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: