. 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INTERNAL AUDIT SECTION

Total Maximum Daily Load Program Review 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration 

Report # IA-03-14-2008-52 

June 2008 

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 41 · Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

i 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONTENTS ONTENTS PAGE

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1 

METHODOLOGY 1 

 

BACKGROUND 2 

RESULTS & CONCLUSION 2 

RECOMMENDATION 7 

DIVISION RESPONSE 8 

 

 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

1 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 

The scope of this report includes a review of contracts and related issues in the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) Program within the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration (division), 

Bureau of Watershed Management (bureau) to date. 

The objectives are to evaluate compliance with contract management and administration practices as well 

as determine the current status of the TMDL Program. 

METHODOLOGY 

The review included tests of division records, interviews with staff and other procedures as follows: 

 Reviewing internal controls related to contract management and administration; 

 Random sampling of TMDL contract agreements; 

 Reviewing the adequacy of the current monitoring file system; 

 Comparing contract amounts/rates to grantee invoices and requests for reimbursement; 

 Reviewing the most current reports, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) 

 report # 05-42, August 2005 

 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report # IA-03-14-2006-067, March 2006 

 Program Report to the Legislature and Governor, February 2005; 

 Meetings with key personnel in the division and Office of General Counsel; and 

 Collecting the most current data related to the TMDL Program. 

RESULTS AT A GLANCE 

3⁄4 The contract file system was adequate, easily accessible, and well-organized. 

3⁄4 Invoices and progress reports were properly maintained and monitored. 

3⁄4 The current status of the program was obtained and summarized. 

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE OUR LAST REVIEW? 

3⁄4 Additional development and adoption of TMDLs. 

WHAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME? 

3⁄4 The number of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) implemented since June 2005. The 

Ocklawaha River is the only basin currently undergoing BMAP implementation. The division 

anticipates adopting two additional BMAPs by June 2008. 

3⁄4 Proposed rule 62-305, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) which sets forth the criteria rankings 

for grant applicants remains in draft form and has not progressed to the rulemaking process. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

2 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

BACKGROUND 

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can 

receive and still meet water quality standards, and allocates pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint 

pollutant sources. The TMDL Program provides funding for best management practices and capital project 

expenditures in order to better manage and help reduce pollutant levels in the state’s 52 major hydrologic 

basins. State appropriations of $21,429,490 have been provided in fiscal year 2007-08. 

 

Under section 303 (d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. 

These impaired waters do not meet water quality standards even after point sources of pollution have 

installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. In addition, the law requires that 

states establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. States must 

take into account the severity of pollution and uses to be made of the water which may include fishing, 

swimming, and drinking water. The list must identify each pollutant that is causing the impairment. 

 

Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, sets forth the process by which the section 303 (d) list is refined through 

more detailed water quality assessments. It also establishes the means for adopting TMDLs, allocating 

pollutant loadings among contributing sources, and implementing pollution reduction strategies. 

The Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration develops, allocates, and implements TMDLs 

through a watershed-based management approach (managing water resources within their natural 

boundaries) that addresses the state’s 52 major hydrologic basins in five groups. 

The department receives documentary stamp funding for the implementation of projects to reduce urban 

nonpoint source pollution discharged to impaired waters. These funds are restricted to projects that reduce 

pollutant loadings to water bodies on the state’s verified list of impaired waters or to water bodies with a 

DEP proposed or adopted TMDL. These funds are used primarily for stormwater retrofitting projects 

undertaken by local governments. Typically, the department provides up to $1,000,000 in grant funding for 

these water quality improvement projects. All projects require a minimum of 50% matching funds. 

Additionally, some of these funds are used for projects to develop, refine, demonstrate, or monitor urban 

nonpoint source best management practices. 

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

OBJECTIVE 1: To review contract administration and compliance. 

The program monitors some 58 contract agreements. The majority of these contract agreements require the 

grantee to submit progress reports, reimbursement requests, and invoices at least monthly or quarterly. The 

bureau chief and an environmental specialist are responsible for the financial and administrative duties 

related to these contracts. Technical staff within the bureau verify the scopes of work and monitor 

completion of the technical deliverables. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

3 

The environmental specialist receives progress reports and reimbursement requests and reviews them for 

accuracy and completeness. He then checks with the technical staff to verify that the technical aspects of 

the project are being met and deliverables provided. The documents are then submitted to the bureau chief 

for review and approval. Once approved, the information is entered into an Excel spreadsheet and 

monitored in order to ensure the reporting requirements are fulfilled. The documents are placed in a file 

organization system. The files are located in two separate filing cabinets and are neatly organized in such a 

way that makes them easily accessible. 

Each project file is divided into three sections: contracts and amendments, invoices, and progress reports. A 

sample of five contract files was selected for this review: S0107, S0113, S0162, S0261, and S0269. The 

files were reviewed for accuracy, organization, and adequate documentation. There were no issues related 

to the file organization system or the records maintained by the bureau. 

OBJECTIVE 2: To determine the current status of the TMDL Program. 

In January 2008, we met with the bureau chief to discuss the objectives of this review and gain a better 

understanding of the program, funding sources, internal controls, and current status of the program. 

The major surface water basins have been grouped into a basin rotation schedule as presented in the table 

below. In order to visualize the current status of the TMDL Program, we highlighted the active phase for 

each group in the basin rotation schedule in blue. 

Basin Rotation Schedule 

For TMDL Development and Implementation 

YEAR 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10

Group 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5

Group 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4

Group 3 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3

Group 4 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Group 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1

1st Five-year Cycle – High-priority Waters 2nd Five-year Cycle – Medium-priority Waters 

Each group has a cycle of five phases on a rotating schedule: 

Phase 1: Preliminary evaluation of water quality. 

Phase 2: Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments. 

Phase 3: Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired. 

Phase 4: Development of Basin Management Action Plan (B-MAP) to achieve the TMDL. 

Phase 5: Implementation of the BMAP and monitoring of results. 

In addition to the basin rotation schedule, there are several other items which help explain the current status 

of the program and what may be expected over the next year. For example, the bureau established 97 

TMDLs for impaired water bodies in the last year and expects to establish 419 additional TMDLs by the 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

4 

end of 2009. The total cumulative percentage of TMDLs developed by the end of 2009 is expected to reach 

72%. The remaining 28% is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011. This schedule is determined by 

a June 1999 consent decree agreed to by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm. 

After reviewing the consent decree, we noted that many water bodies categorized as “high priority” were 

placed in lower priority groupings. For example, the South Indian River Basin is listed as “high priority” in 

the consent decree, but it was placed in group 5 as opposed to group 1. We found 16 instances in which a 

“high priority” water body was placed in group 4 or 5 of the basin rotation schedule. In addition, 18 “low 

priority” water bodies were placed in “high priority” groupings. After further review and discussion with 

the division director and the bureau chief, we learned the consent decree schedule was decided by the EPA 

and Earthjustice. The two parties based their schedule on the department’s basin rotation schedule. All 

“high priority” waters were captured in cycle 1. Thus, where the specific group within the cycle was placed 

appears to not be an issue as long as they were captured in cycle 1. 

A new group 1 list was posted on the Web site in February and should be adopted in the near future with 

TMDLs expected to be established by September 2008. As the population of TMDLs continues to grow, 

the bureau will reevaluate each group on a cyclical basis and assess whether or not BMAPs have been 

implemented and are achieving results. 

The following table lists the funding sources and amounts for the program. Since our last report issued in 

March 2006, the General Revenue Fund was replaced by the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund 

authorized by section 403.890(1)(b), F.S. Twenty percent of the funds deposited into this account are 

directed for the TMDL Program. The TMDL Program has received approximately $156.5 million from 

fiscal years 2000-01 through 2007-08. 

TMDL FUNDING SUMMARY 

YEAR Doc Stamps General Trust Fund* Annual Total 

FY 2000-01 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 

FY 2001-02 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 

FY 2002-03 $2,800,000 $2,200,000 $5,000,000 

FY 2003-04 $2,800,000 $2,200,000 $5,000,000 

FY 2004-05 $9,280,000 $6,600,000 $15,880,000 

FY 2005-06 $8,500,000 $5,000,000 $50,000,000 $63,500,000 

FY 2006-07 $14,400,000 $20,000,000 $34,400,000 

FY 2007-08 $6,000,000** $21,429,490** $27,429,490 

TOTAL $49,080,000 $16,000,000 $91,429,490 $156,509,490

*Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund 

**Amount is approximate and may be subject to change. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

5 

A portion of program funds received annually are allocated to operations. Operations include expenditures 

such as staff salary, travel, monitoring, contractor services, TMDL development and BMAP 

implementation. The amount of funding allocated to operations depends on the availability of funds and the 

workload assigned for that fiscal year. The workload may vary based on the number of TMDLs to be 

developed and the umber of BMAPs to be implemented. From 2003 to 2006, $19.23 million (21.51%) of 

$89.38 million was used to fund operations. 

YEAR Operations Total Funds Operations/Total Funds 

FY 2002-03 $ 1,790,000 $ 5,000,000 35.80% 

FY 2003-04 $ 2,200,000 $ 5,000,000 44.00% 

FY 2004-05 $ 6,600,000 $ 15,880,000 41.56% 

FY 2005-06 $ 8,640,000 $ 63,500,000 13.61% 

TOTALS $ 19,230,000 $ 89,380,000 21.51% 

The Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) issued report #05-42 in 

August 2005. The following are excerpts from the report: 

“The department’s efforts to develop and implement TMDLs are still in the early stages. As a result, it is 

too early to determine if the program has improved water quality in the state.” 

“The department has taken actions to begin implementing TMDLs.” 

“To date, the department has established 52 TMDLs and has negotiated basin plans establishing the specific 

actions necessary to achieve the TMDLs and reduce pollutant levels. However, as of June 2005, only one 

Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) has been fully developed and is in the process of being 

implemented.” 

 

Since OPPAGA’s report, the number of BMAPs implemented remains the same. The Ocklawaha River is 

the only waterbody currently undergoing BMAP implementation. No water bodies have been removed 

from the impaired list. The bureau chief estimates it could take a number of years before demonstrable 

effects of the program can be measured and for waterbodies to be removed from the impaired list. 

A 2003 OPPAGA report concluded the department’s overall approach for developing TMDLs was 

reasonable; however, OPPAGA recommended the following action to help improve the program and better 

manage its costs. 

“The department should further differentiate between types of water bodies, which would avoid designating 

canals and drainage ditches as impaired and having to establish TMDLs for such low priority water bodies. 

This would allow the department to focus attention on developing TMDLs for high priority water bodies.” 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

6 

The bureau attempted to address this issue beginning February 2006 by forming a Reclassification Policy 

Advisory Committee. The objective was to allow more efficient and effective use of tax dollars while 

allowing the bureau to focus on higher priority water bodies. The reclassification policy would need to be 

approved by the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC). However, the policy attracted opposition 

due to concerns that the department was abandoning water quality protection. The reclassification effort 

ended January 2007. 

The Office of Inspector General conducted a review of the program and reported the results in report # IA03-14-2006-067 issued in March 2006. The following are excerpts from the report: 

“Currently, the program uses a criteria documented by proposed rule to determine whether a submitted 

project application qualifies for funding. Proposed rule 62-305, FAC sets forth procedures to apply and 

receive funding from the TMDL program. This rule is in draft form, as the division has not yet progressed 

to the rulemaking process. A definite rule making schedule has not yet been established, although it is 

expected in 2006. Part of these procedures includes requirements for submitted projects to provide load 

reduction estimates and effectiveness monitoring.” 

“To date, there has been adequate funding for all suitable projects submitted to the program. According to 

the Chief of Watershed Management, as the program progresses and TMDLs are implemented, there may 

come a time in the near future where there are more suitable projects than available funding. Anticipating 

this, program management has included a section in the proposed rule for project selection criteria that 

incorporates a point system for funding projects.” 

We met with the deputy general counsel and the TMDL Program attorney to discuss the steps involved in 

formally adopting a proposed rule. For example, we discussed all of the processes including the initial step 

of issuing a “Notice of Rule Development” to the final step of filing the rule with the Secretary of State. 

Next, we discussed the current status of proposed rule 62-305, FAC. Currently, proposed rule 62-305, FAC 

remains in draft form. The status has remained unchanged since our last report. The Office of General 

Counsel (OGC) did not provide a reason for the delay in rule development and adoption. 

 

Conclusion: The TMDL Program has received approximately $156.5 million since fiscal year 2000-01. 

Over the past eight years, the bureau has managed and administered 58 contract agreements to achieve 

program objectives. These contracts are carefully monitored by bureau staff to ensure there is no waste or 

misuse of funds. The files were reviewed for accuracy, organization, and adequate documentation. We 

determined the bureau has an adequate monitoring file system as there were no issues related to contract 

management and administration. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

7 

The TMDL Program is making progress with regards to the development and adoption of TMDLs for 

impaired water bodies. According to the bureau, 156 TMDLs have been adopted, an additional 100 TMDLs 

are going through the adoption process, and another 83 TMDLs are in the development stage. The total 

cumulative percentage of TMDLs developed is currently at 51%. The remaining 49% is expected to be 

complete by the end of 2011. 

 

As previously stated, the number of water bodies undergoing BMAP development and implementation 

remains unchanged since our last review as the Ocklawaha River is the only waterbody currently 

undergoing BMAP implementation, phase 5, first five year cycle. This may be attributed to the complexity 

of the program, the time it takes for local governments and residents to reach common consensus on 

difficult issues, and the time it takes to acquire the necessary land. The division has recently adopted two 

additional BMAPs. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend the necessary actions be taken by the division and by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) 

to expedite the adoption of proposed rule 62-305, FAC. The rule would allow the division to be better 

prepared when applicant demand for grant monies exceed the amount available by providing a system for 

ranking applications. The next step involves OGC publishing a Notice of Rule Development and to set up a 

public workshop for discussion. OGC is not currently aware of any obstacles which would hinder the next 

step. 

To promote accountability, integrity and efficiency in state government, the OIG completes audits and 

reviews of agency programs, activities, and functions. Our review was conducted under the authority of 

Section 20.055, Florida Statutes, and in accordance with the International Standards for the 

Professional Practice of Internal Auditing published by the Institute of Internal Auditors and Principles 

and Standards for Offices of Inspector General published by the Association of Inspectors General. The 

review was conducted by Adam Earp and supervised by Greg White. 

Please address inquires regarding this report to the OIG’s Audit Director by telephone at (850)245-3151. 

Copies of final reports may be viewed and downloaded via the internet at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ig/reports/default.htm. Copies may also be obtained by telephone (850)245-

3151, by fax (850)245-2970, in person or by mail at Department of Environmental Protection, Office of 

Inspector General, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station #41, Tallahassee, FL 32399. 

Joseph Aita, Director of Auditing Pinky G. Hall, Inspector General 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TMDL Program Review 

 IA-03-14-2008-52 June 2008 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

8 

DIVISION RESPONSE 
 

Promoting Accountability, Integrity and Efficiency 

9