This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-345 
entitled 'South Florida Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve 
Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood of Success' which was 
released on March 26, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives:



March 2003:



South Florida Restoration:



Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the 

Likelihood of Success:



GAO-03-345:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-345, a report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related

Agencies, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives:



Why GAO Did This Study:



Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is a significant federal

and state priority, requiring the development and use of extensive

scientific information. GAO was asked to report on the funds spent

on scientific activities for restoration, the gaps that exist in

scientific information, and the extent to which scientific activities

are being coordinated.



What GAO Found:



From fiscal years 1993 through 2002, federal and state agencies spent

$576 million to conduct mission-related scientific research, 

monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South 

Florida ecosystem. Eight federal agencies spent a little less than 

half of this amount, or $273 million. The South Florida Water 

Management Districtthe state agency most heavily involved in the 

restoration initiativespent $303 million. With this federal and state 

funding, agencies made progress in developing information and the 

adaptive management tools necessary for restoration purposes. 

Adaptive management is an approach for improving resource management 

that uses models and monitoring as tools to improve the probability of 

achieving restoration goals. In particular, scientists state that they 

identified the key factors responsible for ecosystem degradation,

such as altered water flow patterns throughout the ecosystem.



While scientific understanding of these restoration issues has 

improved, significant gaps remain in the scientific information and 

adaptive management tools needed, that, if not addressed soon, will 

hinder the success of restoration. Gaps in the development of 

scientific information, such as information on the risks of 

contaminants to plants and animals in the ecosystem, may prevent 

action to address risks to the entire ecosystem or to one or more of 

its regions. Gaps are also present in the development of adaptive 

management toolssuch as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan 

based on key indicatorsthat allow scientists to assess how the 

implementation of restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem

and whether this implementation is resulting in successful restoration. 

The development of these tools is important to allow scientists to 

track the progress of restoration.



Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is being coordinated and

facilitated by the Task Force, formed from participating federal, 

state, and local agencies and tribal entities. The Task Force is 

responsible for coordinating scientific activities for restoration, 

but has yet to establish anm effective means of doing so, thereby 

limiting the extent to which restoration mdecisions can be based on 

sound scientific information. The Task Force established the SCT to 

coordinate the science activities of the many agencies involved in 

restoration, but it did not give the SCT clear direction on which

of the responsibilities were a priority for supporting the Task Force,

contributing to the SCTs inability to accomplish several of its most

important tasks. Further, unlike other restoration initiatives, the 

SCT works as a voluntary group with no full-time and few part-time 

staff. Recognizing its resource limitations, the SCT has focused on a 

few priority responsibilities. Without first clarifying the 

responsibilities of the SCT and then providing it sufficient resources 

to accomplish these responsibilities, the Task Force cannot ensure that 

scientific activities are being adequately coordinated, or that key 

scientific information is available for restoration decisions.



What GAO Recommends:



In order to improve the coordination of scientific activities

for the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, we

recommend that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task

Force), clarify the plans and documents the Science

Coordination Team (SCT) needs to complete and the time frames

for completing them, as well as evaluate the SCTs staff resources

and allocate sufficient staff to carry out its responsibilities. We 

are also making recommendations to improve working relations between

the Task Force and the SCT.



In commenting on the draft report, the Department of the Interior

agreed with the premises of our report that scientific activities 

need to be coordinated better and that the SCTs role needs to be 

clarified. Interior said that ultimately the Task Force needs to 

review and approve actions on GAOs recommendations.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-345.



To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click 

on the link above. For more information, contact Barry Hill at

(202) 512-3841.



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Science for the 

South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas:



Gaps in Scientific Information and Adaptive Management Tools Remain--

That If Not Addressed, Could Hinder Ongoing Restoration Efforts:



The Task Force Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate Science 

Activities:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments and Our Response:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration:



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:



Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: Gaps in Information and the Effects of the Gaps:



Table 2: Gaps in Information Related to Individual Projects:



Table 3: Gaps in Indicators and Monitoring Plans and 

the Effects of the Gaps:



Table 4: Gaps in Modeling Tools and the Effects of the Gaps:



Table 5: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:



Table 6: Expenditures by Federal and State Agencies for Research, 

Monitoring, and Assessment Activities, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:



Figures:



Figure 1: The Everglades--Past, Present, and Future:



Figure 2: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida 
Ecosystem 

Restoration and Restoration Science:



Figure 3: Federal Expenditures by Science Activity, Fiscal Years 1993 

through 2002:



Figure 4: Total Federal Expenditures for Science Activities by Amount 

and Percent, Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:



Figure 5: Percent of District Expenditures for Research, Monitoring, 
and 

Assessments for Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:



Figure 6: District Expenditures for Science Activities, Fiscal Years 

1993 through 2002:



Figure 7: Old World Climbing Fern Smothering Vegetation:



Figure 8: Mangrove Habitat and Ridge and Slough Habitat with Tree 

Islands:



Abbreviations:



CESI: Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative:



CROGEE: Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem:



RECOVER: Restoration Coordination and Verification :



SCT: Science Coordination Team:



STAR: Science to Achieve Results:



WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:



March 18, 2003:



The Honorable Charles H. Taylor 

Chairman

The Honorable Norman Dicks

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives:



South Florida, famous for the vast expanse of the Everglades wetlands, 

is an 18,000 square mile (about 11.5 million acre) area that includes a 

broad range of natural habitats, 6.5 million people, and significant 

tourist, agricultural, and other industries. Development of the states 

varied natural resources has spurred the growth of South Floridas 

population and economy, but at the same time, caused the deterioration 

of its ecosystem and its natural areas. Restoration of the South 

Florida ecosystem has been a significant federal and state priority 

throughout the 1990s and into the new century. While efforts to restore 

parts of the ecosystem began earlier, the Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) of 1996 formally established the South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force (Task Force) to coordinate and facilitate the 

efforts of the many federal, state, and local agencies and tribes 

participating in restoration projects.[Footnote 1] The Task Force--with 

the assistance of a working group formed of managers from federal, 

state, local, and tribal entities in South Florida--has identified the 

need to achieve three overall goals--improving water, improving 

habitat, and making development compatible with the ecosystem--to help 

achieve restoration. They have also identified over 200 restoration 

projects designed to help restore the ecosystem. It will take as long 

as 50 years and as much as $15 billion to complete the many related 

restoration projects--the ecological effects of which may not be known 

until many years thereafter.



Because of the long-term nature and complexity of the initiative, the 

Task Force has identified key guiding principles for managing the 

restoration initiative and its many related projects. One of these 

principles is that decisions about restoration projects and plans will 

be based on sound scientific information. Scientific information is an 

umbrella term that includes the results of research and monitoring to 

identify how and why the ecosystem has been damaged, as well as 

assessments that integrate available research and monitoring results to 

help restoration managers make decisions about what actions should be 

taken to help restore the ecosystem. The Task Force has also adopted a 

process called adaptive management--an iterative approach for 

improving resource management that recognizes that because scientific 

information is imperfect and, as decisions are implemented based upon 

best available science, a structure must be in place to acquire better 

information and adjust the implemented actions accordingly to improve 

the probability of achieving the goals of restoration. Such a process 

requires the development of key tools--such as models, continued 

research, and monitoring--to provide a baseline and periodically track 

and assess ecosystem health to provide managers with updated 

information on the effects of management actions designed to achieve 

restoration. By participating in and providing information for 

restoration efforts, scientists can help define and measure the 

progress of restoration and the success of individual restoration 

projects and plans.



To help coordinate the science needed for the restoration initiative, 

the Task Force established a Science Coordination Team (SCT) in 

1997.[Footnote 2] It gave the team responsibility for recommending 

research plans and priorities and to facilitate the integration, 

synthesis, and application of the best available scientific information 

for restoration. The SCT is comprised of at least 14 members: 7 members 

of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group (Working 

Group) and 7 scientists from key agencies participating in the 

restoration effort. In addition, Working Group members can nominate 

additional members to the SCT.



In this context, you asked us to (1) identify the source and amount of 

federal and state funding for scientific activities, the purpose of 

these activities, and progress made in gaining scientific information 

for the restoration; (2) determine the extent to which gaps exist in 

key scientific information and the adaptive management tools needed for 

restoration; and (3) assess the process used to coordinate scientific 

activities and information central to restoration.



Among the efforts undertaken to respond to these objectives, GAO 

gathered and analyzed funding data for 1993 through 2002 from federal 

agencies that conduct scientific activities in South Florida and the 

states South Florida Water Management District (District). Because the 

agencies do not routinely track data by category of science activity, 

agency officials provided their best estimates of the funds spent in 

specific science categories. Throughout this report, unless otherwise 

noted, all years are fiscal years, rather than calendar years.[Footnote 

3] GAO also analyzed documents related to 10 key restoration projects 

and plans. The projects and plans were selected based on their cost 

(the majority could cost over $100 million), the diversity and extent 

of geographic areas they affect, and the status of their 

implementation. Because the projects are a subset of the more than 200 

restoration projects, the analysis is not meant to be generalized to 

the remaining projects. GAO further analyzed the SCT charter and other 

documents and examined other similar restoration efforts, such as the 

effort to restore natural areas around San Francisco Bay in California 

and Chesapeake Bay. GAOs scope and methodology is more fully discussed 

in appendix I.



Results in Brief:



From 1993 through 2002, federal and state agencies spent $576 million 

to conduct mission-related scientific research, monitoring, and 

assessment in support of the restoration of the South Florida 

ecosystem. Eight federal agencies spent a little less than half of this 

amount, or $273 million. The Department of the Interior, the largest 

federal participant, spent about $139 million, the majority of which it 

directed toward research, such as studying how federal lands would be 

affected by changing water levels. The South Florida Water Management 

District--the state agency most heavily involved in the restoration 

initiative--spent $303 million. One major focus of the Districts work 

has been Everglades and Florida Bay research, including efforts to 

develop different techniques to improve water quality in the ecosystem. 

With this federal and state funding, agencies have made progress in 

developing information and the adaptive management tools necessary for 

restoration purposes. In particular, scientists state that they have 

identified the key factors responsible for ecosystem degradation, such 

as altered water flow patterns throughout the ecosystem. For example, 

using systemwide models, scientists have a better understanding of the 

amount and distribution of water in the ecosystem both before and after 

it was altered by drainage. From this information, scientists have been 

better able to evaluate alternatives for managing the water in the 

ecosystem and have identified actions that can be taken to restore the 

amounts and distribution of water to more closely reflect natural 

conditions.



While scientific understanding of these restoration issues has 

improved, significant gaps remain in the scientific information and 

adaptive management tools needed for restoration, that, if not 

addressed soon, will hinder the success of restoration. The gaps in the 

development of scientific information may prevent action to address 

risks to the entire ecosystem or to one or more of its regions. One 

such gap is the lack of information regarding the amount and risk of 

contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides, in water throughout 

the entire ecosystem. If this information is not available, scientists 

cannot determine whether fish and other organisms are being harmed by 

these contaminants or whether the redistribution of water will 

introduce potentially harmful contaminants to parts of the ecosystem 

that are relatively undisturbed. Lacking this information, scientists 

and managers do not know whether they are constructing a specific 

restoration project that could increase the harm to plants and animals 

that live in the ecosystem. Gaps are also present in the adaptive 

management tools--such as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan 

based on key indicators--that allow scientists to assess how the 

implementation of restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem 

and whether this implementation is resulting in successful restoration. 

The development of these tools for the adaptive management approach is 

important to allow scientists to track the progress or success of 

restoration and identify when changes are needed in restoration 

projects and plans to ensure that restoration goals are achieved.



The Task Force is responsible for coordinating scientific activities 

for restoration, but has yet to establish an effective means of doing 

so, thereby limiting the extent to which restoration decisions can be 

based on sound scientific information. The Task Force established the 

SCT in 1997 to coordinate the science activities of the many agencies 

involved in restoration. The Task Force charged the SCT with a variety 

of responsibilities, such as identifying gaps, recommending research 

plans and priorities to fill those gaps, ensuring the development of 

monitoring plans, and synthesizing scientific information for the Task 

Force. Best practices for effective coordination and management require 

the development of plans within specific time frames; however, since 

the creation of the SCT nearly 6 years ago, the Task Force has not yet 

specified the requirements for the plans the SCT is expected to 

produce. Task Force officials indicated they were focused on getting 

approval of a key plan to improve water amounts and distribution in the 

ecosystem. Furthermore, unlike other restoration initiatives, the SCT 

works essentially as a voluntary group with no full-time and few part-

time staff. Recognizing its resource limitations, the SCT has focused 

on a few priority responsibilities, such as sponsoring science 

conferences on restoration topics, and has set aside other important 

responsibilities, including development of a science plan and a 

comprehensive monitoring plan. In 2000, the SCT reported to the Task 

Force that it could not carry out all of its broad responsibilities 

given its limited resources. After nearly 3 years, the Task Force has 

not yet fully addressed the SCTs concerns. Without first clarifying 

the responsibilities of the SCT and then providing it sufficient 

resources to accomplish these responsibilities, the Task Force cannot 

ensure that scientific activities are adequately coordinated or that 

key scientific information is available for restoration decisions.



