Implementation of the Beach Act of 2000
EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection Gao ID: GAO-07-1043T June 27, 2007Waterborne pathogens can contaminate water and sand at beaches and threaten human health. Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides grants to states to develop water quality monitoring and public notification programs. This statement summarizes the key findings of GAO's May 2007 report, Great Lakes: EPA and the States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection. In this report GAO assessed (1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the Act's provisions, (2) concerns about EPA's BEACH Act grant allocation formula, and (3) described the experiences of the Great Lakes states in developing and implementing beach monitoring and notification programs using their grant funds.
EPA has taken steps to implement most BEACH Act provisions 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. EPA stated that the required studies are ongoing, some studies were initiated in the summer of 2005, but the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA subsequently initiated two additional water studies in the summer of 2007. According to EPA, completion of the studies and development of the new criteria may take an additional 4 to 5 years. Further, although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants from 2001-2006, the formula EPA uses to make the grants does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the states. This occurs because the formula emphasizes the length of the beach season more than the other factors in the formula--beach miles and beach use. These other factors vary widely among the states, can greatly influence the amount of monitoring a state needs to undertake, and can increase the public health risk. Thirty-four of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach monitoring and public notification programs. Alaska is still in the process of developing its program. However, because state programs vary they may not provide consistent levels of public health protection nationwide. GAO found that the states' monitoring and notification programs varied considerably in the frequency with which beaches were monitored, the monitoring methods used, and how the public was notified of potential health risks. For example, some Great Lakes states monitor their high-priority beaches as little as one or two times per week, while others monitor their high-priority beaches daily. In addition, when local officials review similar water quality results, some may choose to only issue a health advisory while others may choose to close the beach. According to state and local officials, these inconsistencies are in part due to the lack of adequate funding for their beach monitoring and notification programs. The frequency of water quality monitoring has increased nationwide since passage of the Act, helping states and localities to identify the scope of contamination. However, in most cases, the underlying causes of contamination remain unknown. Some localities report that they do not have the funds to investigate the source of the contamination or take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grants generally may not be used for these purposes. For example, local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes beaches reported that, when results of water quality testing indicated contamination at levels exceeding the applicable standards during the 2006 beach season, they did not know the source of the contamination, and only 14 percent reported that they had taken actions to address the sources of contamination.
GAO-07-1043T, Implementation of the Beach Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1043T
entitled 'Implementation of the Beach Act of 2000: EPA and States Have
Made Progress, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection' which was released on June 27, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure
Security, and Water Quality, Committee on the Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 27, 2007:
Implementation Of The Beach Act Of 2000:
EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Additional Actions Could Improve
Public Health Protection:
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-1043T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1043T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality,
Committee on the Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Waterborne pathogens can contaminate water and sand at beaches and
threaten human health. Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
provides grants to states to develop water quality monitoring and
public notification programs.
This statement summarizes the key findings of GAO‘s May 2007 report,
Great Lakes: EPA and the States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection. In this report GAO assessed (1) the extent to which EPA has
implemented the Act‘s provisions, (2) concerns about EPA‘s BEACH Act
grant allocation formula, and (3) described the experiences of the
Great Lakes states in developing and implementing beach monitoring and
notification programs using their grant funds.
What GAO Found:
EPA has taken steps to implement most BEACH Act provisions 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. EPA
stated that the required studies are ongoing, some studies were
initiated in the summer of 2005, but the work was interrupted by
Hurricane Katrina. EPA subsequently initiated two additional water
studies in the summer of 2007. According to EPA, completion of the
studies and development of the new criteria may take an additional 4 to
5 years. Further, although EPA has distributed approximately $51
million in BEACH Act grants from 2001-2006, the formula EPA uses to
make the grants does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the
states. This occurs because the formula emphasizes the length of the
beach season more than the other factors in the formula”beach miles and
beach use. These other factors vary widely among the states, can
greatly influence the amount of monitoring a state needs to undertake,
and can increase the public health risk.
Thirty-four of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH Act grants to
develop beach monitoring and public notification programs. Alaska is
still in the process of developing its program. However, because state
programs vary they may not provide consistent levels of public health
protection nationwide. GAO found that the states‘ monitoring and
notification programs varied considerably in the frequency with which
beaches were monitored, the monitoring methods used, and how the public
was notified of potential health risks. For example, some Great Lakes
states monitor their high-priority beaches as little as one or two
times per week, while others monitor their high-priority beaches daily.
In addition, when local officials review similar water quality results,
some may choose to only issue a health advisory while others may choose
to close the beach. According to state and local officials, these
inconsistencies are in part due to the lack of adequate funding for
their beach monitoring and notification programs.
The frequency of water quality monitoring has increased nationwide
since passage of the Act, helping states and localities to identify the
scope of contamination. However, in most cases, the underlying causes
of contamination remain unknown. Some localities report that they do
not have the funds to investigate the source of the contamination or
take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that BEACH
Act grants generally may not be used for these purposes. For example,
local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes beaches reported that,
when results of water quality testing indicated contamination at levels
exceeding the applicable standards during the 2006 beach season, they
did not know the source of the contamination, and only 14 percent
reported that they had taken actions to address the sources of
contamination.
What GAO Recommends:
In the May 2007 report, GAO recommended that EPA distribute grant funds
to better reflects states‘ monitoring needs and help states improve the
consistency of their monitoring and notification activities; and the
Congress consider providing more flexibility to allow states to use
some BEACH Act funds to investigate and mitigate contamination sources.
GAO is not making any additional recommendations in this statement.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1043T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-
3841or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the
implementation of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act, known as the BEACH Act. Congress passed the BEACH Act in
2000, to improve states' beach monitoring programs and processes for
notifying the public of potential health risks from beach
contamination. As you know, waterborne pathogens such as bacteria,
viruses, and parasites can contaminate the water and sand at beaches
and threaten human health. Contact with or accidental ingestion of
contaminated water can cause vomiting, diarrhea, and other illnesses,
and may be life-threatening for susceptible populations such as
children, the elderly, and those with impaired immune systems. State
and local health officials may issue health advisories or close beaches
when they believe levels of waterborne pathogens are high enough to
threaten human health. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for publishing water quality
criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination--including
waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health.
Our testimony is based on GAO's recently issued report[Footnote 1] on
BEACH Act implementation in the eight Great Lakes states and will cover
three issues (1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the provisions
of the Act, (2) concerns about EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act
grants, and (3) states' experiences in developing and implementing
beach monitoring and notification programs using BEACH Act grants.
Although, our testimony and recent report addressed the Great Lakes
states, published EPA data and information presented at EPA sponsored
BEACH Act conferences suggest that the findings are applicable
nationwide. In summary, we found the following:
* EPA has implemented seven of the BEACH Act's nine requirements and
provisions, but has missed statutory deadlines for two critical
requirements. Among other things, EPA promulgated water quality
standards for the 21 states and territories that had not adopted EPA's
water quality criteria and developed a national list of beaches.
However, EPA has not (1) completed the pathogen and human health
studies that were required by 2003 or (2) published new or revised
water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators that were
required by 2005. EPA told us that the required studies are ongoing,
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. We recommended that EPA establish a definitive time line for
completing the studies required by the BEACH Act and for publishing new
or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen
indicators. EPA concurred with this recommendation.
* Although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act
grants between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and territories,
EPA's formula for distributing BEACH Act grant funds does not reflect
the states' varied monitoring needs. EPA's formula is based on three
factors--length of beach season; beach miles, as measured by length of
shoreline; and beach use, as measured by coastal population. If the
program had received its full funding of $30 million annually that EPA
used to develop the formula, each of the formula factors would have had
a roughly equal impact on the grant allocations made to states.
However, the program has received only about $10 million annually.
Consequently, the beach season factor which EPA uses as a baseline for
calculating states' grants has had a greater influence (about 82
percent) on the total BEACH Act grants each state received, while beach
miles and beach use, which vary widely among the states and can impact
the public health risk, have had a significantly smaller impact (about
9 percent each). As a result, states that have greater beach monitoring
needs because of their longer coastlines and larger coastal
populations, receive almost the same amount of funding as those states
with smaller coastlines and coastal populations. We recommended that
EPA reevaluate the funding formula it uses to distribute BEACH Act
grants. While EPA concurred in the need to reevaluate the formula, it
stated that some states were reluctant to make any significant changes
to the formula.
* States' use of BEACH Act grant funds to develop and implement beach
monitoring and public notification programs has generally increased the
extent of beach monitoring. However, states vary considerably in the
frequency with which they monitor beaches, the monitoring methods used,
and the means by which they notify the public of associated health
risks. These differences are due, in part, to the current BEACH Act
funding levels, which some state officials said are inadequate for
sufficient monitoring. Moreover, while increased frequency of
monitoring has helped states and localities identify the scope of
contamination, in most cases, the underlying causes of the
contamination remain unknown and unaddressed. Local officials from
within the Great Lakes states told us that they generally do not have
the funds to investigate and identify sources of contamination or to
take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that states
can not use BEACH grants for this purpose. To assist states and
localities nationwide in identifying and addressing sources of beach
contamination, we recommended that the Congress consider allowing
states some flexibility to use their BEACH Act grants to undertake
limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at
monitored beaches and take certain actions to mitigate these problems.
In addition, we recommended that EPA provide states and localities with
specific guidance on monitoring frequency and public notification.
Background:
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for publishing water
quality criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination--
including waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health. States are
required to develop standards, or legal limits, for these pathogens by
either adopting EPA's recommended water quality criteria or other
criteria that EPA determines are equally protective of human health.
The states then use these pathogen standards to assess water quality at
their recreational beaches. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act
to require the 35 eligible states and territories to update their
recreational water quality standards using EPA's 1986 criteria for
pathogen indicators. In addition, the BEACH Act required EPA to (1)
complete studies on pathogens in coastal recreational waters and how
they affect human health, including developing rapid methods of
detecting pathogens by October 2003, and (2) publish new or revised
water quality criteria by October 2005, to be reviewed and revised as
necessary every 5 years thereafter.
The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to award grants to states,
localities, and tribes to develop comprehensive beach monitoring and
public notification programs for their recreational beaches. To be
eligible for BEACH Act grants, states are required to (1) identify
their recreational beaches, (2) prioritize their recreational beaches
for monitoring based on their use by the public and the risk to human
health, and (3) establish a public notification program. EPA grant
criteria give states some flexibility on the frequency of monitoring,
methods of monitoring, and processes for notifying the public when
pathogen indicators exceed state standards, including whether to issue
health advisories or close beaches. Although the BEACH Act authorized
EPA to provide $30 million in grants annually for fiscal years 2001
through 2005,[Footnote 2] since fiscal year 2001, congressional
conference reports accompanying EPA's appropriations acts have directed
about $10 million annually for BEACH Act grants and EPA has followed
this congressional direction when allocating funds to the program.
EPA Has Implemented Some But Not All of the BEACH Act Provisions:
EPA has made progress implementing the BEACH Act's provisions but has
missed statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. Of the nine
actions required by the BEACH Act, EPA has taken action on the
following seven:
Propose water quality standards and criteria--The BEACH Act required
each state with coastal recreation waters to incorporate EPA's
published criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators, or criteria
EPA considers equally protective of human health, into their state
water quality standards by April 10, 2004. The BEACH Act also required
EPA to propose regulations setting forth federal water quality
standards for those states that did not meet the deadline. On November
16, 2004, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule
promulgating its 1986 water quality standards for E. coli and
enterococci for the 21 states and territories that had not adopted
water quality criteria that were as protective of human health as EPA's
approved water quality criteria. According to EPA, all 35 states with
coastal recreational waters are now using EPA's 1986 criteria, compared
with the 11 states that were using these criteria in 2000.
Provide BEACH Act grants--The BEACH Act authorized EPA to distribute
annual grants to states, territories, tribes and, in certain
situations, local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring
and notification programs. Since 2001, EPA has awarded approximately
$51 million in development and implementation grants for beach
monitoring and notification programs to all 35 states. Alaska is the
only eligible state that has not yet received a BEACH Act
implementation grant because it is still in the process of developing a
monitoring and public notification program consistent with EPA's grant
performance criteria. EPA expects to distribute approximately $10
million for the 2007 beach season subject to the availability of funds.
Publish beach monitoring guidance and performance criteria for grants-
-The BEACH Act required EPA to develop guidance and performance
criteria for beach monitoring and assessment for states receiving BEACH
Act grants by April 2002. After a year of consultations with coastal
states and organizations, EPA responded to this requirement in 2002 by
issuing its National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants. To be eligible for BEACH Act grants, EPA requires
recipients to develop (1) a list of beaches evaluated and ranked
according to risk, (2) methods for monitoring water quality at their
beaches, such as when and where to conduct sampling, and (3) plans for
notifying the public of the risk from pathogen contamination at
beaches, among other requirements.
