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. 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. 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. However, since EPA has not completed the studies on  which these criteria were to be based, this task has been delayed. 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. 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 intended that the beach season factor would  provide the base funding and would be augmented by the beach use and  beach mile factors. 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. 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. Most of the Great Lakes states and localities use  similar sampling methods to monitor water quality at local beaches. According to EPA, depth is a key determinant  of microbial indicator levels. Public notification. 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.
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 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, and although some studies were initiated in the summer of 2005, the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA subsequently initiated two additional water studies in the summer of 2007. According to EPA, completion of the studies and development of the new criteria may take an additional 4 to 5 years. Further, although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants from 2001-2006, the formula EPA uses to make the grants does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the states. This occurs because the formula emphasizes the length of the beach season more than the other factors in the formula--beach miles and beach use. These other factors vary widely among the states, can greatly influence the amount of monitoring a state needs to undertake, and can increase the public health risk. Thirty-four of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach monitoring and public notification programs. Alaska is still in the process of developing its program. However, because state programs vary they may not provide consistent levels of public health protection nationwide. GAO found that the states' monitoring and notification programs varied considerably in the frequency with which beaches were monitored, the monitoring methods used, and how the public was notified of potential health risks. For example, some Great Lakes states monitor their high-priority beaches as little as one or two times per week, while others monitor their high-priority beaches daily. In addition, when local officials review similar water quality results, some may choose to only issue a health advisory while others may choose to close the beach. According to state and local officials, these inconsistencies are in part due to the lack of adequate funding for their beach monitoring and notification programs. The frequency of water quality monitoring has increased nationwide since passage of the Act, helping states and localities to identify the scope of contamination. However, in most cases, the underlying causes of contamination remain unknown. Some localities report that they do not have the funds to investigate the source of the contamination or take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grants generally may not be used for these purposes. For example, local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes beaches reported that, when results of water quality testing indicated contamination at levels exceeding the applicable standards during the 2006 beach season, they did not know the source of the contamination, and only 14 percent reported that they had taken actions to address the sources of contamination.