South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is
Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising
Costs (31-MAY-07, GAO-07-520).
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles and
is home to the Everglades, a national resource. Over the past 100
years, efforts to manage the flow of water through the ecosystem
have jeopardized its health. In 2000, a strategy to restore the
ecosystem was set; restoration was expected to take at least 40
years and cost $15.4 billion. The restoration comprises hundreds
of projects, including 60 key projects known as the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), to be undertaken by a
partnership of federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
Given the size and complexity of the restoration, GAO was asked
to report on the (1) status of project implementation and
expected benefits, (2) factors that determine project sequencing,
(3) amount of funding provided for the effort and extent that
costs have increased, and (4) primary mathematical models that
guide the restoration.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-520
ACCNO: A70125
TITLE: South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward
but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and
Rising Costs
DATE: 05/31/2007
SUBJECT: Cost analysis
Cost overruns
Ecosystem management
Ecosystems
Federal legislation
Program evaluation
Schedule slippages
Wildlife
Wildlife conservation
Cost estimates
Program implementation
Army Corps of Engineers Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan
Everglades (FL)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-520
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
* [4]Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
* [5]CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects
* [6]Use of Mathematical Models in Decision Making
* [7]Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Ar
* [8]Completed Restoration Projects Primarily Improve Water Quali
* [9]Projects Being Implemented Primarily Include Land Acquisitio
* [10]Projects Not Yet Implemented Are Largely Part of CERP and Ar
* [11]Officials Report Progress in Several Areas, Including Key CE
* [12]The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, a
* [13]Required Sequencing and Other Criteria Have Been Developed f
* [14]Implementation Decisions for CERP-Related and Non-CERP Proje
* [15]Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion f
* [16]Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 20
* [17]Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased
* [18]Increases in Total Restoration Costs Are Likely to Continue
* [19]Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, bu
* [20]Twenty-Seven of More Than 100 Models Are Primary to the Rest
* [21]Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Models' Usefulne
* [22]Conclusions
* [23]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [24]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [25]GAO Contact
* [26]Staff Acknowledgments
* [27]GAO's Mission
* [28]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [29]Order by Mail or Phone
* [30]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [31]Congressional Relations
* [32]Public Affairs
* [33]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* [34]Order by Mail or Phone
Report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
May 2007
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays,
Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs
GAO-07-520
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 6
Background 9
Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing, Key
Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects Not Yet
Implemented 15
The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and While CERP
Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been Fully Applied 24
Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a Variety
of Restoration Activities Since 1999 29
Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total Cost
Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise 34
Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but Additional
Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness 38
Conclusions 41
Recommendations for Executive Action 42
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 45
Appendix II Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-CERP
Categories 51
Appendix III Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006 72
Appendix IV Summary of the Primary Models 74
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 79
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior 83
Appendix VII Comments from the State of Florida 86
Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 90
Tables
Table 1: Primary Purposes and Number of Associated CERP Projects 13
Table 2: Status of the 222 Restoration Projects by Project Group 16
Table 3: Type of Project, Primary Purpose, Timing, and Number of CERP
Projects Scheduled for Completion, 2005-2040 27
Table 4: Project Purpose and Funding Allocated among CERP, CERP-Related,
and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006 32
Table 5: Model Types and Study Areas of the 27 Primary Models That Guide
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Effort 39
Table 6: 222 Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose, Completion
Date, and Project Cost 51
Table 7: 43 Completed Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose,
Completion Date, and Reported Cost 61
Table 8: 107 Restoration Projects Now Being Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost 63
Table 9: 72 Restoration Projects Not Yet Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost 68
Figures
Figure 1: Map of the South Florida Ecosystem before and after Construction
of the Central and Southern Florida Water Control Project 11
Figure 2: Types and Locations of Completed Restoration Projects and Their
Primary Purposes 18
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided for the Restoration Effort, Fiscal
Years 1999-2006 30
Figure 4: Federal and State Funding Provided for CERP, CERP-Related, and
Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006 31
Figure 5: Total Expected and Actual Federal and State Funding for CERP,
Fiscal Years 1999-2006 33
Figure 6: Total Estimated Increases in Restoration Costs for CERP,
CERP-Related, and Non-CERP Projects, and Support Activities, 2000 to 2006
35
Abbreviations
BSWCD Broward Soil and Water Conservation District
CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Decomp Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow
Enhancement
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDEP (OGT) Florida Department of Environmental Protection--Office of
Greenways and Trails
FWS U.S. Department of the Interior--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MISP Master Implementation Sequencing Plan
Mod Waters Modified Water Deliveries
NEWTT Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team
NOAA U.S. Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
NPS U.S. Department of the Interior--National Park Service
RECOVER Restoration Coordination and Verification
SFERC South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Council
SFRPC South Florida Regional Planning Council
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
USDA (ARS) U.S. Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Research Service
USDA (NRCS) U.S. Department of Agriculture--Natural Resources Conservation
Service
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
May 31, 2007
The Honorable James L. Oberstar
Chairman
The Honorable John Mica
Ranking Republican Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The South Florida ecosystem, which covers about 18,000 square miles,
extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando, Florida, to
the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. This vast ecosystem is home to
the Everglades, one of the world's unique environmental resources, and to
the only living coral reef in North America. The South Florida ecosystem
is also home to a rapidly growing population of more than 6 million people
and supports a large agriculture-, tourism-, and recreation-based economy.
Over the past 100 years, engineering projects designed to control floods
and supply water to the residents of South Florida have diverted water
from the Everglades. This alteration of the water flow, coupled with
agricultural and industrial activities and urbanization, has jeopardized
the ecosystem's health and reduced the Everglades to about half its
original size. In 2000, when the strategy for restoring the South Florida
ecosystem was set, the restoration effort was expected to take at least 40
years and cost $15.4 billion.
In response to growing signs of ecosystem deterioration, federal agencies
established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in 1993 to
coordinate ongoing federal restoration activities. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 formally established the Task Force and expanded
its membership to include state, local, and tribal representatives, and
charged it with coordinating and facilitating efforts to restore the
ecosystem.^1 To accomplish the restoration, the Task Force established the
following three goals:
^1The Task Force consists of 14 members representing 7 federal agencies, 2
American Indian tribes, and 5 state or local governments. Representatives
from the state's major industries, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders provide comments to the Task Force through public meetings
and forums.
o Get the water right. The purpose of this goal is to deliver the
right amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places,
at the right times. However, restoring a more natural water flow
to the ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies and
controlling floods will require efforts to expand the ecosystem's
freshwater supply and improve the delivery of water to natural
areas. Natural areas of the ecosystem are made up of federal and
state lands, and coastal waters, estuaries, bays, and islands.
o Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species. To
restore lost and altered habitats and recover the endangered or
threatened species native to these habitats, the federal and state
governments will have to acquire lands and reconnect natural
habitats that have become disconnected through growth and
development, and halt the spread of invasive species.
o Foster compatibility of the built and natural systems. To
achieve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, the
restoration effort has the goal of maintaining the quality of life
in urban areas while ensuring that (1) development practices limit
habitat fragmentation and support conservation and (2) traditional
industries, such as agriculture, fishing, and manufacturing,
continue to be supported and do not damage the ecosystem.
To achieve these three overall goals, agencies participating in the
restoration effort are implementing 222 ecosystem restoration projects.
These 222 projects comprise a full spectrum of restoration activities and
include the following:
o Water storage and flow. These types of projects include (1)
constructing reservoirs and underground wells to store rainwater
that would otherwise flow to the ocean through Florida's canal
system; (2) removing barriers such as canals, levees, and roads to
allow this stored water to flow naturally throughout the
ecosystem; (3) reducing seepage of groundwater from natural areas;
and (4) developing new protocols for managing water levels and
flows across South Florida to ensure that the right quantity of
water gets to the right places at the right times.
o Water quality. These types of projects involve (1) constructing
man-made wetlands that can function as stormwater treatment areas
and help reduce contaminants such as phosphorus and nitrogen in
urban and agricultural runoff and (2) developing regulatory
approaches and promoting best management practices that can
further help reduce these contaminants.
o Water supply. These types of projects help reduce the amount of
water used by the public and in commerce, landscaping, and
agriculture as well as increase water resources. These projects
include revising water permitting procedures, encouraging the
reuse of wastewater in regions throughout the ecosystem, and
developing alternative technologies.
o Habitat acquisition and improvement. These types of projects
include federal and state purchases of land tracts or easements,
or improvements made to lands already in public ownership, that
can be used to preserve habitat for native plants and animals,
provide sites for reservoirs, and act as buffers near existing
natural areas.
o Invasive species control. These types of projects include
efforts to eradicate invasive plants that have displaced native
plant and animal species throughout the South Florida ecosystem.
One of the key components of the restoration effort is the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)--the primary means by which the goal of
"getting the water right" will be achieved. Approved by the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), CERP is one of the most
ambitious restoration efforts the federal government has ever undertaken.
It currently encompasses 60 individual projects that will be designed and
implemented over approximately 40 years.^2 These projects are intended to
increase the water available for the natural areas by capturing much of
the water that is currently being diverted, storing the water in many
different reservoirs and storage wells, and releasing it when it is
needed. The cost of implementing CERP will be shared equally between the
federal government and the state of Florida and will be carried out
primarily by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which is the state authority
that manages water resources for South Florida.^3 After the Corps and
SFWMD complete the initial planning and design for individual CERP
projects, they must submit the proposed projects to the Congress to obtain
authorization and funding for construction.
^2The original number of individual projects in CERP was 68. In addition
to these 68, CERP included 6 pilot projects and 3 proposed feasibility
studies. Since CERP's approval in 2000, the Corps and the South Florida
Water Management District have reorganized the projects to group those
that are logically connected into broader projects. For example, several
projects around Lake Okeechobee have been combined into one project. At
the time of this review, CERP consisted of 60 projects, but the total
number of projects that make up CERP may continue to change as
implementation progresses and projects are added, combined, divided into
multiple parts or phases, or deleted.
In addition to the CERP projects, another 162 projects are also part of
the overall restoration effort. Twenty-eight of these projects, when
completed, will serve as the foundation for many of the CERP projects and
are intended to restore a more natural water flow to Everglades National
Park and improve water quality in the ecosystem. Nearly all of these
"CERP-related" projects were already being designed or implemented by
federal and state agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and
SFWMD, in 2000 when the Congress approved CERP. The remaining 134 projects
include a variety of efforts that will, among other things, expand
wildlife refuges, eradicate invasive species, and restore wildlife
habitat, and are being implemented by a number of federal, state, and
tribal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Seminole Tribe of
Florida. Because these projects were not authorized as part of CERP and do
not serve as CERP's foundation, for the purposes of this report we refer
to them as "non-CERP" projects.
Success in completing the restoration effort to achieve the expected
benefits for the ecosystem as quickly as possible and in the most
cost-effective manner depends on the order, or sequencing, in which many
of the 222 projects will be designed and completed. Appropriate sequencing
is also important to ensure that interdependencies among restoration
projects are not ignored. For example, projects that will construct water
storage facilities and stormwater treatment areas need to be completed
before undertaking projects that remove levees and restore a more natural
water flow to the ecosystem.
The Task Force has identified a set of key guiding principles for managing
the restoration effort and its many related projects. One of the key
principles is that decisions about restoration projects will be based on
sound scientific information. A tool that can provide agencies with this
kind of scientific information is the use of mathematical models that
simulate hydrological, ecological, and water quality processes and shows
how restoration projects will change, or have changed, the ecosystem. The
models also help identify project adjustments that are needed to achieve
the restoration goals. Because no single model can comprehensively predict
and assess all of the effects of a project, models may need to be designed
to interface with other models so that they can exchange information for a
more holistic simulation of a project's impact.
^3Although SFWMD is CERP's primary nonfederal sponsor, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection as well as three county governments
and two American Indian tribes also serve as nonfederal sponsors for
portions of the plan.
Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration, you asked us to review the current status of the effort,
focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and their
expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of project
implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the restoration effort
since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have occurred and the
reasons for these increases; and (5) primary mathematical models used to
guide the restoration effort and the extent to which these models have
interfaces.
To determine the extent to which restoration projects have been completed
and to identify their expected benefits, we obtained and analyzed
documents from the Task Force and agencies participating in the
restoration effort and interviewed agency and Task Force officials. On the
basis of this information, we compiled a master list of completed,
ongoing, and planned restoration projects and their benefits. For this
review, we generally categorized projects and expected benefits by their
primary purpose, as identified by the Task Force.
To determine the factors that participating agencies considered when
deciding on the sequence for implementing restoration projects, we
contacted the agencies responsible for the largest number of restoration
projects--the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD, and FDEP. We
also selected certain CERP projects for more detailed analysis, obtained
and reviewed documents and related material, and conducted interviews with
the Corps and SFWMD officials responsible for sequencing decisions related
to these projects. In addition, we reviewed comments by other agencies and
external stakeholders about the appropriateness of the factors used to
determine the sequencing of CERP projects. To determine the amount of
funding that participating agencies provided and the extent to which
restoration costs have increased, we asked participating federal and state
agencies to provide funding information for fiscal years 1999 through 2006
and estimated project costs through June 30, 2006. We interviewed agency
officials about the factors contributing to cost increases. All funding
and cost data presented in this report are in constant 2006 dollars. We
assessed the reliability of the funding and cost data and determined that
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our study. To
determine the primary models that can be used to guide the restoration
effort and the interfaces among them, we compiled a universe of models
available for the restoration effort, and then asked managers and
scientists familiar with modeling and the restoration effort to identify
those primary models and their interfaces. We also reviewed academic and
agency Web sites to obtain supplemental information about these models and
their interfaces.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We performed our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
Although many of the projects that make up the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort are either completed or ongoing, a core group of
projects that are critical to the overall success of the effort are behind
schedule or not yet started. Of the 222 projects that currently make up
the restoration effort, 43 have been completed, 107 are being implemented,
and 72 are either being designed, being planned, or have not yet started.
Of the 43 projects, 9 were completed before 2000, and 34 between 2000 and
2006. The 34 projects completed since the beginning of 2000 represent only
a third of the 91 projects originally scheduled for completion between
2000 and 2006. Many of the completed projects will either improve water
quality in natural areas or provide additional habitat for wildlife. The
107 projects currently being implemented will generally restore wildlife
habitat and include some key CERP-related projects that will improve water
flow to the natural areas. The remaining 72 projects currently being
designed, being planned, or that have not yet started, include primarily
CERP projects, which are the projects most critical to achieving the
overall restoration goals. Some of these CERP projects are significantly
behind their original implementation schedule. For example, nine CERP
projects--in implementation, in design, or in planning--were originally
planned for completion between 2001 and 2006, but instead will be
completed as many as 6 years behind schedule. According to restoration
officials, CERP project delays have occurred because it took longer than
expected to develop the procedures and legal assurances that WRDA 2000
required and because the projects lacked congressional authorization and
federal funding, among other reasons. Nevertheless, these officials
believe that significant progress has been made, particularly in acquiring
land, constructing water quality projects, and restoring a more natural
water flow to the Kissimmee River, which is the headwater of the
ecosystem. In addition, many of the policies, strategies, and agreements
required to guide the overall restoration in the future are now in place.
Given the continuing delays in implementing critical CERP projects, the
state has begun expediting the design and construction of some of these
projects with its own resources. The state hopes that its efforts will
provide some immediate environmental, flood control, and water supply
benefits and will help jump-start the larger CERP effort once the Congress
authorizes individual projects.
There are no overarching criteria to ensure that the 222 projects that
make up the restoration effort are implemented in a sequence that would
ensure the achievement of environmental benefits as early as possible.
Instead, implementation decisions about the 28 CERP-related and 134
non-CERP projects are largely driven by available funding; for the 60 CERP
projects, sequencing decisions have been made without fully complying with
the clearly defined criteria established for these projects in the federal
regulations. Recognizing the criticality of the CERP projects to the
restoration effort, both the Congress and the Corps established criteria
to ensure the goals and purposes of CERP are achieved. However, when the
Corps developed a sequencing plan for CERP projects in 2005, it did not
have key data and other information to fully apply the criteria
established in its regulations. Consequently, the decisions in the plan
were based primarily on technical dependencies among projects and funding
availability. Recently, the Corps began a process to revise its existing
CERP project schedules and sequencing plan, but it still does not have the
key information needed to fully apply the established criteria and meet
the regulatory requirements. As a result, there is little assurance that
the Corps' revised sequencing plan, when it is final, will lead to a CERP
project implementation plan that will provide restoration benefits as
early as possible and in the most cost-effective manner. We are,
therefore, recommending that the Corps obtain the information it needs,
and once obtained, comprehensively reassess its sequencing decisions to
ensure that CERP projects have been appropriately sequenced to maximize
the achievement of the restoration goals. In commenting on a draft of this
report, the Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation.
However, Florida expressed concern that our recommendation might lead to
further delays and increased costs. While we understand the state's
concerns, we believe, given the delays that have already occurred and the
criticality of CERP sequencing decisions to the success of the restoration
effort, that implementation of this recommendation is necessary.
Participating federal and state agencies provided a total of $7.1 billion
for the restoration effort from fiscal years 1999 through 2006. Since
1999, the federal government contributed about $2.3 billion to the
restoration effort and Florida contributed about $4.8 billion. Allocations
from the $7.1 billion total by type of project funded were: $2.3 billion
for CERP projects, nearly $2.0 billion for CERP-related projects, and $2.8
billion for non-CERP projects. Allocations from the total by type of
activity funded were: $2.6 billion for land acquisition; over $1.9 billion
for construction; and $2.6 billion for restoration support activities,
such as controlling invasive species, conducting feasibility studies, and
developing habitat or water management plans. Although the federal and
state governments provided $2.3 billion for CERP projects, this amount was
about $1.2 billion less than the amount of funding that participating
agencies had estimated they would need from fiscal years 1999 through
2006. Specifically, participating agencies had estimated that they would
need approximately $3.5 billion for implementing CERP projects from fiscal
years 1999 through 2006. However, the federal government's contribution
for CERP projects was short by $1.4 billion, primarily because CERP
projects did not receive the congressional authorization and
appropriations that the agencies had expected would occur during this
period. The overall shortfall was reduced to $1.2 billion because Florida
increased its contribution for CERP projects by $250 million during this
period.
The total projected cost of the restoration effort has increased by 28
percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7 billion in 2006--but
neither total reflects the true cost of the restoration effort, which
could be significantly higher. The growth in total projected costs between
2000 and 2006 occurred, in large part, because of cost increases in CERP
projects, from $8.8 billion in 2000 to $10.1 billion in 2006. According to
Corps officials, the overall cost increases are due to project scope
changes, increased construction costs, and higher land costs. However, the
projected total cost estimates of the restoration effort do not reflect
its true costs because the full cost of most CERP projects is not yet
known. This is because most CERP projects are still in the conceptual
phase--that is, detailed design and implementation has not yet been
undertaken or completed. Until the design is finalized and construction
begins, a more complete estimate of the costs of these projects will not
be known and captured in the total estimated restoration cost. For
example, in the conceptual phase, the cost estimate for the Site 1
Impoundment project--a CERP project in southern Palm Beach County to
capture and store local runoff during wet periods and then use the water
to supplement water deliveries during dry periods--was $46 million. Once
preliminary planning and design work was completed, however, the Corps'
estimate for this project increased to $81 million. If similar kinds of
cost increases occur for the remaining CERP projects for which initial
planning and design work has not yet been undertaken or completed, the
cost of CERP, as well as the overall restoration effort, could increase
significantly.
There are 27 primary mathematical models that can be used to guide the
restoration effort, and while many of these models have interfaces, many
restoration experts believe that additional interfaces are needed to
provide more comprehensive information that can better guide the
restoration effort. These 27 models include (1) hydrological models, which
simulate processes such as runoff, the movement of groundwater, and the
flow of surface water in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans; (2) water
quality models that simulate the migration of pollutants in both surface
water and groundwater systems; and (3) ecological models that simulate how
plant and animal communities interact with their habitat. At least 21 of
the 27 models have some interfaces that allow the models to share
information with some of the other models and thereby provide restoration
officials with a better understanding of the restoration's impact on the
ecosystem. However, many agency officials we spoke with stated that
additional interfaces are needed to provide them with a more comprehensive
and accurate understanding of the ecosystem, but developing these
interfaces would require improved coordination among agencies. Currently,
coordinating their efforts to develop models and interfaces has been a low
priority for the participating agencies. Given the importance of models
and interfaces in helping officials manage the restoration effort, we are
recommending that the Task Force, as the coordinating body for the
restoration effort, should take the lead on helping participating agencies
better coordinate the development of models and their interfaces. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior and
the state of Florida supported our recommendation. The Department of
Defense did not support this recommendation and stated that the
Interagency Modeling Center, established by the Corps and SFWMD to
coordinate and oversee the modeling needs of CERP, should serve as the
single point of responsibility for modeling services. While we recognize
that the Interagency Modeling Center plays an important role in supporting
and coordinating modeling for CERP, it does not provide support for the
entire restoration effort. As a result, we continue to believe that the
Task Force should take the lead in helping all of the participating
agencies, including the Corps and SFWMD, better coordinate the development
of models and interfaces needed for the overall effort.
Background
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles in 16
counties and extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando to
Lake Okeechobee, and continues south past the Florida Bay to the reefs
southwest of the Florida Keys. The ecosystem is in jeopardy today because
of past efforts that diverted water from the Everglades to control
flooding and to supply water for urban and agricultural development. The
Central and Southern Florida project, a large-scale water control project
begun in the late 1940s, constructed more than 1,700 miles of canals and
levees and over 200 water control structures that drain an average of 1.7
billion gallons of water per day into the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico. This construction resulted in insufficient water for the natural
system and for the growing population, along with degraded water quality.
Today, the Everglades has been reduced to half its original size and the
ecosystem continues to deteriorate because of the alteration of the water
flow, impacts of agricultural and industrial activities, and increasing
urbanization. Figure 1 shows the South Florida ecosystem before and after
the Central and Southern Florida project construction.
Figure 1: Map of the South Florida Ecosystem before and after Construction
of the Central and Southern Florida Water Control Project
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
In an effort to stem the deterioration of the ecosystem and restore the
Everglades to a more natural state, federal agencies created the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) in 1993, an
interagency partnership to coordinate federal restoration activities. The
Congress formally established the Task Force and expanded its membership
in 1996 to include state and local agencies and two American Indian tribes
and charged the Task Force with the following responsibilities for
restoring the South Florida ecosystem:
o coordinating the development of consistent policies, strategies,
plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for
addressing the restoration, preservation, and protection of the
ecosystem;
o exchanging information on programs, projects, and activities of
the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force to promote
ecosystem restoration and maintenance;
o facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental
conflicts associated with the restoration of the ecosystem among
the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force;
o coordinating scientific and other research associated with the
restoration effort; and
o providing assistance and support to agencies and entities
represented on the Task Force in their restoration activities.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
The centerpiece for achieving the goal to get the water right is
the CERP, approved by the Congress in WRDA 2000. CERP provides a
conceptual framework for increasing freshwater volume and
improving the delivery and quantity of water to natural areas in
the South Florida ecosystem. It also provides for the region's
other water-related needs, such as water supply and flood
protection in urban and agricultural areas. The estimated cost for
CERP in 2000 was $8.8 billion, to be shared on an equal basis
between the Corps and the state of Florida. Table 1 details the
primary purposes for the 60 CERP projects.
Table 1: Primary Purposes and Number of Associated CERP Projects
Primary project purpose Number of CERP projects
Water storage and flow (including five pilot 33
projects)
Habitat acquisition and improvement 9
Water quality 8
Feasibility studies 4
Water supply (including one pilot project) 5
Invasive species control 1
Total 60
Source: GAO's analysis of project documents prepared by Task Force
and participating agencies.
Before the Corps can proceed with implementing a CERP construction
project, WRDA 2000 requires that the Corps obtain congressional
authorization by submitting a detailed report on the project's
design, cost, and other information (known as a project
implementation report). WRDA 2000 also required the Corps to issue
programmatic regulations for implementing CERP projects. These
regulations, effective in December 2003, required the Corps, among
other things, to take the following actions:
o Issue no later than December 13, 2004, a master implementation
sequencing plan (MISP) that establishes the order in which CERP
projects will be planned, designed, and constructed, and
periodically update the plan.
o Issue an interim goals agreement, no later than December 13,
2004, signed by the Secretaries of the Army and of the Interior
and the Governor of Florida,^4 for evaluating the restoration's
success and for assessing improvements in the quantity, quality,
timing, and distribution of water to restore the natural system.
o Establish an adaptive management program, which is an approach
for addressing the uncertainty associated with project decisions
by continuously incorporating new and updated information. Where
performance is determined to be less than anticipated, the
adaptive management approach allows for making needed changes to
the interim goals, projects, and the overall CERP program. Many of
the program's efforts are led by a federal and state interagency
science group known as the Restoration Coordination and
Verification (RECOVER) team. RECOVER's responsibilities under the
program include assessing and reporting whether interim goals are
being achieved, developing monitoring and assessment programs, and
preparing technical reports.
^4The Secretary of the Army signs the agreement on behalf of the Corps.
CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects
Agencies participating in the restoration effort are also
implementing a number of projects that serve as CERP's foundation
(CERP-related) as well as projects that are not as closely related
to CERP (non-CERP). The CERP-related projects are a group of 28
projects, carried out primarily by the Corps and SFWMD, that lay
the foundation for the CERP projects. The projects are being
constructed throughout the ecosystem and are related to storing,
treating, and moving water. The 28 CERP-related projects also
include some projects that were authorized in WRDA 1996 and are
referred to as Critical Projects for the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem. These water quality and related projects are
essential to successfully achieving the goal of getting the water
right.
The non-CERP projects are a group of 134 projects that are being
sponsored by federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in South
Florida. A number of these projects had started--and some were
completed--prior to WRDA 2000. The projects vary in their
purposes, with some involving feasibility studies or plans to
control invasive species and others focusing on land acquisition
for conservation and restoring habitat. Although these projects
are part of the overall restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem, their implementation generally does not depend upon
other projects. However, certain CERP and CERP-related projects
will incorporate portions of non-CERP land acquisitions into their
project footprints as the restoration progresses.
Use of Mathematical Models in Decision Making
Among the guiding principles of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration initiative is a commitment to managing projects and
making decisions on the basis of sound scientific information.
Models, particularly mathematical models, are among the tools that
agency managers and scientists use to support decision making on
the basis of sound science. These models are important to simulate
ecosystem changes resulting from restoration activities and to
provide managers and scientists with assurance that projects will
work as intended to achieve environmental benefits. Managers and
scientists use mathematical hydrological, ecological, and water
quality models to predict regional or systemwide impacts of
project alternatives and to predict benefits that may result from
various possible alternatives.
To increase the ability of hydrological, ecological, and water
quality models to effectively predict environmental benefits and
evaluate changes to possible project alternatives, interfaces are
needed. Interfaces allow models to share and exchange data and
simulate the impact of projects on the ecosystem more
comprehensively and effectively. The term interface can cover a
variety of mechanisms that allow a model to interact with other
models, such as computer software that allows users to
simultaneously view the results of multiple individual models, and
programs that allow for the exchange of input or output data
between models, or allow for hydrological, water quality, and
ecological processes to be simulated simultaneously in real time.
Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are
Ongoing, Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects
Not Yet Implemented
Forty-three of the 222 projects that constitute the South Florida
ecosystem restoration effort have been completed, while the
remaining projects are currently being implemented or are either
in design, being planned, or have not yet started. Many of the
completed projects are intended primarily to improve water quality
in natural areas or to acquire or improve tracts of land in order
to preserve wildlife habitat. The projects now being implemented
also emphasize the restoration of wildlife habitat by acquiring or
improving land, as well as the construction of key CERP-related
projects that will improve water flow to natural areas. The
projects not yet implemented are largely CERP projects that are
crucial to realizing the restoration's overall goals, but these
projects are progressing slowly. However, both agency and Task
Force officials report a number of achievements, such as
finalizing key CERP agreements and restoring a more natural water
flow to the Kissimmee River. Table 2 shows the status of the 222
restoration projects.
Table 2: Status of the 222 Restoration Projects by Project Group
Not yet implemented
Not yet
Completed In implementation Planning/design started Total
CERP 0 7 21 32 60
CERP-related 15 10 3 0 28
Non-CERP 28 90 2 14 134
Total 43 107 26 46 222
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
Completed Restoration Projects Primarily Improve Water Quality or
Provide Wildlife Habitat
Of the 222 projects the Task Force and participating agencies
identified as part of the South Florida ecosystem restoration, 43
have been completed since the beginning of the restoration effort:
9 before 2000 (including 1 as early as 1986), and 34 between 2000
and 2006. However, this latter total is far short of the 91
projects the Task Force and participating agencies reported in
2000 would be completed by 2006.^5 The nine projects completed
before 2000 are expected to provide benefits primarily in the area
of habitat acquisition and improvement. The primary purposes of
the 34 projects completed between 2000 and 2006 range from the
construction of stormwater treatment areas, to the acquisition or
improvement of land for habitat, to the drafting of water supply
plans. (App. II includes detailed information on the 43 completed
projects, their sponsors, primary purposes, completion dates, and
reported costs; the only projects completed to date belong to the
CERP-related and non-CERP categories.)
For the 43 completed projects, the three most common primary
purposes were water quality, habitat acquisition and improvement,
and related studies. For example, to improve water quality SFWMD
constructed Stormwater Treatment Areas 1, 2, 3/4, 5, and 6 within
the Everglades Agricultural Area located south of Lake Okeechobee.
Similarly, for the Cayo Costa project--a habitat acquisition and
improvement project--Florida purchased a total of 1,954 acres,
over 24 years, in southwestern Florida off the coast of Fort
Myers. This purchase is located within a small chain of barrier
islands that provide protection for Charlotte Harbor, one of the
state's most productive estuaries. The project's natural areas
demonstrate high species diversity, including some species that
may be unique to the islands. Figure 2 shows the types and
locations of the 43 completed projects and their primary purposes.
^5South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Coordinating
Success: Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem,
Volume 2 (Miami, Fla.: July 31, 2000).
Figure 2: Types and Locations of Completed Restoration Projects
and Their Primary Purposes
^aOne completed invasive species control project was a statewide
effort (not pictured).
^bTwelve plans and studies were also completed (not pictured).
Projects Being Implemented Primarily Include Land Acquisitions
to Preserve Wildlife Habitat and Two Key CERP-Related Projects
Of the 222 ecosystem restoration projects, 107 are now being
implemented.^6 Seven of the 107 are CERP projects, 10 are
CERP-related projects, and 90 are non-CERP projects. Five of the
seven CERP projects are being built by the state in advance of the
Corps' completion of the necessary project implementation reports
and submission of them to the Congress for authorization and
appropriations. Nonetheless, some of the CERP projects currently
in implementation are significantly behind schedule. For example,
four of the seven CERP projects in implementation were originally
scheduled for completion between November 2002 and September 2006,
but instead will be completed from 1 to 6 years behind their
original schedule, because it has taken the Corps longer than
originally anticipated to design and obtain approval for CERP
projects. Overall, 19 of the 107 projects currently being
implemented have expected completion dates by or before 2010. Of
the remaining 88 projects, most are non-CERP habitat acquisition
and improvement projects that have no firm end date because the
land will be acquired from willing sellers as it becomes
available. Of the 24 non-CERP projects being implemented that have
established end dates, at least 9 are expected to be completed by
or before 2010. (App. II presents detailed information on the
sponsor, primary purpose, expected completion date, and estimated
cost of each of the 107 projects that are currently being
implemented.)
More than half--65--of the 107 projects being implemented will
acquire or improve land for habitat, and at least 12 of these
projects are on federal lands. For example, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is purchasing land in the Big Cypress-Everglades
region to provide additional habitat for the endangered Florida
panther, as part of its Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
acquisition. Other ongoing projects combat invasive species on
federal lands--such as the Hole-in-the-Donut, a non-CERP project
that is expected to restore approximately 6,000 acres within
Everglades National Park by eradicating Brazilian pepper, an
invasive plant species.
Among the projects currently being implemented are two key
CERP-related construction projects that are expected to benefit
Everglades National Park as well as the natural areas outside of
the park. The first is the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
National Park (Mod Waters) project, which is expected to restore
natural hydrologic conditions across 190,000 acres of habitat in
Everglades National Park and assist in the recovery of threatened
and endangered plants and wildlife. According to Everglades
National Park officials, this project is crucial to the park's
rehydration and subsequent restoration. When we reported on the
restoration in 1999, Mod Waters was expected to be completed in
2003 at a total cost of $157 million;^7 the project is currently
scheduled for completion in 2009 at a total cost of $410 million,
according to its most recent capital asset plan (though agency
officials do not expect the 2009 date to be met). The second
project is known as C-111 South Dade, which involves modifications
to a north-south canal system (C-111) that runs parallel to
Florida's east coast and provides flood protection and water
supply for urban and agricultural areas east of Everglades
National Park. The Corps and SFWMD are modifying the canals in the
Miami-Dade County area so that increases in freshwater and more
natural flows will enter the eastern panhandle of the park and
Florida Bay. This project will help restore the park's natural
vegetation, while maintaining flood protection for urban and
agricultural interests in south Miami-Dade County. A combined
operating plan will integrate the goals of this project with those
of Mod Waters. The Corps and SFWMD expect to complete the C-111
South Dade project in 2012.
^6Some projects have multiple components, and while the entire
project cannot be counted as completed, important components of
it may be finished. Unless all components of the project were
complete, we counted these projects as being implemented.
Projects Not Yet Implemented Are Largely Part of CERP and Are
Crucial to Achieving Overall Restoration Goals
Of the 72 restoration projects not yet implemented--in other words
that are in design, planning, or not yet started--53 are CERP
projects that are expected to be completed in the later years of
the restoration effort and will provide benefits such as increased
habitat for native species, improved water flow, and additional
water for restoration as well as other water-related needs. The
other 19 projects not yet implemented include 3 CERP-related and
16 non-CERP projects. (App. II includes detailed information about
all 72 projects not yet implemented, including their sponsors,
primary purposes, expected completion dates, and estimated costs.)
All CERP-related and non-CERP projects in this grouping that have
established end dates are expected to be completed by or before
2013. In contrast, CERP projects in design, planning, or not yet
started will be implemented over the next 30 years. Consequently,
the full environmental benefits for the South Florida ecosystem
restoration that the CERP projects were intended to provide will
not be realized for several decades.
^7GAO, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic
Plan and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort
on Track, [35]GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999).
Several of the projects now in planning and design directly
benefit federal lands and are representative of the significant
natural system benefits that were expected from CERP. One of the
most important projects of this kind is the Water Conservation
Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement (Decomp)
project. This project involves filling canals, removing levees,
and building bridges along the road north of Everglades National
Park to allow water to flow more naturally through the water
conservation areas above the park and into the park itself. This
project is also designed to increase the connectivity between
portions of the Everglades habitat, thus improving the quantity
and quality of this habitat for native vegetation and wildlife.
Officials from the park and other participating agencies stressed
Decomp's importance to natural system restoration. In addition,
park officials told us that the full realization of benefits from
the Mod Waters project depends upon Decomp, which WRDA 2000 does
not allow to be constructed until Mod Waters is completed. Decomp
has been divided into three phases, and the Corps has recently
proposed a major revision to its conceptual design. Pending this
re-design, phase 1 is currently scheduled for completion in 2015.
As with CERP projects currently being implemented, progress has
also been slow on CERP projects in design, in planning, or not yet
begun. For example, five projects that are not yet implemented
were originally planned for completion between December 2001 and
December 2005, but instead will be completed from 2 to 6 years
behind their original schedule. According to officials from the
Corps, SFWMD, and other participating agencies, CERP project
delays have occurred for the following reasons:
o It took longer than expected to develop the appropriate policy,
guidance, and regulations that WRDA 2000 requires for the CERP
effort.
o Some federal and state officials we spoke with noted design
delays that were caused by the need to modify the conceptual
design of some projects to comply with the requirements of WRDA
2000's savings clause. According to this clause, CERP projects
cannot transfer or eliminate existing sources of water unless an
alternate source of comparable quantity and quality is provided,
and they cannot reduce existing levels of flood protection.^8
o Less federal funding than expected and a lack of congressional
authorization for some of the CERP projects have limited CERP
progress.
o The extensive modeling that accompanies the design and
implementation of each project in addition to the "cumbersome"
project review process can contribute to delays, as well as
stakeholder comment, dispute resolution, and consensus-building
that occurs at each stage of a project. However, other restoration
participants valued this opportunity for input and noted that it
could prevent costly litigation.
o Delays have occurred in completing Mod Waters, which is a major
building block for CERP. These delays, in turn, have delayed CERP
implementation.
While the completion of the CERP projects is expected to provide
comprehensive environmental benefits to the ecosystem, concerns
remain about how the water will be allocated between the natural,
urban, and agricultural areas for many of these projects, and who
will ultimately benefit from these water allocation decisions.
Corps regulations require that the allocation decisions are to be
included in the project implementation reports submitted to the
Congress for authorization of each CERP project. These allocations
are determined by each project's design team--which would normally
include the Corps, SFWMD, and other participating agencies. The
allocation decisions are constrained by a federal-state agreement
that promises to allocate each CERP project's stored water in a
manner that provides a sufficient amount for restoring the natural
system before water is made available for the region's other
water-related needs, such as urban and agricultural water supply.
Once these water allocations are finalized, they are to be enacted
into state law. Until these water allocation decisions are agreed
upon by federal and state agencies and enacted into law by the
state government, the distribution of benefits that the CERP
projects will deliver remains unclear.
^8The sources of water and levels of flood protection that must be
protected are those that were in existence on the date of WRDA 2000's
enactment--December 11, 2000.
Officials Report Progress in Several Areas, Including Key CERP
Agreements and State Efforts to Advance Overall Restoration Goals
Although construction progress for the restoration effort has been
uneven, restoration officials report progress in other areas that
they expect will provide a solid foundation for the wider
restoration effort in the future. These officials identified the
following developments that they expect will improve the prospects
for future success for the overall restoration effort:
o Acceler8. Acceler8 is a state effort intended to expedite the
implementation of CERP projects. Many of the CERP projects
advanced by Acceler8 are among WRDA 2000's 10 initially authorized
projects, whose costs were to be shared by the federal government
and the state. According to Florida officials, by advancing the
design and construction of these projects with its own funds, the
state hopes to more quickly realize restoration benefits for both
the natural and human environments and to jump-start the overall
CERP effort once the Congress begins to authorize individual
projects. The Acceler8 projects include seven that are affiliated
with CERP and an eighth that expands existing stormwater treatment
areas. The state expects to spend more than $1.5 billion to design
and construct these projects by 2011.
o Kissimmee River restoration. The Corps and SFWMD have completed
phase 1 of this project to restore the ecological integrity of the
South Florida ecosystem's headwater--the historical Kissimmee
River and its surrounding floodplain. State officials report
promising results from the restored areas, such as improved water
quality and flow, the return of fish-eating birds, and the
reappearance of shoreline vegetation.
o Land acquisition. For the ecosystem restoration projects that
are solely or partially federally funded, including CERP, the Task
Force estimates that 62 percent of the land needed for getting the
water right (goal 1) and 99 percent of the land needed for
restoring, preserving, and protecting natural habitats and species
(goal 2) has already been acquired.^9 Moreover, 55 percent of the
land needed for CERP projects, 98 percent of Acceler8 project
land, and all 102,061 acres needed for the Kissimmee River
restoration have been acquired. Restoration land acquisition is
ahead of schedule because the state accelerated its acquisition
efforts in order to acquire land before it was lost to
development. Similarly, the federal government provided early
support to the effort through its Farm Bill funding,^10 and local
governments have made significant land contributions as well.
^9The Task Force did not estimate the percentage of land acquired to
foster compatibility of the built and natural systems (goal 3), but did
note that participating agencies have secured easements on 15,370 acres
and another 4,265 acres have been acquired. Percentages do not include
state, local government, or nongovernmental organization land acquisition
projects undertaken without federal funding, many of which are part of
goal 2.
^10Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-127, S 390, 110 Stat. 888, 1022.
o State water quality projects. In addition to the stormwater
treatment areas south of Lake Okeechobee, the state's Lake
Okeechobee Protection Program and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary
Recovery Plan expand the water quality effort to mitigate nutrient
discharges from urban and agricultural lands north of the lake and
within its watershed. The state is also implementing pollution
reduction strategies for other impaired surface waters within
SFWMD's boundaries.
o CERP's administrative framework. In accordance with WRDA 2000
and subsequent requirements, CERP's participating agencies have
formulated key policies, strategies, and agreements intended to
guide the program during its three decades of implementation.
o RECOVER's efforts. CERP's interagency science team--known as
RECOVER--prepared a Monitoring and Assessment Plan for CERP
implementation, among other important products. This plan is the
primary tool that RECOVER will use to assess the ecosystem's
response to CERP projects.
The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and
While CERP Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been
Fully Applied
No overall sequencing criteria guide the implementation of the 222
projects that comprise the South Florida ecosystem restoration
effort. For the 60 CERP projects, the Corps has issued
regulations, as directed by WRDA 2000, that identify the criteria
to be applied when making CERP project sequencing decisions so
that restoration benefits will be achieved as early as possible
and in the most cost-effective manner. However, the Corps and
SFWMD did not follow these criteria when they developed the 2005
master implementation sequencing plan for CERP projects (the
MISP). The Corps has recently started to revisit priorities for
CERP projects' and alter project schedules that were established
in the 2005 MISP (this process is referred to as CERP-reset).
However, because the Corps continues to lack certain key data for
making sequencing decisions, the revised plan, when completed,
will also not fully adhere to the criteria. Furthermore, while
CERP-related projects provide the foundation for many CERP
projects, there are no established criteria for determining the
implementation schedule for these projects and their estimated
start and completion dates largely depend upon available funds.
Similarly, for non-CERP projects, agencies reported that they do
not have any sequencing criteria; instead, they decide on the
scheduling and timing of these projects primarily if and when
funding becomes available.
Required Sequencing and Other Criteria Have Been Developed for
CERP Projects, but the Corps Has Not Fully Applied the Criteria
The Corps has clearly defined criteria to be considered in
determining the scheduling and sequencing of CERP projects.^11 As
laid out in the CERP program regulations,^12 the Corps and SFWMD
should consider the following factors to maximize opportunities
for achieving the plan's goals and purposes:
o Technical dependencies and constraints. Because many projects
are interdependent, they have to be designed and constructed
either before or after other CERP and CERP-related projects,
depending on engineering and structural requirements.
o Project benefits. Projects should be constructed in an order
that achieves environmental benefits as early as possible.
o Land availability. If land is available, a CERP project can be
scheduled earlier.
o Legal constraints. The Corps must ensure that CERP projects do
not eliminate or transfer current sources of water from urban and
agricultural water supplies, and for fish and wildlife, or reduce
flood protection.
o Funding constraints. The regulations also state that funding
constraints may be taken into account in determining the timing
and order of projects.
In addition, CERP program regulations require the Corps and the
SFWMD to revise the project sequencing that had been originally
developed in 2000 to reflect new scientific, technical, and other
information. Examples of such information include population
growth, additional data on the topography of the South Florida
ecosystem, rainfall data, and existing sources of water and flood
controls. According to the regulations, the restoration partners
were to conduct model simulations and revise, among other things,
their sequencing decisions if the models indicated that changes to
the sequence of project implementation were warranted to achieve
environmental benefits sooner. The CERP program regulations also
required that the sequencing decisions include a consideration of
whether the projects, as sequenced, would meet interim goals.
These goals were to be established in an agreement signed by the
Secretaries of the Army and the Interior and the Governor of
Florida no later than December 2004.^13
^11The program regulations required the MISP to be issued by December 13,
2004, and to be revised at least every 5 years.
^12Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, 33 C.F.R. pt. 385 (effective Dec. 12, 2003).
^13The Secretary of the Army is to sign the agreement on behalf of the
Corps.
However, when the Corps and SFWMD developed the 2005 MISP for CERP
projects, they did not comply with the requirements of the Corps
regulations. Specifically, the MISP was not based on new
information because the model used to run the simulations and
generate the data--the South Florida Water Management Model--had
not been updated by the Corps as anticipated when the sequencing
decisions were made. As a result, the Corps and SFWMD staff used
outdated modeling data from 1999.^14 In addition, the Secretaries
of the Army and the Interior, and the Governor of Florida did not
sign an agreement that established interim goals for the
restoration effort until late April/early May 2007--over 2 years
after the program regulations deadline.^15 Consequently, the 2005
MISP was developed without the benefit of the interim goals that
the regulations required to help guide interagency planning,
monitoring, assessment, and project sequencing.
Because the agencies lacked updated environmental benefits data
and lacked interim goals, the 2005 MISP for CERP projects was
primarily based on an assessment of the technical dependencies and
constraints among projects and available funding. Specifically,
Corps and SFWMD officials first considered whether the technical
constraints laid out in the 2000 CERP conceptual plan were still
appropriate or whether new information had changed those
constraints and, hence, the sequence of projects. Based on these
technical dependencies and constraints, all CERP projects were
placed in one of seven 5-year periods covering 2005 to 2040. Once
Corps and SFWMD officials completed their technical constraints
analysis, they reviewed the costs of projects scheduled for
completion in each 5-year interval and the estimated funding
available for that period, as well as available staff resources.
When resources--primarily funding--were insufficient to complete
projects within the initial designated 5-year period, the projects
were delayed and scheduled for completion at a later date. Table 3
shows the number of projects in the MISP and their primary
purpose, by 5-year increments, over the life of CERP. As the table
shows, the ultimate benefits from the CERP projects will not be
fully realized until 2040.
^14The CERP Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement of 1999 laid out the conceptual plan and an
initial schedule for implementing the projects based on modeling and other
information known at the time.
^15The Department of the Army and the state of Florida reported that they
signed an Interim Goals Agreement on April 27, 2007, and the Secretary of
the Interior signed the agreement on May 2, 2007.
Table 3: Type of Project, Primary Purpose, Timing, and Number of CERP
Projects Scheduled for Completion, 2005-2040
Timing and number of projects by completion date^a
Type of project and 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2035-40
purpose^b
Water storage and flow 4 1
pilots
Water storage and flow 4 5 11 3^c 1 2
Water quality 2 1 4 1
(stormwater treatment
and management
operations)
Water supply pilot 1
Water supply 2
Habitat acquisition and 4 2 1
improvement
Invasive species 1
control
Feasibility studies 1
Total--51 15 9 17 7 1 2
Source: GAO's analysis of Corps and SFWMD MISP and project data.
Note: The total number of projects in the table is 51, which differs from
the 60 current CERP projects discussed earlier in this report. The
difference occurs because nine projects, primarily operational and study
projects, did not have a planned start date when the MISP was developed.
^a The CERP partners did not list projects for 2030 through 2035 because
no projects were scheduled for completion during this time.
^b Projects may have multiple purposes and some are defined as phases
where construction may take several 5-year periods to complete.
^c The schedule for the Indian River Lagoon-South project includes the
construction of water storage components in the first 10 years, with the
natural lands acquisition component scheduled for completion by 2020.
Owing to delays in meeting its commitments for implementing CERP projects
in a timely manner, as well as its commitment to support the state's
Acceler8 effort, the Corps is revising its schedules and sequencing of
CERP projects. For example, in an October 2004 letter to the state, the
Corps had committed to a list of dates for completing the project
implementation reports necessary to obtain project approval by the Corps'
management and the Congress for the CERP projects that were being
implemented through the state's Acceler8 effort. However, the Corps has
not met the dates outlined in that letter. To address these delays and
other project implementation issues, the Corps is revising the sequencing
plan and schedules for CERP projects (known as CERP-reset). As part of
this restructuring, they are planning to incorporate the National Academy
of Sciences' recommendation to use an incremental adaptive management
approach that allows projects to move forward with incremental steps.
However, we are concerned that the Corps' current effort is also being
undertaken without key information on updated environmental benefits for
these projects. As a result, the revised schedules for sequencing the CERP
projects will most likely still not meet all of the sequencing criteria
outlined in the Corps regulations, and the revised CERP sequencing plan,
when issued, will continue to be based largely on technical dependencies
and funding availability.
Implementation Decisions for CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects Are Based
Largely on Available Funding
Decisions about starting and completing CERP-related and non-CERP projects
largely depend upon when and if the implementing agency will have
sufficient funding to implement the project. Specifically, implementation
of the 162 CERP-related and non-CERP projects is to be carried out by over
14 different federal, state, local, and tribal agencies as part of their
larger missions. Many of these agencies do not have a specific program
focused on the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort. Consequently,
the priorities assigned to many of the CERP-related and non-CERP projects
are driven by the agencies' overall priorities and available funding in
any given year, not necessarily the sequencing needs of the restoration
effort. For example, the construction of the CERP-related Mod Waters
project has been delayed several times since 1997 because, among other
things, Interior did not receive enough funding to complete the
construction of this project. While currently scheduled for completion in
2009, agency officials stated that they do not expect this project to be
completed until at least 2011. However, because completion of this project
is critical to the implementation of the CERP Decomp project, these delays
have caused completion dates for Decomp to be pushed back as well.
Similarly, FDEP has a land acquisition program to acquire lands for
conservation and habitat preservation throughout the state, including for
some non-CERP projects that are part of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort. FDEP has identified lands and added them to a list of
priority projects proposed for acquisition throughout the state.^16
However, whether or not these lands will be acquired for non-CERP projects
is dependent on whether there is available funding in the annual budget,
there are willing sellers, and the land is affordable based on the
available funding.
Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a Variety of
Restoration Activities Since 1999
From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2006, federal and state agencies
participating in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem provided
$7.1 billion. Of this total, federal agencies provided $2.3 billion and
Florida provided $4.8 billion. Two agencies--the Corps and the Department
of the Interior--provided over 80 percent of the federal contribution.
Figure 3 shows each federal agency's contribution.^17
16FDEP contracts with willing sellers to acquire land at an agreed price
in advance of the actual purchase. Depending upon funding, FDEP may
commence with partial purchases of the land over the period of the
contract.
^17While funding documents show that $1 billion was allocated for
restoring the ecosystem during fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the Corps
only received $735 million primarily because of its internal funding
polices and practices. Before fiscal year 2006, the Corps reprogrammed
individual project funding by moving excess funds from projects which did
not require all the funds to complete the projects or that had fallen
behind in their construction schedules so that the projects did not
require the funding allocated to them. The Corps agreed to limit this
practice beginning with its fiscal year 2006 budget in response to GAO
recommendations. See GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Improved Planning and
Financial Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions to
Manage Project Funds, [36]GAO-05-946 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2005).
For example, for fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the Corps received $292
million for CERP. However, the Corps reduced that amount--reprogrammed
it--by $39 million, so that the CERP received only $251 million after a
rescission of $2 million.
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided for the Restoration Effort, Fiscal
Years 1999-2006
Note: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.
As figure 4 shows, federal and state agencies allocated the largest
portion of the $7.1 billion to non-CERP projects for fiscal years 1999
through 2006.
Figure 4: Federal and State Funding Provided for CERP, CERP-Related, and
Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006
Note: Amounts do not total to $7.1 billion due to rounding. The amounts
are $1.93 billion for CERP-related, $2.35 billion for CERP, and $2.80
billion for non-CERP.
Table 4 shows how the federal and state agencies used the funds allocated
to CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects and activities. As the table
shows, while federal and state funding was used to support a range of
activities, land acquisition alone accounted for about 36 percent of the
$7.1 billion. Land acquisition is such a large category primarily because
Florida has devoted significant resources to purchase land for restoration
projects.
Table 4: Project Purpose and Funding Allocated among CERP, CERP-Related,
and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006
Dollars in millions
CERP projects CERP-relatedprojects Non-CERP projects Total
Type of project Federal^c State^d Federal^c State^d Federal^c State^d Federal State Total
Land 0 $1,788.6 0 0 $283.4 $485.5 $283.4 $2,274.1 $2,557.5
acquisition^a,e
Project 0 25.7 835.7 1,097.4 0 0 835.7 1,123.1 $1,958.7
construction
Support 341.4 191.7 0 0 795.6 1,230.1 1,137.0 1,421.9 $2,558.9
activities^b
Total $341.4 $2,006.0 $835.7 $1,097.4 $1,079.0 $1,715.7 $2,256.1 $4,819.0 $7,075.1
Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state agencies restoration funding
data.
^a Certain judgments were made in allocating the funding by purpose based
on the available funding data. As a result, land costs for some fiscal
years are only for a partial fiscal year and do not include the entire
fiscal year.
^bSupport activities included RECOVER efforts, adaptive assessment and
monitoring, the Interagency Modeling Center, program coordination, and
science- and mission-related activities that indirectly benefit the
restoration, such as invasive species control. In addition, for the Corps
and SFWMD, support activities include, $74.4 million and $36.8 million,
respectively for project design; $13.1 million and $11.8 million for pilot
project design; and $9.0 million and $6.7 million for feasibility studies.
^cFederal funding data were provided by the agencies in response to a GAO
data request, except for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, for which we used the funding data from the Task Force's
annual cross-cut budgets.
^dState funding data used were found in the Task Force's annual cross-cut
budgets, except for SFWMD, which provided funding data in response to a
GAO data request.
^eLocal government entities spent $207 million on non-CERP land
acquisition projects currently identified as restoration projects and $213
million on other land acquisition projects that will become restoration
projects.
CERP projects. As table 4 shows, most CERP funds have been used to
purchase land--210,642 acres over the last 8 years. The state is
responsible for acquiring all land for CERP projects; the federal agencies
have not purchased any land for CERP. The Corps and Florida spent $533
million on support activities primarily to meet the administrative
framework requirements of WRDA 2000.
While federal agencies and Florida provided about $2.3 billion during
fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for CERP projects, this amount was about
$1.2 billion less than they had estimated needing for these projects over
this period. Although the federal contribution was significantly less than
expected when the CERP project list was developed in 1999, the state
contribution increased significantly later in the period, partially
closing the funding shortfall. Initially, federal and state agencies
anticipated that they would receive a total of $400 million each year if
the funding was to keep pace with the planned project schedule.
Restoration partners reported that it was expected that this amount would
be provided equally--$200 million annually from federal agencies and $200
million from the state. As figure 5 shows, however, federal CERP funding
fell significantly short in each year during fiscal years 1999 through
2006--by a total of $1.4 billion. This shortfall occurred primarily
because CERP projects did not receive the congressional authorization and
appropriations that the agencies had expected. In contrast, Florida
provided a total of $2.0 billion over the period, exceeding its expected
contribution to CERP by $250 million.
Figure 5: Total Expected and Actual Federal and State Funding for CERP,
Fiscal Years 1999-2006
CERP-related projects. Project construction activities constituted the
only allocation of restoration funding to CERP-related projects, with
federal agencies providing a total of $836 million and the state $1,097
million. For example, the Corps provided $170 million for removing levees
and filling a drainage canal among other things that altered the natural
flow of the Kissimmee River. Florida provided $404 million to complete
construction of six stormwater treatment areas, totaling 41,089 acres,
between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades National Park.
Non-CERP projects. The largest portion of federal and state funding for
non-CERP projects was used for support activities, followed by land
acquisition. Interior bureaus, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
provided a total of $283 million to purchase land for habitat. For
example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided $15 million to
purchase 913 acres in the J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge to
help preserve and protect endangered and threatened species; feeding,
nesting, and roosting areas for migratory birds; and habitat for over 220
species of birds. Florida provided $486 million for land purchases for
non-CERP projects, such as the $28 million provided to buy Cayo Costa
Island.
Appendix III contains additional information on funding provided by
federal and state agencies for the various restoration activities of the
South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.
Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total Cost
Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise
Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for the
South Florida ecosystem restoration effort grew by 28 percent, from $15.4
billion to $19.7 billion. This increase occurred primarily because of
project scope changes, increased construction costs, and higher land
costs. However, the cost estimate for the restoration effort is likely to
increase even more, in part because the current estimate does not include
the costs for the remaining land acquisitions and final design cost
estimates for CERP projects, which are not yet known.
Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased
Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for the
South Florida ecosystem restoration grew from $15.4 billion to $19.7
billion, or by 28 percent. As figure 6 shows, estimated costs increased
for all categories of projects and for support activities, such as the
WRDA 2000 administrative requirements.
Figure 6: Total Estimated Increases in Restoration Costs for CERP,
CERP-Related, and Non-CERP Projects, and Support Activities, 2000 to 2006
As the figure also shows, estimated CERP project costs increased from $8.8
billion to $10.1 billion. This 15-percent increase represents nearly 31
percent of the increase in the total estimated cost for the restoration.
However, the most significant project cost increase--47 percent--was for
non-CERP projects.
Federal and state officials reported that estimated CERP costs increased
primarily because of inflation and changes in the scope of work for two
CERP projects with completed project implementation reports. For example,
in the conceptual phase, the cost estimate for the Site 1 Impoundment
project--a CERP project in southern Palm Beach County to capture and store
local runoff during wet periods and then use the water to supplement water
deliveries during dry periods--was $46 million. Once the initial planning
and design was complete, however, the Corps' estimate increased to $81
million to include changes in the scope of the project and increased cost
of construction. In addition, the Picayune Strand Restoration project--a
CERP project to restore and enhance wetlands and distribute water across a
larger area--was $53 million in the conceptual phase. Once the initial
planning and design was complete, however, the Corps' estimate increased
to $363 million in part to include the cost of acquiring the 55,247 acres
of land needed for the project. Similarly, the scope of the Indian River
Lagoon-South project was expanded to include the acquisition of over
92,000 acres of natural lands that will provide water storage and habitat
restoration. The scope expansion increased the project's estimated cost by
$354 million. For CERP-related projects, estimated costs increased
primarily because of inflation and delays in receiving federal funding,
which led to additional increases in the costs of labor and materials
beyond that attributed to inflation, according to federal officials.
Increases in Total Restoration Costs Are Likely to Continue for Multiple Reasons
The costs of restoring the South Florida ecosystem are likely to continue
to increase for a number of reasons. First, the estimated costs for some
of the projects are not known or fully known. Specifically, for eight
nonconstruction CERP projects--addressing water management operations and
water supply plans--the estimated costs were not known as of September
2006. These nonconstruction projects seek to improve the delivery of water
to areas such as the water conservation areas and Everglades National
Park, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, and the Rotenberger and
Holey Land Wildlife Management Areas. For the remaining 44 CERP projects
that require construction, the full estimated cost is likely to rise if
they, like other CERP projects, have higher completion costs than
originally anticipated. For example, as mentioned above for one project
that we examined--the Site 1 Impoundment project--after the project
implementation report was completed the estimated total costs grew by $36
million, from $46 million to $81 million.^18 If other CERP projects, for
which initial planning and design have not yet been completed, also
experience similar increases in project costs then the estimated total
costs of not only CERP but the overall restoration effort will grow
significantly. Since the federal government provides 50 percent of the
cost for CERP and for certain CERP-related projects, its contribution to
cover these rising costs will also continue to increase.
^18Total does not add due to rounding.
Second, the full cost of acquiring land for the restoration effort is not
known. For 56 non-CERP land projects, expected to total 862,796 acres,
land acquisition costs have not been reported. Costs are not estimated due
to price escalation and also to avoid adversely impacting ongoing
negotiations of land acquisitions. For these non-CERP land acquisitions,
the Task Force computed an estimated range of land costs from $2.5 billion
to $4.1 billion based on the 779,000 acres remaining to be acquired as of
2004. However, the higher cost may be more realistic, and could be a
conservative estimate, given the rising costs of land in Florida.
According to state officials, Florida land prices are escalating rapidly,
owing primarily to development pressures. Consequently, future project
costs are likely to rise with higher land costs. While land acquisition
costs for CERP projects are included as part of the total estimated
project costs, thus far, the state has acquired only 54 percent of the
land needed for CERP projects, at a cost of $1.4 billion. An additional
178,000 acres have yet to be acquired; the cost of these purchases is not
yet known and is therefore not fully reflected in the cost of CERP and
overall restoration costs.
Third, the cost of using new technologies for the restoration effort is
unknown. The Congress authorized pilot projects in 1999 and 2000 to
determine the feasibility of applying certain new technologies for storing
water, managing seepage, and reusing treated wastewater. Under this
authority, the Corps implemented six pilot projects that are estimated to
cost a total of $123 million. While the pilot projects have been
authorized, the cost to construct or implement projects based on the
results of the pilots is not yet known. For example, one of the key water
storage technologies proposed is the use of aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR). Using ASR technology would require the Corps and SFWMD to drill
many wells deep into an aquifer to store water and then to pump it out as
needed. While ASR technology has been used successfully in the state in
the past, the restoration agencies plan to create water storage reservoirs
that are larger than any previously created. Three ASR pilot projects have
been approved to address the technical uncertainties related to the
implementation of these large scale ASRs. The agencies reported that the
ASR pilot costs constitute approximately 20 percent of the cost of CERP,
but they do not know what the ASR technology on the scale envisioned will
cost or what the costs would be for alternative water storage if the ASR
technology proves to be infeasible.
Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but Additional
Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness
Of more than 100 available mathematical models, 27 primary models guide
the restoration effort. At least 21 of the 27 have some interfaces, but
agency officials told us that they need additional interfaces to make the
most effective use of the models. However, current agency efforts are
focused on meeting the modeling needs of individual agencies, not on
coordinating the efforts and needs of all the agencies involved in the
restoration effort. Agency officials recognize the need for better
coordination, but given other demands for their time, this has not been a
high priority for them.
Twenty-Seven of More Than 100 Models Are Primary to the Restoration Effort
Although there is no comprehensive list of all the mathematical models
available for guiding the restoration of South Florida's ecosystem, we
identified more than 100 such models. Of these 100 models, 27 are primary
for the restoration effort, according to federal and state officials.^19
Federal and state agencies, private organizations, and academic
institutions have developed the 27 models. These 27 models can be used to
represent the unique characteristics of the South Florida ecosystem. For
example, according to federal and state officials the South Florida Water
Management Model, which was developed by SFWMD, is one of the most
valuable modeling tools used for the restoration. This regional model is
used to simulate the hydrology and management of water resources over a
7,600 square mile area in South Florida and to evaluate CERP's
performance. However, a RECOVER modeling task team reported that the
current model does not provide the level of precision and detail needed to
simulate flow rates of surface and ground water; cannot predict the
effects of restoration alternatives on the salinity levels of coastal
wetlands and aquifers; and does not provide detailed enough information
about the different habitat types that exist within the analyzed area. To
address these shortcomings, SFWMD is developing the Regional Simulation
Model to replace this model, which is expected to be ready for use in
2008. Table 5 shows the primary models used in the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort by model type and study area.
^19Federal and state officials pointed to the 2006 RECOVER Report on
Evaluation Tools, Models, Work Plans, and Budgets, which lists 29 models,
for a list of models that are primary. However, two models--the Regional
Engineering Model for Ecosystem Restoration (REMER) and the Regional
Simulation Model (RSM)--are not yet developed; therefore, we concluded
that only 27 models are primary.
Table 5: Model Types and Study Areas of the 27 Primary Models That Guide
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Effort
Model types and study areas Number of models
Model type
Hydrological 11
Hydrological/water quality 8
Water quality 5
Ecological 3
Study area
Regional/sub-regional and project 17
Project 7
Regional/sub-regional 3
Source: GAO's analysis of model Web sites, agency interviews, and the 2006
RECOVER Report on Evaluation Tools, Models, Work Plans, and Budgets.
As table 5 shows, there are a total of 19 primary models that can be used
in the restoration effort to simulate hydrological processes--such as
water runoff, the movement of groundwater in aquifers, and the force of
water flow in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. These models take into
account different aspects of the unique hydrology of South Florida--flat
topography, a high water table, sandy soils, and the easy movement of
water through the aquifer system. A total of 13 primary models simulate
water quality processes--such as the migration of pollutants in both
surface water and groundwater systems. The three primary ecological models
simulate how plant and animal species interact with their habitat. For
example, an ecological model might simulate changes in the population of
an endangered species, like the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, in relation to
changes in hydrological conditions and the availability of food. The 27
models may simulate changes that could occur in a region or sub-region of
the ecosystem as a result of multiple restoration activities or changes
that could occur as a result of a specific restoration project.
Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Models' Usefulness
We determined that at least 21 of the 27 primary models have interfaces
that allow the models to interact with other models and provide a more
comprehensive and accurate assessment of the ecosystem. Agency scientists
and officials identified three broad types of interfaces. The first type
enables the models to share data with other models. This type of interface
requires less hands-on data processing and, according to a Corps official,
yields immediate returns for guiding the restoration effort in terms of
facilitating and expediting the exchange of required data among models.
The second type of interface allows scientists to run multiple models and
then layer the results of each model onto a single graphic. This process
expedites the review of simulation results and enables scientists and
managers to better understand the results of different project activities.
The third type of interface--known as an integrated interface--allows
scientists to simultaneously run multiple hydrological, water quality, and
ecological models. This type of interface provides the most holistic
approach for simulating the long-term responses of the landscape and
habitat to the restoration effort, although it is the most complex and
time-consuming to develop.
However, scientists and agency officials we spoke with noted the need for
additional interfaces for these 27 models. According to agency officials
and reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the RECOVER
interagency science team, the existing model interfaces do not allow them
to provide the most comprehensive and accurate understanding of the impact
of the restoration effort. These sources identified the need for multiple
interfaces between and across the hydrological, ecological, and water
quality models and the regional, sub-regional, and project-specific
models. Such interfaces would (1) improve model predictions; (2) expedite
project-related simulations; and (3) streamline efforts for planning,
evaluation, monitoring, and adaptive management.
Although agency scientists and officials recognize the need for additional
interfaces, neither the individual agencies nor the Task Force, as the
coordinating body for science-related activities, have compiled a list of
interfaces needed for the entire restoration effort. Instead, agency
scientists and managers focus on their specific needs to carry out their
agency's mission. For example, the Corps and SFWMD are each focusing on
certifying the reliability of the models that they developed through a
peer review process, while Interior is setting priorities for ecological
science activities that affect the development of ecological models.
However, because the agencies do not have a formal, restoration-wide
coordination effort, they rely on an informal network to coordinate model
development, create interfaces, and set science research priorities. As a
result, the agencies' mission-related activities may not support the
overall restoration effort. The National Academy of Sciences has stated
that improved coordination would enhance the restoration effort by helping
to identify and reduce scientific uncertainties.^20 To improve
coordination, the Corps and SFWMD established the Interagency Modeling
Center in 2003 as the single point of responsibility for CERP modeling
services. However, the Interagency Modeling Center focuses primarily on
applying models to CERP projects, and does not focus on developing and
coordinating models and interfaces for the entire restoration effort.
Agency officials agree that coordination and communication across agencies
involved in identifying interfaces could be improved. However, they also
stated that agency staff involved with the restoration efforts have other
duties that take precedence over the coordination of modeling interface
activities.
Conclusions
Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is a vast and complex undertaking
that will ultimately depend on the successful implementation of more than
200 different projects. In particular, the successful achievement of the
restoration's three overall goals depends to a large degree on the
effective implementation of approximately 88 key CERP and CERP-related
projects. In this context, therefore, the order in which these projects
are implemented becomes critical to ensuring that the maximum
environmental benefits are achieved as quickly as possible in the most
cost-effective manner. However, the process that participating agencies
have used so far to make sequencing decisions for these projects, and in
particular for the CERP projects, has been governed largely by funding
availability and technical dependencies and constraints among projects,
not the full range of criteria that the Corps developed under WRDA 2000.
These criteria were not fully applied when sequencing decisions were made
for the CERP projects in 2005. This happened because key data, such as
updated benefits information and interim goals for CERP, which are needed
to fully apply these criteria were not available. In this regard, the
Secretaries of the Army and the Interior, in conjunction with the Governor
of Florida, did not reach agreement on CERP interim goals until late
April/early May 2007--more than 2 years after the date required by the
regulations.
Moreover, from the outset, the restoration effort has sought to use a
science-based approach to guide its decision-making processes. A
significant contributor to this approach has been the use of mathematical
models that help agencies gauge the effects of the restoration effort on
the ecosystem. However, the effectiveness of these models is reduced by
the limited number of interfaces between and among them. Without
additional interfaces, these models cannot provide the participating
agencies with the comprehensive information that they need. The current
informal network that agency officials rely on to coordinate their model
and interface development efforts may not be the most effective approach
to ensure that the needs of the overall restoration effort are met. In
this context, we believe that the Task Force as the coordinating body for
the overall restoration effort could provide the needed direction and
emphasis.
^20Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration
Progress, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006
(Washington, D.C.: 2006).
Recommendations for Executive Action
Because the correct sequencing of CERP projects is essential to the
overall success of the restoration effort, we are recommending that the
Secretary of the Army direct the Corps of Engineers to obtain the key data
that are needed to ensure that all required sequencing factors are
appropriately considered when deciding which projects to implement. Once
this information is available, the Corps should comprehensively reassess
its sequencing decisions to ensure that CERP projects have been
appropriately sequenced to maximize the achievement of restoration goals.
In addition, given the importance of modeling and interfaces to managing
the restoration effort, we are recommending that, as chair of the Task
Force, the Secretary of the Interior take the lead on helping
participating agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop models
and their interfaces.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and the
Interior and the state of Florida for review and comment. We received
written comments from both federal agencies and the state of Florida.
The Department of Defense generally concurred with our recommendation that
the Corps obtain the key data needed to ensure all sequencing factors are
considered in its project sequencing decisions and to comprehensively
reassess its decisions so as to ensure CERP projects maximize the
achievement of restoration goals. The state of Florida, however, expressed
concerns that our recommendation would serve to delay restoration and
increase costs and stated that it supports the Incremental Adaptive
Restoration process recommended by the National Research Council. While we
understand the state's concerns, we do not believe that implementing the
adaptive management approach recommended by the Council is incompatible
with our recommendation. In fact, our report discusses the Corps' plans to
incorporate this approach and allow CERP projects to move forward in
incremental steps. Furthermore, given the delays that have already
occurred and the criticality of CERP to the success of the restoration, we
believe that it is even more important for the Corps to apply the full set
of sequencing factors, as outlined in the program regulations, to ensure
that CERP sequencing decisions will achieve maximum restoration benefits
as early as possible and in the most cost-effective manner.
In responding to our recommendation that the Departments of Defense and
the Interior reach an agreement on interim goals with the Governor of
Florida, both federal agencies and the state of Florida reported that the
Secretaries of the Army and the Interior and the Governor of Florida
signed an Interim Goals Agreement in late April/early May 2007. Because
this happened after our report was sent to the agencies and the state for
comment, we have revised our report and removed the recommendation to
reflect this recent action. We believe that having the interim goals in
place will provide a way of measuring the progress made in implementing
CERP and achieve its goals as early as possible and in a cost-effective
manner.
The Department of the Interior and the state of Florida agreed with our
recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the Task
Force, take the lead on helping participating agencies better coordinate
their efforts to develop models and their interfaces and that such an
effort should include the Interagency Modeling Center. Interior said that
it agreed that coordination in the area of modeling will be beneficial and
that the Task Force's Science Coordination Group and the Interagency
Modeling Center could assist in this effort. Interior also said that it
will make such a recommendation to the Task Force. The state of Florida
said that it is important that the Task Force provide direction to the
model development process and that interfaces for models are important.
The state also recognized that while coordination of modeling could be
improved, it is important that the Interagency Modeling Center continue to
provide policy guidance. Although this recommendation was not addressed to
the Department of Defense, in its comments the department stated that it
did not agree with the recommendation because the Interagency Modeling
Center has responsibility for coordinating and developing models and
interfaces. We have included information in the report to recognize the
role of the Interagency Modeling Center. However, we believe that because
the Interagency Modeling Center's responsibilities pertain primarily to
CERP, and not the whole restoration effort, the Task Force as the science
and research coordinating body for the overall restoration is the most
appropriate body for coordinating the development of models and their
interfaces.
We also received technical comments from the state of Florida, which we
have incorporated, as appropriate, throughout the report. The Department
of Defense's written comments are presented in appendix V, the Department
of the Interior's written comments are presented in appendix VI, and the
state of Florida's written comments are presented in appendix VII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretary
of the Interior; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the
Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator,
EPA; and the Governor of Florida. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at [37]http://www.gao.gov .
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or [38][email protected] . Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix VIII.
Anu K. Mittal
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration, we were asked to review the current status of the effort,
focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and their
expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of project
implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the restoration effort
since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have occurred and the
reasons for these increases; and (5) primary mathematical models used to
guide the restoration effort and the extent to which these models have
interfaces.
To determine the status of restoration projects and to identify their
expected benefits, we first met with the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and representatives from many of its
participating agencies to determine how best to collect project status and
benefit information. On the basis of these interviews, we determined that
the most complete list of current restoration projects was found in the
Task Force's 2005 Integrated Financial Plan.^1 This list, updated
annually, is intended to contain all of the restoration projects
completed, implemented, and planned by the federal, state, local, and
tribal entities participating in the South Florida ecosystem restoration.
The list is supplemented by project profile sheets that give additional
details about each project. Using the Task Force's list as a baseline and
supplementing it with research and agency interviews, we identified 222
restoration projects. We requested and received information on these
projects from the participating agencies that sponsor nearly all of the
222 projects: the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the Departments of
Agriculture (USDA)--including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); Commerce--including the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the
Interior--including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
Park Service (NPS); the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP); Miami-Dade County; the Miccosukee Tribe; the Seminole Tribe; and
the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Specifically, we requested data on project status, project start and end
dates, and related information. We conducted follow-up interviews where
appropriate to clarify the project information we received. On the basis
of this information, we compiled a master list of completed, ongoing, and
planned restoration projects. Using the information collected regarding
project status, we grouped the projects into the following four
categories: (1) completed, (2) in implementation, (3) in planning or
design, and (4) not yet started.
^1South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Tracking Success: 2005
Integrated Financial Plan for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force (Miami, Fla.: undated).
To separate the 222 projects into smaller groups for further analysis, we
relied upon the project information in the Task Force's 2005 Integrated
Financial Plan, as well as in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) 2005 report to the Congress.^2 On the basis of our analysis of
these two documents and verification provided by responses on project
status from participating agencies, we developed the following three
project groups: (1) CERP projects--60 individual projects approved by the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 to restore, preserve, and
protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other
water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood
control; (2) CERP-related projects--28 projects that provide a foundation
for CERP--many of these were authorized before WRDA 2000; and (3) non-CERP
projects--134 restoration projects that are not as closely related to
CERP.
To identify project benefits, we generally categorized expected benefits
for each project by its primary purpose, as identified by the Task Force
in its 2005 Integrated Financial Plan. According to the Task Force, these
primary purposes are identified by communications between the Task Force
and each project's sponsor(s). We reviewed the project descriptions as
reported by the Task Force, as well as other available project
information, to assess the reasonableness of the Task Force's
determination for each project's primary purpose. For projects that did
not appear in the 2005 Integrated Financial Plan, or for those that
appeared in the plan but did not have a supporting project profile sheet,
we requested and reviewed project information from the project's
sponsor(s) where available. Through this analysis, we developed broad
categories of expected benefits--water storage, habitat acquisition and
improvement, and water quality, among others--and assigned each project to
one of them on the basis of its primary purpose.
^2U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of the Interior,
Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan: 2005 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: undated).
Following our initial data collection, we conducted additional outreach
through April 2007 to ensure that our master project list was as complete
as possible and incorporated any changes that may have occurred. We (1)
reviewed the Task Force's draft 2006 Integrated Financial Plan to
incorporate newly completed projects and other relevant changes; (2)
requested the Task Force's assistance in reconciling our project list with
the original project list that it published in 2000 to incorporate
projects that may have been completed and then removed from the Integrated
Financial Plans issued between 2000 and 2005;^3 and (3) contacted
participating agencies and followed up on ongoing projects with estimated
end dates that were reported as "2006" in the agencies' original status
response to determine if these projects had in fact been completed.
To determine the factors that influence the sequencing of project
implementation for the restoration projects, we obtained and reviewed
available agency guidance, regulations, and related material from the
Corps; the Department of the Interior (including NPS and FWS); FDEP; and
SFWMD. We selected these agencies because they are responsible for the
largest number of CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects. To learn
about sequencing criteria and to determine whether there are any
overarching criteria for all of the restoration projects, we interviewed
officials at these agencies, as well as officials at the Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources
Conservation Service; Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological
Survey; the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes; Miami-Dade County; and the
South Florida Regional Planning Council. Once we determined that only the
CERP projects have clearly established criteria, we met with Corps and
SFWMD officials to determine the extent to which they applied these
criteria in making the sequencing decisions listed in the 2005 sequencing
plan and to identify other factors and considerations that they took into
account. In doing so, we selected certain CERP projects for more detailed
discussion and reviewed Corps documentation in support of its sequencing
decisions. Finally, we reviewed comments by other agencies and external
stakeholders about the appropriateness of the factors used to determine
the sequencing of CERP projects.
^3South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Coordinating Success:
Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem, Volume 2 (Miami,
Fla.: July 31, 2000).
To determine the amount of funding federal and state agencies have
contributed to the restoration effort for fiscal years 1999 through 2006,
we obtained information from the following lead project sponsors: the
Department of Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the Interior,
SFWMD, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We also
obtained information from the Environmental Protection Agency. Federal
agencies account for their funds independently, and therefore no complete
and consolidated financial data on the restoration were available. For the
other agencies participating in the restoration effort, we used the
funding data for this period that these agencies had provided in the Task
Force's annual cross-cut budgets. These agencies included the Department
of Commerce, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Florida Department of
Community Affairs, Florida Department of Transportation, and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. In reporting the funding data in
total and by category type, we used funding amounts that were sometimes
rounded to the nearest million and sometimes rounded to the nearest
billion, and as a result, the amounts we report may not always equal the
funding totals originally provided by each agency. We made certain
judgments in allocating the funding based on the available funding data.
As a result, land costs for some fiscal years are only for a partial
fiscal year and do not include the entire fiscal year. We converted all
funding data to constant 2006 dollars. To assess the reliability of the
funding data the agencies provided, we asked the agencies to provide
appropriation or budget allocation documents that supported their funding
contributions; the lead project sponsors listed above provided supporting
documentation. Our review of the funding and the supporting documentation
indicated that the funding data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this review.
To determine any increases in estimated project costs and the reasons for
these increases, we used as our baseline the list of projects and their
associated costs in the Task Force's 2000 Integrated Financial Plan. We
updated this project list for any changes in projects from July 31, 2000,
through June 30, 2006. We then submitted the updated project list to the
participating federal and state agencies that were the lead project
sponsors and co-sponsors and asked them to provide the total estimated
cost for each project as of June 30, 2006, and identify factors that
contributed to increases in project costs. However, in 2000, the state of
Florida discontinued reporting acquisition costs for lands not yet
acquired for habitat protection. Therefore, the Task Force did not include
these costs in its 2002 through 2006 reports. Instead, to account for
future land costs in its 2004 Biennial Report, the Task Force computed a
range of estimated costs for future land acquisitions using a low and a
high price per acre. Moreover, the 2000 Task Force restoration cost
estimate consisted of total estimated costs for some projects, and total
remaining costs for other projects. In some instances where the cost
estimate provided a total remaining project cost, this was listed as "to
be determined," because the Task Force did not identify a cost for land
still to be purchased. The 2006 restoration cost estimate we developed
also includes total estimated costs for some projects, and total remaining
costs for other projects. However, we developed cost estimates for some
projects whose costs were previously listed as "to be determined."
Specifically, we conservatively estimated total remaining project costs
for uncompleted land acquisitions by multiplying the remaining acreage to
be purchased using the same low price per acre that the Task Force used in
computing these land costs in 2004. This difference in methodology could
account for some part of the estimated cost increase we report; however,
we did not assess the potential impact of this difference. In addition,
for the lead agencies that did not or could not provide estimated project
costs as of June 30, 2006, we used the estimated project costs these
agencies had provided in the 2005 Integrated Financial Plan and converted
the costs to constant 2006 dollars. We realize that converting these 2005
project costs to 2006 dollars may not capture all of the factors that may
contribute to increases in project costs, but given the small number of
projects involved--30--we do not believe the omission of some contributing
factors would significantly alter the total estimated cost of the
restoration. In arriving at a total estimated cost for the restoration for
2000 and 2006, we added together the estimated project costs, future land
costs, and non-project estimated costs for each year. Having calculated
total estimated restoration costs for 2000 and 2006, we subtracted the
2000 total estimated restoration cost from the 2006 total estimated
restoration cost to determine the increase in the total estimated cost of
the restoration. In reporting the cost data in total and by category type,
we used cost amounts that were sometimes rounded to the nearest million
and sometimes to the nearest billion.
In determining the reliability of the project and program support cost
estimates, we researched and reviewed audit reports prepared by agencies'
internal auditors, inspectors general, and outside independent auditors
for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for information on actual costs
incurred. For estimated costs, we reviewed the processes and policies the
Corps and SFWMD used to estimate the costs for completing the projects. We
limited our data reliability review to the following agencies that were
lead project sponsors because they are responsible for tracking and
reporting project costs. These agencies were the Department of
Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD, and FDEP.
Our review of the audit reports and cost estimation policies and
procedures indicated that the cost data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this review.
To identify the primary models that can be used to guide the restoration
and their interfaces, we obtained and analyzed key documents from managers
and scientists at the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD, and
other participating agencies. We also researched academic and model Web
sites to identify additional information related to models and interfaces
for the restoration. From these sources, we compiled a universe of over
100 mathematical models available for the restoration effort.
Additionally, we conducted interviews with agency scientists and managers,
and other stakeholders, including the external scientific community, to
determine which models are considered primary to guide the restoration and
to obtain additional information about these models. We defined primary
models as those that have broad application for use at the project,
sub-regional, or regional level. Through our conversations with agency
scientists and managers, and our analysis of agency documents and academic
and model Web sites, we identified 27 primary models. We also determined
who developed the models, the type, and study area of the models, and the
interfaces for each of the models. We did not independently assess the
reliability or adequacy of the models we reviewed.
We performed our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-CERP
Categories
This appendix provides detailed information on the 222 projects that
comprise the restoration effort. Table 6 shows the projects by project
category--CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide
information on the status of the restoration projects--completed, being
implemented, or not yet implemented (planning, design, or not yet
started).
Table 6: 222 Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose, Completion
Date, and Project Cost
Dollars in millions
Project name Sponsor(s) Primary purpose Completion date Cost^a
60 CERP projects
Acme Basin B Discharge Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2008^b $26.5
acquisition and
improvement
Aquifer Storage and Corps/SFWMD Study 2010 73.4
Recovery Regional
Study
Big Cypress / L-28 Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2022 51.4
Interceptor
Modifications
Biscayne Bay Coastal Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2011^b 386.9
Wetlands acquisition and
improvement
Broward County Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2014 15.5
Secondary Canal System and flow
Broward County Water Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2009^b 408.3
Preserve Areas
C-4 Structure Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2013 2.8
and flow
C-43 Basin Storage Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2011^b 530.6
Reservoir - Part 1 and flow
C-43 Basin Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2019 ^c
Storage and Recovery - and flow
Part 2
C-111 Spreader Canal Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2015^b 117.6
Caloosahatchee Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2018 99.7
Backpumping with
Stormwater Treatment
Caloosahatchee River Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2009 7.9
(C-43) Aquifer Storage and flow
and Recovery Pilot (pilot)
Central Lake Belt Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2035 155.4
Storage and flow
Change Coastal Corps/SFWMD Water supply To be decided ^d
Wellfield Operations
Comprehensive Corps/FDEP Study 2014 9.3
Integrated Water
Quality Feasibility
Study
Environmental Water Corps/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Supply Deliveries to acquisition and
St. Lucie Estuary improvement
Environmental Water Corps/SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Supply Deliveries to acquisition and
the Caloosahatchee improvement
Estuary
Everglades Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2015^b 542.2
Agricultural Storage and flow
Reservoir
Everglades National Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2015 390.9
Park Seepage and flow
Management
Everglades Rain Driven Corps/SFWMD Water storage To be decided ^d
Operations and flow
Florida Bay and the Corps/SFWMD Study 2012 6.3
Florida Keys
Feasibility Study
Florida Keys Tidal Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2010 1.5
Restoration and flow
Flow to Northwest and Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2018 36.3
Central Water and flow
Conservation Area 3A
Flows to Eastern Water Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2017 8.0
Conservation Area and flow
Henderson Creek / Corps/FDEP Water quality 2011 5.8
Belle Meade
Restoration
Hillsboro Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2020 ^c
Storage and Recovery - and flow
Phase 2
Hillsboro Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2009 9.4
Storage and Recovery and flow
Pilot (pilot)
Indian River Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2022^b,e 1,309.7
Lagoon-South and flow
L-31N (L-30) Seepage Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2010 11.3
Management Pilot and flow
(pilot)
Lake Belt In-Ground Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2026 26.5
Reservoir Technology and flow
Pilot (pilot)
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2027 1,223.4
Aquifer Storage and and flow
Recovery
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2009 32.3
Aquifer Storage and and flow
Recovery Pilot (pilot)
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2007 1.1
Regulation Schedule and flow
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2014 575.5
Watershed and flow
Lakes Park Restoration Corps/Lee County Habitat 2009 6.0
acquisition and
improvement
Lower East Coast Corps/SFWMD Water supply To be decided ^d
Utility Water
Conservation
Loxahatchee National Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2015 9.1
Wildlife Refuge and flow
Internal Canal
Structures
Melaleuca Eradication Corps/SFWMD Invasive 2025 6.6
and Other Exotic species control
Plants
Miccosukee Water Corps/Miccosukee Water quality 2016 29.0
Management Plan
Modify Holey Land Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2011 ^d
Wildlife Management and flow
Area Operation Plan
Modify Rotenberger Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2009 d
Wildlife Management and flow
Area Operation Plan
North Lake Belt Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2035 308.2
Storage Area and flow
North Palm Beach Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2015^f 533.2
County - Part 1
North Palm Beach Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2019 203.9
County - Part 2 and flow
Operational Corps/SFWMD Water storage To be decided ^d
Modification to and flow
Southern Portion of
L-31N and C-111
Palm Beach County Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2016 154.4
Agriculture Reserve and flow
Reservoir - Part 1
Palm Beach County Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2018 ^c
Agriculture Reserve and flow
Aquifer Storage and
Recovery - Part 2
Picayune Strand Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2009^b,g 362.6
Restoration acquisition and
improvement
Restoration of Corps/Miami-Dade Habitat 2021 0.7
Pineland and Hardwood County acquisition and
Hammocks in C-111 improvement
Basin
Seminole Tribe Big Corps/Seminole Water quality 2021 89.5
Cypress Reservation
Water Conservation
Plan
Site 1 Impoundment Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2009^b,h 153.7
and flow
South Miami-Dade Reuse Corps/Miami-Dade Water supply 2022 430.6
County
Southwest Florida Corps/SFWMD Study 2009 12.0
Feasibility Study
Strazzulla Wetlands Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2010 70.4
acquisition and
improvement
Wastewater Reuse Corps/SFWMD Water supply 2021 35.4
Technology Pilot (pilot)
Water Conservation Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2021 539.4
Area 2B Flows to and flow
Everglades National
Park
Water Conservation Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2020 253.4
Area 3 and flow
Decompartmentalization
and Sheetflow
Enhancement (Decomp)
Water Preserve Area Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2016 331.7
Conveyance and flow
West Miami-Dade Reuse Corps/Miami-Dade Water supply 2022 518.1
County
Winsberg Farm Wetlands Corps/Palm Beach Habitat 2008 17.1
Restoration County acquisition and
improvement
28 CERP-related
projects
C-111 (South Dade) Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2012 287.6
and flow
Chapter 298 Districts SFWMD Water quality 2005 24.1
/ Lease 3420
Improvements
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water storage To be decided 16.5
Additional Water and flow ^i
Conveyance Structures
Under Tamiami Trail
Critical Project: East Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2003 3.7
Coast Canal Structures and flow
(C-4)
Critical Project: Keys Corps/FDCA Study 2003 6.0
Carrying Capacity
Study
Critical Project: Lake Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2006 21.9
Okeechobee Water
Retention / Phosphorus
Removal
Critical Project: Lake Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2007 30.0
Trafford
Critical Project: Corps/Seminole Water storage 2010 52.2
Seminole Big Cypress and flow
Reservation Water
Conservation Plan
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water storage To be decided 33.3
Southern CREW and flow
Critical Project: Ten Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2006 40.7
Mile Creek and flow
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2006 18.1
Western C-11 Water
Quality Treatment
East Water SFWMD Water storage 2012 5.3
Conservation Area 3A and flow
Hydropattern
Restoration
Everglades SFWMD Water quality 2010 226.7
Agricultural Area
(EAA) Stormwater
Treatment Areas
Expansion
Indian River Lagoon Corps/SFWMD Study 2002 7.9
Restoration
Feasibility Study
Kissimmee River Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2016^j 575.4
Restoration and flow
Manatee Pass Gates Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2010 13.8
acquisition and
improvement
Melaleuca Quarantine USDA (ARS) Invasive 2004 8.0
Facility species control
Modified Water NPS/Corps Water storage 2009 398.4
Deliveries to and flow
Everglades National
Park (Mod Waters)
Rotenberger SFWMD Water storage 2005 3.6
Restoration and flow
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2005 12.7
Area 1 Inflow and
Distribution Works
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2000 82.1
Area 1 West Works and
Outflow Pump Station
(G-310)
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2000 100.4
Area 2 Works and
Outflow Pump Station
(G-335)
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2005 170.4
Area 3/4 Works
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2005 36.2
Area 5 Works
Stormwater Treatment SFWMD Water quality 2006 14.6
Area 6 (includes
Sections 1 and 2)
Water Conservation SFWMD Water storage 2012 4.9
Area 2A Hydropattern and flow
Restoration
West Palm Beach Canal Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2008 288.6
(C-51) and Stormwater
Treatment Area 1E
West Water SFWMD Water storage 2012 7.4
Conservation Area 3A and flow
Hydropattern
Restoration
134 Non-CERP projects
2002 Farm Bill USDA (NRCS) Other 2007 100.4
A.R.M. Loxahatchee FWS Habitat To be decided 30.1
National Wildlife acquisition and
Refuge improvement
A.R.M. Loxahatchee FWS Habitat To be decided ^d
National Wildlife acquisition and
Refuge Prescribed Fire improvement
Program
Achieve "Maintenance FWS/SFWMD/FDEP Invasive 2020 64.1
Control" Status for species control
Brazilian Pepper,
Melaleuca, Australian
Pine, and Old World
Climbing Fern in All
Natural Areas
Statewide by 2020
Agriculture and Rural Miami-Dade Study 2001 ^d
Area Study
Allapattah Flats / FDEP Habitat 2005 d
Ranch acquisition and
improvement
Alternative Water SFWMD Water supply To be decided 466.0
Supply Grant
Aquatic and Upland FDEP Invasive To be decided ^d
Invasive Plant species control
Management
Atlantic Ridge FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Ecosystem acquisition and
improvement
Babcock Ranch FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Belle Meade FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Best Management USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2011 145.4
Practices (BMPs) for
Agriculture
Big Bend Swamp / FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Holopaw Ranch acquisition and
improvement
Big Cypress National NPS Habitat To be decided 75.5
Preserve Addition acquisition and
improvement
Big Cypress National NPS Habitat To be decided ^d
Preserve Mineral acquisition and
Rights improvement
Big Cypress National NPS Habitat To be decided 244.1
Preserve Private acquisition and
Inholdings improvement
Big Pine and No Name FDCA Study 2001 ^d
Keys Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation
Plan
Biscayne Bay Corps/Miami-Dade Study 2010 6.4
Feasibility Study County
Biscayne Coastal SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat To be decided ^d
Wetlands Land County acquisition and
Acquistion improvement
Bombing Range Ridge FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
C-4 Flood Mitigation SFWMD Flood 2008 4.3
Projects protection
Caloosahatchee FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Ecoscape acquisition and
improvement
Catfish Creek FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Cayo Costa FDEP Habitat 2004 29.2
acquisition and
improvement
Charlotte Harbor FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Estuary / Flatwoods / acquisition and
Cape Haze improvement
Complete an Invasive NEWTT/FDEP/NPS Invasive To be decided 5.2
Exotics Plant species control
Prevention, Early
Detection, and
Eradication Plan by
2005
Complete Land NPS Habitat To be decided 33.7
Acquisition for acquisition and
Biscayne National Park improvement
Coordinate the NEWTT Invasive 2011 0.6
Development of species control
Management Plans for
Top 20 South Florida
Exotic Pest Plants
Corkscrew Regional FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Ecosystem Watershed acquisition and
(CREW) improvement
Corkscrew Regional SFWMD Habitat 1999 2.7
Mitigation Bank acquisition and
improvement
Coupon Bight / Key FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Deer / Big Pine Key acquisition and
improvement
Crocodile Lake FWS Habitat To be decided 15.4
National Wildlife acquisition and
Refuge improvement
Cypress Creek / SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Loxahatchee acquisition and
improvement
Cypress Creek / Trail SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Ridge acquisition and
improvement
Devil's Garden FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Dupuis Reserve Land SFWMD Habitat 1986 23.7
Acquistion acquisition and
improvement
East Coast Buffer / FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Water Preserve Areas acquisition and
improvement
East Everglades NPS Habitat To be decided 109.9
Addition to Everglades acquisition and
National Park improvement
Eastward Ho! SFRPC Other 2010 ^d
Brownfields
Partnership
Eastward Ho! Corridor FDCA Study 1998 d
Rival Development
Trends Fiscal Impact
Analysis
Estero Bay FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Estero Bay Aquatic FDEP Invasive 2004 d
Preserve and Buffer species control
Reserve Enhancement
and Exotic Removal
Project
Everglades SFWMD/DOI Habitat To be decided d
Agricultural Area acquisition and
(EAA) / Talisman Land improvement
Acquistion
Everglades National NPS Invasive To be decided d
Park Exotic Control species control
Program
Everglades National NPS Water quality 2008 19.0
Park Water and
Wastewater
Everglades Regulation SFWMD Water quality 2016 ^d
Division Appendix V:
Comments from
the Department
of Defense
Exotic Species Removal Seminole Invasive 2020 1.0
species control
Exotic Vegetation NPS Appendix VI: Invasive To be decided 4.1
Control (Critical) Big Comments from species control
Cypress National the Department
Preserve of the Interior
Appendix VI:
Comments from
the Department
of the Interior
Fakahatchee Strand FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and Appendix
improvement VII:
Comments
from the
State of
Florida
Appendix
VII:
Comments
from the
State of
Florida
Fisheating Creek SFWMD/FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Florida Aquifer USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2006 Appendix 0.9GAO
Restoration VIII: A Contact
Appendix VIII:
GAO Contact and
Staff
Acknowledgments
Florida Greenways and FDEP (OGT) Other Staff 2009In addition 4.6
Trails Designation Acknowledgments to the
Project individual
named above,
Sherry
McDonald,
Assistant
Director; David
Brown; Maureen
Driscoll; Les
Mahagan; Leigh
Ann Nally; and
Carol
Herrnstadt
Shulman made
key
contributions
to this report.
Also
contributing to
this report
were Kevin
Bray, Katherine
Raheb, and Greg
Wilmoth.
Florida Keys Ecosystem FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Florida Keys National FWS Habitat To be decided 55.0
Wildlife Refuge acquisition and
Complex improvement
Florida Keys Overseas FDEP Other 2009 41.2
Heritage Trail
Florida Panther FWS Habitat To be decided 12.9
National Wildlife acquisition and
Refuge improvement
Frog Pond / L-31N FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Half Circle L Ranch SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Hen Scratch Ranch SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Hobe Sound National FWS Habitat To be decided 5.8
Wildlife Refuge acquisition and
improvement
Hole-in-the-Donut NPS Invasive 2017 123.8
species control
Indian River Lagoon FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Blueway acquisition and
improvement
Integration of NPS Invasive 2006 d
Federal, State, and species control
Local Agency Invasive
Exotic Control
Programs into
Florida-wide Strategy
J.N. "Ding" Darling FWS Habitat To be decided 71.8
National Wildlife acquisition and
Refuge improvement
Juno Hills / Dunes FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Jupiter Ridge FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Kissimmee Basin Water SFWMD Study 2006 5.5
Supply Plan (KB Plan)
Kissimmee Prairie FDEP/SFWMD Water storage 1997 22.6
(Ecosystem) and flow
Kissimmee River (Lower SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Basin) acquisition and
improvement
Kissimmee River (Upper SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Basin) acquisition and
improvement
Kissimmee-St. Johns FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Connector acquisition and
improvement
Lake Hatchineha SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Watershed / acquisition and
Parker-Poinciana improvement
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water quality 2009 200.0
Fast-Track Projects
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water quality 2015 1,300.0
Protection Program
Lake Okeechobee Scenic FDEP Other To be decided 25.8
Trail
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water quality 2003 1.0
Sediment Removal (pilot)
Feasibility Study and
Pilot Project
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water quality 2004 0.5
Tributary Sediment (pilot)
Removal Pilot Project
Lake Wales Ridge FDEP Habitat To be decided ^d
Ecosystem acquisition and
improvement
Lake Walk-in-Water SFWMD Habitat 1998 4.1
acquisition and
improvement
Long Term Plan (LTP) SFWMD Water quality 2016 580.9
Projects
Lower East Coast SFWMD Study 2006 12.1
Regional Water Supply
Plan (LEC Plan)
Lower West Coast SFWMD Study 2002 ^d
Regional Irrigation
Distribution System
Master Plan Study
Lower West Coast Water SFWMD Study 2006 10.4
Supply Plan (LWC Plan)
Loxahatchee FWS Habitat 2012 6.1
Impoundment Landscape acquisition and
Assessment (LILA) improvement
(pilot)
Loxahatchee River SFWMD Habitat 2001 13.5
acquisition and
improvement
Loxahatchee Slough SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Miami-Dade County FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Archipelago acquisition and
improvement
Miccosukee Water Miccosukee Water quality To be decided 26.0
Resources Management
Model Lands SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat 2007 ^d
County acquisition and
improvement
Monitoring of Organic USDA (NRCS) Other 2017 1.3
Soils in the
Everglades
Nicodermus Slough SFWMD Habitat 1988 2.0
acquisition and
improvement
North Fork St. Lucie FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
River acquisition and
improvement
North Key Largo FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Hammocks acquisition and
improvement
Northern Palm Beach SFWMD Study 2002 d
County and Southern
Martin County
Reclaimed Water Master
Plan
North Savannas SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Okaloacoochee Slough FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Okeechobee Battlefield FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Orlando / Kissimmee SFWMD Study 2004 d
Area Regional
Reclaimed Water
Optimization Plan
Osceola Pine Savannas FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Pal-Mar FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Panther Glades FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Paradise Run SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Pine Island Slough FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Ecosystem acquisition and
improvement
Pineland Site Complex FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Planning and NOAA Habitat To be decided d
Implementation of the acquisition and
Tortugas Ecological improvement
Reserve
Ranch Reserve SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Rookery Bay FDEP Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Rotenberger-Holey Land FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Tract acquisition and
improvement
S-5A Basin Runoff SFWMD Water quality 2005 12.8
Diversion Works
Seminole Tribe Best Seminole Water quality 2012 4.9
Management Practices
for the Big Cypress
Reservation
Seminole Tribe Best Seminole Water quality 2012 0.3
Management Practices
for the Brighton
Reservation
Seminole Tribe Seminole Water storage 2010 16.3
Comprehensive Surface and flow
Water Management
System for the
Brighton Reservation
Seminole Tribe Water Seminole Water quality 2012 50.5
Conservation Project
for Big Cypress
Reservation
Shingle Creek SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Six Mile Cypress I and SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
II acquisition and
improvement
Soil Survey Update for USDA (NRCS) Other 2012 1.5
the Everglades
Agricultural Area
Soil Survey Update for USDA (NRCS) Other 2013 5.8
the Everglades
National Park, Big
Cypress National
Preserve, and Water
Conservation Areas
South Florida USDA (NRCS) Other To be decided 1.6
Ecosystem Restoration
Earth Team
South Florida BSWCD/SFERC/ Other To be decided 15.5
Ecosystem Restoration USDA (NRCS)
Non Point Source
Pollution and Disease
Prevention Project
South Florida FWS Habitat 2010 386.1
Multi-Species Recovery acquisition and
Plan improvement
South Fork St. Lucie SFWMD Habitat 1996 2.6
River acquisition and
improvement
South Savannas FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
acquisition and
improvement
Southern Glades SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat To be decided d
County acquisition and
improvement
Southern Golden Gate FDEP Habitat To be decided d
Estates acquisition and
improvement
Technical Assistance USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2011 15.5
to Seminole and
Miccosukee Indian
Reservations
Ten Mile Creek (Land SFWMD Habitat 2004 5.5
Acquisition) acquisition and
improvement
Tibet-Butler Preserve SFWMD Habitat 1999 3.7
acquisition and
improvement
Total Maximum Daily FDEP Water quality 2011 ^d
Load (TMDL) for South
Florida
Twelve Mile Slough SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
acquisition and
improvement
Upper East Coast SFWMD Study 2006 4.4
Regional Water Supply
Plan (UEC Plan)
Upper Lakes Basin SFWMD Habitat To be decided ^d
Watershed acquisition and
improvement
Water Conservation Corps Study To be decided d
Area 2A Regulation
Schedule Review
Water Conservation SFWMD Habitat To be decided d
Areas 2 and 3 acquisition and
improvement
Yamato Scrub FDEP Habitat 1996 26.7
acquisition and
improvement
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and participating
agencies.
Note: Ten projects had primary purposes--such as recreation or soil
monitoring--that fell outside of our established categories. These project
purposes are designated "Other" in this table and in tables 7, 8, and 9.
^aProject cost shown is reported cost for completed projects and estimated
cost for all other projects.
^bSFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project with its
own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may result in
earlier project completion.
^cThe estimated cost of this aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project is
included in the cost estimate for the project's initial part or phase.
Specifically, the estimated cost of the C-43 Basin ASR is included in the
cost estimate for the C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir; the estimated cost of
the Hillsboro ASR is included in the cost estimate for the Site 1
Impoundment; and the estimated cost of the Palm Beach County Agriculture
Reserve ASR is included in the cost estimate for the Palm Beach County
Agriculture Reserve Reservoir.
^dWe did not receive cost information for this project.
^eA project implementation report was submitted to the Congress in 2005
for this project, but it has not yet received authorization.
^fSFWMD is expediting a portion of this project with its own funds in
advance of congressional authorization. It is constructing a water storage
reservoir that it expects to finish by 2008.
^gThis project is currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget before its project implementation report is submitted to the
Congress for authorization.
^hThis project is currently being reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army before its project implementation report is submitted to the
Congress for authorization.
^iPhase 1 of this project has been completed; phase 2 is on hold pending
additional funding.
^jThis date encompasses construction completion and several years of
post-construction monitoring.
Table 7: 43 Completed Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose,
Completion Date, and Reported Cost
Dollars in millions
Completion
Project name Sponsor(s) Primary purpose date Cost
15 CERP-related projects
Chapter 298 Districts / SFWMD Water quality 2005 $24.1
Lease 3420 Improvements
Critical Project: East Coast Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2003 3.7
Canal Structures (C-4) and flow
Critical Project: Keys Corps/FDCA Study 2003 6.0
Carrying Capacity Study
Critical Project: Lake Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2006 21.9
Okeechobee Water Retention /
Phosphorus Removal
Critical Project: Ten Mile Corps/SFWMD Water storage 2006 40.7
Creek and flow
Critical Project: Western Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2006 18.1
C-11 Water Quality Treatment
Indian River Lagoon Corps/SFWMD Study 2002 7.9
Restoration Feasibility
Study
Melaleuca Quarantine USDA (ARS) Invasive species 2004 8.0
Facility control
Rotenberger Restoration SFWMD Water storage 2005 3.6
and flow
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 SFWMD Water quality 2005 12.7
Inflow and Distribution
Works
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 SFWMD Water quality 2000 82.1
West Works and Outflow Pump
Station (G-310)
Stormwater Treatment Area 2 SFWMD Water quality 2000 100.4
Works and Outflow Pump
Station (G-335)
Stormwater Treatment Area SFWMD Water quality 2005 170.4
3/4 Works
Stormwater Treatment Area 5 SFWMD Water quality 2005 36.2
Works
Stormwater Treatment Area 6 SFWMD Water quality 2006 14.6
(includes Sections 1 and 2)
28 Non-CERP projects
Agriculture and Rural Area Miami-Dade Study 2001 ^a
Study
Allapattah Flats / Ranch FDEP Habitat 2005 a
acquisition and
improvement
Big Pine and No Name Keys FDCA Study 2001 a
Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan
Cayo Costa FDEP Habitat 2004 29.2
acquisition and
improvement
Corkscrew Regional SFWMD Habitat 1999 2.7
Mitigation Bank acquisition and
improvement
Dupuis Reserve Land SFWMD Habitat 1986 23.7
Acquistion acquisition and
improvement
Eastward Ho! Corridor Rival FDCA Study 1998 ^a
Development Trends Fiscal
Impact Analysis
Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve FDEP Invasive species 2004 a
and Buffer Reserve control
Enhancement and Exotic
Removal Project
Florida Aquifer Restoration USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2006 0.9
Integration of Federal, NPS Invasive species 2006 ^a
State, and Local Agency control
Invasive Exotic Control
Programs into Florida-wide
Strategy
Kissimmee Basin Water Supply SFWMD Study 2006 5.5
Plan (KB Plan)
Kissimmee Prairie FDEP/SFWMD Water storage 1997 22.6
(Ecosystem) and flow
Lake Okeechobee Sediment SFWMD Water quality 2003 1.0
Removal Feasibility Study (pilot)
and Pilot Project
Lake Okeechobee Tributary SFWMD Water quality 2004 0.5
Sediment Removal Pilot (pilot)
Project
Lake Walk-in-Water SFWMD Habitat 1998 4.1
acquisition and
improvement
Lower East Coast Regional SFWMD Study 2006 12.1
Water Supply Plan (LEC Plan)
Lower West Coast Regional SFWMD Study 2002 ^a
Irrigation Distribution
System Master Plan Study
Lower West Coast Water SFWMD Study 2006 10.4
Supply Plan (LWC Plan)
Loxahatchee River SFWMD Habitat 2001 13.5
acquisition and
improvement
Nicodermus Slough SFWMD Habitat 1988 2.0
acquisition and
improvement
Northern Palm Beach County SFWMD Study 2002 ^a
and Southern Martin County
Reclaimed Water Master Plan
Orlando / Kissimmee Area SFWMD Study 2004 a
Regional Reclaimed Water
Optimization Plan
S-5A Basin Runoff Diversion SFWMD Water quality 2005 12.8
Works
South Fork St. Lucie River SFWMD Habitat 1996 2.6
acquisition and
improvement
Ten Mile Creek (Land SFWMD Habitat 2004 5.5
Acquisition) acquisition and
improvement
Tibet-Butler Preserve SFWMD Habitat 1999 3.7
acquisition and
improvement
Upper East Coast Regional SFWMD Study 2006 4.4
Water Supply Plan (UEC Plan)
Yamato Scrub FDEP Habitat 1996 26.7
acquisition and
improvement
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by the Task Force and
participating agencies.
^aWe did not receive cost information for this project.
Table 8: 107 Restoration Projects Now Being Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost
Dollars in millions
Project name Sponsor(s) Primary purpose Completion Cost
date
7 CERP projects
Acme Basin B Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2008^a $26.5
Discharge acquisition and
improvement
Everglades Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2015^a 542.2
Agricultural flow
Storage Reservoir
Hillsboro Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2009 9.4
Storage and flow (pilot)
Recovery Pilot
Indian River Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2022^a,b 1,309.7
Lagoon-South flow
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2009 32.3
Aquifer Storage and flow (pilot)
Recovery Pilot
North Palm Beach Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2015^c 533.2
County - Part 1
Picayune Strand Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2009^a,d 362.6
Restoration acquisition and
improvement
10 CERP-related
projects
C-111 (South Dade) Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2012 287.6
flow
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water storage and To be 16.5
Additional Water flow decided ^e
Conveyance
Structures Under
Tamiami Trail
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2007 30.0
Lake Trafford
Critical Project: Corps/Seminole Water storage and 2010 52.2
Seminole Big flow
Cypress Reservation
Water Conservation
Plan
Critical Project: Corps/SFWMD Water storage and To be 33.3
Southern CREW flow decided
Everglades SFWMD Water quality 2010 226.7
Agricultural Area
(EAA) Stormwater
Treatment Areas
Expansion
Kissimmee River Corps/SFWMD Water storage and 2016^f 575.4
Restoration flow
Manatee Pass Gates Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2010 13.8
acquisition and
improvement
Modified Water NPS/Corps Water storage and 2009 398.4
Deliveries to flow
Everglades National
Park (Mod Waters)
West Palm Beach Corps/SFWMD Water quality 2008 288.6
Canal (C-51) and
Stormwater
Treatment Area 1E
90 Non-CERP
projects
2002 Farm Bill USDA (NRCS) Other 2007 100.4
A.R.M. Loxahatchee FWS Habitat To be 30.1
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge improvement
A.R.M. Loxahatchee FWS Habitat To be ^g
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge Prescribed improvement
Fire Program
Achieve FWS/SFWMD/FDEP Invasive species 2020 64.1
"Maintenance control
Control" Status for
Brazilian Pepper,
Melaleuca,
Australian Pine,
and Old World
Climbing Fern in
All Natural Areas
Statewide by 2020
Alternative Water SFWMD Water supply To be 466.0
Supply Grant decided
Aquatic and Upland FDEP Invasive species To be ^g
Invasive Plant control decided
Management
Atlantic Ridge FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be g
Ecosystem acquisition and decided
improvement
Belle Meade FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Best Management USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2011 145.4
Practices (BMPs)
for Agriculture
Big Bend Swamp / FDEP Habitat To be ^g
Holopaw Ranch acquisition and decided
improvement
Big Cypress NPS Habitat To be 75.5
National Preserve acquisition and decided
Addition improvement
Big Cypress NPS Habitat To be 244.1
National Preserve acquisition and decided
Private Inholdings improvement
Biscayne Bay Corps/Miami-Dade Study 2010 6.4
Feasibility Study County
Biscayne Coastal SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat To be ^g
Wetlands Land County acquisition and decided
Acquistion improvement
Bombing Range Ridge FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
C-4 Flood SFWMD Flood protection 2008 4.3
Mitigation Projects
Caloosahatchee FDEP Habitat To be ^g
Ecoscape acquisition and decided
improvement
Catfish Creek FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Charlotte Harbor FDEP Habitat To be g
Estuary / Flatwoods acquisition and decided
/ Cape Haze improvement
Complete Land NPS Habitat To be 33.7
Acquisition for acquisition and decided
Biscayne National improvement
Park
Coordinate the NEWTT South Florida 2011 0.6
Development of Ecosystem
Management Plans Invasive species
for Top 20 South control South
Florida Exotic Pest Florida Ecosystem
Plants South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem South
Florida Ecosystem
South Florida
Ecosystem
Corkscrew Regional FDEP Habitat To be ^g
Ecosystem Watershed acquisition and decided
(CREW) improvement
Coupon Bight / Key FDEP Habitat To be g
Deer / Big Pine Key acquisition and decided
improvement
Crocodile Lake FWS Habitat To be 15.4
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge improvement
Cypress Creek / SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
Loxahatchee acquisition and decided
improvement
Cypress Creek / SFWMD Habitat To be g
Trail Ridge acquisition and decided
improvement
East Coast Buffer / FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be g
Water Preserve acquisition and decided
Areas improvement
East Everglades NPS Habitat To be 109.9
Addition to acquisition and decided
Everglades National improvement
Park
Eastward Ho! SFRPC Other 2010 ^g
Brownfields
Partnership
Estero Bay FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Everglades SFWMD/DOI Habitat To be g
Agricultural Area acquisition and decided
(EAA) / Talisman improvement
Land Acquistion
Everglades National NPS Invasive species To be g
Park Exotic Control control decided
Program
Everglades National NPS Water quality 2008 19.0
Park Water and
Wastewater
Everglades SFWMD Water quality 2016 ^g
Regulation Division
Exotic Species Seminole Invasive species 2020 1.0
Removal control
Exotic Vegetation NPS Invasive species To be 4.1
Control (Critical) control decided
Big Cypress
National Preserve
Fakahatchee Strand FDEP Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Fisheating Creek SFWMD/FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Florida Greenways FDEP (OGT) Other 2009 4.6
and Trails
Designation Project
Florida Keys FDEP Habitat To be ^g
Ecosystem acquisition and decided
improvement
Florida Keys FWS Habitat To be 55.0
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge Complex improvement
Florida Keys FDEP Other 2009 41.2
Overseas Heritage
Trail
Florida Panther FWS Habitat To be 12.9
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge improvement
Frog Pond / L-31N FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Hobe Sound National FWS Habitat To be 5.8
Wildlife Refuge acquisition and decided
improvement
Hole-in-the-Donut NPS Invasive species 2017 123.8
control
Indian River Lagoon FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
Blueway acquisition and decided
improvement
J.N. "Ding" Darling FWS Habitat To be 71.8
National Wildlife acquisition and decided
Refuge improvement
Juno Hills / Dunes FDEP Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Jupiter Ridge FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Kissimmee River SFWMD Habitat To be g
(Lower Basin) acquisition and decided
improvement
Kissimmee River SFWMD Habitat To be g
(Upper Basin) acquisition and decided
improvement
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water quality 2015 1,300.0
Protection Program
Lake Okeechobee FDEP Other To be 25.8
Scenic Trail decided
Lake Wales Ridge FDEP Habitat To be ^g
Ecosystem acquisition and decided
improvement
Long Term Plan SFWMD Water quality 2016 580.9
(LTP) Projects
Loxahatchee FWS Habitat 2012 6.1
Impoundment acquisition and
Landscape improvement
Assessment (LILA) (pilot)
Loxahatchee Slough SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Miami-Dade County FDEP Habitat To be g
Archipelago acquisition and decided
improvement
Model Lands SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat 2007 g
County acquisition and
improvement
Monitoring of USDA (NRCS) Other 2017 1.3
Organic Soils in
the Everglades
North Fork St. FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
Lucie River acquisition and decided
improvement
North Key Largo FDEP Habitat To be g
Hammocks acquisition and decided
improvement
Okaloacoochee FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be g
Slough acquisition and decided
improvement
Okeechobee FDEP Habitat To be g
Battlefield acquisition and decided
improvement
Osceola Pine FDEP Habitat To be g
Savannas acquisition and decided
improvement
Pal-Mar FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Panther Glades FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Paradise Run SFWMD Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Pineland Site FDEP Habitat To be g
Complex acquisition and decided
improvement
Planning and NOAA Habitat To be g
Implementation of acquisition and decided
the Tortugas improvement
Ecological Reserve
Ranch Reserve SFWMD Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Rookery Bay FDEP Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Rotenberger-Holey FDEP Habitat To be g
Land Tract acquisition and decided
improvement
Seminole Tribe Best Seminole Water quality 2012 4.9
Management
Practices for the
Big Cypress
Reservation
Seminole Tribe Best Seminole Water quality 2012 0.3
Management
Practices for the
Brighton
Reservation
Seminole Tribe Seminole Water quality 2012 50.5
Water Conservation
Project for Big
Cypress Reservation
Shingle Creek SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Six Mile Cypress I SFWMD Habitat To be g
and II acquisition and decided
improvement
South Florida USDA (NRCS) Other To be 1.6
Ecosystem decided
Restoration Earth
Team
South Florida BSWCD/SFERC/ USDA Other To be 15.5
Ecosystem (NRCS) decided
Restoration Non
Point Source
Pollution and
Disease Prevention
Project
South Florida FWS Habitat 2010 386.1
Multi-Species acquisition and
Recovery Plan improvement
South Savannas FDEP/SFWMD Habitat To be ^g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Southern Glades SFWMD/Miami-Dade Habitat To be g
County acquisition and decided
improvement
Southern Golden FDEP Habitat To be g
Gate Estates acquisition and decided
improvement
Technical USDA (NRCS) Water quality 2011 15.5
Assistance to
Seminole and
Miccosukee Indian
Reservations
Total Maximum Daily FDEP Water quality 2011 ^g
Load (TMDL) for
South Florida
Twelve Mile Slough SFWMD Habitat To be g
acquisition and decided
improvement
Upper Lakes Basin SFWMD Habitat To be g
Watershed acquisition and decided
improvement
Water Conservation SFWMD Habitat To be g
Areas 2 and 3 acquisition and decided
improvement
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and participating
agencies.
^aSFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project with its
own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may result in
earlier project completion.
^bA project implementation report was submitted to the Congress in 2005
for this project, but it has not yet received authorization.
^cSFWMD is expediting a portion of this project with its own funds in
advance of congressional authorization. It is constructing a water storage
reservoir that it expects to finish by 2008.
^dThis project is currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget before its project implementation report is submitted to the
Congress for authorization.
^ePhase 1 of this project has been completed; phase 2 is on hold pending
additional funding.
^fThis date encompasses construction completion and several years of
post-construction monitoring.
^gWe did not receive estimated cost information for this project.
Table 9: 72 Restoration Projects Not Yet Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost
Dollars in millions
Project name Sponsor(s) Primary Completion Cost
purpose date
53 CERP projects
Aquifer Storage and Corps/SFWMD Study 2010 $73.4
Recovery Regional Study
Big Cypress / L-28 Corps/SFWMD Water 2022 51.4
Interceptor Modifications quality
Biscayne Bay Coastal Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2011^a 386.9
Wetlands acquisition
and
improvement
Broward County Secondary Corps/SFWMD Water 2014 15.5
Canal System storage and
flow
Broward County Water Corps/SFWMD Water 2009^a 408.3
Preserve Areas quality
C-4 Structure Corps/SFWMD Water 2013 2.8
storage and
flow
C-43 Basin Storage Corps/SFWMD Water 2011^a 530.6
Reservoir - Part 1 storage and
flow
C-43 Basin Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water 2019 ^b
Storage and Recovery - storage and
Part 2 flow
C-111 Spreader Canal Corps/SFWMD Water 2015^a 117.6
quality
Caloosahatchee Corps/SFWMD Water 2018 99.7
Backpumping with quality
Stormwater Treatment
Caloosahatchee River Corps/SFWMD Water 2009 7.9
(C-43) Aquifer Storage storage and
and Recovery Pilot flow (pilot)
Central Lake Belt Storage Corps/SFWMD Water 2035 155.4
storage and
flow
Change Coastal Wellfield Corps/SFWMD Water supply To be c
Operations decided
Comprehensive Integrated Corps/FDEP Study 2014 9.3
Water Quality Feasibility
Study
Environmental Water Corps/SFWMD Habitat To be ^c
Supply Deliveries to St. acquisition decided
Lucie Estuary and
improvement
Environmental Water Corps/SFWMD Habitat To be c
Supply Deliveries to the acquisition decided
Caloosahatchee Estuary and
improvement
Everglades National Park Corps/SFWMD Water 2015 390.9
Seepage Management storage and
flow
Everglades Rain Driven Corps/SFWMD Water To be ^c
Operations storage and decided
flow
Florida Bay and the Corps/SFWMD Study 2012 6.3
Florida Keys Feasibility
Study
Florida Keys Tidal Corps/SFWMD Water 2010 1.5
Restoration storage and
flow
Flow to Northwest and Corps/SFWMD Water 2018 36.3
Central Water storage and
Conservation Area 3A flow
Flows to Eastern Water Corps/SFWMD Water 2017 8.0
Conservation Area storage and
flow
Henderson Creek / Belle Corps/FDEP Water 2011 5.8
Meade Restoration quality
Hillsboro Aquifer Storage Corps/SFWMD Water 2020 b
and Recovery - Phase 2 storage and
flow
L-31N (L-30) Seepage Corps/SFWMD Water 2010 11.3
Management Pilot storage and
flow (pilot)
Lake Belt In-Ground Corps/SFWMD Water 2026 26.5
Reservoir Technology storage and
Pilot flow (pilot)
Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Corps/SFWMD Water 2027 1,223.4
Storage and Recovery storage and
flow
Lake Okeechobee Corps/SFWMD Water 2007 1.1
Regulation Schedule storage and
flow
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Corps/SFWMD Water 2014 575.5
storage and
flow
Lakes Park Restoration Corps/Lee County Habitat 2009 6.0
acquisition
and
improvement
Lower East Coast Utility Corps/SFWMD Water supply To be ^c
Water Conservation decided
Loxahatchee National Corps/SFWMD Water 2015 9.1
Wildlife Refuge Internal storage and
Canal Structures flow
Melaleuca Eradication and Corps/SFWMD Invasive 2025 6.6
Other Exotic Plants species
control
Miccosukee Water Corps/Miccosukee Water 2016 29.0
Management Plan quality
Modify Holey Land Corps/SFWMD Water 2011 ^c
Wildlife Management Area storage and
Operation Plan flow
Modify Rotenberger Corps/SFWMD Water 2009 c
Wildlife Management Area storage and
Operation Plan flow
North Lake Belt Storage Corps/SFWMD Water 2035 308.2
Area storage and
flow
North Palm Beach County - Corps/SFWMD Water 2019 203.9
Part 2 storage and
flow
Operational Modification Corps/SFWMD Water To be ^c
to Southern Portion of storage and decided
L-31N and C-111 flow
Palm Beach County Corps/SFWMD Water 2016 154.4
Agriculture Reserve storage and
Reservoir - Part 1 flow
Palm Beach County Corps/SFWMD Water 2018 ^b
Agriculture Reserve storage and
Aquifer Storage and flow
Recovery - Part 2
Restoration of Pineland Corps/Miami-Dade Habitat 2021 0.7
and Hardwood Hammocks in County acquisition
C-111 Basin and
improvement
Seminole Tribe Big Corps/Seminole Water 2021 89.5
Cypress Reservation Water quality
Conservation Plan
Site 1 Impoundment Corps/SFWMD Water 2009^a,d 153.7
storage and
flow
South Miami-Dade Reuse Corps/Miami-Dade Water supply 2022 430.6
County
Southwest Florida Corps/SFWMD Study 2009 12.0
Feasibility Study
Strazzulla Wetlands Corps/SFWMD Habitat 2010 70.4
acquisition
and
improvement
Wastewater Reuse Corps/SFWMD Water supply 2021 35.4
Technology Pilot (pilot)
Water Conservation Area Corps/SFWMD Water 2021 539.4
2B Flows to Everglades storage and
National Park flow
Water Conservation Area 3 Corps/SFWMD Water 2020 253.4
Decompartmentalization storage and
and Sheetflow Enhancement flow
(Decomp)
Water Preserve Area Corps/SFWMD Water 2016 331.7
Conveyance storage and
flow
West Miami-Dade Reuse Corps/Miami-Dade Water supply 2022 518.1
County
Winsberg Farm Wetlands Corps/Palm Beach Habitat 2008 17.1
Restoration County acquisition
and
improvement
3 CERP-related projects
East Water Conservation SFWMD Water 2012 5.3
Area 3A Hydropattern storage and
Restoration flow
Water Conservation Area SFWMD Water 2012 4.9
2A Hydropattern storage and
Restoration flow
West Water Conservation SFWMD Water 2012 7.4
Area 3A Hydropattern storage and
Restoration flow
16 Non-CERP projects
Babcock Ranch FDEP Habitat To be ^c
acquisition decided
and
improvement
Big Cypress National NPS Habitat To be c
Preserve Mineral Rights acquisition decided
and
improvement
Complete an Invasive NEWTT/FDEP/NPS Invasive To be 5.2
Exotics Plant Prevention, species decided
Early Detection, and control
Eradication Plan by 2005
Devil's Garden FDEP Habitat To be ^c
acquisition decided
and
improvement
Half Circle L Ranch SFWMD Habitat To be c
acquisition decided
and
improvement
Hen Scratch Ranch SFWMD Habitat To be c
acquisition decided
and
improvement
Kissimmee-St. Johns FDEP Habitat To be c
Connector acquisition decided
and
improvement
Lake Hatchineha Watershed SFWMD Habitat To be c
/ Parker-Poinciana acquisition decided
and
improvement
Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Water 2009 200.0
Fast-Track Projects quality
Miccosukee Water Miccosukee Water To be 26.0
Resources Management quality decided
North Savannas SFWMD Habitat To be c
acquisition decided
and
improvement
Pine Island Slough FDEP Habitat To be c
Ecosystem acquisition decided
and
improvement
Seminole Tribe Seminole Water 2010 16.3
Comprehensive Surface storage and
Water Management System flow
for the Brighton
Reservation
Soil Survey Update for USDA (NRCS) Other 2012 1.5
the Everglades
Agricultural Area
Soil Survey Update for USDA (NRCS) Other 2013 5.8
the Everglades National
Park, Big Cypress
National Preserve, and
Water Conservation Areas
Water Conservation Area Corps Study To be c
2A Regulation Schedule decided
Review
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and participating
agencies.
^aSFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project with its
own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may result in
earlier project completion.
^bThe estimated cost of this aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project is
included in the cost estimate for the project's initial part or phase.
Specifically, the estimated cost of the C-43 Basin ASR is included in the
cost estimate for the C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir; the estimated cost of
the Hillsboro ASR is included in the cost estimate for the Site 1
Impoundment; and the estimated cost of the Palm Beach County Agriculture
Reserve ASR is included in the cost estimate for the Palm Beach County
Agriculture Reserve Reservoir.
^cWe did not receive estimated cost information for this project.
^dThis project is currently being reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army before its project implementation report is submitted to the
Congress for authorization.
Appendix III: Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006
Dollars in millions
Fiscal years
Agency 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Federal agencies
Department of
Agriculture ^a
Agricultural $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $5.4 $5.7 $5.7 $6.3 $4.9 $42.4
Research Service
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service 6.0 7.5 6.0 42.1 23.3 25.0 64.4 61.5 235.9
Department of
Commerce^b
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration 19.3 21.4 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 3.0 66.7
Department of
Defense^a,d
U.S. Army Corps 42.7 116.6 137.2 157.1 145.4 146.0 122.6 137.0 1,004.6
of Engineers
Department of
the Interior^a,e
National Park 150.8 140.1 64.0 97.7 73.1 47.0 46.5 44.7 663.8
Service
U.S. Fish and 9.5 15.4 21.1 21.0 18.1 17.3 12.4 10.7 125.6
Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 3.8
Affairs
U.S. Geological 10.2 9.9 9.7 9.5 13.2 8.3 8.0 7.8 76.7
Survey
Environmental 7.3 5.5 5.2 5.2 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.4 36.6
Protection
Agency^a
Total federal $251.2 $321.7 $253.2 $343.0 $287.4 $258.0 $268.2 $273.4 $2,256.1
Florida agencies
Florida
Department of
Agriculture and
Consumer
Services^b $6.1 $7.2 $28.0 $8.5 $16.9 $17.2 $8.8 $5.1 $97.9
Florida
Department of
Community
Affairs^b 44.1 31.6 36.1 10.9 10.9 48.6 39.0 37.0 258.3
Florida
Department of
Environmental
Protection^c 81.3 179.6 255.2 181.7 283.4 210.1 238.1 305.1 1,734.5
Florida
Department of
Transportation^b 51.7 4.0 18.3 5.5 11.5 2.1 8.1 5.4 106.5
Florida Fish and
Wildlife
Conservation
Commission^b 11.2 11.4 19.9 22.4 23.7 27.7 28.6 27.9 173.0
South Florida
Water Management
District^a, f 208.1 126.8 120.2 362.7 306.8 352.0 409.3 563.1 2,449.0
Total state $402.5 $360.6 $477.7 $591.7 $653.2 $657.7 $732.1 $943.6 $4,819.0
Total
restoration $653.7 $682.3 $730.9 $934.7 $940.6 $915.7 $1,000.2 $1,217.0 $7,075.1
Source: Federal and state agencies restoration funding data.
^aFunding data provided in response to a GAO funding data request.
^bFunding data used were as reported in the Task Force's annual cross-cut
budgets.
^cFunding data used as reported in the Task Force's annual cross-cut
budgets, except for data on certain land acquisitions, which were provided
in response to a GAO funding data request.
^d The funding data provided by the Corps differed from that reported in
the cross-cut budgets because the amounts in the cross-cut budgets
represent the amounts in the President's budget and the amounts provided
to GAO represent the amounts contained in the conference report according
to the Corps.
^e The funding data provided by Interior differed from that reported in
the cross-cut budgets because of the timing differences in agency budget
execution and cross-cut budget data submission timeframes; moving funding
among departmental budget lines; and/or the application of
across-the-board reductions, supplementals, and rescissions, according to
an Interior official.
^f The funding data provided by the South Florida Water Management
District differed from that reported in the cross-cut budgets because of
variations in the financial systems used to derive the funding information
according to a SFWMD official.
Appendix IV: Summary of the Primary Models
Does the
Entity model have
responsible for Model study an
Model name development area Model type interface? Model description
1 ATLSS--Across Trophic Level DOI and Regional, Ecological Yes A suite of individual
System Simulation University of project ecological models that
Tennessee compare the impact of
changes in hydrology
on the biotic
components of the
ecosystem, from
zooplankton, to
different species of
fish, to the Florida
panther.
2 CH3D--Curvilinear-grid Corps, Iowa Sub-regional Hydrological No A three-dimensional
Hydrodynamic Three Institute of (hydrodynamic)^a model that simulates
Dimensional Model Hydraulic the major physical
Research, and processes affecting
Y. Peter Sheng circulation and mixing
of Titon of a large water body,
Corporation taking into account
the hydrology,
salinity, and
temperature.
3 DMSTA--Dynamic Model for W. Walker and Project Water quality, No Used in evaluating
Stormwater Treatment Areas R. Kadlec for hydrological hydrological and water
DOI and Corps quality impacts of
stormwater treatment
areas in South
Florida.
4 ECO Lab Danish Regional, Ecological Yes Simulates chemical,
Hydraulic project biological,
Institute ecological, and
physical interactions
that occur as a result
of a number of
variables that
influence hydrodynamic
processes. Also
simulates water
quality.
5 EFDC--Environmental Fluids John Hamrick of Project Hydrological Yes A hydrodynamic model
Dynamics Code Tetra Tech, (hydrodynamic),^a that simulates aquatic
Inc. water quality systems in one, two,
and three dimensions,
and rainy and arid
cycles, taking into
account the salinity,
temperature, and
contaminants.
6 ELM--Everglades Landscape SFWMD Regional, Ecological Yes Predicts the landscape
Model project response to different
water management
scenarios in South
Florida. In simulating
changes to habitat,
the model dynamically
integrates hydrology,
water quality, soils,
algae, and vegetation
in the Everglades
region.
7 E-MCM--Everglades Mercury EPA, SFWMD, and Project Water quality Yes Predicts the movement
Cycling Model FDEP and deposit of the
major forms of mercury
in marsh areas and
considers physical,
biological, and
chemical factors
affecting fish mercury
concentration.
8 HEC-RAS--Hydrologic Corps Regional, Hydrological Yes Simulates steady and
Engineering Center's River project unsteady water flows
Analysis System and stages, and the
movement of sediment.
Also used to simulate
canal network for
flood analysis.
9 LOEM--Lake Okeechobee SFWMD Sub-regional Hydrological, No Simulates how water
Environmental Model water quality transports sediment in
Lake Okeechobee. Also
provides long term
information on water
circulation patterns,
and the location of
sediment under
different hydrological
and management
scenarios.
10 LOWQM--Lake Okeechobee Water EPA Regional, Water quality Yes Simulates impacts of
Quality Model sub-regional, sediment management on
project water quality,
specifically
phosphorus levels, in
Lake Okeechobee.
11 Mike 11 Danish Regional, Hydrological, Yes Simulates water flow,
Hydraulic project water quality level, and quality,
Institute and sediment transport
in rivers, irrigation
canals, reservoirs,
and other inland water
bodies.
12 Mike She Danish Regional, Hydrological Yes An integrated
Hydraulic project hydrological model
Institute that covers the entire
land phase of the
hydrological cycle.
Also simulates
groundwater flow, the
movement of substances
found in water, and
agricultural
practices.
13 MODHMS HydroGeologics, Regional, Hydrological, Yes Simulates interactions
Inc. project water quality between overland flow,
channel flow, and
groundwater under
different water supply
management scenarios.
Also simulates flood
control, river flow,
and wetland
restoration.
14 MODBRANCH--MODFLOW/BRANCH DOI Regional, Hydrological Yes Simulates hydrology,
Coupled Flow Model project including groundwater
and canal flow, in
three dimensions under
different water
management scenarios.
15 MODFLOW--Modular DOI Regional, Hydrological Yes The recognized
Three-Dimensional project standard model for
Groundwater Flow Model simulating the
movement of
groundwater under a
variety of
hydrological
conditions.
16 RAS-MODFLOW--HEC-RAS/MODFLOW Corps and DOI Regional, Hydrological Yes Simulates projects
Coupled Model project where there are large
stormwater-groundwater
exchanges and where
groundwater pumping
affects the water flow
in streams. Models the
effects of floodplain
water lost to
groundwater on
downstream water flows
and stream flow on
adjacent wetlands.
17 RMA 2--Resource Management Norton, King Project Hydrological Yes Calculates water
Associates 2 and Orlob of levels and
Water Resources distribution of water
Engineers for flow for islands,
the Corps bridges, hydropower
plants, river
junctions, and pumping
plant channels. Also
simulates the
circulation and
transport in bodies of
water with wetlands,
and general water
levels and flow
patterns in rivers,
reservoirs, and
estuaries.
18 RMA 4--Resource Management Corps and Project Water quality Yes Simulates water
Associates 4 Research levels, flow
Management distribution,
Associates circulation, flow
patterns, and water
quality in rivers,
reservoirs, and
estuaries. Used to
study the
hydrodynamics and
salinity-flow
relationships in the
St. Lucie estuary and
the southern reach of
Indian River Lagoon,
as well as to assess
the circulation
patterns in a water
conservation area.
19 SFWMM--South Florida Water SFWMD Regional Hydrological Yes Simulates the major
Management Model components of the
hydrological cycle in
South Florida,
including rainfall,
overland and
groundwater flow and
pumping, and the
management of the
water resources system
for a 7,600 square
mile area, from Lake
Okeechobee to Florida
Bay.
20 SICS--Southern Inland and DOI Sub-regional, Hydrological Yes Simulates flows,
Coastal Systems Model project stages, and salinities
in the southern
Everglades and Florida
Bay. Can be linked to
the South Florida
Water Management Model
and be used to
quantify the effects
of restoration
alternatives on flows,
stages, and salinities
in the SICS area.
21 SWMM--Storm Water Management SFWMD Regional, Water quality No Evaluates changes in
Model project water restrictions and
hydrological
performance of new
storage areas in the
Lower East Coast and
Lake Okeechobee
Service Areas under
different management
scenarios.
22 TABS-MDS (RMA 10) Corps Project Hydrological Yes Simulates water
movement, salinity,
and sediment transport
in three dimensions.
23 TIME--Tides and Inflows in DOI Regional, Hydrological Yes Examines the
the Mangroves of the sub-regional, interaction between
Everglades project wetland sheet flows
and the dynamic forces
in the zone between
the southern
Everglades and the
coast. Will be used to
evaluate the combined
response of cyclical
water periods in
wetlands and
salinities in the
mangrove zone to
changes in water
flows.
24 WAMView--Watershed Soil and Water Regional, Water quality, No Assesses the water
Assessment Model Engineering project hydrological quality of both
Technology, surface water and
Inc. and Mock, groundwater based on
Roos and land use, soils,
Associates climate, and other
factors and simulates
the primary physical
processes important
for watershed
hydrological and
pollutant transport.
25 WASH123D--WAterSHed Systems Dr. George Yeh, Regional, Hydrological, No Simulates flow
of 1-D Stream-River Network, University of project water quality movement from one CERP
2-D Overland Regime, and 3-D Central Florida project component to
Subsurface Media another and can be
adapted to simulate on
both a sub-regional
and project-specific
level.
26 WASH--WAterSHed Water URS Greiner, Regional, Hydrological, Yes Simulates hydrology in
Quality Model Inc., with some project water quality watersheds with high
funding by groundwater tables and
SFWMD dense drainage canal
networks.
27 WASP--Water Quality Analysis EPA Project Water quality Yes Used to interpret and
Simulation Program predict water quality
responses to natural
phenomena and manmade
pollution for various
pollution management
decisions. Can
dynamically simulate
different aquatic
systems.
Source: GAO's analysis of agency documents, model Web sites, and agency
interviews.
^aHydrodynamic models include the mathematical study of the forces,
energy, and pressure of liquids in motion, and represent the various flow
and transport processes in rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix VII: Comments from the State of Florida
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant
Director; David Brown; Maureen Driscoll; Les Mahagan; Leigh Ann Nally;
and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. Also
contributing to this report were Kevin Bray, Katherine Raheb, and Greg
Wilmoth.
(360662)
[39]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-520 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [40]GAO-07-520 , a report to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives
May 2007
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays,
Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles and is home
to the Everglades, a national resource. Over the past 100 years, efforts
to manage the flow of water through the ecosystem have jeopardized its
health. In 2000, a strategy to restore the ecosystem was set; restoration
was expected to take at least 40 years and cost $15.4 billion. The
restoration comprises hundreds of projects, including 60 key projects
known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), to be
undertaken by a partnership of federal, state, local, and tribal
governments.
Given the size and complexity of the restoration, GAO was asked to report
on the (1) status of project implementation and expected benefits, (2)
factors that determine project sequencing, (3) amount of funding provided
for the effort and extent that costs have increased, and (4) primary
mathematical models that guide the restoration.
[41]What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending actions to ensure that agencies apply the established
sequencing criteria when making implementation decisions for some projects
and that the development of models and their interfaces is better
coordinated. The agencies generally agreed with these recommendations,
although the state was concerned that the first recommendation could lead
to further delays and cost increases.
While many of the restoration effort's 222 projects have been completed or
are ongoing, a core set of projects that are critical to the success of
the restoration are behind schedule or not yet started. Specifically, 43
projects have been completed, 107 are being implemented, and 72 are in
design, in planning, or are not yet started. The completed projects will
provide improved water quality and additional habitat for wildlife, and
the ongoing projects will also help restore wildlife habitat and improve
water flow within the ecosystem. However, the projects most critical to
the restoration's overall success--the CERP projects--are among those that
are currently being designed, planned, or have not yet been started. Some
of these projects are behind schedule by up to 6 years. Despite project
delays, officials believe that significant progress has been made in
acquiring land, constructing water quality projects, and restoring a
natural water flow to the Kissimmee River--the headwater of the ecosystem.
In addition, many of the policies, strategies, and agreements required to
guide the restoration in the future are now in place. To help provide
further momentum to the restoration, Florida recently began expediting the
design and construction of eight key projects, with the hope that they
would immediately benefit the environment, enhance flood control, and
increase water supply.
There are no overarching sequencing criteria that restoration officials
use when making implementation decisions for all 222 projects that make up
the restoration effort. Instead, decisions for 162 projects are driven
largely by the availability of funds. For the remaining 60 projects--which
are among the most critical to the success of the restoration effort--the
Corps of Engineers and the Congress established criteria to ensure the
goals and purposes of CERP are achieved. However, the sequencing plan
developed for these projects in 2005 is not consistent with the criteria
established by the Corps. Therefore, there is little assurance that the
plan will be effective.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the federal government contributed
$2.3 billion, and Florida contributed $4.8 billion, for a total of about
$7.1 billion for the restoration. However, CERP funding was about $1.2
billion short of the funds originally projected for this period. In
addition, the total estimated costs for the restoration have increased by
28 percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7 billion in 2006.
More importantly, these cost estimates do not represent the true costs for
the overall restoration effort because they do not include all cost
components for a number of projects.
There are 27 primary mathematical models that guide the restoration
effort. These include (1) hydrological, (2) water quality, and (3)
ecological models. Although 21 of the 27 models are able to interface with
other models and provide a more comprehensive pictureof the impact of
restoration efforts on the ecosystem, many agency officials stated that
additional interfaces are needed. Because coordinating the development of
these interfaces is resource intensive, it has been a low priority for the
agencies.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [42]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[43]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [44]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[45][email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [46][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [47][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
References
Visible links
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-121
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-946
37. http://www.gao.gov/
38. mailto:[email protected]
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-520
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-520
42. http://www.gao.gov/
43. http://www.gao.gov/
44. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
45. mailto:[email protected]
46. mailto:[email protected]
47. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***