based on no fewer
    than five samples equally spaced over a 30-day period. Health departments
    may also use observations of the presence of visible debris/contaminants,
    as well as predicted high levels of rainfall or sewage releases.^15 If
    there is a water quality exceedance, states or localities may resample if
    there is reason to doubt the accuracy or certainty of the sample results.
    If the second sample indicates that a water quality standard has been
    exceeded, states and localities must provide prompt public notification.
    State or local health officials decide whether or not to issue a health
    advisory or close a beach. EPA's performance criteria allow states and
    localities to develop signs or "functionally equivalent" communication
    measures, which may include press releases, signs posted at the beach, or
    Internet sites, among other things. All of the Great Lakes states have
    developed public notification plans and may post beach advisory and/or
    closure decisions on signs on the beach, or on the Internet, among other
    methods.

    ^15In the case of predicted high levels of rainfall or sewage releases,
    local officials responding to our survey reported that about 13 percent of
    Great Lakes beaches issue preemptive closures.

    Variation in Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Methods May Lead to
    Inconsistent Protection of Public Health

    While the Great Lakes states and localities have generally adhered to
    EPA's criteria for receiving BEACH Act grants, their beach monitoring and
    public notification programs vary considerably. EPA grant criteria and the
    BEACH Act give states and localities some flexibility as to: (1) the
    frequency of monitoring; (2) which beaches are selected for monitoring,
    methods of monitoring; and (3) processes for notifying the public when
    pathogen indicator levels exceed state standards, including the decision
    to close beaches or issue a public health advisory. Nevertheless, we
    identified significant variability in the Great Lakes states beach
    monitoring and public notification programs, including the frequency at
    which they monitor high-priority beaches, the depths at which they take
    water samples, and the processes they use for notifying the public of
    health risks from pathogen criteria.

    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
    frequency with which the Great Lakes states monitor their beaches varies,
    due in part to the availability of funding. For example, state officials
    in Michigan and Wisconsin reported a lack of funding for monitoring. While
    EPA officials reported that daily beach monitoring is recommended for
    high-priority beaches, EPA acknowledges that frequency and location of
    monitoring may be limited by funding and staffing levels. Table 5 shows
    the variation in monitoring at Great Lakes beaches.

    Table 5: Monitoring Frequency of Great Lake Beaches by Priority

    State        High-priority     Medium-priority    Low-priority
    Illinois     5-7 days per week 1 day per week     Not monitored
    Indiana      5 days per week   5 days per week    5 days per week
    Michigan     1-2 days per week 1 day per year     Not monitored
    Minnesota    2 days per week   1 day per week     Not monitored
    New York     1-2 days per week Once every 2 weeks 1 day per month
    Ohio         4 days per week   Not applicable^a   1 day per week
    Pennsylvania 2 days per week   1 day per week     Not applicable^b
    Wisconsin    4-7 days per week 2 days per week    1 day per week

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state BEACH Act officials.

    ^aOhio reported that the state does not currently classify any beaches as
    tier 2.

    ^bPennsylvania reported that the state does not currently classify any
    beaches as tier 3.

    Because of the variation in the number of days beaches are tested, more
    information is known about some beaches than others, and it is difficult
    to compare data across beaches. For example, local officials at one
    high-priority beach in our sample reported that their beach was monitored
    on 10 days out of the 90-day beach season. On 1 of these 10 testing
    days--or 10 percent, the samples exceeded the applicable water quality
    standards, causing the beach to be closed. In contrast, local officials at
    another high-priority beach in our sample reported that their beach was
    monitored on 92 days of its 95 day beach season. On 22 of these 92 testing
    days--or 24 percent, the samples exceeded the applicable water quality
    standards, causing the beach to be closed. At first glance, the first
    beach would appear to have better water quality than the second beach.
    However, because the first beach was tested on only 10 days, conclusions
    cannot be reliably drawn about the water quality for the remaining 80 days
    of the beach season. One state official commented that human health could
    be better protected if the managers were taking more samples.

    Without daily testing at all beaches, conclusions also cannot be drawn
    about the number of safe days at beaches. However, EPA appears to do just
    that in its annual performance report, which concluded that beaches were
    "open and safe for swimming" on 97 percent of the days of the 2005 season
    nationwide, exceeding EPA's 94 percent benchmark goal for fiscal year
    2006. This percentage assumes that any day that a beach was open it was
    safe for swimming, even if it was not tested.^16 Additionally, according
    to EPA data, in 2005, 3,245 of the possible 58,710 beach days in the Great
    Lakes, or 5.5 percent, were under an advisory or closure and unsafe for
    recreational use.^17 Based on EPA's methodology, the beaches were open and
    safe for swimming on the other 94.5 percent of the days during the season.
    However, this conclusion cannot be drawn because nothing is known about
    the quality of the water on days that water is not tested. According to
    EPA officials, the balance of the other 94.5 percent of the days for which
    no advisory or closure action was in effect--days on which the beaches are
    open--is subject to the limitations and uncertainties of current
    monitoring practices, including relatively infrequent monitoring for the
    most part, and testing methods that require 18-36 hours to obtain results.
    EPA officials indicated that the benefits of water quality monitoring
    generally outweigh these limitations and uncertainties.

    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.^18 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, however, 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. Figure 4 shows the variation in the depths
    at which Great Lakes state officials took water quality samples.

    ^16If a sample exceeds a standard, a locality will typically resample
    until the test is normal.

    ^17EPA calculates the total number of beach days by estimating a beach
    season (number of days the beach is open) for each beach and summing this
    across all beaches in the Great Lakes.

    ^18EPA's Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking
    (EMPACT) project examined five beach environments to determine if
    beach-specific characteristics impact beach monitoring results and found
    that the depth of water sample collection influences bacterial densities.

    Figure 4: Reported Depth of Water Quality Sampling at Great Lakes Beaches

    Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

    Public notification. Local officials in the Great Lakes differ in the
    information they use to decide whether to issue a health advisory or close
    beaches when water contamination exceeds EPA criteria and in how to notify
    the public of their decision. The EPA criteria for single-sample tests or
    a 5-day geometric mean for E. coli indicate that single-sample test
    results cannot exceed 235 bacteria colonies per 100/ml sample, and geomean
    results cannot exceed 126 bacteria colonies per 100/ml sample.^19 However,
    even with these designated testing thresholds, the decisions on whether or
    not to issue a public health advisory or close a beach can vary within and
    across the Great Lakes states. This happens because states have
    established different standards for triggering an advisory or closure, and
    states vary in whether they will issue advisories or closures or both. For
    example, Minnesota and Ohio only issue health advisories; Indiana,
    Michigan, and Wisconsin issue both health advisories and beach closures;
    and Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania only issue beach closures. In
    addition, while most states will issue an advisory or close a beach
    following the first water quality standard exceedance, in some cases,
    officials will resample and not close the beach until the standard is
    exceeded on 2 consecutive days. Table 6 shows the variation in states'
    pathogen indicator thresholds and responses to water quality exceedances.

    ^19EPA's 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Michigan, New
    York, and Wisconsin also continue to test for fecal coliforms in addition
    to E. coli.

    Table 6: Variation in Great Lakes States' Pathogen Indicator (E. coli)
    Thresholds and Responses to Water Quality Exceedances

                    Issue                                  Issue   Closure
    State        advisory Advisory threshold^a          closure threshold
    Illinois     No^b     Not applicable                Yes     235 single
                                                                   sample
    Indiana      Yes      235 single sample or 126      Yes     235 single
                             geomean                               sample or 126
                                                                   geomean
    Michigan     Yes      300 single sample or 130      Yes     300 single
                             geomean                               sample or 130
                                                                   geomean
    Minnesota    Yes      235 single sample or 126      No      Not applicable
                             geomean^c
    New York     No       Not applicable                Yes^d   235 single
                                                                   sample or 126
                                                                   geomean
    Ohio         Yes      235 single sample             No      Not applicable
    Pennsylvania No       Not applicable                Yes     235 single
                                                                   sample or 126
                                                                   geomean
    Wisconsin    Yes      235 single sample or 126      Yes     1,000 single
                             geomean                               sample

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state BEACH Act officials.

    ^aColonies per 100/mL.

    ^bThe Chicago Park District issues advisories following a 235 single
    sample and issues closures following a 1,000 single sample.

    ^cEPA approved Michigan's threshold in 1993 determining that there was no
    statistical difference between 235 and 300 based on the estimated number
    of gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers.

    ^dNew York state officials indicated that a 235 single sample or 126
    geomean would generally prompt a beach closure, however the state sanitary
    code provides local health departments some flexibility to conduct site
    specific assessments to determine if a beach closure is appropriate.

    In addition to using information from water quality samples, officials in
    at least four Great Lakes states--Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and
    Wisconsin--are using predictive models that use real-time data such as
    rainfall and water temperature to predict water quality conditions and to
    help make more timely decisions about beach closings and advisories.
    Officials in Lake County, Illinois, have used BEACH Act grants in the
    development of SwimCast, a predictive model that has proven to be 89-95
    percent accurate when comparing measured results versus predicted
    conditions. In Indiana, officials have used BEACH Act grants and worked
    with officials from USGS to develop Project SAFE (Swimming Advisory
    Forecast Estimate), which uses real-time information on weather and water
    data collected at several locations to predict E. coli count probability.
    EPA guidance states that predictive models can effectively supplement but
    not replace beach monitoring programs to provide conservative estimates
    during the lag time between sampling and water quality test results.

    Also, states' and localities' means of notifying the public of health
    advisories or beaches 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; some distribute the
    information to local media. When asked to rank the most effective method
    of notifying the public of a water quality exceedance, six state BEACH Act
    Administrators indicated that posting signs at the beach is the single
    most effective method; however, states also vary in the form and content
    of their beach signage. Of the beach signs that we reviewed, the
    appearance and wording varied considerably and, although it was
    recommended in EPA's performance criteria, not all included the effective
    date(s) of the health advisory or beach closure or the date the water
    quality sampling was conducted, as shown in figure 5.

    Figure 5: Variation in Public Notification Signs at Great Lakes Beaches

    The BEACH Act Has Helped Identify the Scope of Contamination, but Underlying
    Causes Remain Unaddressed

    Since the passage of the BEACH Act, increased monitoring has improved the
    overall understanding of the scope of contamination in the Great Lakes and
    helped local officials determine which of their beaches are more likely to
    be contaminated. However, the underlying causes of contamination are
    largely unknown and remain unaddressed. Although a few localities have
    been able to use the results of monitoring to identify and take steps to
    address sources of bacterial contamination, most do not know the sources
    of the contamination and, consequently, have not taken actions to address
    them. State and local officials generally stated that they did not have
    the funds available to investigate and address specific sources of
    contamination.

    Increased Monitoring Has Helped States Identify the Scope of Contamination

    Because the frequency of monitoring has increased at Great Lakes beaches
    since the passage of the BEACH Act, states and localities have a better
    understanding of the overall scope of contamination. BEACH Act officials
    from six of the eight states--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 shows that, in
    1999, the number of identified beaches in the Great Lakes was about 330,
    with about 250 of those being monitored. In 2005, the most recent year for
    which data are available, the Great Lakes states identified almost 900
    beaches and were monitoring about 550, as shown in figure 6.^20

    20EPA officials have had difficulty tracking the total number of monitored
    and unmonitored beaches because states have changed their beach
    inventories over the years. In addition, double counting of beaches has
    occurred in the past as historical data were not always vetted by the
    state officials, and because local counties with dual jurisdictions may
    have double counted beach data.

    Figure 6: Number of Identified Beaches and Number of Identified Beaches
    Monitored in the Great Lakes from 1999 to 2005

    Note: From 1998-2002, EPA collected information on beach monitoring from
    states through a series of voluntary surveys; participation rates in these
    surveys varied from year to year. States receiving BEACH Act grants are
    now required to submit information on the number of beaches in their
    state, number of monitored beaches, and other related information to EPA.

    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. For example, state BEACH Act officials in Pennsylvania and
    Indiana reported that, although the number of beaches being monitored in
    their states had not increased, the frequency with which the beaches were
    monitored did. Indiana officials noted that, prior to the BEACH Act,
    monitoring was done a few times per week; now monitoring is done 5-7 days
    per week. In addition, based on our survey, an estimated 45 percent of
    Great Lakes beaches increased the frequency of their monitoring since the
    passage of the BEACH Act, as shown in figure 7. For example, local
    officials in one Ohio county reported testing some beaches along Lake Erie
    twice a month prior to the BEACH Act; they are now tested once a week.

    Figure 7: Estimated Changes in Frequency of Monitoring at Great Lakes
    Beaches Since Passage of the BEACH Act

    The increased scope and frequency of monitoring, in response to the BEACH
    Act, is helping to identify the overall scope of contamination in the
    Great Lakes. While the number of beaches being monitored in the Great
    Lakes has increased, the percentage of beaches reporting at least one
    health advisory or closure remained around 40 percent from 1999 to 2005.
    Figure 8 shows the number of monitored beaches with at least one advisory
    or closure from 1999 to 2005.

    Figure 8: Number of Great Lakes Identified Beaches Monitored and Monitored
    Beaches with at Least One Closure or Advisory from 1999 to 2005

    Note: From 1998-2002, EPA collected information on beach monitoring from
    states through a series of voluntary surveys; participation rates in these
    surveys varied from year to year. States receiving BEACH Act grants are
    now required to submit information on the number of beaches in their
    state, number of monitored beaches, and other related information to EPA.

    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. 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 the BEACH Act
    initiated water quality monitoring, as shown in figure 9.

    Figure 9: Estimated Change in Ability to Make Decisions Based on Water
    Quality Data Since Passage of the BEACH Act

    Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

    Most of the Underlying Causes of Contamination Remain Unknown and Unaddressed

    While some localities have been able to identify and address local sources
    of contamination, the specific sources of contamination at most Great
    Lakes beaches are not known. States and localities report that, because
    they lack funding to investigate and mitigate sources of contamination,
    the underlying causes of contamination at most beaches have not been
    identified or addressed. Based on our survey, local officials at 67
    percent of Great Lakes' beaches did not know the sources of bacterial
    contamination causing their exceedances of water quality standards during
    the 2006 beach season.

    Nonetheless, five of the eight Great Lakes state BEACH Act officials
    reported that the increased monitoring has helped some local officials in
    their state identify the sources of contamination. These officials
    identified the following examples of localities where contamination
    sources have been identified and, in some cases, local actions have been
    taken to address them:

               o Illinois--Beach monitoring led officials at one beach in Chicago
               to identify a sewer break, prompting the city to fix the leaking
               sewer and remove 6 million cubic yards of sand.
               o Michigan--In Traverse City, local officials have used monitoring
               data to identify problems at their wastewater treatment plants
               which resulted in plant improvements.
               o Ohio--The Lucas County Health Department has identified private
               sewage systems that are contaminating local beaches.
               o Minnesota--With the establishment of the state's beach program
               following the BEACH Act, state and local officials in Minnesota
               formed a beach committee that includes representation from the
               state pollution control agency, local and state health
               departments, local sewage districts and utilities, University of
               Minnesota researchers, and other groups. The beach committee has
               coordinated efforts to identify the sources and causes of beach
               contamination. For example, where beach monitoring data has
               indicated problems at normally clean beaches, the sanitary
               district has investigated these situations and found and repaired
               broken pipes.
               o Wisconsin--Officials in Racine began looking into high numbers
               of beach closures and advisories at one of their beaches in 1999.
               Using the results of water quality monitoring, these officials
               were able to identify a storm water outfall adjacent to the beach
               that was contributing to the contamination and developed an
               underground treatment system and wetland area to filter the
               discharge. In addition, city officials determined that beach
               grooming procedures and the overall geography of the beach were
               also contributing to the contamination, and they improved their
               beach grooming techniques and regraded the beach to reduce
               standing water. With these corrective actions, the city was able
               to reduce the number of beach health advisory and closure days
               from 62 in 2000 to 3 in 2006. Figure 10 illustrates the changes to
               the city's beach grooming processes.

    Figure 10: Changes to Beach Grooming Process at a Racine, Wisconsin, Beach

    In addition to these efforts to identify and address local sources of
    contamination, local officials report an overall increase in awareness of
    how personal actions can impact water quality at beaches, as shown in
    figure 11. For example, not adhering to proper beach practices--such as
    using swim diapers for young children--or not properly disposing of trash
    can lead to increased problems with wildlife such as seagulls and geese.
    In addition to actions that the public can take to mitigate contamination,
    there are also actions beach managers can take, such as ensuring the
    availability of sufficient trash cans and functioning restrooms, that can
    also help mitigate beach contamination. Local officials report that they
    have taken some of these actions on a limited basis.

    Figure 11: Estimated Change in Public Awareness of Personal Actions on
    Water Quality at Great Lakes Beaches Since Passage of the BEACH Act

    Nevertheless, EPA officials stated that the primary source of
    contamination at beaches generally is reported by state officials as
    "unknown." Comprehensive sanitary surveys can help local water program
    managers identify persistent problems; ascertain the sources and magnitude
    of contamination; suggest appropriate actions to control contamination and
    identify priority locations for sampling.^21 Although local officials at
    Great Lakes beaches reported conducting field observations to determine
    the sources of contamination at 88 percent of the beaches, comprehensive
    sanitary surveys have been conducted at only 48 percent of the beaches.

    One reason why sanitary surveys have not been more widespread is lack of
    funding, but EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grant funds can only be used
    for this purpose under certain circumstances.^22 In particular, sanitary
    surveys can be done during the development of a monitoring program when
    states are prioritizing their beaches for monitoring or when there is a
    need to reprioritize the beaches. EPA has initiated a pilot sanitary
    survey effort throughout the Great Lakes, working with state and county
    Great Lakes beach managers to design and implement a beach sanitary survey
    project for Great Lakes recreational waters. EPA posted a Request for
    Proposal in August 2006 indicating that $500,000 would be available to
    fund pilot surveys at Great Lakes beaches. Nine state or county agencies
    submitted proposals for conducting sanitary surveys at numerous beaches.
    EPA expects that this work will result in the development of a tool for
    watershed-based sanitary surveys that could be used by others. EPA made
    award decisions in December 2006 and anticipates grant awards in April
    2007.

    ^21Sanitary surveys are used to identify sources of pollution and provide
    information on source controls and identification, persistent problems,
    and management actions. EPA's National Beach Guidance and Required
    Performance Criteria for Grants states that a sanitary survey can be an
    effective tool for protecting human health at bathing beaches and
    providing information that helps in designing monitoring programs.

    Because state and local officials do not have enough information on the
    specific sources of contamination and generally lack funds for
    remediation, most of the sources of contamination at Great Lakes' beaches
    have not been addressed. Local officials indicated that actions to address
    the sources of contamination had only been taken at an estimated 14
    percent of the monitored beaches. While none of the eight Great Lakes
    state officials suggested that the BEACH Act was intended to help
    remediate the sources of contamination, some said that they lack the funds
    needed to mitigate the sources of contamination that increased monitoring
    has helped to identify. However, our review of the BEACH Act and EPA's
    criteria found that they both specify that BEACH Act grant funds should be
    used only for monitoring and notification purposes. Several state
    officials believe that it may be more useful to use BEACH Act grants to
    identify and remediate sources of contamination rather than just continue
    to monitor water quality. 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 researches recommended that EPA provide the states with more
    freedom on how they may spend their BEACH Act funding.

    ^22The BEACH Act provides that EPA may award grants to states and
    localities for "monitoring and notification" programs. 33 U.S.C. S
    1346(b)(2)(A). According to EPA officials, the term "monitoring"
    encompasses limited investigations to determine sources of contamination
    but does not include remediation to address the source of the
    contamination.

    According to state and local officials, as well as other Great Lakes
    stakeholders, an overall improvement in water quality throughout the Great
    Lakes will require a substantial effort directed toward both large-scale
    initiatives and localized actions to address the underlying causes of
    contamination. State officials reported that combined sewer overflows and
    sewage disposal problems throughout the Great Lakes must be addressed.
    Although some communities have taken steps in this direction, others
    continue to discharge partially treated wastewater into the Great Lakes as
    part of their wastewater treatment processes. In addition, more localized
    action is also needed to address some sources of contamination at Great
    Lakes beaches. Examples include regrading the beaches to reduce standing
    water and minimizing the use of impervious surface materials to construct
    parking lots adjacent to beaches to reduce storm water runoff.

    Conclusions

    EPA has made progress in implementing many of the BEACH Act's requirements
    but two critical actions, relating to the completion of pathogen studies
    and developing new water quality criteria, have not been completed as
    required by the act and may not be completed for several more years.
    Without the completion of these studies and the development of new water
    quality criteria, states will have to continue to use existing methods
    that are already outdated for monitoring water quality at their beaches.
    The use of these methods limits states' ability to obtain water quality
    test results and make beach closing decisions in a timely manner to ensure
    that public health is adequately protected. However, EPA has not
    established a firm time line to guide the completion of the studies and
    the development of the new criteria, so it is unclear when states can
    expect to receive updated methods to guide their monitoring efforts.

    In addition, although EPA developed a formula to distribute BEACH Act
    grants to the states, this formula was based on the assumption that the
    program would receive its fully authorized allocation of $30 million.
    During the last 5 years, the program has not received full funding, and
    EPA has not adjusted the formula to reflect the impacts of reduced levels
    of funding. As a result, the current distribution formula fails to
    adequately take into account the monitoring needs of the states. Instead,
    it places the greatest emphasis on the length of the beach season and not
    enough emphasis on other factors, such as beach use and beach miles, that
    vary greatly across states, and which also impact the public health risk
    and significantly influence the level of monitoring that states need to
    undertake. While we recognize that any changes to the distribution formula
    would inevitably result in some states receiving more funds and some less,
    unless the program is fully funded as authorized, the current distribution
    formula does not reflect the states' varied monitoring needs.

    Finally, the BEACH Act has had a significant impact in helping the Great
    Lakes states increase their level of monitoring, which in turn has
    increased their knowledge about the scope of contamination at area
    beaches. However, the variability in how the states are conducting their
    monitoring and how they are using their monitoring results to notify the
    public have raised concerns about the adequacy of protection provided
    among and across Great Lakes states. In addition, because it appears that
    BEACH Act funds cannot currently be used to investigate the source of
    contamination or remediate an identified problem, states have been unable
    to address the contamination that they now know exists. While we recognize
    that funding for BEACH Act grants has been limited over the last 5 years,
    we believe that additional flexibility for the states to use a portion of
    their BEACH Act grants to help them identify the source of contamination
    if their monitoring has identified a reoccurring problem would be helpful.
    In this regard, we also believe that EPA could provide guidance to ensure
    that states are still conducting the monitoring programs expected by the
    BEACH Act and not diverting all their monitoring funds to investigation
    and mitigation.

    Matter for Congressional Consideration

    As it considers reauthorization of the BEACH Act, Congress 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.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To ensure that EPA complies with the requirements laid out in the BEACH
    Act, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA take the following three
    actions:

               o 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;
               o If current funding levels remain the same, 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; and
               o To better ensure consistent levels of public health protection,
               EPA should provide states and localities with specific guidance on
               monitoring frequency and methods and public notification.

    		   Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

               In commenting on the draft report, EPA generally agreed with GAO's
               recommendations and agreed to (1) take actions to establish an
               action plan and a definitive time frame to complete studies and
               publish revised water quality standards and (2) revise its
               guidance to states. With respect to our recommendation to revise
               the current funding formula to better reflect states' needs, EPA
               agreed with this recommendation, but stated that the states were
               reluctant to make any substantial changes to the formula and were
               supportive of EPA's plan to make only minor changes to the
               formula. EPA's comments are included in appendix IV.

               As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
               contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
               until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send
               copies to the EPA Administrator and other interested parties. We
               will also make copies available to others upon request. In
               addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
               site at http://www.gao.gov .

