Fyi-Abstract of and an URL to access a June 27, 2007 GAO report on implementation of the Beach Act of 2000

[<KirschnerB@windsor.ijc.org>]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071043t.pdf


Implementation of the Beach Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made
Progress, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection
GAO-07-1043T  June 27, 2007
Highlights-PDF PDF Accessible Text 

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.

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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
beachnet is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe beachnet' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/beachnet/beachnet.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *