South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a
Decision-Making Process Are Needed To Keep the Effort on Track (Letter
Report, 04/22/99, GAO/RCED-99-121).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, focusing on: (1) how much and for what
purposes federal funding was provided for the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem from fiscal year (FY) 1993 through FY 1999; and (2)
how well the restoration effort is being coordinated and managed.

GAO noted that: (1) on the basis of the data GAO obtained from the 5
primary federal departments and agencies participating in the
initiative, GAO estimates that over $1.2 billion in federal funds was
provided from FY 1993 through FY 1999; (2) the key restoration
activities undertaken by the federal agencies were: (a) land
acquisition; (b) the management of federally-owned facilities or natural
resources, and a national marine sanctuary; (c) infrastructure projects;
and (d) science-related activities; (3) over 75 percent of the federal
expenditures during this 6-year period have been made by agencies within
the Department of the Interior and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
(4) the federal funding provided to date represents only a down payment;
(5) while no official cost projection for the total restoration effort
has been made, a major component, the implementation of the Central and
Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, referred to as the
Restudy, is estimated to cost an additional $7.8 billion; (6) the
Restudy is designed to substantially increase the amount of water that
is delivered to natural areas while enhancing agricultural and urban
water supplies; (7) according to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force's executive director, at least $2 billion beyond the $7.8
billion will be needed to complete the restoration effort; (8) this
money will be used to acquire additional lands, construct other
infrastructure projects, and eradicate exotic plant species; (9) the
Task Force is responsible for coordinating the participating entities'
implementation of the initiative; (10) however, a strategic plan that
clearly lays out how the initiative will be accomplished and includes
quantifiable goals and performance measures has not yet been developed;
(11) the Task Force is a coordinating body, not a decisionmaking body,
and thus is limited in its ability to manage and make decisions for the
overall restoration effort; (12) as GAO's review of two projects
integral to the restoration effort indicates, even with coordination,
the federal and state agencies involved are unable to agree on
components of these projects; (13) their inability to agree has
contributed to delays and cost overruns; and (14) given the scope and
complexity of the initiative and the difficulties that have already been
encountered, additional delays and cost overruns are likely to occur,
and the participants' ability to accomplish the initiative's overall
goals is at risk.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-121
     TITLE:  South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic 
             Plan and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed To
             Keep the Effort on Track
      DATE:  04/22/99
   SUBJECT:  Financial management
             Environmental policies
             Federal aid to states
             Federal/state relations
             Cost overruns
             Strategic planning
             Water resources conservation
IDENTIFIER:  South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
             Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review 
             Study
             Everglades (FL)
             Everglades National Park-South Dade Conveyance Canals 
             Project
             Florida
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1999

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION - AN OVERALL STRATEGIC
PLAN AND A DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
ARE NEEDED TO KEEP THE EFFORT ON
TRACK

GAO/RCED-99-121

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

(141246)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-282237

April 22, 1999

Congressional Requesters

One of this administration's most significant environmental
initiatives is the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. 
Responding to growing signs of the deterioration of this ecosystem,
federal agencies established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force in 1993 to coordinate ongoing federal restoration
activities in this area, such as modifying the effects of engineering
projects that have diverted water from the Everglades and reducing
agricultural pollutants in the water entering wildlife refuges and
the Everglades.  The Water Resources Development Act of 1996
formalized the Task Force and expanded its membership to include
state, local, and tribal representatives and charged it with
coordinating and facilitating the efforts to restore the ecosystem. 

Because of the large number of federal, state, tribal, and local
stakeholders involved in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force and the complexity and potential cost of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, you asked us to review the status
of the restoration effort.  Specifically, you asked us to determine
(1) how much and for what purposes federal funding was provided for
the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem from fiscal year 1993
through fiscal year 1999\1 and (2) how well the restoration effort is
being coordinated and managed.  Our analysis of the federal funding
provided to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative covers
the period from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1999.  Although
we included data on the agencies' appropriations through fiscal year
1999, we included data on obligations and expenditures through fiscal
year 1998 because complete data are available only through fiscal
year 1998. 

In addition, because this study represents an initial look at this
major initiative, you asked us to identify any other issues that
might impede the progress of this effort in the future.  This
information is presented in appendix I. 


--------------------
\1 Fiscal year 1993 was chosen because, although efforts were
undertaken before that date, the federal interagency task force was
established that year to coordinate ongoing restoration efforts. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

On the basis of the data we obtained from the five primary federal
departments and agencies participating in the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative, we estimate that over $1.2 billion in federal
funds was provided from fiscal year 1993 through 1999.  The key
restoration activities undertaken by the federal agencies were (1)
land acquisition; (2) the management of federally owned facilities or
natural resources, such as national parks, wildlife refuges, and a
national marine sanctuary, which either affect or are affected by the
restoration initiative; (3) infrastructure projects, such as the
construction of levees; and (4) science-related activities, such as
mercury contamination studies.  Over 75 percent of the federal
expenditures during this 6-year period have been made by agencies
within the Department of the Interior and by the U.S.  Army Corps of
Engineers.  The federal funding provided to date represents only a
down payment.  While no official cost projection for the total
restoration effort has been made, a major component, the
implementation of the Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Review Study, referred to as the Restudy, is estimated
to cost an additional $7.8 billionï¿½a cost that will be shared equally
by the federal and state governments.  The Restudy is designed to
substantially increase the amount of water that is delivered to
natural areas while enhancing agricultural and urban water supplies. 
According to the Task Force's executive director, at least $2 billion
beyond the $7.8 billion will be needed to complete the restoration
effort.  This money will be used to acquire additional lands,
construct other infrastructure projects, and eradicate exotic plant
species.  Consequently, the restoration effort, which is expected to
take at least 20 years to complete, could cost at least $11 billion. 

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, a group that
brings together representatives of federal, state, and local agencies
and affected tribes, is responsible for coordinating the
participating entities' implementation of the initiative.  However, a
strategic plan that clearly lays out how the initiative will be
accomplished and includes quantifiable goals and performance measures
has not yet been developed.  In addition, the Task Force is a
coordinating body, not a decision-making body, and thus is limited in
its ability to manage and make decisions for the overall restoration
effort.  As our review of two projects integral to the restoration
effort indicates, even with coordination, the federal and state
agencies involved are unable to agree on components of these
projects.  Their inability to agree has contributed to delays and
cost overruns.  Given the scope and complexity of the initiative and
the difficulties that have already been encountered, additional
delays and cost overruns are likely to occur, and the participants'
ability to accomplish the initiative's overall goals is at risk. 

This report recommends the development of (1) an overall strategic
plan for the restoration initiative that will outline how the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will occur and will
identify the resources needed to achieve the restoration, assign
accountability for accomplishing actions, and link the strategic
goals established by the Task Force to outcome-oriented annual goals
and (2) a decision-making process to resolve conflicts. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The South Florida ecosystem extends from the Chain of Lakes south of
Orlando to the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys.  This vast
region, which is home to more than 6 million Americans, a huge
tourism industry, and a large agricultural economy, also encompasses
one of the world's unique environmental resourcesï¿½the Everglades. 
Before human intervention, freshwater moved south from Lake
Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad, slow-moving sheet.  The
quantity and timing of the water's flow depended on rainfall patterns
and natural processes that slowly released stored water.  Water
stored throughout the vast area of the Everglades supplied water to
wetlands and coastal bays and estuaries even during dry seasons.  For
centuries, the Everglades provided habitat for many species of wading
birds and other native wildlife, including the American alligator,
which depended on the water flow patterns that existed before human
intervention. 

The vast Everglades wetlands were generally viewed as an unproductive
swamp to be drained for more productive uses.  By 1927, the
Everglades Drainage District had constructed 440 miles of canals,
levees, locks, and dams.  However, these water management projects
were not sufficient to protect over 2,000 people from drowning and
many more from being injured when the waters of Lake Okeechobee
overflowed during a devastating hurricane in 1928.  In 1930, the Army
Corps of Engineers began constructing the Herbert Hoover Dike around
the lake. 

A major drought from the early 1930s through the mid-1940s left the
booming population of South Florida short of water and threatened by
uncontrollable fires in the Everglades.  In 1947, torrential rains,
coupled with unusually high seasonal water levels and an abnormally
wet summer followed by hurricanes in September and October, flooded
nearly 2.5 million acres and left 90 percent of southeastern Florida
underwater.  Floodwaters stood in some areas for 6 months. 

As a result, in 1948, the Congress authorized the Central and
Southern Florida Projectï¿½an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of
canals and levees and 16 major pump stationsï¿½to prevent flooding and
saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, as well as to provide drainage
and supply water to the residents of South Florida.  Areas
immediately south of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades Agricultural
Area, which was drained by the project, are now farmedï¿½primarily by
sugar growersï¿½while the eastern part of the region has become heavily
urbanized.  Canals carry water away from the Everglades Agricultural
Area into levied water conservation areas or directly into the
Atlantic Ocean, bypassing much of the former Everglades and
dramatically altering the timing, quantity, and quality of the water
delivered to coastal estuaries.  As figure 1 shows, these engineering
changes, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities and
urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to about half its original
size.  These changes have also had a detrimental effect on the
environment.  Wildlife populations have declined significantly, and
some scientists believe that the reduced flow of freshwater into
Florida Bay may be hastening its environmental decline. 

   Figure 1:  The Everglades-Past
   and Present

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the South
Florida Water Management District. 

To address the deterioration of the ecosystem, the administration, in
1993, made the restoration of the Everglades and the South Florida
ecosystem one of its highest environmental priorities.  The South
Florida Ecosystem Task Force was established by an interagency
agreement to promote and facilitate the development of consistent
policies, strategies, priorities, and plans for addressing the
environmental concerns of the South Florida ecosystem.  The Task
Force consisted of assistant secretaries from the Departments of
Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, and the Interior; an assistant
attorney general from the Department of Justice; and an assistant
administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency.  The Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 formalized the Task Force; expanded
its membership to include state, local, and tribal representatives;
and designated the Secretary of the Interior as the group's
Chairperson.  To accomplish the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem, the Task Force has established the following goals: 

Get the water right.  This means restoring more natural hydrologic
functions while providing adequate water supplies and flood control. 
This goal will be accomplished primarily by modifying the Central and
Southern Florida Project to enlarge the region's freshwater supply
and to improve how water is delivered to natural areas using a
variety of technologies.  More than 500 miles of canals and levees
will be removed to reestablish the natural sheet flow of water
through the Everglades and restore more natural water flows to South
Florida's coastal bays and estuaries. 

Restore and enhance the natural system.  Restoring lost and altered
habitats will involve acquiring land and changing current land uses
as well as halting the spread of invasive, exotic species and
recovering threatened and endangered species. 

Transform the built environment.  Balancing human needs with those of
the natural environment will require developing lifestyles and
economies that do not have a negative impact on the natural
environment and do not degrade the quality of life.  This will
involve ensuring that traditional industries, such as agriculture,
tourism, development, fishing, and manufacturing, continue to be
supported while making sure that these industries are compatible with
the goals of the restoration effort and that the quality of life in
urban areas is maintained or enhanced. 

Participants in the restoration effort include 13 federal agencies,\2
7 Florida agencies and commissions, 2 American Indian tribes, 16
counties, and scores of municipal governments.  Representatives from
the state's major industries, the commercial and private sectors, and
environmental and other special interest groups also participate in
the restoration effort.  Appendix II lists the federal, state,
tribal, and county participants.  Appendix III contains additional
details on the South Florida ecosystem and the efforts undertaken to
restore it. 


--------------------
\2 Ten of the 13 agencies are within 5 federal departments. 


      THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
      RESTORATION INITIATIVE HAS
      RECEIVED OVER A BILLION
      DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Federal funding for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Initiative does not come from a single source.  In addition to funds
appropriated directly by the Congress for projects managed by the
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers and restoration activities designated
in the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm
Bill), the federal agencies participating in the initiative determine
and allocate funds from their own appropriations.  Because the
agencies account for these funds independently, no complete and
consolidated financial data on the initiative are available.  We
asked each agency to provide data on the funds provided for the
initiativeï¿½appropriations from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year
1999 and obligations and expenditures from fiscal year 1993 through
fiscal year 1998 (the latest year for which complete data are
available).  However, many of the agencies had difficulty providing
these data because although they track appropriated dollars allocated
for the initiative, they do not separately track the funds obligated
and expended for it. 

On the basis of the financial data provided by the federal
agencies,\3 we estimate that from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal
year 1999, over $1.2 billion in appropriated funds has been provided
to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative.\4 As figure 2
indicates, the funding for the initiative has increased from about
$85 million for fiscal year 1993 to about $238 million for fiscal
year 1999.  As figure 2 also shows, 1996 was an unusual funding year
because the Farm Bill included a specific appropriation of $200
million for restoration activities. 

   Figure 2:  Federal Dollars
   Appropriated for the
   Restoration of the South
   Florida Ecosystem, Fiscal Years
   1993-99

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  1996 appropriations include $200 million from the Farm Bill
for additional restoration activities. 

Through fiscal year 1998,\5 federal departments and agencies
obligated\6 $883 million for various restoration activities.  The
restoration activities can be grouped into six major categories:  (1)
land acquisition; (2) the management of federally owned facilities or
natural resources, such as national parks, wildlife refuges, and a
national marine sanctuary, which may affect or be affected by the
restoration initiative; (3) science-related activities, such as
mercury contaminant studies; (4) infrastructure, such as the
construction of water control structures; (5) water quality and
habitat protection, such as the Corps' wetlands permitting program;
and (6) information management and assessment, such as coastal
mapping.  As figure 3 shows, the major activities being conducted are
in area/natural resources management (32 percent), land acquisition
(31 percent), science (15 percent), and infrastructure (11 percent). 
Some of these categories, particularly area/natural resources
management and science, include activities that may be considered
normal agency operations and would take place with or without the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. 

   Figure 3:  Share of Federal
   Obligations, by Category,
   Fiscal Years 1993-98

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Total obligations for fiscal years 1993-98 are $883 million. 
The individual dollar figures noted above may not total because of
rounding. 

Of the $883 million obligated, $684 million was spent by the agencies
or distributed to the state and other nonfederal entities for
restoration activities in South Florida.\7 As figure 4 shows, the
Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers account for the
bulk of the total federal expenditures (75 percent) during this
6-year period. 

   Figure 4:  Share of Total
   Federal Expenditures by Federal
   Agencies, Fiscal Years 1993-98

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Total expenditures for fiscal years 1993-98 are $684 million. 
The individual dollar figures noted above may not total because of
rounding. 

The federal funding provided to date represents only a down payment. 
While an official cost estimate for the total restoration effort has
not been made, the implementation of the Central and Southern Florida
Project Comprehensive Review Study, a major component of the
restoration initiative referred to as the Restudy, is estimated to
cost $7.8 billion.  This cost will be shared equally by the federal
and state governments.  The Restudy, which will propose modifications
to the existing Central and Southern Florida Project, is designed to
substantially increase the amount of water that is delivered to
natural areas while enhancing agricultural and urban water supplies. 
Additional efforts will be needed to complete the restoration
initiative.  According to the executive director of the Task Force,
at least $2 billion more will be needed to acquire additional lands,
construct other infrastructure projects, and eradicate exotic plant
species.  Consequently, the restoration effort, which is expected to
take at least 20 years to complete, could cost at least $11 billion. 

Appendix IV contains additional details on the federal funds
appropriated, obligated, and expended for the restoration of the
South Florida ecosystem. 


--------------------
\3 We did not convert the financial data provided by the agencies to
1999 constant dollars.  Converting these data to 1999 constant
dollars would result in a small increase in the total amount
appropriated, obligated, and expended by the federal agencies for the
initiative. 

\4 According to the South Florida Water Management District, the
state of Florida has contributed about $2 billion to the restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem since 1983. 

\5 Because obligation data are available through fiscal year 1998,
the amounts obligated should be compared with the amounts
appropriated through fiscal year 1998.  Through fiscal year 1998, the
total appropriations were $966 million while the total obligations
were $883 million. 

\6 Obligations are transactions, such as services received and
contracts awarded, that will require payments during the current or a
future fiscal year. 

\7 An expenditure is the issuance of checks, disbursement of cash, or
electronic transfer of funds made to liquidate a federal obligation. 


      AN OVERALL STRATEGIC PLAN
      AND A DECISION-MAKING
      PROCESS WILL HELP THE
      RESTORATION INITIATIVE STAY
      ON TRACK
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Critical to guiding an endeavor as complex as the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative is a strategic plan that outlines
how the restoration will occur, identifies the resources needed to
achieve it, assigns accountability for accomplishing actions, and
links the strategic goals of the initiative to outcome-oriented
annual goals.  Such a plan for the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative has not yet been developed.  In addition,
although the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force is
responsible for facilitating and coordinating the initiative, it is
not a decision-making body.  However, as our review of two integral
projects indicates, the coordination efforts of the Task Force and
the other groups are not always sufficient to prevent schedule delays
and cost overruns.  Unless these issues are resolved, there is little
assurance that the initiative will stay on track and be accomplished
in a timely and efficient manner. 


      SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
      RESTORATION INITIATIVE LACKS
      A STRATEGIC PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

While the Task Force has published several documents and is in the
process of developing other strategies and plans to address specific
restoration issues, it has not yet developed an overall strategic
plan to guide the restoration effort.  The benefits of having a
strategic plan are many.  A strategic plan contains goals and a
strategy for achieving these goals, providing focus and direction and
a benchmark for measuring performance.  Such a plan also triggers a
reassessment if progress in achieving the goals is not satisfactory. 
In addition, a strategic plan establishes priorities and time frames
for accomplishing results by identifying the steps and resources
necessary to achieve the goals, appropriate milestones, and ways to
track or measure progress annually.  Measurable goals also provide
the Congress, the state of Florida, and the other participants with a
sense of what can be achieved with the level of resources committed. 

The Task Force has published several documents---An Integrated Plan
for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and Sustainability:  Success
in the Making, The Annual Interagency Cross-Cut Budget, the
Integrated Financial Plan, and annual reports--that provide
information on the restoration activities of the participating
agencies.  These documents contain some of the components of a
strategic plan; however, none, taken either separately or together,
contains all the components needed. 

Success in the Making

This document, published in April 1998, is intended to be an
integrated plan for restoring and sustaining the South Florida
ecosystem.  Success in the Making identifies three restoration goals. 
The first goal is to restore more natural hydrologic functions while
providing adequate water and flood control.  The goal is to deliver
the right amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places,
at the right times.  The second goalï¿½to restore and enhance the
natural systemï¿½centers on restoring habitats and recovering
threatened and endangered species.  The third goalï¿½to transform the
built environmentï¿½requires the development of sustainable lifestyles
and economies that do not negatively affect the natural environment. 
Success in the Making also describes the strategiesï¿½adaptive
management and innovative managementï¿½that the Task Force and its
partners have adopted to achieve these long-term goals.  However, the
goals are not expressed in quantitative or measurable terms that
would allow the Task Force to assess whether they have been achieved
or how they need to be revised.  The strategies presented do not
outline how the goals are to be achieved or identify the resources
required.  In addition, Success in the Making does not describe how
annual goals will be used to gauge progress. 

Annual Interagency Cross-Cut Budget

This document packages under one cover the justifications for
participating organizations' funding requests for restoring the South
Florida ecosystem.  The document includes a brief narrative
describing the intended uses of the funds being requested.  However,
the document does not link the requests for resources to specific
strategic or annual goals.  While it includes a budget matrix showing
the dollars appropriated to the participating agencies by functional
area and fiscal year, this information is not always consistent with
the appropriations data provided by the individual agencies. 

Integrated Financial Plan

Under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Task Force is
required to prepare an integrated financial plan and recommendations
for a coordinated budget request.  This plan, which is prepared
annually and is designed to facilitate budget development and
eliminate duplication of effort, compiles descriptions of restoration
projects.  The plan is intended to provide information on each
project's total estimated costs, starting and ending date, and
appropriations to date and to identify the agencies involved in the
project.  However, the plan does not include all of the projects
being undertaken by the participating agencies and does not provide
consistent information on the total costs of the projects, the
agencies responsible for funding the projects, or the sources and
amounts appropriated to date.  In addition, the information provided
on the appropriations to date does not always match the appropriation
data contained in the Cross-Cut Budget.  Furthermore, although the
plan provides information on the starting dates of projects, the plan
is organized on a subregional basis and the identification numbers
assigned to specific projects have changed from year to year, making
it difficult to determine which projects are scheduled to begin in a
particular year.  Finally, the plan does not link the projects to the
strategic goals outlined in Success in the Making. 

Annual Reports

While the Task Force is not required to publish these reports, its
Florida-based working group has published an annual report since
1994.  These reports summarize the previous years' accomplishments
and set goals for the next year.  However, because the format and
organization of the reports vary from year to year, it is not
possible to match the goals set in one year with the accomplishments
reported in the following year.  Furthermore, the accomplishments
cited are not tied to the strategic goals presented in Success in the
Making or to specific projects listed in the Integrated Financial
Plan, making it difficult to use these reports to evaluate or track
the progress made in the restoration initiative. 

According to federal and state officials we spoke with, these
documents provide general information on the initiative and are good
reference documents.  However, none of the officials thought that the
documents were useful as management or tracking tools. 

In addition to these documents, various strategies or plans are being
developed to address specific issues facing the initiative.  For
example, the Corps has developed the Restudy, which determines the
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project needed to
restore the ecosystem while still providing water and flood control
to urban and agricultural sectors.  At the same time, the U.S.  Fish
and Wildlife Service has drafted a multispecies recovery plan to
address the recovery of the 68 federally listed threatened or
endangered species located in South Florida.  In addition, the
Environmental Protection Agency and Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection recently began to develop a comprehensive
water quality protection plan for the South Florida ecosystem.  The
working group is also developing an Integrated Strategic Plan, which
will include a common vision for all the participants and strategies
to measure their success in achieving this vision.  However,
according to our conversations with the project leader, this plan,
which will not be complete until 2001, will not include all the
components of an overall strategic plan. 

Several agency officials and others whom we spoke with during our
review agreed that a strategic plan that integrated these plans and
other activities proposed by the participating agencies into a
ï¿½blueprintï¿½ for accomplishing the initiative would be very helpful
and useful.  Such a plan would also allow the agencies and the
Congress to evaluate the progress being made and to assess whether
the goals of the initiative are being achieved. 

Coordination Has Not Prevented Schedule Delays and Cost Overruns

Restoring an ecosystem as vast and complex as the South Florida
ecosystem will require extraordinary cooperation.  The South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, established to coordinate the
development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, and
priorities, is the first partnership of its kind and coordinates
restoration activities with federal, state, and local agencies,
affected tribes, and the general public.  Coordination among these
parties is achieved, in large part, through the Task Force's
Florida-based working group, composed of top-level managers in
Florida from the organizations represented on the Task Force.  The
working group holds monthly meetings that are open to the public to
discuss issues affecting the restoration of the ecosystem.  The Task
Force also uses various advisory boards, such as the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida,\8 which represents a wide
variety of public and private interests, and technical working
groups, such as the Science Coordination team, to increase the
agencies' sharing of information on restoration projects and
programs.  In addition, several other outside groups have been
established to coordinate and address project-specific issues. 
Several officials cited the development of the Restudy and its
proposed implementation plan by a multidisciplinary team composed of
160 specialists from 30 state, federal, regional, local, and tribal
governments as an example of increased coordination. 

However, the Task Force is a coordination body, not a decision-making
body.  Our review indicates that even with the coordination efforts
of the Task Force and the other groups, two ongoing infrastructure
projects that are integral to the restoration effort are taking
longer and costing more than planned.  Both the Modified Water
Deliveries project and the Everglades National Park-South Dade
Conveyance Canals (C-111) project are more than 2 years behind
schedule and together could cost about $80 million more to complete
than originally estimated, in part because the agencies involved have
not been able to agree on components of the projects.  These projects
are intended to restore the natural hydrologic conditions in
Everglades National Park.  Our review of these projects indicates
that the federal and state agencies involved are unable to agree on
components of these projects, such as the lands to be acquired and
the schedules for operating water pump stations. 

The Modified Water Deliveries project, authorized by the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, is intended to
restore the natural hydrologic conditions in Shark River Slough and
Everglades National Park.  One of the problems associated with this
project has been the inability of the participating agencies to reach
agreement and make a decision on acquiring the 8.5 Square Mile Area,
a residential area in the East Everglades.  Originally, the Corps of
Engineers, in consultation with Everglades National Park, completed a
plan to protect the residents within the 8.5 Square Mile Area, a
section in the East Everglades, from further flooding as a result of
the project.  The Superintendent of Everglades National Park,
however, concluded that the plan did not represent a workable
solution, and the Corps of Engineers suspended further planning and
design of the plan in 1994.  A decision on how to resolve the 8.5
Square Mile Area issue was not made until 1998.  With the support of
the National Park Service, the local project sponsor recommended the
complete acquisition of the area, rather than the original flood
protection plan, at an additional federal cost of about $22 million. 
This decision, however, faces a number of challenges before it can be
implemented, including the completion of a supplemental environmental
impact statement by the Corps of Engineers, congressional approval,
and opposition from an affected Indian tribe.  These challenges may
delay the acquisition of the area and, ultimately, the completion of
the project. 

The C-111 project is intended to restore freshwater flows to Taylor
Slough and Everglades National Park and provide flood protection and
other benefits to South Dade County.  Problems with this project have
been the inability to resolve disagreements among agencies and
private interests and to acquire needed land in a timely manner.  One
of the project's water pump stations was constructed on an expedited
schedule to provide immediate environmental benefits to the national
park.  In December 1997, the Corps of Engineers completed the pump's
construction.  However, as of March 1999, or 15 months after its
completion, this pump has not been operated because Everglades
National Park and agricultural interests have not been able to agree
on an operating schedule.  In addition, the National Park Service has
not yet acquired lands needed for the operation of the pump.  As
early as May 1996, the Corps of Engineers notified the National Park
Service that these lands were necessary to operate the pump.  In
1999, almost 3 years later, the National Park Service made funds
available for the condemnation of these lands.  Federal officials
attributed the delay in acquiring these lands to insufficient funds
and staff needed to complete the land acquisition process. 

Federal and state officials told us that the agencies involved in the
restoration effort have multipurpose missions that differ and
sometimes conflict.  For example, both the Corps of Engineers and the
South Florida Water Management District are responsible for supplying
water, controlling flooding, and restoring natural resources.  The
mission of the Department of the Interior's National Park Service,
however, is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources
of the national parks.  The inability to resolve disagreements and
acquire land in a timely manner has kept Everglades National Park
from achieving the anticipated environmental benefits of the C-111
project.  Agency officials noted that the C-111 and the Modified
Water Deliveries projects are at critical junctures.  If the
participating agencies cannot resolve their disagreements, the
success of these projects may be jeopardized.  In addition, agency
officials have commented that without some entity or group with
overall management responsibility and authority to resolve
differences, problems such as those encountered in implementing these
two projects could continue to hinder the initiative. 

Appendix V contains a more detailed description of these two projects
and the issues that the agencies cannot agree upon. 


--------------------
\8 The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida was
created by Governor Lawton Chiles in Mar.  1994.  The Commission is
charged with developing recommendations and public support for
regaining a healthy Everglades ecosystem with sustainable economies
and quality communities.  The Commission consists of 47 members
representing federal, state, tribal, regional, and local governments
as well as business, agricultural, public, and environmental
interests. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is a complex, long-term effort
involving federal, state, local, and tribal entities, as well as
public and private interests.  The South Florida Ecosystem Task
Force, a multiagency group with federal, state, local and tribal
representatives, was created to coordinate and facilitate the overall
restoration effort.  However, a strategic plan has not yet been
developed that clearly lays out how the initiative will be
accomplished and includes quantifiable goals and performance measures
that can be used to track the initiative's progress.  In addition,
although the Task Force and other groups have improved coordination,
our review of two integral projects indicates that coordination does
not always achieve consensus and there are times when management
decisions are necessary to prevent schedule delays and cost overruns. 
However, because the Task Force is a coordinating body, not a
decision-making body, it is limited in its ability to manage and be
accountable for the overall restoration effort.  Given the scope and
complexity of the initiative and the difficulties already being
encountered, unless a strategic or master plan is developed to guide
the restoration effort and a mechanism is developed to provide the
authority needed to make management decisions, the ability to
accomplish the initiative in a timely and efficient manner is at
risk. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

To ensure that the South Florida ecosystem is restored in a timely
and efficient manner, we recommend that the Secretary of the
Interior, as the Chairperson of the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force, in conjunction with the other members of the
Task Force,

  -- develop a strategic plan that will (1) outline how the
     restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will occur, (2)
     identify the resources needed to achieve the restoration, (3)
     assign accountability for accomplishing actions, and (4) link
     the strategic goals established by the Task Force to
     outcome-oriented annual goals and

  -- work with the organizations and entities participating in the
     restoration effort to develop and agree upon a decision-making
     process to resolve conflicts in order to accomplish the
     initiative in a timely and efficient manner. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We provided a copy of this report to the departments of Agriculture,
the Army, Commerce, and the Interior; the Environmental Protection
Agency; and the South Florida Water Management District for review
and comment. 

The Department of the Interior provided written comments on behalf of
the departments of Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, and the Interior
and of the Environmental Protection Agency.  The agencies agreed with
the importance of strategic planning but stated that our report fails
to adequately acknowledge the substantial planning efforts that have
already taken place and are ongoing.  The agencies pointed out that
the Task Force is in the process of developing a plan much like the
one called for in our recommendation.  The agencies believe that our
recommendation--to work with the organizations and entities
participating in the restoration effort to develop and agree upon a
decision-making process to resolve conflicts--is unrealistic, given
the large number of federal, state, tribal, and local governments and
agencies involved, and may be of questionable legality, given each
agency's statutory responsibilities and authorities.  In addition,
the agencies noted that the report focuses only on the federal
efforts and ignores the state's substantial efforts.  The agencies
also strongly disagreed with our conclusion that additional delays
and cost overruns are likely to occur in the future and that the
ability to accomplish the initiative's overall goals is at risk.  The
agencies further believe that we oversimplified the causes of the
delays for the two projects discussed in the report.  Finally, the
agencies provided some technical clarifications to the report, which
we incorporated where appropriate. 

We are encouraged that the agencies recognize the value of and need
to have a strategic plan.  Our report discusses and describes in some
detail the documents published by the Task Force that provide
information on the restoration effort, including the goals,
activities, and accomplishments of the agencies.  In addition, while
we do not listï¿½nor did we intend to list-- all of the various plans
and strategies developed by the agencies involved in the restoration
effort, we do specifically mention key planning efforts undertaken. 
However, as we point out in our report, an overall strategic plan
that integrates all of the Task Force's various documents and
planning efforts has not yet been developed.  Although the Task Force
has begun to develop an Integrated Strategic Plan, which the agencies
say will be much like the one our report recommends, this plan is not
expected to be complete until 2001.  Furthermore, on the basis of our
conversations with the project leader responsible for developing the
plan, we do not believe that it will include all the necessary
components of an overall strategic plan called for in the report. 

The agencies disagreed with our recommendation to develop a
decision-making process to resolve conflicts because they believe
that the creation of an entity to resolve conflicts would infringe
upon the sovereign responsibilities of the governments and agencies
involved in the effort and would, therefore, be of questionable
legality and impractical.  Our recommendation does not envision the
creation of another body to decide conflicts or issues among the
participants in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. 
Rather, we believe that a process for resolving conflicts needs to be
established within the existing legal authorities and structures. 
Because we recognized that the restoration effort involves federal,
state, tribal, and local governments and entities that have various
missions and authorities, our recommendation was that the Task
Force's members work with the organizations and entities involved in
the restoration effort to develop and agree upon a decision-making
process to resolve conflicts in order to accomplish the initiative in
a timely and efficient manner.  Furthermore, in its written comments,
the South Florida Water Management District, a key player and member
of the Task Force, stated that the development and implementation of
a conflict resolution process is very workable and would benefit the
restoration effort, provided that it did not conflict with the
sovereign rights of the entities involved and the decision-making
authorities of the agencies.  Without some means to resolve agencies'
disagreements and conflicts in a timely manner, problems such as
those encountered in implementing the projects we reviewed could
continue to hinder the initiative. 

While the agencies commented that our report focuses only on federal
restoration efforts, appendix III includes information on key
legislative and administrative actions taken by both the federal
government and the state of Florida to restore the South Florida
ecosystem.  For example, the report cites the state's establishment
of the ï¿½Save Our Evergladesï¿½ program in 1983, passage of the
Everglades Forever Act in 1994, and establishment of the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in 1994. 

Although the agencies strongly disagreed with our conclusion that
additional delays and cost overruns are likely in the future, we
believe that the two projects we reviewed are similar to those that
will be conducted in the future and that similar disagreements may
occur.  As stated in the report, without some means to resolve these
disagreements in a timely manner, problems such as those encountered
in implementing the two projects could continue to hinder the
initiative.  In addition, we believe that the report accurately
presents areas of disagreement or conflicts that are affecting these
two projects.  Furthermore, the South Florida Water Management
District, the local sponsor for both of these projects, described our
characterization of the issues relating to these projects as
accurate.  The District agreed with the report that these two
projects are at critical junctures requiring the expeditious
resolution of the outstanding issues.  The consolidated response of
the federal agencies is presented in its entirety, together with our
responses, in appendix VI. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, the South Florida
Water Management District agreed with our recommendation to develop a
decision-making process to resolve conflicts.  The District stated
that the development and implementation of a conflict resolution
process was very workable and would benefit the restoration effort as
long as it did not conflict with the sovereign rights of the entities
involved and did not relinquish the decision-making authority of the
entity that is responsible for making the final decision.  The
District also described our characterization of the issues relating
to the two projects discussed in the report as accurate.  Without
commenting specifically on our recommendation to develop an overall
strategic plan, the District stated that it would be helpful if our
report contained specific recommendations on how to improve the Task
Force's ongoing strategic planning process.  In addition, the
District believed that readers of our report would benefit if we
included information on (1) the key restoration accomplishments of
the state agencies and the Florida legislature in protecting the
natural system, (2) some of the positive outcomes of coordination and
collaboration by the participants in the restoration effort, and (3)
the financial contributions of the state of Florida to the
restoration effort. 

We believe that our recommendation sufficiently addresses the major
elements that should be included in an overall strategic plan for the
restoration effort.  These include (1) outlining how the restoration
will occur, (2) identifying the resources needed to achieve the
restoration, (3) assigning accountability for accomplishing actions,
and (4) linking the strategic goals established by the Task Force to
outcome-oriented annual goals.  We do not believe that we should
prescribe more than is contained in our recommendation.  Rather, the
Secretary of the Interior as Chair of the Task Force, in conjunction
with the other Task Force members, should have the flexibility needed
to successfully develop the strategic plan. 

Because appendix III of the report contains information on the key
legislative and administrative actions taken by both the federal
government and the state of Florida to restore the ecosystem, we did
not include additional information on the state's accomplishments. 
However, we added a statement to the report highlighting some of the
positive outcomes of increased coordination among the stakeholders. 
We also agree that it is important to recognize the state's financial
contributions to the restoration effort and have included this
information in our report.  In addition, our report points out that
the costs of one of the major components of the effortï¿½the $7.8
billion Restudyï¿½will be shared equally by the federal and state
governments.  The report also states that the federal and state
governments have entered into several agreements to share the cost of
land acquisition.  The South Florida Water Management District's
comments are presented in their entirety, together with our
responses, in appendix VII. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

To determine how much and for what purposes federal funding was
appropriated, obligated and expended for the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1999, we
contacted officials from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force's Office of the Executive Director.  We also reviewed various
budgetary documents, such as the Task Force's Annual Interagency
Cross-Cut Budget for 1999 and Integrated Financial Plan for 1998. 
However, because the Task Force does not track obligations and
expenditures and no consolidated financial information exists, we
contacted both headquarters and field officials from the U.S.  Army's
Corps of Engineers; the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the
Interior; and the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain this
information.  We contacted these agencies because they were the
primary federal agencies participating in the restoration initiative. 
We reviewed the information provided by these agencies but did not
independently verify its reliability or trace it to the systems from
which it came.  We did not verify the completeness or accuracy of the
data because such an effort would have required a significant
investment of time and resources.  However, we did attempt to
reconcile inconsistencies in the data provided by the agencies. 

To determine how the initiative is being coordinated and managed and
what other issues may impede its progress, we interviewed officials
from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force's
Florida-based working group, including representatives of the federal
agencies involved in the restoration initiative, the South Florida
Water Management District, and the Miami-Dade County Department of
Environmental Resources Management.  We also met with the chair of
the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, the executive director of the
South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, the chair of the working group,
the executive director of the Southern Everglades Restoration
Alliance, the executive director of the South Florida Water
Management District, and the counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.  In addition, we met with
representatives of the Miccosukee Tribe, the National Audubon
Society, and the Tropical Audubon Society, as well as the director of
the Southeast Environmental Research Program at Florida International
University.  Because the initiative is just beginning, we reviewed
two ongoing infrastructure projects integral to the restoration
effort to assess how well the effort was being coordinated and
managed.  In addition, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations,
reports, plans, and other documents relevant to the restoration
effort. 

We conducted our review from September 1998 through April 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We are providing copies of this report to the Honorable Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable William M.  Daley, Secretary
of Commerce; the Honorable William S.  Cohen, Secretary of Defense;
the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable
Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to
others upon request. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202)
512-3841.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII. 

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


List of Requesters

The Honorable Frank H.  Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy and
 Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Slade Gorton
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Interior and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Ralph Regula
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Interior and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Tillie Fowler
Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight,
 Investigations, and Emergency Management
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives


OTHER ISSUES THAT MIGHT IMPEDE THE
PROGRESS OF THE INITIATIVE
=========================================================== Appendix I

Bcause we are looking for the first time at this major initiative,
you asked us to identify any other issues that might impede its
progress in the future.  Although we have not conducted additional
work in this area, on the basis of our discussions with agency
officials and others involved in restoration efforts, we have
identified the following potential areas of concern: 

Land Acquisition

Land is critical for many ecosystem restoration projects.  It is
needed to store water and recharge aquifers to help restore natural
hydrology.  It is also needed to construct water quality treatment
areas and preserve corridors for wildlife to move throughout their
habitats.  According to some agency officials, land is not always
available when needed for infrastructure projects, and the time
required for acquisition can delay a project's implementation. 
Because federal, state, and local agencies are involved in acquiring
lands, some officials believed that a strategy to coordinate the
efforts of all of these agencies may be needed. 

The federal government has obligated about $274 million for land
acquisition, and more will be needed.  Some officials questioned
whether current appraisal standards are meeting federal requirements. 
In addition, because of the various agreements between the state and
federal governments to share the cost of land acquisition and the
lack of consolidated financial information on the initiative, it is
unclear whether and how these agreements are being applied. 

Water Quality

Improving water quality is critical to restoring ecosystems.  Without
clean water, ecosystems cannot be protected, reestablished, or
sustained.  The Environmental Protection Agency has completed a water
quality protection plan for the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and intends to develop a water quality plan for the entire
South Florida ecosystem.  Despite these efforts, several officials we
spoke with maintained that water quality issues have not been
sufficiently addressed or integrated into the initiative. 

Science Issues

To be successful, restoration decisions must be based on sound
applied science.  Federal agencies have spent about $128 million on
research and monitoring in South Florida since 1993.  However, their
scientific understanding of how the ecosystem functions is not
complete.  While federal and nonfederal agencies are continuing to
conduct research and monitoring, according to officials, it is
unclear how their findings are shared and incorporated into
restoration projects' design and operation. 


FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND TRIBAL
PARTICIPANTS IN THE SOUTH FLORIDA
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION EFFORT
========================================================== Appendix II

The following lists the federal, state, local and tribal participants
in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. 


   FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
   AGENCIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Department of Agriculture
 Agricultural Research Service
 Natural Resources Conservation Service

Department of Commerce
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of Defense
 Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers-Civil Works)

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior
 Bureau of Indian Affairs
 National Park Service
 U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service
 U.S.  Geological Survey

Department of Justice

Department of Transportation
 Federal Highway Administration
 Federal Transit Authority. 

Environmental Protection Agency


   FLORIDA STATE GOVERNMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

South Florida Water Management District

Florida Department of Community Affairs Strategic Planning and
Coordination Unit

Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

Office of the Governor of Florida


   FLORIDA COUNTIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Broward
Charlotte
Collier
Dade
Glades
Hendry
Highlands
Lee
Martin
Monroe
Okeechobee
Osceola
Orange
Palm Beach
Polk
St.  Lucie


   NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Miccosukee
Seminole


THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM AND
EFFORTS TO RESTORE IT
========================================================= Appendix III

The flow of water has substantially shaped the environment and
economy of central and southern Florida.  This region, which extends
over 18,000 square miles, is unique in that national parks, wildlife
refuges, agricultural lands, urban areas, and Indian reservations all
share the land.  As a result, any type of human activity that alters
the quality or flow of water in one area of southern Florida can
affect the environment or economy of other areas.  Over the past 50
years, engineering projects have altered the quantity and timing of
the water's flow, agricultural runoff has altered the quality of the
water, and urbanization has fragmented the region's ecosystem.  These
changes have caused areas in southern Floridaï¿½including the
Everglades (described as a river of grass) and Florida Bay (located
at the southern tip of the Florida peninsula)ï¿½to show signs of
environmental distress.  Figure III.1 shows the South Florida
ecosystem and its components. 

   Figure III.1:  The South
   Florida Ecosystem and Its
   Components

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The South Florida ecosystem boundary includes the near shore
coastal waters, which extend approximately three miles from shore. 

Source:  GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 

During recent decades, engineering projects, such as the Central and
Southern Florida Project,\1 have altered the water's flow and reduced
the area where water can be stored for dry seasons.  These
engineering changes, coupled with agricultural and industrial
activities and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to about
half its original size and have had a detrimental effect on the
environment.  Wildlife populations have declined significantly, and
some scientists believe that the reduced flow of freshwater into
Florida Bay may be hastening its environmental decline. 

Recognizing that the natural system had been damaged, the federal
government and the state of Florida have taken a number of actions
directed at managing growth and protecting the natural environment. 
Table III.1 outlines some of the legislative and administrative
actions that have been taken to restore the South Florida ecosystem. 



                              Table III.1
                
                   Actions Taken to Restore the South
                           Florida Ecosystem.

Date                Event
------------------  --------------------------------------------------
1947                Everglades National Park was established. The park
                    encompassed 1.3 million acres of land.

1948                The Congress authorized the Central and Southern
                    Florida Project to provide water and flood
                    protection for urban and agricultural areas.

1969                The National Environmental Policy Act was passed.
                    The act established federal environmental review
                    and compliance procedures.

1972                The Florida Water Resources Act established a
                    fundamental water policy for Florida, attempting
                    to meet human needs and sustain the natural
                    system. The Florida Land Conservation Act, which
                    authorized the issuance of bonds to purchase
                    environmentally endangered and recreation lands,
                    was also passed.

1983                The Governor's Save Our Everglades program was
                    initiated. This partnership between the South
                    Florida Water Management District and state and
                    federal agencies was to work toward restoring the
                    natural components of the ecosystem.

1984                Florida's Warren Henderson Act gave the Florida
                    Department of Environmental Regulation (now the
                    Department of Environmental Protection) the
                    authority to protect the wetlands and surface
                    water of the state for the public interest.

1985                Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning
                    and Land Development Regulation Act required the
                    development and coordination of local land-use
                    plans.

1987                The Florida Surface Water Improvement and
                    Management Act required Florida's five water
                    management districts to develop plans to clean up
                    and preserve the state's lakes, bays, estuaries,
                    and rivers.

1989                The Everglades National Park Protection and
                    Expansion Act of 1989 authorized the addition of
                    about 107,000 acres to the park. The act also
                    authorized the Modified Water Deliveries project,
                    which, when completed, would restore more natural
                    water deliveries into the northeastern Shark River
                    Slough.

1990                The Florida Preservation 2000 Act established a
                    coordinated land acquisition program to protect
                    the integrity of ecological systems and to provide
                    multiple benefits, including the preservation of
                    fish and wildlife habitat, recreation space, and
                    water recharge areas.

1990                The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and
                    Protection Act established a 2,800-square-
                    nautical-mile marine sanctuary and authorized a
                    water quality protection plan for the area.

1991                The Florida Everglades Protection Act provided
                    water management districts with tools for
                    restoring ecosystems.

1992                The Water Resources Development Act authorized the
                    Kissimmee River Restoration Project to restore the
                    historic floodplain of the Kissimmee River basin.
                    The act also authorized the Central and Southern
                    Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study
                    (Restudy) to develop modifications to the project
                    that would result in the restoration of the
                    Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems and provide
                    for other water-related needs of the region.

1993                The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
                    was created to coordinate ongoing federal
                    restoration efforts.

1994                The Florida Everglades Forever Act was passed. It
                    established a plan to restore significant portions
                    of the South Florida ecosystem through
                    construction, research, and regulation. This same
                    year, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
                    South Florida was established to make
                    recommendations for achieving a healthy South
                    Florida ecosystem that can coexist with and
                    mutually support a sustainable economy and quality
                    communities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 directed the Corps of
Engineers to develop a comprehensive plan for the purposes of
restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida ecosystem. 
This comprehensive plan, known as the Restudy, is to be submitted to
the Congress no later than July 1, 1999.  The act also formalized the
Task Force and expanded its membership to include state, local, and
tribal representatives and outlined specific responsibilities for the
Task Force that include the following: 

  -- Consult with, and provide recommendations to, the Secretary of
     the Army and the nonfederal project sponsor in developing a
     comprehensive plan (the Restudy) for the purposes of restoring,
     preserving, and protecting the South Florida ecosystem;

  -- Coordinate (1) the development of consistent policies,
     strategies, plans, programs, and priorities for addressing the
     restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida
     ecosystem and (2) scientific and other research associated with
     the restoration;

  -- Facilitate the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental
     conflicts associated with the restoration of the South Florida
     ecosystem;

  -- Prepare an integrated financial plan and recommendations for
     coordinated budget requests for the funds proposed to be
     expended by the agencies and entities represented on the Task
     Force; and

  -- Submit biennial reports to the Congress on the progress of the
     restoration efforts. 

To carry out these duties, the Task Force established a Florida-based
working group that included representatives of the agencies and
entities represented on the Task Force, as well as other governmental
entities as appropriate, for carrying out the priorities of the Task
Force.  In addition, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida was formally designated an official advisory body to
the Task Force in 1997. 


--------------------
\1 The Central and Southern Florida Project, first authorized by the
Congress in 1948, is a project to control flooding and supply water
for agricultural and urban areas. 


COMPARISON OF APPROPRIATIONS,
OBLIGATIONS, AND EXPENDITURES, BY
FEDERAL AGENCY, FOR THE SOUTH
FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
INITIATIVE, FISCAL YEARS 1993-98
========================================================== Appendix IV

                                                                                (Dollars in millions)

                    1993                    1994                    1995                    1996                    1997                    1998                     Total
           ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------  -------------------------
           Approp                  Approp                  Approp                  Approp                  Approp                  Approp                  Approp
Agency          .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.    Exp.       .    Obl.       Exp.
---------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ---------
Department of Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultu     2.8     2.8     2.8     3.0     3.0     3.0     2.1     2.1     2.1     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     3.3     3.3     3.3    15.3    15.3       15.3
 ral
 Research
 Service
Natural       1.9     1.9     1.9     1.9     1.9     1.9     2.9     2.9     2.9     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.5     3.5     3.5     3.5     3.5     3.5    17.2    17.2       17.2
 Resources
 Conserva
 tion
 Service

Department of Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National     12.1    12.1    12.1    12.6    12.6    12.6    15.6    15.6    15.6    13.9    13.9    13.9    17.4    17.4    17.4    16.4    16.4    16.4    88.2    88.2       88.2
 Oceanic
 and
 Atmosphe
 ric
 Administ
 ration

Department of Defense
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of     24.7    23.3    22.4    51.5    35.6    34.9    36.5    31.0    32.1    28.6    33.6    32.2    40.0    44.5    44.5    45.3    48.3    47.4   226.6   216.4      213.5
 Engineers

Department of the Interior
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     2.0     2.0        2.0
 Indian
 Affairs
National     28.2    20.3    20.1    26.2    28.9    26.6    37.7    46.1    28.0    22.3    20.9    21.3    41.2    43.9    36.6   120.4    46.7    40.0   276.0   206.8      172.6
 Park
 Service
U.S. Fish     8.3     8.0     7.3     9.8     6.8     7.2     8.7     8.5     8.8     8.2     8.8     8.4     7.7     7.7     7.5     9.7    10.2     9.5    52.4    50.1       48.7
 and
 Wildlife
 Service
U.S.          2.0     2.0     1.9     2.7     2.7     2.5     7.0     7.0     6.6    10.7    10.7    10.5     8.6     8.6     8.6     8.6     8.6     8.6    39.5    39.5       38.8
 Geologic
 al
 Survey
1996 Farm     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0   200.0     0.0     0.0     0.0    35.2    35.2     0.0   163.3     3.4   200.0   198.5       38.6
 Bill
Environme     5.3     5.3     5.3     6.4     6.4     6.4     9.1     9.1     9.1     9.0     9.0     9.0     9.3     9.3     9.3     9.9     9.9     9.9    48.9    48.9       48.9
 ntal
 Protecti
 on
 Agency\a
 ,b
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total\c      85.3    75.8    73.8   114.5    98.3    95.6   120.1   122.6   105.6   298.4   102.8   101.2   130.2   172.7   165.2   217.6   310.6   142.4   966.1   882.9      683.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

Approp.  = appropriations
Obl.  = obligations
Exp.  = expenditures

Note:  This table is meant to compare the amounts appropriated,
obligated, and expended for each year of the initiative.  We did not
include fiscal year 1999 appropriations because comparable data for
fiscal year 1999 obligations and expenditures do not exist. 

\a Not included under infrastructure investment is the Environmental
Protection Agency's State Revolving Fund which supports various
capital projects by the state, including some that may have
restoration benefits.  Since many of the grants may not be related to
ecosystem restoration and the Environmental Protection Agency was not
able to provide more details about the projects funded, we did not
include it here. 

\b The Environmental Protection Agency does not track obligations. 
However, to accurately represent the total amount obligated to the
restoration initiative, we assume that the Environmental Protection
Agency's obligations equal expenditures. 

\c Individual totals may not equal the sum of the agency amounts
because of rounding. 


THE MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES AND
C-111 PROJECTS
=========================================================== Appendix V

Two ongoing infrastructure projects that are integral to the
restoration effort are taking longer and costing more than planned. 
Both the Modified Water Deliveries project and the Everglades
National Park-South Dade Conveyance Canals (C-111) project are more
than 2 years behind schedule and together could cost about $80
million more to complete than originally estimated, in part because
the agencies involved have not been able to agree on components of
the projects.  These projects are intended to restore natural
hydrologic conditions in Everglades National Park.  Figure 5 shows
the location of both projects.  A description of these two projects
and the issues that the agencies cannot agree upon follows. 

   Figure V.1:  Location of the
   Modified Water Deliveries and
   C-111 Projects

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's adaptation of a map prepared by the U.S.  Army Corps
of Engineers


   MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES
   PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

Authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion
Act of 1989 (P.L.  101-229), the Modified Water Deliveries project
involves structural modifications and additions to the existing
Central and Southern Florida Project.  The Modified Water Deliveries
project was designed to reestablish natural hydrologic conditions in
Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park.  This project is
important because it will help restore and maintain the plants and
wildlife of Everglades National Park.  The act also required the
Department of the Interior, by 1994, to acquire 107,600 acres that
will allow the new features of the Modified Water Deliveries project,
as well as portions of the C-111 project, to take effect.  The
Modified Water Deliveries project involves constructing eight
structures to control the flow of water, modifying an existing
control structure, and removing an existing levee.  In addition, the
act requires the Corps of Engineers to protect the residents within
the 8.5 Square Mile Area from further flooding as a result of the
project.  The mitigation plan includes adding a levee and a
seepage-collector canal system along the western boundary of the 8.5
Square Mile Area. 

Although the Corps of Engineers is responsible for designing and
constructing the project, the Department of the Interior is
responsible for funding it.  Once the project is completed, the South
Florida Water Management District will operate its structures. 
Originally, the Modified Water Deliveries project was expected to
cost $81 million and to be completed in 1997.  Currently, the project
is expected to cost about $132 million and is not expected to be
completed until 2003. 

The Modified Water Deliveries project has encountered a number of
problems, including the participating agencies' inability to decide
on the future of the 8.5 Square Mile Area.  In June 1992, the Corps
of Engineers, in consultation with Everglades National Park,
completed a report that included a mitigation plan to protect the
area from additional flooding.  Subsequently, the Superintendent of
Everglades National Park concluded that the mitigation plan did not
represent a workable solution.  According to the Superintendent, the
mitigation plan would prevent regular flooding of the 8.5 Square Mile
Area from getting worse but would not provide full flood protection,
which the residents would demand as the area continued to grow. 
Because agreement could not be reached on the 8.5 Square Mile Area,
the Corps suspended further planning and design of the mitigation
plan in 1994.  Between 1994 and 1998, Everglades National Park sought
alternatives to the 8.5 Square Mile Area mitigation plan through
other forums, such as the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida.  During this time, several studies were undertaken to
evaluate a number of alternatives, including the partial buyout of
the 8.5 Square Mile Area and the addition of a 1/2-mile-wide buffer
zone to hold water.  In 1998, Everglades National Park notified the
Corps that the park would no longer fund the mitigation plan because
it would not benefit the park. 

In December 1998, the Superintendent of Everglades National Park
endorsed the decision of the Governing Board of the South Florida
Water Management District to acquire the entire 8.5 Square Mile Area
rather than implement the mitigation plan agreed to in 1992. 
However, before the land can be acquired, a number of challenges must
be resolved.  First, the Corps must conduct a supplemental
environmental impact statement and seek congressional approval.  In
addition, a legal challenge from the Miccosukee Tribe must be
addressed.  The tribe is claiming that the decision to acquire the
8.5 Square Mile Area was made in violation of the Sunshine Act. 
Finally, the land must be acquired from all residents, including some
unwilling sellers.  Any of these challenges could delay the
acquisition of the area and, in turn, further delay the completion of
the project and increase its cost.  Acquiring the 8.5 Square Mile
Area alone will increase the federal cost of the project by about $22
million. 


   EVERGLADES NATIONAL
   PARK ï¿½ SOUTH DADE CONVEYANCE
   CANALS (C-111) PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

The C-111 project is at the southern end of the Central and Southern
Florida Project.  The project was originally authorized by the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (P.L.  90-483), and in May 1994, this project
underwent a reevaluation and environmental impact analysis.  The goal
of this project is to restore the natural timing, distribution, and
quantity of freshwater flows to Taylor Slough and the wetlands in the
panhandle of Everglades National Park.  This project will help
maintain the park's natural vegetation.  Major components of the
project include constructing five water pump stations, modifying the
existing water management system, and creating a buffer zone to hold
water aboveground in order to avert further loss of water from
Everglades National Park through seepage. 

Although work on the project is continuing, the agencies have not
reached an agreement on the operation of one of its completed pump
stations.  In 1996, the Corps of Engineers expedited the construction
of water pump station S-332D with the concurrence of Everglades
National Park and the South Florida Water Management District. 
S-332D would increase the water level in an adjacent canal to prevent
the loss of water from Everglades National Park.  The Corps finished
constructing the pump in December 1997.  The pump has not been
operated because neighboring agricultural interests were concerned
that the proposed water level in the adjacent canal would lead to
flooding and damage to their crops.  Meanwhile, the agricultural
interests, the Corps of Engineers, and Everglades National Park are
updating their models to determine what water level in the canals
will benefit Everglades National Park and protect farmers' crops from
flooding. 

Another reason why the pump has not been operated is related to the
acquisition of lands near the S-332D pump.  In May 1996, the Corps
requested the National Park Service to acquire the lands immediately
north of S-332D.  Acquisition of the S-332D lands was necessary to
avoid delays in the planned operation of the pump and other related
design and construction activities.  As we prepared to issue this
report, the National Park Service had just made funds available,
almost 3 years later, for the condemnation of these lands.  The delay
in the purchase of the S-332D land is representative of the
difficulties that the National Park Service has encountered in
expanding Everglades National Park.  According to officials, the
delay in the acquisition of these lands was due to insufficient funds
and staff needed to condemn the lands.  Because of the disagreements
over water levels and the delay in acquiring needed lands, the S-332D
pump has remained idle for more than a year. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR ON BEHALF OF FIVE
FEDERAL AGENCIES
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter, dated April 7, 1999. 

GAO'S COMMENTS

1.  Our report recognizes that the Task Force has engaged in the
development of the Integrated Strategic Plan, which will include a
common vision for all of the participants and strategies for
measuring success.  However, as we point out in the report, this plan
is in the early stages of development and is not expected to be
complete until 2001.  In addition, after talking with the project
leader responsible for developing this plan, we do not believe that
it will contain all the components of the overall strategic plan
recommended in our report.  For example, one of the elements that we
believe should be included in the overall strategic plan is a link
between the strategic goals of the restoration effort and
outcome-oriented annual goals.  However, the project manager told us
that the plan will be a conceptual one and will not identify what
each agency will do each year. 

Furthermore, our report discusses and describes in some detail the
documents published by the Task Force that provide information on the
restoration effort, including the goals, activities, and
accomplishments of the agencies.  Although we do not list--nor was it
our intent to list--all of the various plans and strategies developed
by the agencies involved in the restoration effort, we do
specifically mention the Restudy and the multispecies recovery plan
as examples of the planning efforts undertaken.  However, as we point
out in our report, an overall strategic plan that integrates all of
the Task Force's documents and planning efforts has not yet been
developed.  In addition, throughout the report, we refer to the
Restudy and describe it as a major component of the restoration
effort.  However, the Restudy is not final and is currently being
revised to reflect comments from all interested parties.  Hence, the
Restudy is subject to change. 

2.  Because we recognized that the restoration effort involves
federal, state, tribal, and local governments and entities that have
various missions and authorities, the report recommends that the
members of the Task Force work with the organizations and entities
participating in the restoration effort to develop and agree upon a
decision-making process to resolve conflicts.  Our recommendation
does not envision the creation of some overall jurisdictional body to
decide conflicts or issues among the participants in the restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem.  We understand that such a body could
not currently be created because of the issues mentioned in the
comments.  Rather, what we have in mind is the establishment of a
process, such as is employed in negotiated rulemaking, mediation, and
conciliation, for discussing, negotiating, and resolving conflicts
and problems within the existing legal authorities and structure.  We
recognize that the Task Force is charged under present legislation to
facilitate the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental
conflicts among agencies represented on the Task Force.  However,
other public and private organizations, which are participants in
restoration efforts, are not represented on the Task Force.  Our
objective is to engage all the participants in the restoration
efforts in such a process.  In addition, in its written comments, the
South Florida Water Management District, a key player and member of
the Task Force, stated that the development and implementation of a
conflict resolution process is very workable and would benefit the
restoration effort. 

Furthermore, because the two projects we reviewed are similar to
those that will be conducted in the future, we believe that similar
disagreements may occur.  As stated in the report, without some means
to resolve these disagreements in a timely manner, problems such as
those encountered in implementing the two projects discussed in the
report could continue to hinder the initiative.  However, because we
believe that the report accurately presents areas of disagreement or
conflicts affecting these two projects and points out that these
disagreements contributed to schedule delays and cost overruns, we
did not include the additional background material provided by the
agencies.  Furthermore, the South Florida Water Management District,
the local sponsor for both of these projects, described our
characterization of the issues relating to these projects as
accurate.  The District agreed with the report that these two
projects are at critical junctures requiring the expeditious
resolution of outstanding issues. 

While the agencies' response states that they are doing very well in
achieving two of the three goals and that the state of Florida is
starting to see progress on the third, we are not certain of the
basis for this statement.  As we point out in the report, the three
goals established by the Task Force for the restoration effort have
not been expressed in quantifiable or measurable terms that would
allow the Task Force to assess the progress being made. 

3.  Appendix III of the report includes information on key
legislative and administrative actions taken by both the federal
government and the state of Florida to restore the South Florida
ecosystem.  For example, the report notes the state's establishment
of the ï¿½Save Our Evergladesï¿½ program in 1983, passage of the
Everglades Forever Act in 1994, and establishment of the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in 1994.  Furthermore,
while the projects we discuss in our report are being implemented to
benefit the Everglades, our report also recognizes and discusses the
three goals established by the Task Force to accomplish the overall
restoration.  The report describes the goal of ï¿½Get the water right,ï¿½
which involves delivering the right amount of water, of the right
quality, to the right places, at the right times.  The report already
notes that the cost of the Restudy, which is a major component of the
restoration effort, will be shared equally by the federal and state
governments.  However, we have added a statement to the report that
cites the development of the Restudy as an example of improved
coordination among the agencies. 

Although the agencies question the $1.2 billion estimate of the
funding provided for the restoration effort from fiscal year 1993
through fiscal year 1999 and the inclusion of ï¿½routine expenditures,ï¿½
this estimate and the categories of activities presented in the
report are based on financial data provided by the agencies.  We
recognized and pointed out in the report that several categories of
activitiesï¿½particularly area management, natural resource management,
and science--include activities that may be considered normal agency
operations and would take place with or without the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. 

Because no official cost estimate for the overall restoration effort
has been developed, we used available cost data to develop the $11
billion estimate.  These include the federal funds provided for the
effort to date; the cost of the Restudy; and an estimate, provided by
the executive director of the Task Force, of the costs of other
activities that will be needed to complete the restoration effort. 

4.  We did not include the information provided by the agencies on
the ï¿½other issuesï¿½ identified in our report.  As we point out in the
report, these are issues identified through our discussions with
agency officials and others involved in the restoration effort. 
While we have not conducted additional work in these areas, they may
be the subjects of future GAO reviews. 

5.  The agencies provided editorial changes, technical corrections,
and clarifying information, which we incorporated in the final
report, where appropriate. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the South Florida Water
Management District's letter dated April 4, 1999. 

GAO'S COMMENTS

1.  Because appendix III of the report contains information on the
key legislative and administrative actions taken by both the federal
government and the state of Florida to restore the ecosystem, we did
not revise our report. 

2.  We agree that it is important to recognize the financial
contributions that the state of Florida has made to the restoration
effort and have added this information to our final report.  The
report also notes that the federal and state governments have entered
into several agreements to share the cost of land acquisition.  In
addition, the report points out that the costs of one of the major
components of the effortï¿½the $7.8 billion Restudyï¿½will be equally
shared by the federal and state governments. 

3.  We have added a statement to the report to recognize that the
Restudy and its proposed implementation plan represents the results
of coordination among 160 specialists from 30 state, federal, local,
and tribal agencies. 

4.  Because we recognized that the restoration effort involves
federal, state, tribal, and local governments and entities that have
various missions and authorities, rather than recommend a governing
body, we recommended that the Task Force's members work with the
organizations and entities participating in the restoration effort to
develop and agree upon a decision-making process to resolve conflicts
in order to accomplish the initiative in a timely and efficient
manner. 

5.  We did not include the information provided by the South Florida
Water Management District on water qualityï¿½one of the ï¿½other issuesï¿½
identified in our report.  As we point out in the report, these are
issues identified through our discussions with agency officials and
others involved in the restoration effort.  While we have not
conducted additional work in these areas, they may be the subjects of
future GAO reviews. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix VIII

ENERGY, RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE
STAFF

Alfred T.  Brown, Jr.
Elizabeth Eisenstadt
Daniel Garcï¿½a-Dï¿½az
Josï¿½ Alfredo Gï¿½mez
Barry T.  Hill
Chet Janik
Sherry L.  McDonald

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Alan R.  Kasdan


*** End of document. ***