               If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
               contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points
               for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
               be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
               contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

               Anu K. Mittal
    		   Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    		   List of Requesters

               The Honorable Evan Bayh
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Richard Durbin
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Carl Levin
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Richard Lugar
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Barack Obama
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable George Voinovich
    		   United States Senate

               The Honorable John Dingell
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
    		   ouse of Representatives

               The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Brian M. Higgins
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Dale Kildee
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Mark Kirk
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Dennis Kucinich
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Sander M. Levin
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Janice Schakowsky
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Louise Slaughter
    		   House of Representatives

               The Honorable Bart Stupak
    		   House of Representatives

    		   Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

               The objectives of this review were to (1) determine the extent to
               which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented
               the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH)
               Act of 2000 and evaluate EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act
               grants, (2) describe and evaluate the monitoring and notification
               programs the eight Great Lakes states have developed using BEACH
               Act grants, and (3) determine the effect that the BEACH Act has
               had on water quality monitoring and contamination at Great Lakes
               beaches.

               We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies,
               and procedures to determine what actions EPA has taken to
               implement the act and what remains to be addressed. Specifically,
               we reviewed the act to identify what actions the agency was
               required to take. To identify the actions EPA has taken to
               implement the act's requirements and provisions, we reviewed
               notices and regulations published in the Federal Register and
               agency documents, and interviewed agency officials at EPA
               headquarters, EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, EPA
               Region 5 (Chicago), EPA Region 2 (New York), and EPA's National
               Exposure Research Laboratory. To assess the criteria EPA uses to
               allocate BEACH Act funds to eligible states, we interviewed
               officials that were involved in developing the funding formula and
               conducted a funding formula simulation to demonstrate how slight
               alterations of the BEACH Act grant funding formula would shift
               funding and potentially affect current allocations.

               To determine how the eight Great Lakes states have used BEACH Act
               funds to develop monitoring and notification programs, we used a
               data collection instrument to gather information from state level
               BEACH Act Administrators from each of the Great Lakes
               states--Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
               Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We interviewed an official from Erie
               County, Pennsylvania, where BEACH Act funds are distributed
               directly to the county because this is the only county in the
               state with coastal recreational waters. EPA identified these
               officials as the person(s) responsible for coordinating beach
               monitoring and notification programs for each state and collecting
               and submitting information generated by these programs to EPA.

               In addition, we conducted a survey of the 563 Great Lakes beaches
               EPA identified as having monitoring programs in 2005. To gather
               data representative of the Great Lakes beaches, we conducted a
               random sample of 140 beaches which were selected systematically
               for each state. This ensured that the sample selected was
               proportional to the number of Great Lakes beaches in each of the
               states. Table 7 summarizes sample size and disposition by state.

               Table 7: Great Lakes Beaches Reported Monitored by EPA in 2005,
               GAO Sample, and Sample Disposition by State

                                            Sample
    State        Total beachesmonitored beaches Respondingbeaches Responserate
    Illinois                         73      19                15          79%
    Indiana                          25       6                 5           83
    Michigan                        214      53                49           92
    Minnesota                        39      10                10          100
    New York                         38       9                 9          100
    Ohio                             47      12                11           92
    Pennsylvania                     12       3                 3          100
    Wisconsin                       115      28                28          100
    Grand total                     563     140               130          93%

               Source: GAO.

               Information obtained through this survey was used to produce
               estimates of beach monitoring and notification in the 2006 beach
               season at the Great Lakes beaches that conducted monitoring in
               2005. Since our beach sample is only one of a large number of
               samples that we might have drawn, and each sample could have
               provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the
               precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent
               confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the
               actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could
               have drawn. All proportion estimates from this sample used in this
               report have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus
               10 percentage points, unless otherwise noted.

               Even though we surveyed a random sample of beaches in the Great
               Lakes, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
               introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as
               "nonsampling errors." For example, differences in how a particular
               question is interpreted or the sources of information available to
               respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the survey
               results. We included steps in both the data collection and data
               analysis stages to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example,
               in the research design and data collection stages, we took the
               following steps:

               o We obtained from EPA a list of contacts for beaches with
               monitoring programs in the Great Lakes. We then attempted to
               contact all listed local officials via telephone and asked them to
               tell us if they or someone else would be the most appropriate
               contact and to provide their e-mail address. Some officials
               identified more appropriate survey respondents. In order to obtain
               the appropriate contacts for beaches where we were not able to
               contact the officials using EPA's list, we asked state BEACH Act
               officials for the most appropriate contact and obtained telephone
               and/or e-mail contacts from them.
               o We reviewed EPA's National Health Protection Survey of Beaches.
               o We pretested the survey with officials from four beaches between
               November 13, 2006, and November 27, 2006, and used their feedback
               to refine the survey. These beaches were selected randomly from
               the list of monitored beaches provided by EPA. For these pretests,
               we sent officials a draft of the survey. We then interviewed the
               officials to ensure that (1) questions were clear and unambiguous,
               (2) terms were precise, and (3) data needed to respond to the
               questions were available to the local officials. As a result of
               our pretests, we refined some of the survey questions. A GAO
               survey specialist also independently reviewed the questionnaire.
               o We e-mailed the survey as an attachment on December 5, 2006, to
               local officials at 140 beaches. We asked respondents to return the
               survey by e-mail within 15 working days of receiving our e-mail.
               We sent e-mail reminders and called nonrespondents and accepted
               responses to the surveys through February 2, 2007.

               To minimize nonsampling errors in the data analysis stage, we
               contacted local officials to clarify survey responses, when
               necessary, and used a centralized tracking document to record all
               changes. Changes made in the tracking document were verified
               against the keypunched data to ensure all changes and updates were
               recorded. When changes took place after a survey was keypunched,
               the updates were made in the computer program used to generate
               survey results.

               As summarized in table 7, we received completed questionnaires for
               130 of the 140 sample beaches, for an overall response rate of 93
               percent. We did not receive a completed questionnaire from 10
               beaches. We do not know if the responses for these beaches would
               have differed materially from those for the 130 beaches we did
               receive. From the questionnaires we received, we gathered
               information for each including: (1) the potential sources of
               contamination; (2) water quality standards in place; (3) methods
               of monitoring, including depth and location of samples; (4)
               frequency of monitoring and number of sampling days where water
               quality standards were exceeded; and (5) public notification and
               remediation efforts.

               To determine the effect the BEACH Act has had on Great Lakes beach
               monitoring and the identification of sources of contamination, we
               analyzed the results of our survey and information obtained from
               state BEACH Act Administrators. In addition, we reviewed EPA data
               on the number of beaches identified in the Great Lakes, the number
               of identified beaches being monitored, and the number of monitored
               beaches with health advisories and beach closures. We interviewed
               agency officials regarding a series of data reliability questions
               addressing such areas as data entry, data access, quality control
               procedures, and data accuracy and completeness. We asked follow-up
               questions whenever necessary. We determined that these data were
               sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

               Finally, we conducted interviews with organizations working on
               Great Lakes issues including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
               Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural
               Resources Defense Council, the International Joint Commission, the
               Alliance for the Great Lakes, and the Northeast-Midwest Institute
               Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, among others.

               We conducted our work from June 2006 through March 2007 in
               accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    		   Appendix II: Map of 35 States and Territories with Coastal
    		   Recreational Waters

               Appendix III: GAO's Calculations for an Alternative BEACH Act Grant
               Distribution Formula

               This appendix describes EPA's BEACH Act grant distribution formula
               and the results of our calculation using an alternative formula
               allocation. Currently, EPA's grant formula allocates about 82
               percent of the grant funds according to beach season and about 9
               percent each to beach use and beach miles. Our simulation reweighs
               the factors used in EPA's formula so that beach season receives a
               weight of about 27 percent, beach use receives a weight of about
               36 percent, and beach miles receive a weight of about 36 percent
               as EPA originally intended. The resulting funding amounts are
               shown for each of the 35 states and territories. Finally, we
               present information on how EPA can alter its formula to minimize
               fluctuations in funding amounts if funding levels increase.

    		   EPA's BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula

               EPA distributes BEACH Act grants to eligible states and
               territories according to a formula that considers the length of
               the beach season, beach use, and beach miles. EPA intended that
               the beach season length factor would provide the base funding and
               would be augmented by the beach use and beach miles factors. EPA
               established a series of fixed amounts that correspond to states'
               varying lengths of beach season to cover the general expenses
               associated with a beach monitoring program. For example, EPA
               estimated that a 3-month beach season would require states to fund
               salaries for two employees, which would cost approximately
               $150,000, while states with beach seasons greater than 6-months
               would require $300,000. The eight Great Lakes states are all
               classified as having 3 to 4 months of beach season, as shown in
               table 8.

    Table 8: EPA Beach Season Length Factor and States Associated Funding
    Levels

    State                                             Beach season Base amount
    Alaska                                            ^a           $150,000
    Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,  3-4 months   $200,000
    Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New
    Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington,
    Wisconsin
    Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North   5-6 months   $250,000
    Carolina, South Carolina
    American Samoa, California, Florida, Guam,        >6 months    $300,000
    Hawaii, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, Texas,
    U.S. Virgin Islands

    Source: EPA.

    ^aStates and territories with seasons of less than 3 months receive
    season-based funding only.

    Once the allotments for beach season length are distributed, EPA
    determined that 50 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed to
    states according to beach use, and the other 50 percent would be
    distributed according to states' beach miles. Because consistent data
    across states on beach usage are not available, EPA uses coastal
    population of counties as a surrogate for beach use. Similarly, EPA
    currently does not have beach mileage data in a format that can be used
    for the allocation formula and, therefore, uses shoreline miles as a
    surrogate for beach miles.^1

    EPA developed this formula with the expectation that BEACH Act grants
    would be allocated funding at their authorized level of $30 million
    annually. Using this authorized amount and EPA's distribution formula $30
    million and using this distribution formula, each factor would have
    received approximately equal weight, with beach season accounting for
    about 27 percent of each state or territory's grant, and the remainder
    equally divided between the two other factors--beach use (36 percent) and
    beach miles (36 percent) as shown in table 9.

    Table 9: EPA's Formula for Distributing $30 Million in BEACH Act Grants

    Factor              Allocation
    Beach season length 27% of total annual BEACH Act funds, or $8 million,
                           distributed as follows:

                           < 3 months: $150,000^a

                           3-4 months: $200,000

                           5-6 months: $250,000

                           >6 months: $300,000
    Shoreline miles     36% of total annual BEACH Act funds, or $11 million
    Coastal population  36% of total annual BEACH Act funds, or $11 million

    Sources: EPA and GAO.

    ^aStates and territories with seasons of less than 3 months receive
    season-based funding only.

    However, since 2002, funding levels for BEACH Act grants have been about
    $10 million each year. Given the lower than anticipated funding levels,
    once the approximately $8 million (which now accounts for 82 percent of
    the total grant funding) was allocated in accordance with each state's
    beach season, this left only about $1.85 million or about 18 percent of
    the total funding to be divided equally (about $1 million or 9 percent
    each) between the beach use and beach miles factors, as shown in table 10.

    ^1The estimate of shoreline miles are taken from NOAA's The Coastline of
    the United States. Population estimates are taken from the 2000 Census.

    Table 10: EPA's Formula for Distributing $10 Million in BEACH Act Grants

    Factor              Allocation
    Beach season length < 3 months: $150,000^a

                           3-4 months: $200,000

                           5-6 months: $250,000

                           >6 months: $300,000
    Shoreline miles     50% of remaining $1.85 million funds, or $.92 million
    Coastal population  50% of remaining $1.85 million funds, or $.92 million

    Sources: EPA and GAO.

    ^aStates and territories with seasons of less than 3 months receive
    season-based funding only.

    Because the beach season factor accounts for a much larger proportion of
    each state's BEACH Act grant as compared with beach miles or beach use,
    BEACH Act grant amounts may vary little between states that have widely
    varied shorelines or coastal populations, as shown in table 11.