Develop a list of coastal recreational waters--The BEACH Act required
EPA to identify and maintain a publicly available list of coastal
recreational waters adjacent to beaches or other publicly accessible
areas, with information on whether or not each is subject to monitoring
and public notification. In March 2004, EPA published its first
comprehensive National List of Beaches based on information that the
states had provided as a condition for receiving BEACH Act grants. The
list identified 6,099 coastal recreational beaches, of which 3,472, or
57 percent, were being monitored. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to
periodically update its initial list and publish revisions in the
Federal Register. However, EPA has not yet published a revised list, in
part because some states have not provided updated information.
Develop a water pollution database--The BEACH Act required EPA to
establish, maintain, and make available to the public an electronic
national water pollution database. In May 2005, EPA unveiled
"eBeaches," a collection of data pulled from multiple databases on the
location of beaches, water quality monitoring, and public notifications
of beach closures and advisories. This information has been made
available to the public through an online tool called BEACON (Beach
Advisory and Closing Online Notification). EPA officials acknowledge
that eBeaches has had some implementation problems, including periods
of downtime when states were unable to submit their data, and states
have had difficulty compiling the data and getting it into EPA's
desired format. EPA is working to centralize its databases so that
states can more easily submit information and expects the data
reporting will become easier for states as they further develop their
system.
Provide technical assistance on floatable materials--The BEACH Act
required EPA to provide technical assistance to help states, tribes,
and localities develop their own assessment and monitoring procedures
for floatable debris in coastal recreational waters. EPA responded by
publishing guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris in
August 2002. The guidance provided examples of monitoring and
assessment programs that have addressed the impact of floatable debris
and examples of mitigation activities to address floatable debris.
Provide a report to Congress on status of BEACH Act implementation--The
BEACH Act required EPA to report to Congress 4 years after enactment of
the act and every 4 years thereafter on the status of implementation.
EPA completed its first report for Congress, Implementing the BEACH Act
of 2000: Report to Congress in October 2006, which was 2 years after
the October 2004 deadline. EPA officials noted that they missed the
deadline because they needed additional time to include updates on
current research and states' BEACH Act implementation activities and to
complete both internal and external reviews.
EPA has not yet completed the following two BEACH Act requirements:
Conduct epidemiological studies--The BEACH Act required EPA to publish
new epidemiological studies concerning pathogens and the protection of
human health for marine and freshwater by April 10, 2002, and to
complete the studies by October 10, 2003. The studies were to: (1)
assess potential human health risks resulting from exposure to
pathogens in coastal waters; (2) identify appropriate and effective
pathogen indicator(s) to improve the timely detection of pathogens in
coastal waters; (3) identify appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and
cost-effective methods for detecting the presence of pathogens; and (4)
provide guidance for state application of the criteria. EPA initiated
its multiyear National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of
Recreational Water Study in 2001 in collaboration with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The first component of this study was
to develop faster pathogen indicator testing procedures. The second
component was to further clarify the health risk of swimming in
contaminated water, as measured by these faster pathogen indicator
testing procedures. While EPA completed these studies for freshwater--
showing a promising relationship between a faster pathogen indicator
and possible adverse health effects from bacterial contamination--it
has not completed the studies for marine water. EPA initiated marine
studies in Biloxi, Mississippi, in the summer of 2005, 3 years past the
statutory deadline for beginning this work, but the work was
interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA initiated two additional marine
water studies in the summer of 2007.
Publish new pathogen criteria--The BEACH Act required EPA to use the
results of its epidemiological studies to identify new pathogen
indicators with associated criteria, as well as new pathogen testing
measures by October 2005. However, since EPA has not completed the
studies on which these criteria were to be based, this task has been
delayed.
In the absence of new criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators,
states continue to use EPA's 1986 criteria to monitor their beaches. An
EPA official told us that EPA has not established a time line for
completing these two remaining provisions of the BEACH Act but
estimates it may take an additional 4-5 years. One EPA official told us
that the initial time frames in the act may not have been realistic.
EPA's failure to complete studies on the health effects of pathogens
for marine waters and failure to publish revised water quality criteria
for pathogens and pathogen indicators prompted the Natural Resources
Defense Council to file suit against EPA on August 2, 2006, for failing
to comply with the statutory obligations of the BEACH Act.
To ensure that EPA complies with the requirements laid out in the BEACH
Act, we recommended that it establish a definitive time line for
completing the studies on pathogens and their effects on human health,
and for publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens
and pathogen indicators.
EPA's BEACH Grant Formula Does Not Adequately Reflect States'
Monitoring Needs:
While EPA distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants
between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and territories, its
grant distribution formula does not adequately account for states'
widely varied beach monitoring needs. When Congress passed the BEACH
Act in 2000, it authorized $30 million in grants annually, but the act
did not specify how EPA should distribute grants to eligible states.
EPA determined that initially $2 million would be distributed equally
to all eligible states to cover the base cost of developing water
quality monitoring and notification programs. EPA then developed a
distribution formula for future annual grants that reflected the BEACH
Act's emphasis on beach use and risk to human health. EPA's funding
formula includes the following three factors:
* Length of beach season--EPA selected beach season length as a factor
because states with longer beach seasons would require more monitoring.
* Beach use--EPA selected beach use as a factor because more heavily
used beaches would expose a larger number of people to pathogens,
increasing the public health risk and thus requiring more monitoring.
EPA used coastal population as a proxy for beach use because
information on the number of beach visitors was not consistently
available across all the states.
* Beach miles--EPA selected beach miles because states with longer
shorelines would require more monitoring. EPA used shoreline miles,
which may include industrial and other nonpublicly accessible areas, as
a proxy for beach miles because verifiable data for beach miles was not
available.
Once EPA determined which funding formula factors to use, EPA officials
weighted the factors. EPA intended that the beach season factor would
provide the base funding and would be augmented by the beach use and
beach mile factors. EPA established a series of fixed amounts that
correspond to states' varying lengths of beach seasons to cover the
general expenses associated with a beach monitoring program. For
example, EPA estimated that a beach season of 3 or fewer months would
require approximately two full-time employees costing $150,000, while
states with beach seasons greater than 6 months would require $300,000.
Once the allotments for beach season length were distributed, EPA
determined that 50 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed
according to states' beach use, and the other 50 percent would be
distributed according to states' beach miles, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula:
Formula factor: Beach season length;
Amount of grant: Less than 3 months: $150,000; 3-4 months: $200,000; 5-
6 months: $250,000; Greater than 6 months: $300,000.
Formula factor: Beach use;
Amount of grant: 50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season
length funding.
Formula factor: Beach miles;
Amount of grant: 50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season
length funding.
Source: EPA.
[A] States with less than a 3-month beach season only receive the
$150,000 in beach season length funding.
[End of table]
EPA officials told us that, using the distribution formula above and
assuming a $30 million authorization, the factors were to have received
relatively equal weight in calculating states' grants and would have
resulted in the following allocation: beach season--27 percent (about
$8 million); beach use--37 percent (about $11 million); and beach
miles--37 percent (about $11 million). However, because funding levels
for BEACH Act grants have been about $10 million each year, once the
approximately $8 million, of the total available for grants, was
allotted for beach season length, this left only $2 million, instead of
nearly $22 million, to be distributed equally between the beach use and
beach miles factors. This resulted in the following allocation: beach
season--82 percent (about $8 million); beach use--9 percent (about $1
million); and beach miles--9 percent (about $1 million).
Because beach use and beach miles vary widely among the states, but
account for a much smaller portion of the distribution formula, BEACH
Act grant amounts may vary little between states that have
significantly different shorelines or coastal populations. For example,
across the Great Lakes, there is significant variation in coastal
populations and in miles of shoreline, but current BEACH Act grant
allocations are relatively flat. As a result, Indiana, which has 45
miles of shoreline and a coastal population of 741,468, received about
$205,800 in 2006, while Michigan, which has 3,224 miles of shoreline
and a coastal population of 4,842,023, received about $278,450 in 2006.
Similarly, the current formula gives localities that have a longer
beach season and significantly smaller coastal populations an advantage
over localities that have a shorter beach season but significantly
greater population. For example, Guam and American Samoa with 12 month
beach seasons and coastal populations of less than 200,000 each receive
larger grants than Maryland and Virginia, with 4 month beach seasons
and coastal populations of 3.6 and 4.4 million, respectively.
If EPA reweighted the factors so that they were still roughly equal
given the $10 million allocation, we believe that BEACH Act grants to
the states would better reflect their needs. Consequently, we
recommended that if current funding levels remain the same, that the
agency should revise the formula for distributing BEACH Act grants to
better reflect the states' varied monitoring needs by reevaluating the
formula factors to determine if the weight of the beach season factor
should be reduced and if the weight of the other factors, such as beach
use and beach miles should be increased.
Experiences of the Great Lakes and Other Eligible States in
Implementing BEACH Act Grants:
States' use of BEACH Act grants to develop and implement beach
monitoring and public notification programs has increased the number of
beaches being monitored and the frequency of monitoring. However,
states vary considerably in the frequency in which they monitor
beaches, the monitoring methods used, and the means by which they
notify the public of health risks. Specifically, 34 of the 35 eligible
states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach monitoring and
public notification programs; and the remaining state, Alaska, is in
the process of setting up its program. However, these programs have
been implemented somewhat inconsistently by the states which could lead
to inconsistent levels of public health protection at beaches in the
United States. In addition, while the Great Lakes and other eligible
states have been able to increase their understanding of the scope of
contamination as a result of BEACH Act grants, the underlying causes of
this contamination usually remain unresolved, primarily due to a lack
of funding. For example, EPA reports that nationwide when beaches are
found to have high levels of contamination, the most frequent source of
contamination listed as the cause is "unknown".
BEACH Act officials from six of the eight Great Lakes states that we
reviewed--Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin-
-reported that the number of beaches being monitored in their state has
increased since the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000. For example, in
Minnesota, state officials reported that only one beach was being
monitored prior to the BEACH Act, and there are now 39 beaches being
monitored in three counties. In addition, EPA data show that, in 1999,
the number of beaches identified in the Great Lakes was about 330, with
about 250 being monitored. In 2005, the most recent year for which data
are available, the Great Lakes states identified almost 900 beaches of
which about 550 were being monitored.
In addition to an increase in the number of beaches being monitored,
the frequency of monitoring at many of the beaches in the Great Lakes
has increased. We estimated that 45 percent of Great Lakes beaches
increased the frequency of their monitoring since the passage of the
BEACH Act. For example, Indiana officials told us that prior to the
BEACH Act, monitoring was done a few times per week at their beaches
but now monitoring is done 5-7 days per week. Similarly, local
officials in one Ohio county reported that they used to test some
beaches along Lake Erie twice a month prior to the BEACH Act but now
they test these beaches once a week. States outside of the Great Lakes
region have reported similar benefits of receiving BEACH Act grants.
For example, state officials from Connecticut, Florida, and Washington
reported increases in the number of beaches they are now able to
monitor or the frequency of the monitoring they are now able to
conduct.
Because of the information available from BEACH Act monitoring
activities, state and local beach officials are now better able to
determine which of their beaches are more likely to be contaminated,
which are relatively clean, and which may require additional monitoring
resources to help them better understand the levels of contamination
that may be present. For example, state BEACH Act officials reported
that they now know which beaches are regularly contaminated or are
being regularly tested for elevated levels of contamination. We
determined that officials at 54 percent of Great Lakes beaches we
surveyed believe that their ability to make advisory and closure
decisions has increased or greatly increased since they initiated BEACH
Act water quality monitoring programs.
However, because EPA's grant criteria and the BEACH Act give states and
localities some flexibility in implementing their programs we also
identified significant variability among the Great Lakes states beach
monitoring and notification programs. We believe that this variability
is most likely also occurring in other states as well because of the
lack of specificity in EPA's guidance. Specifically, we identified the
following differences in how the Great Lake states have implemented
their programs.
Frequency of monitoring. Some Great Lakes states are monitoring their
high-priority beaches almost daily, while other states monitor their
high-priority beaches as little as one to two times per week. The
variation in monitoring frequency in the Great Lakes states is due in
part to the availability of funding. For example, state officials in
Michigan and Wisconsin reported insufficient funding for monitoring.
Methods of sampling. Most of the Great Lakes states and localities use
similar sampling methods to monitor water quality at local beaches. For
example, officials at 79 percent of the beaches we surveyed reported
that they collected water samples during the morning, and 78 percent
reported that they always collected water samples from the same
location. Collecting data at the same time of day and from the same
site ensures more consistent water quality data. However, we found
significant variations in the depth at which local officials in the
Great Lakes states were taking water samples. According to EPA, depth
is a key determinant of microbial indicator levels. EPA's guidance
recommends that beach officials sample at the same depth--knee depth,
or approximately 3-feet deep--for all beaches to ensure consistency and
comparability among samples. Great Lakes states varied considerably in
the depths at which they sampled water, with some sampling occurring at
1-6 inches and other sampling at 37-48 inches.
Public notification. Local officials in the Great Lakes differ in the
information they use to decide whether to issue health advisories or
close beaches when water contamination exceeds EPA criteria and in how
to notify the public of their decision. These differences reflect
states' varied standards for triggering an advisory, closure, or both.
Also, we found that states' and localities' means of notifying the
public of health advisories or beach closures vary across the Great
Lakes. Some states post water quality monitoring results on signs at
beaches; some provide results on the Internet or on telephone hotlines;
and some distribute the information to local media.
To address this variability in how the states are implementing their
BEACH Act grant funded monitoring and notification programs, we
recommended that EPA provide states and localities with specific
guidance on monitoring frequency and methods and public notification.
Further, even though BEACH Act funds have increased the level of
monitoring being undertaken by the states, the specific sources of
contamination at most beaches are not known. For example, we determined
that local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes' beaches did not know
the sources of bacterial contamination causing water quality standards
to be exceeded during the 2006 beach season and EPA officials confirmed
that the primary source of contamination at beaches nationwide is
reported by state officials as "unknown." For example, because state
and local officials in the Great Lakes states do not have enough
information on the specific sources of contamination and generally lack
funds for remediation, most of the sources of contamination at beaches
have not been addressed. Local officials from these states indicated
that they had taken actions to address the sources of contamination at
an estimated 14 percent of the monitored beaches.
EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grant funds generally may be used only
for monitoring and notification purposes. While none of the eight Great
Lakes state officials suggested that the BEACH Act was intended to help
remediate the sources of contamination, several state officials believe
that it may be more beneficial to use BEACH Act grants to identify and
remediate sources of contamination rather than just continue to monitor
water quality at beaches and notify the public when contamination
occurs. Local officials also reported a need for funding to identify
and address sources of contamination. Furthermore, at EPA's National
Beaches Conference in October 2006, a panel of federal and academic
researches recommended that EPA provide the states with more freedom on
how they spend their BEACH Act funding.
To address this issue, we recommended that as the Congress considers
reauthorization of the BEACH Act, that it should consider providing EPA
some flexibility in awarding BEACH Act grants to allow states to
undertake limited research to identify specific sources of
contamination at monitored beaches and certain actions to mitigate
these problems, as specified by EPA.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EPA has made progress in implementing many
of the BEACH Act's requirements but it may still be several years
before EPA completes the pathogen studies and develops the new water
quality criteria required by the act. Until these actions are
completed, states will have to continue to use existing outdated
methods. In addition, the formula EPA developed to distribute BEACH Act
grants to the states was based on the assumption that the program would
receive its fully authorized allocation of $30 million. Because the
program has not received full funding and EPA has not adjusted the
formula to reflect reduced funding levels, the current distribution of
grants fails to adequately take into account the varied monitoring
needs of the states. Finally, as evidenced by the experience of the
Great Lakes states, the BEACH Act has helped states increase their
level of monitoring and their knowledge about the scope of
contamination at area beaches. However, the variability in how the
states are conducting their monitoring, how they are notifying the
public, and their lack of funding to address the source of
contamination continues to raise concerns about the adequacy of
protection that is being provided to beachgoers. This concludes our
prepared statement, we would be happy to respond to any questions you
may have.
GAO Contacts:
If you have any questions about this statement, please contact Anu K.
Mittal @ (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Other key contributors to
this statement include Ed Zadjura (Assistant Director), Eric Bachhuber,
Omari Norman, and Alison O'Neill.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection, GAO-07-591 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2007).
[2] Although the BEACH Act was originally authorized through 2005,
Congress continued to fund EPA's efforts under the act in 2006 and 2007.
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:
