^tDsrx
i o
_
V pR0^O
-------
Report Contributors:
Kathlene Butler
Khadija Walker
Danielle Tesch
Stacey Banks
Jayne Lilienfeld-Jones
Abbreviations
ADP Action Development Process
BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OW-OST Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology
Cover photos: Clockwise, fi'om top left: Pensacola Beach in Florida, Escambron Beach in
Puerto Rico, and Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware. (EPA OIG photos)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
^tDsx
* O \
I® *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
18-P-0071
January 18, 2018
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Inspector General (OIG)
conducted this evaluation to
determine how EPA grants
provided under the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act of 2000
(BEACH Act) assist states,
territories and tribes
(collectively referred to here as
"grantees") to monitor the water
quality of coastal recreation
waters and notify the public of
contamination events.
The EPA provides grants to
eligible recipients under the
BEACH Act to monitor
recreation waters for bacteria
and to notify the public about
high bacteria levels to protect
human health. Under the act,
the EPA is required to, among
other things, submit reports to
Congress and establish
performance and water quality
criteria for grantees' coastal
recreation water monitoring and
notification programs.
This report addresses the
following:
• Ensuring clean and safe
water.
• Compliance with the law.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
Listing of OIG reports
EPA Has Not Reported to Congress on
BEACH Act Progress as Statutorily Required or
Fully Documented Budget Decisions
What We Found
Grantees use BEACH Act grants to
operate their beach monitoring and public
notification programs. While the details of
these programs may vary from grantee to
grantee, all programs must meet
performance criteria before the EPA
awards the grant.
Failure to submit required reports
and keep required records limits
congressional, public and EPA
knowledge about the impact of
the agency's BEACH Act program
and decisions regarding the use
of taxpayer dollars.
The EPA has not submitted the required quadrennial reports to Congress
describing the BEACH Act program's progress and impacts since 2006. In
response to an Office of Management and Budget request, the agency identified
the BEACH Act report as one it no longer believes should be a reporting
requirement; the agency compiled a list of all such reports to submit with its fiscal
year 2019 budget request. Submitting BEACH Act reports would inform Congress
and the public about efforts to implement the act, the need for additional water
quality indicators, and the need for improved monitoring methodologies.
Further, beginning in fiscal year 2013, the EPA stopped requesting funding for
the BEACH Act grant program based, in part, on its view that the grant program is
"mature." While the agency documented its initial deliberations and final decision,
it has not documented the requisite supporting analysis and information used to
make its decision. Grantees anticipate that a lack of future funding will negatively
impact their beach monitoring and public notification programs. Although the EPA
is no longer requesting funds, Congress has continued to fund the program.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA submit mandated reports to Congress, but the
agency disagrees and resolution efforts are in progress. We also recommend that
the agency (1) review and update, as appropriate, the controls for ensuring that
mandated reports are identified, tracked and submitted and (2) update the
reporting process, especially for elevating and resolving disagreements about
report content. The EPA agreed, and planned corrective actions meet the intent of
the recommendations. We also recommend that the EPA develop and implement
a tool to demonstrate compliance with recordkeeping requirements on budget
decisions, but it disagrees and resolution efforts are in progress. The EPA agreed
to update the agency records management policy and schedules as needed.
Noteworthy Achievements
In 2016, the EPA released a marine sanitary survey mobile application that
provides managers of marine beaches with an innovative and consistent
approach for identifying sources of beach pollution.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
January 18, 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Has Not Reported to Congress on BEACH Act Progress
as Statutorily Required or Fully Documented Budget Decisions
Report No. 18-P-0071
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
See Below
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this evaluation was
OPE-FY15-0056. The report contains findings that describe the problems identified by the OIG and
corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Multiple offices are responsible for the issues addressed in
this report. Recommendations 2, 3 and 5 are resolved and need no further response. Recommendation 1
(addressed to the Assistant Administrator for Water) and Recommendation 4 (addressed to the Chief
Financial Officer) are unresolved. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, resolution for Recommendations 1 and 4 should begin
immediately upon issuance of the report. We are requesting meetings between the Assistant
Administrator for Water, Chief Financial Officer, and Assistant Inspector General for Audit and
Evaluation to start the resolution process and attempt to obtain resolution on these recommendations.
If resolution is not reached within 30 days, the Assistant Administrator for Water and/or the Chief
Financial Officer are required to complete and submit a dispute resolution request to the Deputy
Administrator to continue the resolution process for final decision. Final decisions on the unresolved
recommendations will be posted on the OIG's website after the completion of the resolution process
outlined in EPA Manual 2750. We have no objections to the release of this report to the public.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
Addressees:
David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator for Water
Troy Lyons, Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Samantha Dravis, Associate Administrator for Policy
David Bloom, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Steven Fine, Acting Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and
Acting Chief Information Officer
-------
EPA Has Not Reported to Congress on
BEACH Act Progress as Statutorily Required or
Fully Documented Budget Decisions
18-P-0071
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 5
Noteworthy Achievements 5
Scope and Methodology 6
2 Grantees Use BEACH Act Funds for Routine Monitoring
and Notification Activities 7
BEACH Act Grants Assist in Monitoring and Notification Programs 7
Grantees' Monitoring and Notification Activities Assist EPA in
Tracking BEACH Act Program Performance 8
Conclusion 8
3 EPA Has Not Fulfilled BEACH Act Reporting Requirement
to Congress 9
Disagreements and Lack of Appeal Process Led to a
Reporting Breach for Reports to Congress 9
EPA Decided Not to Draft or Submit Another Report to Congress 11
Conclusion 12
Recommendations 12
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 13
4 EPA Has Not Documented Its Supporting Analysis for
Eliminating the BEACH Act Grant Program 14
EPA Has Not Kept Records to Document Budget Decisions
About BEACH Act Grant Program 14
Despite EPA's Proposal to Cut BEACH Act Grants,
Congress Continues to Provide Funding 16
Lack of BEACH Act Grant Funding Could Negatively Impact
Grantee Beach Monitoring and Notification Programs 17
Conclusion 18
Recommendations 19
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 19
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 20
-continued-
-------
EPA Has Not Reported to Congress on
BEACH Act Progress as Statutorily Required or
Fully Documented Budget Decisions
18-P-0071
Appendices
A EPA Beach Program Logic Model 21
B Prior Reports 24
C Agency Response to Draft Report 26
D Distribution 32
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) conducted this evaluation to determine how grants under the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (BEACH
Act) assist states, territories and tribes (collectively referred to here as "grantees")
in monitoring water quality of coastal recreation waters, and notifying the public
of contamination events.
Background
Each year Americans take a total of
more than 900 million trips to coastal
areas, spending approximately
$44 billion annually during these visits.
Counties adjacent to beaches contributed
an estimated $6 trillion toward the
nation's gross domestic product and
47 million jobs in 2010. Serious risks to
the health of recreational swimmers, as
well as serious economic consequences,
can occur from sewer overflow runoff into coastal waters; water treatment plant
malfunctions; stormwater runoff after rainfall; waste from boats; leaking septic
systems; or livestock, pet and wildlife waste.
Requirements Under the BEACH Act
The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to improve the quality of
coastal recreation waters and for "other purposes," including protecting human
health. The act defines "coastal recreation waters" as the Great Lakes and marine
coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under CWA Section
303(c) for such uses as swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact
activities (BEACH Act Section 5). The BEACH Act requires or otherwise notes the
following:
1. The EPA is to research pathogens and pathogen indicators in coastal
recreation waters and research testing methods to detect pathogens/pathogen
indicators (BEACH Act Section 3 and CWA Section 104(v)).
2. The EPA is to develop, and grantees are to adopt, coastal recreation water
quality criteria. Implementation of new or revised water quality criteria for
Exposure to polluted waters that
contain bacteria and/or viruses can
cause symptoms such as ear, nose
and eye infections; diarrhea;
vomiting; skin rashes; and respiratory
illnesses. Children, the elderly, and
those with weakened immune
systems are particularly susceptible
to diseases.
18-P-0071
1
-------
pathogens and pathogen indicators is specifically for protecting human
health in coastal recreation waters (BEACH Act Section 3 and
CWA Section 304(a)(9)).1
3. The EPA is to develop performance criteria for coastal recreation water
monitoring and notification programs (BEACH Act Section 4(d) and
CWA Section 406(d)).
4. The EPA may award grants to implement monitoring and notification
programs if the program is consistent with performance criteria established
by the agency (BEACH Act Section 4(b) and CWA Section 406(b)).
5. The EPA is to submit a Report to Congress every 4 years, beginning in
2004, that includes recommendations concerning pathogens and pathogen
indicators, an evaluation of efforts to implement the BEACH Act, and
recommendations on improvements (BEACH Act Section 7).
6. Eligible coastal grantees are to develop and implement coastal recreation
water monitoring and notification programs that meet performance criteria
if receiving grant money from the EPA (BEACH Act Section 4(c) and
CWA Section 406(c)).
EPA Grants for Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
The EPA provides BEACH Act grants to
eligible grantees in coastal states and
those along the Great Lakes (Figure 1).
Grantees use BEACH Act funds to
monitor coastal beaches for bacteria that
indicate the possible presence of disease-
causing pathogens, and to notify the
public when there is a potential risk to
public health. The beach program logic
model in Appendix A provides details on
how the program is designed to work.
Between 2002 and 2016 the agency
awarded approximately $146.6 million
in grants to 35 states and territories and
three tribes to implement water quality
monitoring and public notification
programs at coastal beaches. While the
1 The 2012 Recreation Water Quality Criteria allows grantees to suggest alternative criteria that take into
consideration local environmental conditions and human exposure patterns if they are scientifically defensible,
protective of use, and approved by the EPA.
BEACH Act Tribes
Figure 1: Map of grantees covered by the BEACH Act
States, Territories and Tribes
Covered by the BEACH Act of 2000
vvEPA
Source: EPA map.
18-P-0071
2
-------
amounts awarded have varied over those 15 years, on average the EPA has
awarded nearly $9.8 million to grantees each year (Figure 2). When adjusted to
2002 dollars with the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator,2 the value of the
grants awarded has decreased over time (e.g., the nearly $9.5 million in BEACH
Act grants awarded in fiscal year (FY) 2016 has an approximate value of
$7.1 million).
Figure 2: Total BEACH Act grant awards (2002-2016)
$3 -
$2 -
$1 "
$0 -
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Total Annual BEACH Act Grants Awarded by EPA
Total Annual BEACH Act Grants Awarded by EPA (Adjusted to 2002 Dollars)
Source: EPA OIG analysis.
Grantees receive between $50,000 and $500,000 in BEACH Act grants from the
EPA annually, based on parameters in the agency's allocation formula. That
formula relies on readily available and verifiable data, including the following:
1. The length of the beach season (an indicator of resources a grantee would
need to conduct monitoring).
2. The number of shoreline miles (an indicator of the geographical extent
over which a grantee would conduct monitoring).
3. The coastal county population (an indicator of beach use by the public).
As such, a grantee with a longer beach season, more shoreline miles, and a larger
coastal county population would need more resources than other grantees. In
2010, the agency developed a supplemental allocation formula to redistribute
underutilized BEACH Act grant funds to eligible grantees. This was based on a
2007 recommendation from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),
as discussed in Appendix B.
2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator.
18-P-0071
3
-------
State Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Programs
Terms of BEACH Act grants require that grantees adopt recreation water quality
criteria, monitor coastal recreation waters for indicator bacteria, notify the public
when bacteria levels exceed criteria, and annually report monitoring and
notification data to the EPA.3 Figure 3 shows the cycle grantees use to monitor
and notify the public of beach conditions.
Figure 3: Grantee coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification cycle
Monitor for indicator bacteria in
coastal recreation waters at BEACH
Act (or program) beaches
Remove advisory (or reopen
beach) when monitoring results
show decreased levels of
indicator bacteria
If indicator bacteria levels exceed
water quality criteria or the beach
action value, issue an advisory to
the public (or close the beach)
Conduct follow-up monitoring
until indicator bacteria levels are
below water quality criteria or the
beach action value
Source: EPA OIG summary of EPA Office of Water's 2014 National Beach Guidance and
Performance Criteria for Grants.
In 2012, of the 3,762 coastal beaches monitored by grantees, 40 percent
(1,504 beaches) had at least one advisory or closure due to exceedances of the
recreation water quality criteria. Grantees issued a total of 5,725 notification
actions (i.e., advisories or closings) during the 2012 swimming season. Typically,
an action is lifted when follow-up monitoring proves that water quality complies
with applicable standards.
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants
The EPA's National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants4 outlines the performance criteria that an eligible state must meet to
receive grants to implement coastal recreation water monitoring and public
3 The EPA recommends that grantees make a risk management decision to select the most appropriate illness rate
and corresponding set of criteria values for their waters.
4 EPA Office of Water, National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 Edition,
EPA-823-B-14-001. July 2014.
18-P-0071
4
-------
notification programs. Grantees must meet 11 performance criteria for
implementing monitoring, assessment and notification programs. The
performance criteria categories include using a risk-based beach evaluation
process to classify beaches into tiers,5 a monitoring plan using approved
monitoring and assessment procedures, a public notification and risk
communication plan, adoption of new or revised water quality standards and
beach notification thresholds, and public evaluation of the program.
The EPA awards BEACH Act grants in two phases: initial program development
and implementation phases. As of August 2017, the agency beach program staff
believed all eligible states, tribes, and territories received implementation grants.
Responsible Offices
The Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology (OW-OST) administers
the BEACH Act program and prepares required reports to Congress. The Office
of Policy and the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, both
within the Office of the Administrator, are responsible for ensuring the agency
completes and submits required reports to Congress. The Office of the Chief
Financial Officer is responsible for keeping official agency records about budget
decisions. The Agency Records Officer within the Office of Environmental
Information is responsible for ensuring the agency's management of official
agency records.
Noteworthy Achievements
In 2016, the EPA released a marine sanitary survey mobile application based on
the agency's routine marine beach sanitary survey form. The mobile application
provides managers of marine beaches with an innovative and consistent approach
for identifying sources of beach pollution in the field.6 Additionally, the Office of
Water published a non-technical guide on how to develop predictive tools in the
context of an overall beach monitoring and notification program.7
Also in 2016, the EPA hosted the first national conference for stakeholders on
recreation waters since 2011 to discuss wide-ranging issues related to human health
and recreational water quality. At the time of our interviews, EPA regional and
state beach managers indicated that national conferences provided opportunities to
network and share lessons learned with other managers and stakeholders.8
5 The EPA recommends that grantees use three tiers to classify their beaches. "Tier 1" beaches would include a
grantee's highest priority beaches based on high risk and/or high use. "Tier 3" beaches would include beaches with
significantly lower risk and/or use. "Tier 2" beaches would fall somewhere between Tier 1 and Tier 3 beaches.
According to the EPA, in August 2017 it added a "Tier 4" designation for beaches where grantees do not report
monitoring or notification data to the agency.
6 For more information about marine sanitary surveys, including the mobile application, see the EPA's website.
7 EPA Office of Water, Six Key Steps for Developing and Using Predictive Tools at Your Beach, EPA 820-R-16-
001. March 2016.
8 2016 Recreation Waters Conference. April 12-15, 2016, New Orleans, Louisiana.
18-P-0071
5
-------
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. We conducted this audit between August 2015 and
January 2016, and then from December 2016 to July 2017; this assignment was
suspended from February 2016 through November 2016.
We reviewed the BEACH Act and the CWA, budget justifications for the beach
program, documents and guidance prepared by the EPA, an example of a grant
agreement between the EPA and a state, and prior audits conducted by the GAO
and EPA OIG. We interviewed managers and staff in the OW-OST, the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer's Office of Budget, the Office of the Administrator's
Office of Policy and Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations,
and the Agency Records Officer in the Office of Environmental Information.
We also interviewed managers and staff in the following EPA regions and states
about their beach monitoring and notification programs: Region 2 (Puerto Rico),
Region 3 (Delaware), Region 4 (Florida), Region 5 (Minnesota and the Minnesota
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa tribe), Region 6 (Louisiana), Region 9
(California and Hawaii), and Region 10 (Washington state). During state site
visits, we observed sampling by state beach programs at different locations.
We also interviewed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National
Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infections Diseases, and the following non-
governmental organizations knowledgeable on water quality, beach monitoring,
and notification: the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Surfrider
Foundation's Blue Water Task Force, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Association
Coastal Ocean Observing System. We interviewed leadership and member states
from the Coastal States Organization, and surveyed the member states that have
their beach monitoring and notification activities managed by coastal zone
management programs about the potential impact of no or decreased grant
funding for their beach programs.
Prior Audits
The GAO and EPA OIG have both issued reports related to EPA implementation
of the BEACH Act. Additionally, the EPA OIG issued a report on the agency's
renewable fuel standards program that is relevant to our discussion in Chapter 3
about required reports to Congress. Details on these reports are in Appendix B.
18-P-0071
6
-------
Chapter 2
Grantees Use BEACH Act Funds for
Routine Monitoring and Notification Activities
Grantees use BEACH Act grant funds for the operation of their beach programs—
from monitoring for indicator bacteria to notifying the public of unsafe conditions
in coastal recreation waters. The details of these programs can vary from grantee
to grantee, but all potential grantee programs must meet the agency's performance
criteria before being awarded a grant. The EPA tracks performance of progress
toward program goals with two measures. According to the EPA, the program
generally achieves its annual goals for 98 percent of high-priority beaches
monitored and managed by grantees, and 95 percent of beach season days where
beaches were open and safe for swimming.
BEACH Act Grants Assist in Monitoring and Notification Programs
The EPA awards grants for beach monitoring and notification programs that meet
the requirements of the 2014 National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Grant Criteria. Generally, BEACH Act grants awarded in one fiscal
year fund the monitoring and notification programs for the following beach
season. For instance, FY 2016 BEACH Act grants awarded by EPA regions were
to be used by grantees for the 2017 beach season. Grantees generally conduct
beach monitoring seasonally, typically from April or May to September or
October. A handful of grantees interviewed monitor beaches year-round
(California, Florida, and Hawaii); Washington state said the Makah Tribe also
monitors its beaches year-round.
Grantees we interviewed reported using the grants to cover a range of expenses
and activities associated with beach monitoring and notification, such as staffing,
sampling, analysis, signage and supplies. Grantee programs may vary in terms of
how frequently they monitor their
beaches, the laboratory methods
used to analyze water samples, and
how the public is notified of
elevated bacteria levels. For
example, Delaware's program
monitors its most popular beaches
twice a week, starting with the
second Monday in May and
continuing through the last week of
September, while Florida's program
monitors approximately 17 percent
of its beaches once every 2 weeks
year-round.
Omaa bi-zhaazhlg giin • Welcome
Oinaa bi-zliaa/iiig giin • Welcome
Mlno })ilzhif)ad
auwun nibilkaanf)
It Is a good d>i)
lor n\\ hunting
Minnesota Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Ojibwe language
posters used for beach notifications, (EPA OIG photo)
18-P-0071
7
-------
Grantees primarily use EPA-approved, culture-based methods that take
approximately 18 to 48 hours to analyze water samples for indicator bacteria
levels. Some states are exploring the use of more rapid methods that can produce
results in as few as 3 hours after the lab receives the water samples (e.g.,
California, Florida and Michigan) and predictive modeling (e.g., California,
New Jersey and New York). A combination of notification methods appears to
work the best for reaching multiple audiences of beach visitors. States generally
have used websites, signs, local news and radio to notify beach visitors of
elevated bacteria levels, but have supplemented these methods with social media
notifications. States may also provide notifications in additional languages.
Grantees' Monitoring and Notification Activities Assist EPA in
Tracking BEACH Act Program Performance
The EPA currently uses two measures to track performance that coastal recreation
waters are safe for swimming and other activities.9 Grantees' required submission
of monitoring data and notification information assists the EPA in measuring and
tracking the program's performance. Table 1 summarizes available program
performance data from FYs 2013-2016. Overall, performance of the EPA's beach
program has been high during these years, usually meeting or nearly meeting
program goals (numbers in green represent goals being met; numbers in orange
represent goals nearly being met). According to the agency, the EPA will no
longer track these two measures beginning in FY 2018.
Table 1: EPA's two performance measures for BEACH Act program
(FYs 2013-2016)
Percent of beach season
Percent of Tier 1 (highest
days monitored that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches are
priority) public beaches
monitored and managed
open and safe for swimming
under BEACH Act program
Fiscal
Goal
Actual
Goal
Actual
year
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
2013
96.0
96.0
98.0
98.1
2014
95.0
96.8
95.0
98.1
2015
95.0
97.0
99.5
2016
95.0
98.0
99.0
Source: OIG analysis and summary of EPA performance data.
Conclusion
Grantees protect human health from waterborne illnesses by using BEACH Act
funds to develop and implement programs that monitor bacteria levels in coastal
recreation waters and to notify the public of elevated bacteria levels.
9 EPA Office of Water, FY 2016-2017 National Water Program Guidance, EPA 420-R-15-008. April 2015.
18-P-0071
8
-------
Chapter 3
EPA Has Not Fulfilled BEACH Act
Reporting Requirement to Congress
The agency has failed to fulfill the legal requirement under Section 7 of the
BEACH Act to report to Congress every 4 years on the BEACH Act grant
program's progress and impact on water quality and public health. The act
requires that the EPA report on recommendations for additional criteria or actions
to improve water quality, a national assessment of the implementation of the
BEACH Act, and areas for improvement in monitoring. The EPA last submitted
this required report to Congress in 2006. According to EPA staff, lack of
resources, in addition to disagreement on the content of the report and whether the
grants should continue, led the EPA to cease its congressional reporting. The
EPA's current guidance for issuing such reports does not include a process for
addressing or appealing such disagreements. By not fulfilling this reporting
requirement, Congress and the public have not been informed about the BEACH
Act program since 2006. The agency said submitting the BEACH Act report to
Congress was unnecessary. However, the reporting requirement remains until
Congress eliminates it.
Disagreements and Lack of Appeal Process Led to a Reporting
Breach for Reports to Congress
Under the BEACH Act, the EPA Administrator is responsible for submitting a
report to Congress every 4 years.10 The BEACH Act required the agency to
prepare and submit the first report to
Congress by 2004; subsequent reports
would have been due to Congress in
2008, 2012 and 2016. The agency
submitted a delayed first report to
Congress in 2006. Based on the
submittal of this 2006 report to
Congress, the agency concluded it
should submit subsequent reports to
Congress in 2010 and 2014, with the
next report due in 2018.
The agency did prepare a second
BEACH Act report in 2010, although
10 Section 7 of the BEACH Act requires that the report to Congress include (1) recommendations concerning the
need for additional water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators and other actions to improve the
quality of coastal recreation waters; (2) an evaluation of federal, state and local efforts to implement the act; and
(3) recommendations on improvements to methodologies and techniques for monitoring of coastal recreation waters.
Hawaii's state lab analyzing beach samples
using the EPA's standard 24-hour method.
(EPA OIG photo)
18-P-0071
9
-------
submittal to Congress would not have occurred until 2011, but disagreements with
the OMB contributed to the agency not issuing the report. Staff from the EPA's
Office of Policy and Office of Water informed us that the OMB requested a
congressional report message consistent with the information included in the
agency's FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification. The revised report
message would describe the program as "mature" and recommend that funding is
no longer provided for the BEACH Act grant program.
According to EPA OW-OST staff, the program office did not agree with making
changes to the draft report based on the OMB's comments. Managers from the
OW-OST said resolving disagreements between the program office and the OMB
would involve elevating the issue to the Assistant Administrator for Water or the
EPA Administrator for high-level resolution with OMB senior officials. OW-OST
management did elevate the issue to the acting Assistant Administrator for Water
for resolution. While the acting Assistant Administrator agreed the language in
the report should not change to say the program was not needed, the acting
Assistant Administrator decided to leave the report with the OMB. As a result,
Congress and the public were not informed about the progress of the BEACH Act
program.
As outlined in the agency's guidance for
the Action Development Process (ADP),
the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations and the
Office of Policy (both in the Office of the
Administrator) share responsibility with
the media-specific program office for
issuing reports required by authorizing
language. The media-specific program
office has the primary responsibility for
developing the action; in this case, the
Office of Water is responsible for
preparing the BEACH Act report to
Congress. The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations keeps
track of old and new required reports based on language in authorizing statutes,
and reminds the respective program office of the upcoming deadlines. The Office
of Water, as the responsible media-specific program office, enters major expected
and accomplished milestones into the agency's action database ("ADP Tracker").
The ADP guidance also contains steps for elevating and resolving workgroup
issues, but does not include specific language about elevating and resolving
disagreements over comments made by the OMB during its review of required
reports to Congress. Figure 4 summarizes the EPA's process for issuing required
reports to Congress using the required BEACH Act reports as an example.
The Office of Policy established
ADP guidance to manage the
development of agency actions,
including reports to Congress.
• Action Aid 14 outlines the
process for reports required by
authorizing statute.
• Action Aid 4 outlines the
process for elevating and
resolving workgroup issues
18-P-0071
10
-------
Figure 4: EPA process for issuing required beach program reports to Congress
The Office of Water prepares draft of the required report to Congress.
The Office of Policy reviews the draft report and provides comments to the
Office of Water.
After all comments have been resolved, the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations reviews the draft and provides comments to the
Office of Water.
After all comments have been resolved, the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations sends the draft report to the Office of
Management and Budget.
The Office of Management and Budget reviews the draft report and provides
comments to the agency.
After all comments have been resolved, the Office of Management and Budget
approves the report to Congress.
The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations finalizes and submits the
report to Congress.
Source: OIG summary of the agency's ADP for reports to Congress.
EPA Decided Not to Draft or Submit Another Report to Congress
The EPA's Office of Water chose not to draft another report to Congress.
OW-OST staff told us that diminished resources prevented the office from
compiling the report. However, despite the uncertainty of the program's funding
and future status, the OW-OST staff continue to administer the grants, compile
the national notification and monitoring data submitted by grantees, and assist
grantees in adopting the 2012 recreation water quality criteria.
According to the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, there
is no protocol to inform Congress when the agency will not (or does not) submit a
required report to Congress. As such, the agency told us it did not inform
Congress that it would not submit BEACH Act reports. Staff said that when there
is interest in a required report, it is not unusual for members of Congress or
staffers to contact them for the report's status. EPA staff were not aware of any
outstanding congressional interest in the BEACH Act program's required report.
As part of the 2010 Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act,
federal agencies are tasked with identifying required reports and plans that they
consider outdated or no longer necessary. The OMB provides agencies with
guidance about eliminating unnecessary agency plans and reports in
18-P-0071
11
-------
OMB Circular A-l 1 (Section 290)11 and in an April 2017 memorandum.12 Under
OMB Circular A-l 1 Section 290, agencies are required to update their list of
reports that may be unnecessary as part of their September 2017 budget
submission for FY 2019. The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations maintains the agency's list of reports the EPA deems unnecessary. The
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations included the BEACH
Act program's required report to Congress in the list of reports required by statute
that the agency is recommending to be eliminated. In November 2017, the agency
provided this list to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for
feedback. In the transmittal memo to the committee, the agency indicated it
submitted the same list of reports to the OMB for consideration as part of the
FY 2019 budget development process. The Office of Water told us it "will await
the White House's response to that request before initiating another report."
Conclusion
Congress has not eliminated the reporting requirement for the agency's BEACH
Act program. Therefore, the agency must fulfill the reporting requirement under
the BEACH Act. The EPA needs to review internal controls for ensuring legal
reporting requirements are met and an appeal/elevation process for addressing
disagreements with OMB is well-understood and documented in its guidance.
This will facilitate EPA compliance with the law and reduce risks of
noncompliance.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
1. Submit the mandated reports to Congress on progress under the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000.
We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, in consultation with the Associate Administrator for
Policy:
2. Review and update, as appropriate, the controls for ensuring mandated
reports—such as for the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act of 2000—are identified, tracked and submitted.
11 Executive Office of the President, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, OMB Circular A-l 1.
2017.
12 OMB, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Comprehensive Plan for
Reforming the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce, OMB M-17-22 (see page 8),
April 12, 2017.
18-P-0071
12
-------
We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Policy, in consultation with
the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations:
3. Update the Action Development Process to clarify the process for
elevating and resolving disagreements related to comments from the
Office of Management and Budget on draft reports to Congress, such as
the report on the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Act of 2000.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Office of Water disagreed with Recommendation 1, stating that while it
understands the statutory requirements and benefits of reporting to Congress, it
believes it is premature to initiate another BEACH Act report to Congress unless
and until OMB responds that the report is necessary. The Office of Water
suggested alternative language for this recommendation that would make the
development of a report to Congress contingent on receiving notification that the
BEACH Act report remains necessary. The OIG maintains that the agency must
satisfy the reporting requirement until Congress eliminates the reporting
requirement for the program. During the final report review process, we revised
the draft recommendation to make it clearer that the agency should submit
mandated reports to Congress on progress under the BEACH Act of 2000. This
recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations agreed with
Recommendation 2, saying it will continue to coordinate with the Office of Policy
and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to review the controls for ensuring
mandated reports are identified, tracked and issued. The office indicated it will
also reissue the guidance to program offices on using the ADP Tracker. The
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations estimates it will
complete these corrective actions by the end of the second quarter of FY 2018.
The planned corrective actions satisfy the intent of this recommendation. This
recommendation is resolved with corrective actions pending.
The Office of Policy agreed with Recommendation 3, stating that it will make
changes to the ADP guidance to clarify the issue of elevating and resolving
disagreements related to comments from OMB. The Office of Policy estimates it
will complete these corrective actions by the end of the second quarter of FY 2018.
The planned corrective actions satisfy the intent of this recommendation. This
recommendation is resolved with corrective actions pending.
The agency's response to the draft report is in Appendix C. The agency also
provided technical comments in its response to this report. We evaluated the
technical comments relevant to this chapter and made changes as appropriate.
18-P-0071
13
-------
Chapter 4
EPA Has Not Documented Its Supporting Analysis
for Eliminating the BEACH Act Grant Program
The EPA has not requested funding for the BEACH Act grant program since
FY 2012 based, in part, on its view that the grant program is a "mature" program.
While the EPA documented the initial deliberations about the agency budget and
the final decision about funding for the BEACH Act grant program, the agency
could not provide records supporting the analysis that explains the decision-
making process for this proposal. Under the Federal Records Act and the EPA's
Records Management Policy, the supporting analyses and information that lead to
these budget decisions are considered records. Grantees anticipate that a lack of
grant funding in the future will impact their ability to implement their beach
monitoring and public notification programs, and uncertainty as to whether there
will be BEACH Act grants in the future has impeded grantee programs. It should
be noted that Congress has continued to fund the BEACH Act grants program for
the EPA.
EPA Has Not Kept Records to Document Budget Decisions About
BEACH Act Grant Program
The Federal Records Act and the EPA's Records Management Policy require that
the agency document certain agency decisions, activities and actions. The EPA
develops and maintains records schedules for different types of agency activities;
the records schedules describe the specific records to document the activity,
establish a period for retention by the agency, and provide instructions as to what
to do with the records when no longer needed for government business. The blue
box on the next page describes the relevant legal authorities and guidance for
recordkeeping.
18-P-0071
14
-------
Records Management Framework for Agency Budget Decisions
The Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31) requires that agency heads
make and preserve records documenting the decisions and essential transactions
of the agency (among other activities) (Section 3101).
The EPA's Records Management Policy (CIO 2155.3) states that records are
managed for the benefit of the EPA and its staff, partners, stakeholders and the
public. Additionally, all employees are responsible for creating and managing the
records necessary to document the agency's official activities and actions
(Section 8(l)(1)).
The EPA's Records Schedule 1005 addresses financial management; it covers
records related to use of financial information to measure effectiveness and
efficiency of activities in relation to objectives. Specifically, budget records include
(but are not limited to) background records, cost statements, rough data, etc., in
preparation of annual budget estimates and reports generated throughout the
budget process.
The EPA's Records Schedule 1021 addresses planning and resource allocations;
it covers records related to allocating resources among programs and processes
and budget formulation activities undertaken to determine priorities for future
spending.
The National Archives and Records Administration Management Guide Series
1995 provides federal agencies with guidance on the management of records.
It specifically provides guidance on whether drafts and working files should be
considered records. The guide states that drafts and working files that propose
and evaluate options or alternatives and their implications in the development of
1 -level policies and decisions, or that document findings or support
For the FY 2013 budget process, the OMB requested that agencies look for
programs that could increase efficiencies, be consolidated with other programs, or
be terminated. In response to the OMB's request, the EPA held a budget forum in
2011 with senior leadership from national and regional program offices to
develop consensus about budget decisions. Agency officials indicated they made
the decision to eliminate the BEACH Act grants at this forum. The agency kept
records of notes taken during the budget forum. According to the notes provided,
agency senior leaders attending the 2-day budget forum discussed the agency's
FY 2013 budget but did not discuss the BEACH Act grant program in detail.
Managers in the EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer said the agency used
the following four criteria to identify agency programs for elimination:
(1) The maturity of the program.
(2) Understanding of issues addressed by the program.
(3) Availability of agency guidance.
(4) Ability of the program to operate at local level without federal support.
recommendations, should be preserved.
18-P-0071
15
-------
The agency did not provide documentation for its analysis of how the BEACH Act
grant program met the four criteria. Such documentation could include cost-benefit
analyses, evaluations of program impact, and application of agency criteria to
identify programs for elimination. According to National Records Management
Program staff, this type of documentation would be a record under EPA Records
Schedule 1005 and possibly under EPA Records Schedule 1021. This is also
supported by the agency's flowchart for determining what is a record, which states
that "supporting materials sufficient to document and/or explain the document
trail/decision making process for administrative, legal, final, programmatic and
historical purposes" are official records. The flowchart also states that supporting
materials may include drafts, annotations, reports, raw data, meeting minutes and
telephone logs; however, this was not initially codified in EPA's Records
Management Policy. In response to our draft recommendation, the EPA's National
Records Management Program (in the Office of Environmental Information)
updated Records Schedules 1005 and 1021 in July 2017, to clarify that budget
working papers are official agency records.
The EPA documented its final decision (as required by EPA Records
Schedule 0299) to no longer request funding for the BEACH Act grant program
in its FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification. In the budget justification, the
EPA explained that, for the BEACH Act grants program, "well-understood
guidelines are in place and state and local programs have the technical expertise
and procedures to continue beach monitoring without federal support." The
agency described the grant program as "mature," where there is the possibility of
maintaining some of the human health benefits through implementation at the
local level without federal support.
However, our review of the documentation maintained by the agency found that
the EPA did not keep records demonstrating its analysis of the four criteria, and
did not keep records of supporting analyses or materials that fully document and
explain the decision-making process. By not documenting the supporting analysis
used to make the final budget decision, the agency does not meet the requirements
of the Federal Records Act and the EPA's Records Management Policy.
Despite EPA's Proposal to Cut BEACH Act Grants, Congress
Continues to Provide Funding
Despite the EPA's proposal to eliminate this grant program since FY 2013,
Congress continues to provide the funding for this program, either through
continuing resolutions or by including the program in the EPA's budget. Members
of Congress have expressed support for continuing funding for the grant program.
For example:
• In 2013, 22 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the
House Appropriations Committee urging the committee "to restore
funding for this vital program to the FY 2012 enacted level of $9.9 million
18-P-0071
16
-------
to ensure that our beaches are clean and safe for all visitors while serving
as an economic engine for the many communities on our coast."
• In 2014, 19 members of the U.S. Senate sent a similar letter to the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies, urging funding of the BEACH Act grant program at $9.9 million.
Supporters in Congress of the BEACH Act also continue to propose expanding the
scope of the act by amending it to include rapid testing methods to detect unsafe
levels of pathogens within 2 hours (or less), source identification, and the use of
sanitary surveys. In FYs 2015, 2016 and 2017, Congress maintained funding levels
for the BEACH Act grant program at approximately $9.5 million each year.
Lack of BEACH Act Grant Funding Could Negatively Impact Grantee
Beach Monitoring and Notification Programs
Since FY 2013, grantees have had to manage and operate their monitoring and
notification programs with uncertainty regarding whether there will be BEACH
Act grants and, if so, how much funding they will receive. Some grantees said
they struggle to attract and retain staff, coordinate monitoring efforts, and explore
the expansion of their current means of notification and advanced techniques. For
example:
• In Hawaii, staff from the health department said the BEACH Act grant
should fund two full-time positions. However, due to the funding
uncertainty, they elected to hire fewer than two staff and rely on
laboratory support instead. Also,
Hawaii officials said that although
some monitoring and notification
would continue because the state
relies heavily on the safety of its
beaches, the monitoring frequency
would be greatly reduced.
• Beach managers from Washington
and Louisiana said that their
monitoring and notification
programs would likely cease to
exist because there are no
alternative sources to fund these
activities. Further, Louisiana beach officials reported that they are not
making purchases beyond those required by contractual obligations.
• Puerto Rico beach officials informed us that without BEACH Act grant
funding, monitoring would continue only once every 2 months, and public
notification would decrease.
Hawaii State beach program monitoring for
pathogens. (EPA OIG photo)
18-P-0071
17
-------
All nine grantees we interviewed indicated their monitoring activities would
decline (in the number of beaches monitored and/or in the monitoring frequency)
if BEACH Act grants were no longer available. Five of the nine grantees said
their monitoring and notification program may cease to exist, as they dedicate
some of the grant money to staff salaries to collect samples for analysis.
Additionally, seven grantees (Alaska, Alabama, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) provided
us with written responses about the impact of decreased, or lack of, grant funding
on their programs. These grantees indicated that their programs would also cease
to exist without grant funding, primarily because the grants are the only source of
funding available for monitoring and notification.
California's beach program may be the exception, as it is supplemented with
significant funding from local county budgets. The federal and state portion of
California's beach monitoring funding represents approximately 24 percent of the
total cost to nationally monitor beaches each year. Out of the more than
$10 million California counties spend annually to operate their beach monitoring
and notification programs, approximately $1.8 million is allocated from the state
budget and $500,000 from the BEACH Act grant.
We believe state programs have knowledgeable staff and labs to monitor indicator
bacteria levels in coastal recreation waters using traditional culture-based methods.
However, grantees we interviewed have not yet employed advancements in
monitoring and analytical techniques due to funding issues. New rapid testing
methods provide water sample results faster than traditional methods, but require a
significant investment of resources to establish. Additionally, predictive models can
provide early warning of potentially unsafe swimming conditions, especially on
days when the beach program does not sample at the beach. However, along with
historical monitoring data, developing these beach-specific models requires
technical experts/statisticians and modeling and statistical software.
According to the agency, this uncertainty about future funding also affected EPA
program staff in the regions and headquarters. The agency did not backfill vacated
positions, resulting in the same amount of work performed by fewer staff.
Conclusion
Federal laws and an agency policy require documentation and proper
recordkeeping of key budget decisions. By not fulfilling these requirements the
agency limits its protection of the interests and rights of the government and the
public, preservation of institutional knowledge for key decisions, and fostering of
accountability. The absence of documentation for the EPA's decision to request
that Congress no longer fund the BEACH Act grant program does not mean the
decision was unwarranted or unsupported. However, the absence of
documentation increases the risk that an uninformed or unsubstantiated decision
was made about the performance of this federal program that seeks to protect the
18-P-0071
18
-------
nations' coastal waters and the health of the public that uses these waters and
adjacent beaches for recreation.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer:
4. Based on the agency's National Records Management Program guidance
and records schedules, develop and implement an annual checklist or other
tool to demonstrate the office's compliance with recordkeeping
requirements regarding budget decisions.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information
and Chief Information Officer:
5. Review and update the agency's Records Management Policy and records
schedules, where appropriate, to clarify that drafts, working papers/files,
and supporting information are to be maintained as official records to
document the agency's decision-making process.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer disagreed with Recommendation 4. The
agency suggested alternative language for this recommendation that focused on
the agency following applicable budget formulation guidance in OMB Circular
A-l 1 and EPA Records Schedule 1005. We did not accept this suggested
language. This recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
The Office of Environmental Information agreed with Recommendation 5 and
provided corrective actions with completion dates. As noted in this chapter, the
office revised two records schedules on July 31, 2017, in response to our
discussions with the National Records Management Program. The Office of
Environmental Information plans to revise the language in EPA Records
Management Policy CIO 2155.3 by the end of the second quarter of FY 2018. The
Office of Environmental Information's completed and planned corrective actions
satisfy the intent of this recommendation. This recommendation is resolved
pending completion of revisions to the agency's records management policy.
We evaluated the agency's technical comments relevant to this chapter and made
changes as appropriate.
18-P-0071
19
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential
Planned Monetary
Rec. Page Completion Benefits
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date (In $000s)
12 Submit the mandated reports to Congress on progress under the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of
2000.
Assistant Administrator
for Water
12 In consultation with the Associate Administrator for Policy, review
and update, as appropriate, the controls for ensuring mandated
reports—such as for the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health Act of 2000—are identified, tracked and
submitted.
Associate Administrator for
Congressional and
Intergovernmental
Relations
3/30/18
13 In consultation with the Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, update the
Action Development Process to clarify the process for elevating
and resolving disagreements related to comments from the
Office of Management and Budget on draft reports to Congress,
such as the report on the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health Act of 2000.
Associate Administrator for
Policy
3/30/18
19 Based on the agency's National Records Management Program
guidance and records schedules, develop and implement an
annual checklist or other tool to demonstrate the office's
compliance with recordkeeping requirements regarding budget
decisions.
Chief Financial Officer
19 Review and update the agency's Records Management Policy
and records schedules, where appropriate, to clarify that drafts,
working papers/files, and supporting information are to be
maintained as official records to document the agency's
decision-making process.
Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information
and Chief Information
Officer
3/30/18
1
C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0071 20
-------
Appendix A
EPA Beach Program Logic Model
Resources/
Inputs
Beach program office
administrative activities
funded by $2,015,000 iri
FY 2015 (shared budget
with the fish program
under OW-OST)
3 full-time equivalents
in OW-OST
9 EPA Regional beach
coordinators
(not full time)
Office of Research and
Development research
staff
Annual BEACH Act grant
appropriations: $9.55
million (FY 2015)
Activities
(BEACH Act Requirements)
Water quality criteria for
recreation waters (both coastal
and non-coastal) (last updated
in 2012)
Grant performance criteria for
beach programs (last updated
in 2014)
Technical assistance to states in
support of monitoring activities
{new testing methods, guidance,
sanitary surveys, etc.)
Reports to Congress
eBEACHES system & BEACON 2.0
information query tool
National List of Beaches
Studies on human health risks
due to exposure to pathogens
Recommended analytical
procedures for sample collection
and analysis
Outputs
Monitoring and notification
programs in coastal states,
territories, and tribes receiving
BEACH Act grants
Report to Congress (2006)
Annual Swimming Season Statistics
and Reports (1999-2012)
BEACON 2,0 reports (various)
National conferences (2004, 2006,
2009, 2011, 2016)
Virtual Beach (pathogen indicator
prediction software)
Technical and non-technical
guidance on predictive modeling
Technical guidance on monitoring
procedures and analytical methods
Great Lakes and Marine Sanitary
Survey Guidances (also a mobile
application for marine surveys)
Evaluation of beach notification
program
EPA Annual Performance
Measures: Percent of Tier 1
beaches monitored & Percent of
beach season days that beaches
monitored by state programs are
open and safe for swimming
18-P-0071
21
-------
Outcomes BOLD Outcomes with impacts on other CWA programs
Impacts
Short Term (1-3 years)
Long Term (4-6 years)
Increased ability/capacity of state
programs to monitor coastal
recreation water quality
Increased ability/capacity of state
programs to notify the public of risks
at coastal beaches
Increased public awareness of health
risks at coastal beaches
Implementation of recreation water
quality criteria (and revised criteria)
by states (CWA §304)
Designating waters as impaired
(primarily for indicator bacteria under
the 2012 Recreation Water Quality
Criteria)
(CWA §303(d))
Developing total maximum daily
loads for impaired waters
(CWA §303)
Potential remediation of pollution
sources {e.g., through other EPA
programs like the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, as well as local
and state actions)
Improved coastal
recreation water
quality
8£ACH Act goal
Decreased incidences
of public illnesses in
coastal recreation
waters
Forme/' EPA
performance measure
Potential identification of pollution
sources (CWA §402 and CWA §319)
Revision of point source permits
based on new information
(CWA §402)
Integrated reports for water quality
assessment information
(CWA §305(b)/ CWA§303(d))
Change in public behavior at beaches
when advisory is present
Stakeholders,
Assumptions,
External
Factors &
Limitations
(next page)
18-P-0071
22
-------
External Factors and Limitations:
• Length of time between taking the water sample and issuing notification does not provide public with
information about current conditions.
• Budget set by Congress (years of continuing resolutions and appropriations of grant money despite EPA not
requesting funding for the grant program since FY 2012).
• EPA's intent to defund the beach grants creates uncertainties in the program.
• Between 2004 and 2015, several bills introduced in Congressto amend the BEACH Act included additional
requirements (amendments never passed}.
• Cost of newer rapid methods, lab set up, and training can be prohibitive.
• Beach-related Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grants contribute to achieving goals of BEACH Act.
• Inability to track/identify recreation water-related illnesses.
• Political/economic influence at local level to issue advisories and/or close beaches.
Assumptions:
• BEACH Act cannot be thought of in a vacuum; it should be thought of in context of the CWA's
overarching goals.
• The program focuses on water quality AND public health (per BEACH Act and CWAgoals/sections).
• EPA and states/territories/tribes program staff split time with other water related public health
programs, e.g., the fish program, water quality standards program, etc.
• EPA's ability to demonstrate water quality improvements depends on other CWA programs (e.g., point
source, nonpoint source, total maximum daily loads, etc.), as well as state and local initiatives to
remediate sources.
• New recommended methods for sampling and lab techniques may result in the need for programs to
rebuild their capacity with both new equipment and new skill sets/training.
• Without grant money, EPA is not required by the BEACH Act to implement beach programs for states.
• EPA cannot require states to continue beach monitoring and notification programs if there is no grant
Stakeholders:
• Beachgoers.
• Health and/or environmental agencies of 38 coastal states/tribes/territories receiving EPA BEACH Act
grants.
• Other federal agencies that may manage beaches or use beach data, e.g., National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association, National Park Service, U S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Center for Disease Control.
• Local governments.
• Academic institutions and other non-governmental organizations.
• Tourist associated businesses/industry.
• Non-US. governmental agencies.
18-P-0071
23
-------
Appendix B
Prior Reports
On May 1, 2007, GAO reported in Report No. GAQ-07-591. Great Lakes: EPA and States Have
Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public
Health Protection, that while increased monitoring had helped state and local officials determine
which beaches were more likely to be contaminated, in most cases local officials did not know
the causes of contamination. Consequently, state and local officials had not been able to take
actions to address those causes. The BEACH Act grants cannot be used by localities to identify
specific sources of contamination or to take actions to mitigate the problem. GAO recommended
that the EPA:
1. Revise the formula for distributing BEACH Act grants to better reflect the states' varied
monitoring needs.
2. Establish a definitive time line for publishing new or revised water quality criteria for
pathogens and pathogen indicators.
3. Provide states and localities with specific guidance on monitoring frequency and methods
and public notification.
According to GAO, all three recommendations are "closed and implemented." GAO also
proposed for congressional consideration that Congress provide the EPA with some flexibility in
awarding BEACH Act grants to allow grantees to undertake limited research to identify specific
sources of contamination at monitored beaches and certain actions to mitigate these problems, as
specified by the EPA.
On March 31, 2014, the EPA OIG noted in Report No. 14-P-0155. Quick Reaction Report: EPA
Oversight Needed to Ensure Beach Safety in U.S. Virgin Islands, that the U.S. Virgin Islands was
in violation of its agreement under the BEACH Act grant with the EPA. The U.S. Virgin Islands
failed to monitor 23 beaches on two islands between February 3-16, 2014, which posed potential
health hazards to humans and may have endangered the environment. Additionally, the OIG
concluded that the public notification provided may not be adequate for tourists visiting the
islands (i.e., they may not read the local newspapers). The OIG recommended that the Region 2
Regional Administrator take steps to ensure beach monitoring and public notification meet the
EPA's guidelines, and determine whether the program can provide continuous beach monitoring
and adequate public notification. These recommendations were completed by the agency in
2014.
On August 18, 2016, the EPA OIG noted in Report No. 16-P-0275. EPA Has Not Met Certain
Statutory Requirements to Identify Environmental Impacts of Renewable Fuel Standard, that the
Office of Research and Development issued an initial report to Congress for the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program but did not issue subsequent triennial reports to Congress. The primary
reasons for not providing subsequent reports related to accommodating competing research
priorities, reductions to the office's budget, and the shortness of the 3-year reporting cycle for
significant scientific advances to occur. The OIG concluded that the statutory requirement to
complete the report does not hinge on annual earmarked funding and the lack of scientific
18-P-0071
24
-------
advances does not eliminate the agency's reporting requirement. The OIG recommended that the
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development provide triennial reports to Congress on
the impacts of biofuels as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act. The Office of
Research and Development agreed with this recommendation and planned to complete corrective
actions in December 2017.
18-P-0071
25
-------
Appendix C
Agency Response to Draft Report
OFFICE OF WATER
October 30, 2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report NO. OPE-FY15-0056 -
EPA Should Report to Congress on BEACH Act Progress as Required, and Fully
Document Budget Decisions, dated September 12, 2017
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Troy M. Lyons
Associate Administrator
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Samantha Dravis
Associate Administrator
Office of Policy
David Bloom
Acting Chief Financial Officer
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Steven Fine
Acting Assistant Administrator, Acting Chief Information Officer
Office of Environmental Information
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit
report. Following is a summary of the agency's overall position, along with its position on each
of the report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which the agency agrees,
we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the
extent we can. For those report recommendations with which the agency does not agree, we have
explained our position and proposed alternative recommendations. For your consideration, we
have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
18-P-0071
26
-------
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
EPA appreciates being provided with the opportunity to share the most current information on
how grants under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 assist
states, territories, and tribes in monitoring water quality of coastal recreation waters and
notifying the public of contamination events. This response includes comments from the Offices
of Water, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Policy, Chief Financial Officer, and
Environmental Information.
EPA general agrees with the findings in this report, pending suggested changes noted in this
memo and in a Technical Comments Attachment. We have concerns with some of the OIG's
recommendations and believe modifications are needed. Adjusting the first and fourth
recommendations as suggested will result in more meaningful corrective actions.
We appreciate your support for our marine sanitary survey mobile application and recreational
waters conferences, which are included in the "Noteworthy Achievements" section of the report.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
EPA
Office
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
2
Review and update, as
appropriate, the controls for
ensuring mandated
reports—such as the
Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal
Health Act of 2000—are
identified, tracked and
issued.
OCIR
OCIR will continue to
coordinate with OP
and OCFO to review
the controls for
ensuring mandated
reports are identified,
tracked and issued. As
part of this process
OCIR will reissue the
guidance to the
program offices on
using the ADP
Tracker.
Q2 FY18
3
Update the Action
Development Process to
clarify the process for
elevating and resolving
disagreements related to
comments from the Office
of Management and Budget
on draft reports to
Congress.
OP
OP will make
appropriate changes to
the ADP guidance to
clarify this issue
Q2 FY18
18-P-0071
27
-------
No.
Recommendation
EPA
High-Level Intended
Estimated
Office
Corrective Action(s)
Completion by
Quarter and FY
5
Review and update the
OEI
Two records schedules
EPA Records
agency's Records
were revised as a
Schedules 1005 -
Management Policy and
result of NRMP's
Financial
records schedules, where
meetings and
Management and
appropriate, to clarify that
conversations with
1021 - Planning and
drafts, working papers/files,
OIG during the audit
Resource Allocation
and supporting information
period. EPA Records
were revised
are to be maintained as
Schedule 1005 -
07/31/2017
official records to document
Financial Management
the agency's decision-
was revised to include
making process.
"working papers" in
the disposition
instructions for item a.
EPA Records
Schedule 1021 —
Planning and Resource
Allocation was revised
to include a bullet
under the guidance
section describing
"Budget working
papers as records."
EPA Records
Interim EPA
Management Policy
Records
CI02155.3 will be
Management Policy
revised to include
Q2 FY18
language stating:
Drafts, working
papers/files, and
supporting
information of
substantive program
and mission related
areas are to be
maintained as records
to document the
Agency's decision-
making processes.
18-P-0071
28
-------
Disagreements
Recommendation 1: "Fulfill appropriate legal reporting requirements for the EPA under the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Act of 2000 for the 2018 reporting cycle and
every 4 years afterwards, pending continued program funding and report expectations from the
Office of Management and Budget."
Response: EPA disagrees with the recommendation. EPA understands the statutory
requirements and benefits of reporting to Congress, but as you noted in the draft report on page
12, the report to Congress on the BEACH Act grant program is on OCIR's list of statutorily
required reports that the Agency is recommending to be terminated. Therefore, EPA considers it
premature to initiate another report unless and until OMB responds that the report is necessary.
Proposed Alternative: We suggest the OIG revise the recommendation to say the following:
"Upon notification from the Office of Management and Budget that a report to Congress is
necessary, fulfill appropriate legal reporting requirements for the EPA under the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Act of 2000 for the 2018 reporting cycle and every 4
years afterwards, pending continued program funding and reporting expectation from the Office
of Management and Budget."
OIG Response: The agency has submitted one report to Congress in the 16-year history of the
BEACH Act grants program. Given that grants awarded in FY 2017 will be used by grantees in the
2018 swim season, the agency must prepare and submit the mandated reports to Congress. During
the final report review process, we revised the draft recommendation to make it clearer that the agency
should submit mandated reports to Congress on progress under the BEACH Act of 2000.
Recommendation 4: "Based on the agency's National Records Management Program guidance
and records schedules, develop and implement an annual checklist or other tool to demonstrate
office's compliance with recordkeeping requirements regarding budget decisions."
Response: The OCFO strongly disagrees with the OIG's assertion that there was an "absence of
documentation for the decision to eliminate the BEACHES program." OCFO has provided
records of the decision-making processes in the form of budget guidance issued once senior
leadership made decisions. The agency has followed the applicable budget formulation guidance
contained in OMB Circular A-l 1 as well as recordkeeping requirements found within EPA
Records Schedule 1005 - Financial Management.
OCFO believes that the OIG's focus on the BEACHES program decisions in isolation rather than
as part of a difficult decision-making process across programs fundamentally misrepresents the
Federal Budget formulation process. The question is not whether a particular program is worthy
but what difficult choices and tradeoffs the agency must make when it looks at how best to use
its resources across many programs.
On page 16 of the draft report, OIG acknowledges that the agency "documented its final
decision" but takes issue with documentation for its analysis" and notes examples of
18-P-0071
29
-------
documentation. None of these are required by budget formulation guidance contained in OMB
Circular A-ll.
OIG Response: OMB Circular A-11 does not specifically direct agencies to keep records of working
papers, but it also does not explicitly say that agencies are not required to keep these records. The
intent of the recommendation is to improve recordkeeping of budget-related decisions in the future as
the agency continues to make these types of difficult decisions. This is especially relevant given the
recent revisions made to EPA Records Schedules 1005 and 1021, as well as the upcoming revisions to
the EPA Records Management Policy in response to Recommendation 5.
Proposed Alternative: We suggest the OIG revise the recommendation to say the following:
"The agency will follow the applicable budget formulation guidance contained in OMB Circular
A-ll as well the Agency recordkeeping requirements found with EPA Records schedule 1005 on
Financial Management."
OIG Response: The OIG disagrees with the suggested revisions to the recommendation language.
This recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
Actions and Timeframes to Respond to OIG Recommendations
No.
Recommendation
EPA
High-Level Intended
Estimated
(including proposed
Office
Corrective Action(s)
Completion by
revision)
Quarter and FY
1
Upon notification from the
Office of Management and
Budget that a report to
Congress is necessary,
fulfill the appropriate legal
reporting requirements for
the EPA under the Beaches
Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Act of 2000 for
the 2018 reporting cycle
and every 4 years
afterwards, pending
continued program funding
and reporting expectations
from the Office of
Management and Budget.
OW
Submit 2018 Report to
Congress
Q1 FY19
18-P-0071
30
-------
No.
Recommendation
(including proposed
revision)
EPA
Office
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
4
The agency will follow the
applicable budget
formulation guidance
contained in OMB Circular
A-l 1 as well as the Agency
recordkeeping requirements
found within EPA Records
Schedule 1005 on Financial
Management
OCFO
Follow the applicable
budget formulation
guidance contained in
OMB Circular A-l 1
and Agency
recordkeeping
requirements found
within EPA Records
Schedule 1005 on
Financial
Management.
Q1 FY19
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Steven Moore, Audit Follow-
up Coordinator of the Office of Water at 202-564-0992 or moore.steven@epa.gov or one of the
following Audit Follow-up Coordinators:
Office of Water: Steven Moore, 202-564-0992, moore.steven@epa.gov
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations: Latonia Cheatham-Strickland, 202-
564-7930, cheatham-strickland.latonia@epa.gov
Office of Policy: Michael Benton (OA), 202-564-2860, benton.michael@epa.gov
Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Bob Trent, 202-566-0983, trent.bobbie@epa.gov
Office of Environmental Information: Jennifer Judd, 202-566-9993, judd.jennifer@epa.gov
Attachment: Technical Comments
18-P-0071
31
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Chief of Operations
Deputy Chief of Operations
Chief Financial Officer
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Policy
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Associate Chief Financial Officer
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and
Deputy Chief Information Officer
Principal Deputy Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Policy
18-P-0071
32
------- |