    Table 11: Factors Used in BEACH Act Formula Allocations and Resulting 2006
    Grants by State and Territory

                   Beach                                    Coastal                 Grant
                  season    Minimum Shoreline Shoreline  population Population allocation
    State         length allocation     miles     ratio      (2000)      ratio    in 2006
    Alabama            6   $250,000       607    0.0099     540,258     0.0044   $262,170
    Alaska             2    150,000    33,904    0.0000     538,258     0.0000    150,000
    American
    Samoa             12    300,000       126    0.0020      57,291     0.0005    302,140
    California        12    300,000     3,427    0.0557  24,260,099     0.1991    516,960
    Connecticut        4    200,000       618    0.0100   2,120,734     0.0174    223,370
    Delaware           4    200,000       381    0.0062     783,600     0.0064    210,750
    Florida           12    300,000     8,436    0.1371  15,982,378     0.1311    528,410
    Georgia            6    250,000     2,344    0.0381     538,469     0.0044    286,200
    Guam              12    300,000       110    0.0018     154,805     0.0013    302,600
    Hawaii            12    300,000     1,052    0.0171   1,211,537     0.0099    323,020
    Illinois           4    200,000        63    0.0010   6,021,097     0.0494    242,940
    Indiana            4    200,000        45    0.0007     741,468     0.0061    205,800
    Louisiana          6    250,000     7,721    0.1255   2,170,717     0.0178    322,010
    Maine              4    200,000     3,478    0.0565     944,847     0.0078    254,730
    Maryland           4    200,000     3,190    0.0518   3,592,430     0.0295    269,250
    Massachusetts      4    200,000     1,519    0.0247   4,783,167     0.0392    254,440
    Michigan           4    200,000     3,224    0.0524   4,842,023     0.0397    278,450
    Minnesota          4    200,000       189    0.0031     236,946     0.0019    204,270
    Mississippi        6    250,000       359    0.0058     363,988     0.0030    257,510
    New Hampshire      4    200,000       131    0.0021     389,592     0.0032    204,530
    New Jersey         4    200,000     1,792    0.0291   7,575,546     0.0622    277,730
    New York           4    200,000     2,625    0.0427  16,088,089     0.1320    348,740
    North
    Carolina           6    250,000     3,375    0.0548     826,019     0.0068    302,480
    Northern
    Mariana
    Islands           12    300,000       206    0.0033      69,221     0.0006    303,330
    Ohio               4    200,000       312    0.0051   2,767,328     0.0227    223,650
    Oregon             4    200,000     1,410    0.0229   1,326,072     0.0109    228,780
    Pennsylvania       4    200,000       140    0.0023   2,946,892     0.0242    222,530
    Puerto Rico       12    300,000       700    0.0114   2,685,883     0.0220    328,450
    Rhode Island       4    200,000       384    0.0062   1,048,319     0.0086    212,640
    South
    Carolina           6    250,000     2,876    0.0467     981,338     0.0081    296,660
    Texas             12    300,000     3,359    0.0546   5,211,014     0.0428    382,890
    Virgin
    Islands           12    300,000       175    0.0028     108,612     0.0009    303,180
    Virginia           4    200,000     3,315    0.0539   4,440,709     0.0364    276,900
    Washington         4    200,000     3,026    0.0492   4,070,515     0.0334    270,320
    Wisconsin          4    200,000       820    0.0133   1,992,393     0.0163    225,270
    Total            220 $8,150,000    61,535    1.0000 121,873,396     1.0000 $9,803,100

    Sources: EPA and GAO.

    Note: The totals exclude shoreline miles and coastal population for Alaska
    because Alaska beach season is less than 3 months.

    As a result, states and territories with 12-month beach seasons may
    receive larger BEACH Act grants than states with much longer shorelines.
    For example, shoreline miles in the Great Lakes states range from 63 miles
    in Illinois to 3,224 in Michigan; therefore, Michigan may need to monitor
    50 times as many shoreline miles as Illinois. However, because the beach
    miles factor accounts for a much smaller portion of each state's BEACH Act
    grant than beach season, the BEACH Act grant amount distributed to
    Michigan is only 35 percent more than that for Indiana ($278,450 and
    $205,800, respectively).

    Because of the way in which the current formula allocates funding, states
    and territories with 12-month beach seasons may also receive larger BEACH
    Act grants than more populous states. For example, in general, EPA's grant
    distribution formula gives territories an advantage over the states,
    because they tend to be in warmer climates with longer beach seasons.
    Territories receive an average of $309,000 each year, while states receive
    an annual average of $294,000. The Great Lakes states, with their
    comparatively short beach seasons, receive an annual average of $248,000.
    Similarly, states with larger populations are currently at a disadvantage
    to the territories that have a longer beach season but significantly
    smaller coastal populations. For example Guam and American Samoa, with
    coastal populations of less than 200,000 each, receive larger grants than
    Maryland and Virginia, with coastal populations of 3.6 and 4.4 million,
    respectively. However, if greater weights were assigned to coastal
    populations, Maryland and Virginia would see an increase in their grant
    allocation.

    Simulations of Alternative BEACH Act Distribution Formulas

    We calculated the distribution of $10 million in annual BEACH Act grants
    according to an alternative formula that weights each of the factors
    equally (27 percent for beach season, 36 percent for beach use, and 36
    percent for beach miles) in accordance with the weights that EPA had built
    into its formula when it anticipated that $30 million would be available
    in annual funding levels. For the purposes of our calculation, we reduced
    the total amount available to be allocated to beach season length from 82
    to 27.2 percent of the current $10 million funding levels. Given this
    simulation, the total amount allocated on the basis of beach season length
    falls from $8.15 million to roughly $2.72 million, and the proportion
    allocated to beach use and beach miles increases to $3.65 million (or 36.4
    percent) each.

    Under this alternative formula, Alabama's total allocation, for example,
    would decrease by 48.6 percent, from $263,225 to $135,399, and its share
    of funding that is based on the length of the beach season would fall from
    $250,000 to $83,333. Table 12 shows how each state and territory's
    allocations would differ if EPA applied the percentages it built into its
    formula when it anticipated $30 million in funding compared with the
    current $10 million.

    Table 12: Difference in Allocations Using Current and Alternative Formulas

                                                                 Difference
                                                                    between
                    BEACH Act              27.2% of   Estimated  actual and  Difference
                        grant     Amount     amount   BEACH Act   estimated     between
                   allocation   based on   based on grant under allocations  actual and
    States and         of $10      beach      beach   simulated         (in   estimated
    territories       million     season     season     formula    dollars) allocations
    Alabama          $263,225   $250,000    $83,333    $135,399   -$127,826      -48.6%
    Alaska            150,000    150,000     50,000      50,000    -100,000       -66.7
    American
    Samoa             302,329    300,000    100,000     109,169    -193,160       -63.9
    California        535,645    300,000    100,000   1,027,721     492,076        91.9
    Connecticut       225,386    200,000     66,667     166,609     -58,777       -26.1
    Delaware          211,675    200,000     66,667     112,629     -99,046       -46.8
    Florida           548,115    300,000    100,000   1,076,811     528,696        96.5
    Georgia           289,322    250,000     83,333     238,142     -51,180       -17.7
    Guam              302,828    300,000    100,000     111,136    -191,692       -63.3
    Hawaii            325,009    300,000    100,000     198,459    -126,550       -38.9
    Illinois          246,646    200,000     66,667     250,310       3,664         1.5
    Indiana           206,304    200,000     66,667      91,485    -114,819       -55.7
    Louisiana         382,538    250,000     83,333     605,128     222,590        58.2
    Maine             259,453    200,000     66,667     300,729      41,276        15.9
    Maryland          275,218    200,000     66,667     362,797      87,579        31.8
    Massachusetts     259,137    200,000     66,667     299,486      40,349        15.6
    Michigan          285,214    200,000     66,667     402,148     116,934        41.0
    Minnesota         204,639    200,000     66,667      84,932    -119,707       -58.5
    Mississippi       258,159    250,000     83,333     115,455    -142,704       -55.3
    New Hampshire     204,926    200,000     66,667      86,061    -118,865       -58.0
    New Jersey        284,435    200,000     66,667     399,081     114,646        40.3
    New York          361,565    200,000     66,667     702,739     341,174        94.4
    North
    Carolina          307,003    250,000     83,333     307,749         746         0.2
    Northern
    Mariana
    Islands           303,622    300,000    100,000     114,260    -189,362       -62.4
    Ohio              225,694    200,000     66,667     167,821     -57,873       -25.6
    Oregon            231,260    200,000     66,667     189,735     -41,525       -18.0
    Pennsylvania      224,471    200,000     66,667     163,007     -61,464       -27.4
    Puerto Rico       330,908    300,000    100,000     221,682    -109,226       -33.0
    Rhode Island      213,729    200,000     66,667     120,716     -93,013       -43.5
    South
    Carolina          300,681    250,000     83,333     282,859     -17,822        -5.9
    Texas             390,044    300,000    100,000     454,496      64,452        16.5
    Virgin
    Islands           303,455    300,000    100,000     113,602    -189,853       -62.6
    Virginia          283,536    200,000     66,667    $395,541     112,005        39.5
    Washington        276,382    200,000     66,667    $367,377      90,995        32.9
    Wisconsin         227,448    200,000     66,667    $174,729     -52,719       -23.2
    Total         $10,000,001 $8,150,000 $2,716,667 $10,000,000         -$1        0.0%

    Source: GAO.

    Note: Differences noted are due to rounding.

    By simulating the distribution of BEACH Act grants given the more equally
    weighted percentages EPA built into its original formula, states with
    large populations, such as Florida, California, and New York would receive
    almost twice as much grant funding as their current allocations. However,
    this increase would come at the expense of states such as Alabama and
    Indiana, and territories such as Puerto Rico, which would receive as
    little as half of their current allocations. California's allocation, for
    example, would increase by 92 percent, while Indiana's allocation would
    decrease by 56 percent. It is important to recognize that such large
    swings in allocations could make it difficult for states that have come to
    depend on BEACH Act funding over the last 6 years to continue to monitor
    their beaches. EPA could consider using a hold-harmless provision to
    minimize states' potential loss of large portions of their BEACH Act
    grants. The hold-harmless provision would ensure that the current grantees
    would maintain, at a minimum, their previous year's allocation, while any
    additional funding would be allocated to those states with longer
    shorelines and larger populations.

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841, mittala@gao.gov

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the individual named above, Edward Zadjura, Assistant
    Director; Eric Bachhuber; Joanna Chan; Robert Dinkelmeyer; Greg Dybalski;
    Heather Holsinger; DuEwa Kamara; Matt Michaels; Omari Norman; Alison
    O'Neill; Mark Ramage; and Walter Vance made key contributions to this
    report. Also contributing to the report were Kim Raheb, Jena Sinkfield,
    and John Wanska.

    (360688)

    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 ( 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
    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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-591.

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

    For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or
    mittala@gao.gov.

    Highlights of GAO-07-591, a report to Congressional Requesters

    May 2007

    GREAT LAKES

    EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but
    Additional Actions Could Improve 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)
    developed limits on pathogens that states use to assess beach water
    quality. EPA can also provide grants to states to develop water quality
    monitoring and public notification programs.

    GAO was asked to assess (1) the extent to which EPA implemented the BEACH
    Act including how it allocated grants to the states, (2) the monitoring
    and notification programs developed by Great Lakes states, and (3) the
    effect of the BEACH Act on water quality monitoring and contamination at
    Great Lakes beaches.

    [34]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that EPA distribute grant funds in a way that reflects
    states' monitoring needs and help states improve the consistency of their
    monitoring and notification activities. In addition, Congress should
    consider providing EPA more flexibility to allow states to use BEACH Act
    grants to investigate and remediate contamination sources.

    EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations but stated that states may
    resist making substantial changes to the funding formula because of their
    tight budgets.

    EPA has taken steps to implement most of the provisions of the BEACH Act
    but 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. Moreover,
    the formula EPA has used to distribute approximately $51 million in BEACH
    Act grants from 2001-2006 does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs
    of the states. This is because the formula emphasizes the length of the
    beach season more than the other factors--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.

    All eight Great Lakes states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach
    monitoring and public notification programs. However, because these
    programs vary among the states they may not provide consistent levels of
    public health protection within and across Great Lakes beaches. For
    example, 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 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 at Great Lakes
    beaches since the passage of the BEACH Act, helping states and localities
    to identify the scope of contamination. However, in most cases, the
    underlying causes of contamination remain unknown and unaddressed. This is
    because some state and local officials reported 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. State and local officials
    indicated that an overall improvement in water quality throughout the
    Great Lakes will require long-term collaborative efforts to address the
    underlying causes of contamination, as well as increased funding.

    *** End of document. ***