Because multiple federal and state agencies are involved in scientific 

activities for restoration and scientific information and adaptive 

management tools are critical to inform decision making for South 

Florida restoration, we are recommending that the Secretary of the 

Interior, as chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force, clarify the broad responsibilities of the SCT. In addition, we 

are recommending that once SCT responsibilities are clarified, the Task 

Force and Working Group should evaluate the SCTs staffing needs, 

ensuring that the SCT has sufficient resources to carry out its 

responsibilities.



In responding to a draft of our report, the Secretary of the Interior-

-who acts as chair of the Task Force--agreed with the premises of our 

report that scientific information needs to be coordinated better and 

that the SCTs responsibilities need to be clarified. The Secretary 

stated that action on the specific recommendations that we made 

ultimately needed to be discussed and agreed to by the members of the 

Task Force. The Secretary agreed to bring these recommendations up for 

discussion at the next meeting of the Task Force.



Background:



The South Florida ecosystem is an 18,000 square-mile area extending 

from the Chain of Lakes and the Kissimmee River through Lake Okeechobee 

to the coastal areas of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers, 

Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the Florida Keys. Included in this area 

are the Everglades, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the only living 

coral reef in North America. Before human intervention, freshwater 

flowed south from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad, slow-

moving sheet. The quantity and timing of the waters flow depended on 

rainfall patterns and on slow releases of water stored naturally in the 

ecosystem. Even during dry seasons, water stored throughout the 

ecosystem supplied water to the wetlands and coastal areas. Although 

these lands were--and still are--largely sustained by water and contain 

a mix of wetland vegetation, they also include important dry land areas 

called uplands with woody vegetation. Before it was altered by 

development, the ecosystem provided habitat for many species of wading 

birds and other wildlife, including Woodstorks, Roseate spoonbills, 

manatees, the American crocodile, and the American alligator--all of 

which depended on the natural pattern of water flow. Dry lands provided 

habitat for many other types of species, including bald eagles, indigo 

snakes, and the Key deer and rabbit.



The South Florida ecosystem is also home to 6.5 million people and 

supports a large economy of agriculture, tourism, and industry. South 

Floridas wetlands were first developed for agriculture and industry in 

the late 1800s, but more extensive efforts were required to store water 

for severe droughts, such as those that occurred in the 1930s, and to 

protect the area from drenching hurricanes, such as those that occurred 

in the late 1940s. In 1948, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to build the Central and Southern Florida Project--a system 

of more than 1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump 

stations--to prevent flooding and intrusion of saltwater into 

freshwater aquifers on the Atlantic coast. The project, which was 

constructed mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, reduced the natural north-

south flow of water in the ecosystem and created an east-west flow to 

support agricultural and urban development. The engineering changes 

that resulted from the project and subsequent agricultural, industrial, 

and urban development reduced the Everglades ecosystem to about half 

its original size, causing detrimental effects to wildlife habitats and 

water quality. The loss of habitats has caused sharp declines in native 

plant and animal populations, placing many native species at risk. 

Figure 1 shows the historic and current flows of the Everglades 

ecosystem as well as the proposed restored flow.



Figure 1: The Everglades--Past, Present, and Future:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Beginning in the late 1980s, the federal government began a series of 

actions to restore the South Florida ecosystem. In the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to 

review various reports on the Central and Southern Florida Project to 

determine whether the project could be changed to improve the South 

Florida ecosystem. In 1993, to coordinate the Corps effort and the 

input of other federal agencies that had an interest in the review, the 

federal agencies participating in the restoration established a South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Congress formally created 

this Task Force in the WRDA of 1996, which also expanded it to include 

state, local, and tribal members and designated the Secretary of the 

Interior as the groups chair. One of the duties of the Task Force is 

to develop consistent policies, strategies, plans, priorities, and 

actions for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. Finally, the Corps 

review resulted in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which 

Congress approved as a plan for restoration in the WRDA of 2000. As 

shown in figure 1, the plan will attempt to reverse much of the flow of 

water back to a more historic north-south pattern.



The Task Force established the following three overall goals for 

achieving restoration:



* Get the water right: restore more natural hydrologic functions to the 

ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies 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.



* Restore, protect, and preserve the natural system: restore lost and 

altered habitats and change current land use patterns. Growth and 

development have displaced and disconnected natural habitats. In 

addition, the spread of invasive species have caused sharp declines in 

native plant and animal populations. Currently, 69 native plant and 

animal species, which are native to the ecosystem, have been federally 

listed as threatened or endangered.[Footnote 4]



* Foster the compatibility of the built and natural systems: find 

development patterns that are complementary to ecosystem 

restoration and with a restored natural system. The goal is to achieve 

(1) development practices that limit habitat fragmentation and support 

conservation; (2) flood-protection and water supplies that are 

maintained at current levels (and may be augmented); (3) quality of 

life that includes clean air and water suitable for fishing, drinking, 

and swimming; (4) land planning and other planning that enhances and 

preserves the natural system; and (5) agricultural and urban practices 

that do not damage the ecosystem by improper disposal of wastewater.



These three overall goals are expected to be accomplished as a result 

of implementation of over 200 different projects and plans that, 

collectively, the Task Force believes will restore the ecosystem to 

conditions as close as possible to those that existed prior to the 

construction of the Central and Southern Florida Project.[Footnote 5] 

While some of these 200 projects and plans have been initiated, many 

more projects and plans are just beginning to be implemented. For 

example, the first goal, getting the water right, will be accomplished 

in part by the construction of 55 projects that will modify the Central 

and Southern Florida Project to enlarge the regions freshwater supply 

and to improve the delivery of water to natural areas.[Footnote 6] Ten 

of the projects and several pilot projects, which were authorized in 

the WRDA of 2000, are now in the planning stages. In addition, the 

Corps and the State of Florida are developing a Comprehensive 

Integrated Water Quality Feasibility Study to identify ongoing water 

quality efforts and to identify actions that will be needed to improve 

water quality for restoration purposes.



The second restoration goal--restoring, protecting, and preserving the 

natural system--will be accomplished through restoring natural 

hydropatterns and through the implementation of the Fish and Wildlife 

Services South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (a plan to help 

restore habitats and species); land acquisition plans by federal, 

state, and local agencies; and the Task Forces strategy to assist 

agencies in controlling invasive species. The third goal--fostering the 

compatibility of the built and natural systems--will be achieved 

largely through the coordination of state and local land and water 

supply planning. This goal involves such efforts as improving 

comprehensive planning and growth management; continued acquisition, 

protection, and linkage of park, recreation, and open space; developing 

sustainable agriculture, such as applying best management practices to 

remove nutrients from agricultural water that runs off of the land and 

into canals, rivers, and ultimately freshwater and coastal wetlands and 

the ocean; and maintaining or improving flood protection service.



One of the Task Forces principles for accomplishing restoration is to 

use scientific information to guide restoration decisions. Science 

refers to several different disciplines--biology, chemistry, geology, 

hydrology, ecology, and social sciences--all of which play a role in 

providing scientific information for restoration. Scientific 

information can be the results of research and monitoring, or 

assessments that integrate available research and monitoring results, 

such as the environmental assessments that agencies are required to 

conduct under the National Environmental Policy Act. Scientific 

research involves conducting cause and effect experiments, either 

through field or laboratory studies that investigate the cause of 

specific natural conditions. The development of mathematical models to 

simulate various ecosystem functions is also a type of research, 

although models can also be used to help scientists assess ecosystem 

conditions. Monitoring provides information developed from physical 

observation or samples of a resource--for example, a water sample or a 

bird count--over a period of time, which allows the identification of 

trends that may occur in that resource over time.



Because of the complexity of the ecosystem and efforts underway to 

restore it, and the urgency to begin the long-term ecosystem 

restoration effort, not all of the scientific information that is 

needed is available to make restoration decisions. As a result, 

scientists will continually need to develop information and restoration 

decision makers will continually need to review it. According to the 

Task Force, scientists participating in restoration are expected to 

identify and determine what information is needed to fill gaps in 

scientific knowledge critical to meeting restoration objectives and 

provide managers with updated scientific information for critical 

restoration decisions. Generally, decisions about restoration projects 

and plans have been--and will continue to be--made by the agencies 

participating in the restoration initiative. To provide these managers-

-as well as its own members--with updated scientific information, the 

Task Force endorsed the use of a process called adaptive management, 

which involves the (1) development of performance indicators of the key 

factors causing the ecosystem to be degraded and the key ecosystem 

characteristics to be restored; (2) a long-term monitoring plan to 

track the status and trends in measures and indicators, research to 

help understand factors that affect measures and indicators, and 

assessment of monitoring and research data to determine whether 

restoration actions are successful; and (3) feedback so that managers 

will know what management changes may be needed.



The SCT is the primary group responsible for coordinating agency 

science activities--to address information gaps and the adaptive 

management process. As the restoration initiative has progressed, the 

Task Force and participating agencies have created other groups with 

science coordination responsibilities, although these groups are more 

narrowly focused than the SCT (see fig. 2).[Footnote 7]



Figure 2: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration and Restoration Science:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



As part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water 

Management District established the Restoration Coordination and 

Verification (RECOVER) program to assess, monitor, and evaluate 

progress in implementing the plan. As part of this responsibility, the 

RECOVER program is to ensure that scientific information is available 

to make decisions on the effect of the plan on the ecosystem. In 

addition, the Corps and the local sponsor plan to establish a Project 

Delivery Team for each of the 55 restoration projects that they will 

construct. Each team can include scientists from other agencies for the 

purposes of identifying scientific information that is relevant to the 

design of the project and to identify information that is not available 

and needs to be developed. To carry out the Multi-Species Recovery 

Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service created a multiagency, multiparty 

implementation team called the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery 

Implementation Team, which is responsible for identifying and 

prioritizing actions that can be taken to help recover species that are 

threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. To 

coordinate and implement scientific information on invasive species, 

the Task Force created a team called the Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team 

and plans to create a second team, called the Noxious Exotic Animal 

Task Team, to address invasive animals.



In addition to these teams, the Task Force worked with the National 

Academy of Sciences to form the Committee on Restoration of the Greater 

Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE), which is responsible for providing the 

Task Force with independent scientific and technical reviews for 

several elements of the restoration, including restoration of marine 

areas and ecological indicators. The CROGEE existed prior to the 

passage of WRDA 2000, which authorizes the creation of an independent 

scientific group that will review progress toward achieving the goals 

of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and that will assess 

and report to Congress on the ecological indicators and other measures 

of progress in the plan. The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of 

the Interior, and the Governor of Florida plan to jointly establish the 

independent scientific review provisions of WRDA 2000 by entering into 

a 5-year contract with the Academy of Sciences.



Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Science for the 

South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas:



Federal and state agencies spent $576 million from fiscal years 1993 

through 2002 to conduct mission-related scientific research, 

monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South 

Florida ecosystem. Eight federal departments and agencies spent 

$273 million for science activities, with the Department of the 

Interior spending $139 million (50 percent) of the funds.[Footnote 8] 

Federal expenditures, which increased by more than 34 percent from 1996 

through 1997, have remained relatively constant since. The South 

Florida Water Management District--the state agency most heavily 

involved in scientific activities for restoration--spent $303 million 

during the same period. The states expenditures increased steadily 

from 1993, with significant increases in 2000 and 2002. The federal and 

state funds have helped scientists make progress in developing 

scientific information and adaptive management tools related to the 

first goal of restoration--getting the water right. A detailed table of 

the funding by federal and state agencies since 1993 is presented in 

appendix II.



Federal Agencies Spent $273 Million on Science for the Restoration 

Initiative:



Eight agencies spent a total of $273 million to develop scientific 

information for the South Florida ecosystem since 1993. The agencies 

involved in scientific activities for the restoration are the 

Department of Interiors National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Department 

of Commerces National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the 

Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service; the 

Department of the Armys Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The agencies expenditures for research, monitoring, 

and assessment are provided in detail in appendix II. Echoing the 

increased federal attention to restoration efforts, federal 

expenditures for science activities--which include research, 

monitoring, and assessments--rose from $9 million in 1993 to $34 

million in 1997 and have remained relatively steady since (see fig. 3).



Figure 3: Federal Expenditures by Science Activity, Fiscal Years 1993 

through 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: All dollars have been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.



Federal agencies spent $166 million (61 percent) on research 

activities, $64 million (23 percent) on monitoring activities, and 

almost $43 million (16 percent) on assessment activities from 1993 

through 2002. As shown in figure 3, expenditures have increased since 

1993, with a jump in expenditures in 1997. The jump resulted from an 

increase in funding provided for research activities by Interior and 

the Corps. That year, Interior began funding its Critical Ecosystem 

Studies Initiative (CESI), a program designed to accelerate the 

development of scientific information associated with areas of 

importance to Interior, such as Everglades National Park.In the same 

year, the Corps increased its spending on research for a few key water 

projects designed to provide restoration benefits.



Interior Spent Half of the Federal Funds Designated for Science 

Activities:



The Department of the Interior spent half of the total federal funds 

expended for science activities for restoration. Figure 4 shows the 

total amount and percent of funds spent by the 8 federal agencies for 

science activities from 1993 through 2002.



Figure 4: Total Federal Expenditures for Science Activities by Amount 

and Percent, Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: Total federal expenditures for science activities for fiscal 

years 1993 through 2002 equaled $273 million. Individual dollar figures 

and percentages may not total because of rounding. All dollars have 

been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.



Four agencies in the Interior Department--the U.S. Geological Survey, 

National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs--were responsible for $139 million or more than 50 

percent of federal funding for science activities for South Florida. 

The U.S. Geological Survey spent $77 million--the most of any federal 

agency--primarily on its Placed-Based Studies Program, which provides 

information, data, and models to other agencies to support decisions 

for ecosystem restoration:



and management.[Footnote 9] The U.S. Geological Survey focused the 

program on the following five scientific areas:



* the historic ecosystem--how it functioned and its plants and animals;



* the hydrological models that describe water flow through the 

Everglades, both above and below ground;



* the ecological models that determine the effect of altered water flow 

on several individual species, such as the Cape Sable seaside sparrow 

and the Florida panther (both federally listed endangered species);



* the mapping of the physical features of the natural system; and:



* the effects of contaminants, such as mercury, on biological, 

geological, and chemical processes in the Everglades.



In addition, U.S. Geological Survey also supports a Web site that 

provides access to the reports, publications, and data that it produces 

for restoration.



One example of the research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey is 

a study in Florida Bay using clamshells to determine the age of 

sediment and to further determine the salinity of the bay in 

corresponding periods. The data and information collected from this 

study provide an ecological history of Florida Bay and can be linked to 

historical rainfall data. This allows scientists to determine the 

historical range of salinity for different parts of the bay, which can 

in turn be used to establish the amounts of freshwater flow from the 

mainland that would best recreate those conditions.



After the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service spent 

the second largest amount of funds within Interior and the federal 

government--about $48 million. The National Park Service spent the 

funds for its CESI program, begun in 1997 to accelerate research needed 

to provide scientific information for the restoration initiative. 

Because two particular Corps water projects are expected to provide 

restoration results within the next few years for public lands such as 

Everglades National Park and others, the National Park Service focused 

the CESI program on conducting research and gathering information to 

understand the potential effects of these projects, funding hydrologic 

modeling, ecological modeling, ecological processes, and water quality 

studies in the project areas.[Footnote 10] The largest portion of CESI 

funding has been spent on research to characterize the predrainage 

ecosystem and to define the current conditions of the ecosystem. CESI 

funding has also been spent on identifying indicators for monitoring 

the success of restoration of Everglades National Park, other parks and 

public lands, and on developing models and tools to assess the effects 

of water projects on these natural lands.[Footnote 11]



The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs spent 

the remainder of Interiors funds, about $10 million and $3 million 

respectively. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent the majority of its 

funds to develop the Multi-Species Recovery Plan, which documents the 

actions needed to help recover 68 of the federally listed species in 

South Florida.[Footnote 12] The Bureau distributed its funds to the 

Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes of Florida--whose lands are located 

within the ecosystem--for the tribes to conduct research and to plan 

for water quality and distribution systems on their tribal lands.



Both the Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration spent approximately $37 million each, primarily on 

research activities. The Corps focused its $37 million on developing 

and running models for water projects that it is building for 

Everglades restoration. For example, the Corps has used hydrological 

models to examine many different alternative configurations for the C-

111 project near the eastern boundary of Everglades National Park. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focused its $37 million 

on research activities such as studying the conditions of coastal and 

ocean areas surrounding South Florida. One major use of this research 

is to determine the effect of inland restoration efforts and changing 

freshwater flow on Florida Bay and its habitats. For example, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is conducting research 

that will enable scientists to understand environmental problems such 

as the die-off of seagrass in Florida Bay and the deterioration of 

mangroves along the southern coast of Florida.



Two other federal agencies--the Agricultural Research Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency--spent the remaining $60 million in 

federal funds. The Agricultural Research Service used a portion of its 

$35 million to conduct research on biological control and management of 

invasive pest plant species in South Florida. In particular, the agency 

focused its research on identifying and collecting natural enemies for 

development of biological controls of Melaleuca--a hardy, fast-growing 

invasive tree imported from Australia that overruns natural vegetation 

in the ecosystem. In addition, the Agricultural Research Service spent 

some of its funds on developing strains of water-tolerant sugar cane in 

an effort to make agriculture more compatible with the higher water 

levels expected with restoration actions and has also developed 

hydrological models for agricultural lands in South Dade County that 

will be most affected by restoration actions. In contrast, the 

Environmental Protection Agency spent most of its $25 million on 

monitoring the conditions of seagrass, the Florida Keys coral reef, and 

water quality in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The 

Environmental Protection Agency has also conducted research on the 

sources and distribution of mercury contamination in the 

ecosystem.[Footnote 13]



In addition to conducting scientific activities, some federal agencies 

provide grants to universities to conduct scientific activities related 

to restoration in South Florida. For example, CESI has granted money to 

the University of Florida to support a monitoring program for the 

American crocodile in Everglades National Park to help study the animal 

as an indicator of ecosystem health for restoration. Other entities, 

such as the National Science Foundation, also provide grants for 

science in South Florida.[Footnote 14] For example, the foundation has 

funded the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research 

Program through Florida International University to ensure long-term 

funding for ecosystem research in South Florida. The study has received 

$700,000 annually since 2000 and will continue to receive this much per 

year for a total of 6 years; the grant will be reviewed every 6 years 

for renewal of funding.[Footnote 15]



While total expenditures for federal agencies science activities 

generally increased over the past 10 years, some agencies expenditures 

decreased. For example, expenditures by the Environmental Protection 

Agency decreased from $4.4 million in 1998 to approximately $816,000 in 

2002 (approximately 80 percent). The agencys expenditures decreased 

due to the discontinuation of funding for its monitoring program--the 

South Florida Regional Ecosystem Monitoring and Assessment Program--as 

well as some of its mercury contamination research programs.



Key State Agency Has Spent $303 Million on Scientific Activities for 

the Restoration Initiative:



In addition to the $273 million spent by federal agencies for science-

related activities, the State of Floridas South Florida Water 

Management District provided $303 million for such activities from 1993 

to 2002. The District spent much of its funding on scientific 

activities related to water projects in line with its major 

responsibility to manage and operate the Central and Southern Florida 

Project and water resources in the ecosystem. The District spent nearly 

half of its science funding--$141 million--on monitoring activities 

including water quality monitoring for which the District is 

responsible (see fig. 5).



Figure 5: Percent of District Expenditures for Research, Monitoring, 

and Assessments for Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: Total District expenditures for science activities for fiscal 

years 1993 through 2002 equaled $303 million. Because the South Florida 

Water Management District does not routinely track funds by these three 

categories of science activities, District officials provided their 

best estimates of the funds spent in these categories. All dollars have 

been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.



The District spent over a quarter--$81 million--of its funding on 

assessments of the ecosystem related to water projects in South 

Florida, such as the C-111 project. It spent the same amount on 

research activities, including efforts to develop different techniques 

to improve water quality in the ecosystem and hydrologic modeling. For 

example, the District spent approximately $34 million to conduct 

research on advanced treatment technologies and on the optimization of 

storm water treatment areas, all of which are systems that remove 

nutrients such as phosphorus from urban and agricultural storm water 

runoff that flows into natural areas including Everglades National 

Park.



The Districts total annual expenditures for science activities, like 

total federal expenditures, have increased steadily since 1993. The 

Districts total expenditures for scientific activities rose from $19 

million in 1993 to $46 million in 2002, with two funding increases in 

2000 and 2002 (see fig. 6).



Figure 6: District Expenditures for Science Activities, Fiscal Years 

1993 through 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: Because the South Florida Water Management District does not 

routinely track funds by these three categories of science activities, 

District officials provided their best estimates of the funds spent in 

these categories. All dollars have been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 

dollars.



In 2000, the District spent more funds on assessments and monitoring 

related to actions it took to help restore Lake Okeechobee by lowering 

its water levels and on continued monitoring associated with historic 

drought conditions. In addition, the District spent additional funds on 

increased monitoring of storm water treatment areas. The 2002 increase 

resulted in part from ongoing implementation of its Everglades 

restoration projects and special appropriations received from the state 

for Lake Okeechobee and estuary restoration initiatives.



Federal and State Agencies Made Progress in Developing Information and 

Tools for Restoration Purposes:



Federal and state agencies used their funds to make progress in 

developing scientific information and adaptive management tools. In 

particular, scientists made progress in understanding historic and 

current hydrological conditions and developed tools that allow them to 

forecast the effects of water management alternatives on the ecosystem. 

Specifically, scientists developed hydrological models that provide a 

picture of the amount, timing, and distribution of water in the 

ecosystem before and after it was altered by drainage. These models 

were used to assess alternative configurations for the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. The information and models developed will 

help achieve the first restoration goal, which is to get the quantity, 

quality, distribution, and timing of water in the ecosystem right.



Scientists have also made significant progress in developing 

information on mercury, a contaminant that affects water quality and 

the health of birds, animals, and humans in the South Florida 

ecosystem. The presence of mercury in South Florida fish was 

highlighted as a problem for wildlife in 1989 by the Florida Department 

of Health, and in 1993, scientists identified mercury contamination as 

one of the alarming ecological threats to the altered ecosystem. Since 

then, scientists have conducted research that linked local, regional, 

and global information on mercury and helped identify the root causes 

of the mercury problem. In general, this information improved 

understanding of the sources, transformations, and fate of mercury in 

the Everglades. More specifically, scientists determined that 

atmospheric sources account for greater than 95 percent of the mercury 

that is added to the ecosystem. As a result, scientists confirmed that 

regulatory actions taken to reduce incinerator emissions of mercury 

were appropriate action to help reduce mercury in the ecosystem.



Scientists also made progress in developing control techniques for one 

serious invasive species and reducing the effects of excess nutrients 

on the natural system. First, scientists developed a biological control 

that by 1999 had helped to reduce the acreage of Melaleuca present on 

natural lands in South Florida by 26 percent. Second, scientists helped 

to design over 41,000 acres of storm water treatment areas constructed 

by the state and to optimize best management practices applied by 

farmers and ranchers to their fields. These areas and practices have 

been used to reduce the amount of excess nutrients--in particular 

phosphorus--in water running off agricultural fields into natural areas 

in South Florida.



Gaps in Scientific Information and Adaptive Management Tools Remain--

That If Not Addressed, Could Hinder Ongoing Restoration Efforts:



While scientists have made progress in developing scientific 

information, they have also identified significant gaps in scientific 

information and adaptive management tools that, if not addressed in the 

near future, will hinder the overall success of the restoration effort. 

Gaps in the development of scientific information may prevent action to 

address risks to the entire ecosystem, specific regions of the 

ecosystem, or to areas around individual projects. For example, 

scientists need to know, but have little information on, the amount and 

risk of contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides in water 

throughout the entire ecosystem. Without this information, scientists 

cannot determine whether fish and other organisms are being harmed by 

these contaminants or whether the redistribution of water will spread 

the potentially harmful contaminants to parts of the ecosystem that are 

relatively undisturbed. In addition, scientists and managers cannot 

determine whether a restoration project has the potential to increase 

the levels of contaminants in parts of the ecosystem. Gaps are also 

present in the development of certain adaptive management tools, such 

as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan, that are based on key 

indicators, which allow scientists to assess how the implementation of 

restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem and whether this 

implementation is resulting in successful restoration. The only 

systemwide-monitoring plan that does exist is one put together for the 

RECOVER program focusing on the objectives of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. Without these types of tools, scientists 

can neither track the progress or success of restoration nor identify 

when changes may be needed to restoration projects and plans to ensure 

that restoration goals are achieved.



Current Research Does Not Fully Address Ecosystem Threats or Individual 

Project Information Needs:



Existing gaps in scientific information prevent scientists and managers 

from assessing ecosystem health and limit their ability to implement 

particular restoration projects and plans. Although the restoration 

initiative seeks to return the ecosystem as close as possible to the 

conditions that existed prior to its drainage, scientists remain 

concerned over the uncertainties associated with the biological and 

ecological conditions that existed and that could exist again in a 

restored ecosystem. In our review of 10 ongoing projects and plans 

related to restoration, scientists identified gaps in information for 6 

of the projects that will potentially hinder restoration if not filled. 

Four of these projects and plans have information gaps that have the 

potential to affect large parts, if not the entire, ecosystem and two 

projects have gaps that will make it difficult to implement particular 

restoration projects within the time frames and budgets allotted for 

them.



Research Needed to Fill Ecosystemwide Gaps:



In our review of restoration projects and plans, scientists identified 

the need for information on two areas--invasive species and water 

contaminants--that, if not developed, will potentially hinder ecosystem 

health. Table 1 shows the four projects and plans that we reviewed that 

revealed information gaps and their effects.



Table 1: Gaps in Information and the Effects of the Gaps:



Project/plan and purpose: Exotic plants plan: To develop a 

comprehensive strategy for agencies to address invasive plants in South 

Florida; Information gap: Information on (1) controls for species 

present or likely to invade the ecosystem and (2) the detection of new 

invasive plants.; Effect of information gap: Without controls, invasive 

plants will devastate some natural areas, undermining the benefits of 

other projects designed to achieve restoration benefits.



Project/plan and purpose: Canal 111 (C-111) project: To increase flows 

in the southeastern portion of Everglades National Park, improving 

wetland habitat for wading birds and other species.; Information gap: 

Information on the presence and effects of contaminants--; such as 

heavy metals, pesticides, and other chemicals--in other areas of the 

ecosystem.; Effect of information gap: Without information on the 

types, amounts, and potential risks of contaminants in water and 

sediment, scientists and managers cannot tell whether they might 

distribute contaminants to other areas.



Project/plan and purpose: Wastewater Reuse Pilot Project: To study the 

use of treated wastewater to supplement water in natural areas.; 

Information gap: Information on detecting and analyzing the effects of 

pharmaceutical contaminants--that is hormones, steroids, and 

antibiotics and other chemicals that are not removed with water 

treatment technology.; Effect of information gap: Without information 

on such contaminants, scientists and managers do not know if water that 

is planned as supplemental supply for natural areas such as Biscayne 

Bay would be of sufficient quality.



Project/plan and purpose: Storm Water Treatment Area 1-East: A 

constructed wetland used to remove excess nutrients--particularly 

phosphorus--from agricultural and other runoff water.; Information gap: 

Information on ways to optimize the removal of phosphorus from runoff 

water.; Effect of information gap: Without such information, scientists 

and managers could not achieve the low levels of phosphorus needed to 

restore the ecosystem using this technology, resulting in continued 

degradation of native sawgrass habitat, a type of vegetation important 

for a restored ecosystem.



[End of table]



Sources: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).



Invasive species--harmful plants and animals that are not native to an 

ecosystem--hinder attempts to restore native species, including 

threatened and endangered ones, in South Florida by strangling native 

plants and depriving native animals of their habitat and food sources. 

Examples of invasive species already known to exist in South Florida 

include Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, the Asian swamp eel, and the Old 

World climbing fern. Information is needed on control methods for the 

invasive species that are already present and those that are likely to 

invade the ecosystem and on methods for identifying newly introduced 

species before they cause extensive harm to the ecosystem. For example, 

scientists and managers reported that insufficient research on control 

methods has allowed the Old World climbing fern to spread throughout 

parts of the ecosystem. The fern has covered increasing amounts of 

native vegetation--about 28,000 acres in 1993 and about 109,000 acres 

in 1999. Growing over trees and shrubs, the fern smothers whole plant 

communities, altering water movement and increasing the risk of fire 

(see fig. 7). Without additional information on control and detection, 

scientists stated that invasive plants and animals will continue to 

devastate parts of the ecosystem, thereby hindering the success of 

restoration.



Figure 7: Old World Climbing Fern Smothering Vegetation:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



A second area that has the potential to impede restoration efforts is 

the presence of contaminants that could affect water and sediment 

quality, and thus, the entire ecosystems health. Scientists are 

concerned that the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides near natural 

areas in South Florida increases the discharge of chemical compounds 

into natural areas. Contaminants found in South Florida are heavy 

metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals that are 

transported by water and soil and deposited in sediments. When 

discharged into natural areas, contaminants are absorbed by organisms 

such as aquatic insects, other invertebrates, and fish that live in the 

water and sediment, affecting the survival and reproduction of those 

organisms and those that feed on them. Information that is needed on 

contaminants includes the amounts of contaminants that are applied and 

could be discharged into the environment, the amounts that persist in 

water and sediments, and the risks faced by organisms living in areas 

with contaminants (even low levels on a long-term basis). Information 

on analytical methods is needed for one specific type of contaminant, 

pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, hormones, and steroids that 

remain in water even after treatment. Information is also needed for 

another specific category of contaminants--nutrients such as 

phosphorus--that cause undesirable changes to vegetation by increasing 

the growth of cattails that replace native sawgrass. Information that 

is needed on nutrients includes how to optimize techniques already 

developed to reduce phosphorus to lower levels. If information in these 

areas is not developed, poor water and soil quality may continue to 

degrade habitats and harm the plants and animals that are part of the 

ecosystem.



No single agency has primary responsibility for developing the 

scientific information needed to address problems regarding invasive 

species or contaminants for restoration. Although these areas may be 

systemwide priorities, agency science programs may have different 

priorities, in part, because of their different missions and 

objectives. As a result, systemwide information on these areas is 

difficult to develop. While scientists from several agencies 

participating in the restoration have conducted limited studies, no 

comprehensive research or research plans have been implemented. For 

example, the National Park Service granted money for research on the 

amounts and types of contaminants that exist around the C-111 project 

and that could be moving into Everglades National Park, and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration granted funds for 

research on contaminants that might flow from C-111 into Florida Bay. 

While the results of these limited studies indicate the need for more 

systemwide work on screening for contaminants that may be moved by 

changes to water management projects, little work has been done to 

address this issue on a systemwide basis.



Information Needed to Support Individual Restoration Projects:



Two of the 10 projects that we reviewed required additional scientific 

information to ensure that the projects, as designed, would achieve 

restoration at the local level. Scientists have identified gaps in 

scientific information that, if not addressed, may delay the projects 

while the information is developed or that may require the projects to 

be changed after they are implemented, which could increase costs 

associated with the projects. Table 2 shows the two projects, the 

information needed, and the effects of the information gaps.



Table 2: Gaps in Information Related to Individual Projects:



Project and purpose: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project: To promote 

more gradual flow of freshwater into Biscayne Bay, by restoring tidal 

creeks along the bay, thus reducing salinity levels and improving 

habitat for oysters and fish.; Information gap: Information on saline 

concentrations in the bay.; Effect of information gap: Without salinity 

levels for coastal areas of the bay, scientists cannot determine how to 

design the project to optimize freshwater flows into the bay to restore 

it.



Project and purpose: Modified Water Delivery project: To restore water 

to Northeast Shark River Slough on the eastern side of Everglades 

National Park to improve wetland habitat for birds and animals.; 

Information gap: Information on tree islands and the effects of water 

flow on tree islands and ridge and slough habitat.; Effect of 

information gap: Without information on the level of water needed to 

sustain the formation of the islands without flooding them, the removal 

of levees cannot be optimally designed. The lack of information also 

affects a related project, the decompartmentalization of levees in the 

states water conservation areas.



[End of table]



Sources: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).



Scientists working on the Project Delivery Team for the first project, 

the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, identified the need to 

acquire information on salinity levels along the coast. The project 

seeks to restore more natural freshwater flows into the Biscayne Bay, 

which have been disrupted by the canals and operations of the Central 

and Southern Florida Project. The coastal wetlands project will help 

restore the estuarine conditions of the bay by recreating coastal 

creeks through the mangroves fringing the bay and restricting the 

effects of pulses of freshwater that are emptied periodically from 

canals into the bay (see fig. 8). Information on salinity would allow 

scientists to determine the amount and timing of water that should be 

released into the bay to create more natural conditions. This 

information would enable the scientists to determine how many tidal 

creeks need to be restored as part of the project design and would help 

them identify where the tidal creeks should be located. Without this 

information, the project design cannot be finalized and land 

acquisition cannot be completed for the project. Although the project 

has a conceptual design and land is being acquired according to it, a 

more detailed design is needed to assure that the right lands are 

acquired for the project.[Footnote 16]



Figure 8: Mangrove Habitat and Ridge and Slough Habitat with Tree 

Islands:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Scientific information is also needed to support the Modified Water 

Delivery project, which has been ongoing for many years and has been 

delayed primarily because of land acquisition conflicts. The Modified 

Water Delivery project and a related project in the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan are expected to increase the amount of 

water running through the eastern part of Everglades National Park, 

lower water levels on state and tribal lands to the north of the park, 

keep agricultural lands to the east of the park dry, and restore an 

important type of habitat called ridge and slough habitat. This 

habitat, which is one of the signature habitats native to the 

Everglades, is thought to be essential to maintain the rich diversity 

of habitats necessary for Everglades plants and animals. Ridge and 

slough habitat contains slightly elevated, north-south ridges dominated 

by sawgrass, interspersed with sloughs, which are open water areas with 

sparse vegetation. This ridge and slough habitat may also have tree 

islands, which have woody vegetation more suited to dry areas than 

wetlands and serve as important habitat for some species (see fig. 8). 

High water levels have destroyed many tree islands, areas that 

scientists seek to restore. However, scientists identified the need for 

continued work to understand the dynamics of tree islands and recently 

identified the need to understand the role of flowing water in the 

creation of ridge and slough habitat and its associated tree islands. 

If the information is not developed, the project designs may be delayed 

or inadequate, forcing scientists and managers to spend time 

redesigning projects or making unnecessary modifications to those 

already built. For example, a larger portion of the levees, roads in 

the vicinity of the Modified Water Delivery project, and other barriers 

may need to be removed to increase the flow of water if scientists 

develop information demonstrating the need.



According to scientists and managers, even though adaptive management 

allows for changes to be made to projects as new information becomes 

available, it is still best to design projects with as much of the 

important scientific information as possible to prevent the costly 

alteration or removal of projects or potential damage to the ecosystem. 

The Corps and the District are relying on some, if not most, of the 

scientific work needed to be accomplished by other agencies such as the 

Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

the National Park Service, or the South Florida Water Management 

District. However, agency science programs are generally driven by 

research cycles that last from 3 to 5 years, which limits the 

opportunities to start new work or to make the results available for 

decisions.



Key Adaptive Management Tools Are Needed to Apply Science to 

Restoration Decisions:



Key tools needed for effective adaptive management have not yet been 

developed, including (1) a comprehensive monitoring plan for key 

indicators of ecosystem health and (2) mathematical models that would 

allow scientists to simulate aspects of the ecosystem and better 

understand how the ecosystem responds to restoration actions. 

Indicators and a monitoring plan were missing for the two plans we 

reviewed and models were missing for three projects we reviewed. 

Without such tools, the process of adaptive management will be hindered 

by the fact that scientists and managers will be less able to monitor 

key indicators of restoration and evaluate the effects created by 

particular restoration actions.



Key Indicators and a Comprehensive Monitoring Plan Are Not Yet 

Developed:



While scientists have established indicators and a monitoring plan for 

the Corps Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which is designed 

to help achieve the first goal of restoration (getting the water 

right), they have not done so for the other restoration goals--

restoring, protecting, and preserving the natural system and fostering 

the compatibility of built and natural systems. Indicators are 

particular features of the ecosystem--such as wading birds, vegetation, 

or water quality levels--that characterize or represent the conditions 

of the ecosystem that scientists and others participating in 

restoration would like to restore. These indicators or features are 

monitored to determine the degree to which they are changing--thereby 

indicating whether the ecosystem is changing in the desired direction.



The Corps and the District, in implementing the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan under the 2000 WRDA, established the 

RECOVER program to carry out an adaptive management program with a 

monitoring plan for water-related projects and habitat.[Footnote 17] 

Neither the Task Force nor the participating agencies have developed a 

similar program for plans associated with the two other restoration 

goals. As a result, scientists have not established a full set of 

indicators or a monitoring plan for goals two and three of the 

restoration. Table 3 shows the gaps in indicators and monitoring plans.



Table 3: Gaps in Indicators and Monitoring Plans and 

the Effects of the Gaps:



Plan and purpose: South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan: Identifies 

actions needed to save 68 threatened and endangered species and habitat 

for these species.; Gap in indicators and monitoring plans: Indicators 

for endangered species and a range of related habitats and a monitoring 

plan to determine whether actions have helped them.; Effect of missing 

tool: Without indicators and a long-range monitoring plan for a range 

of threatened and endangered species--including habitat indicators--

scientists will have a more difficult time knowing whether species are 

recovering because of restoration actions. Without the monitoring 

information, scientists cannot provide information for adaptive 

management decisions.



Plan and purpose: Exotic plants plan: To develop consistent monitoring 

methods and control methods for agencies in South Florida.; Gap in 

indicators and monitoring plans: Indicators and a monitoring plan for 

invasive exotic species.; Effect of missing tool: Without indicators 

and a long-range monitoring plan for the species that most threaten the 

ecosystem, scientists cannot provide information about how to adapt 

management decisions.



[End of table]



Sources: Federal agencies (data and analysis), GAO (analysis).



The Task Force has adopted restoring, protecting, and preserving 

natural habitats as its second restoration goal, but has not ensured 

the development of a monitoring plan for carrying out this goal. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service--the agency leading species recovery efforts-

-has established a multiagency, multidisciplinary team to identify 

actions that can be taken to recover multiple species. In addition, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service monitors the status of all threatened and 

endangered species, and the RECOVER program has selected particular 

species as indicators of success for implementing water projects; 

however, these are not the equivalent of indicators and monitoring of 

the range of habitats that exist in South Florida. For example, 

although indicators and a monitoring plan for key wetland species have 

been selected, they have not been selected for upland species. 

Scientists have also not developed indicators or a monitoring plan for 

invasive species or for the changes in the extent of wetland vegetation 

and coverage, both of which are related to the second restoration goal, 

to restore the natural system. While the Task Forces invasive species 

team is attempting to unify the agencies diverse methods of detecting 

and monitoring invasive species, it has not identified indicators of 

the range and amount of invasive exotic species or developed a 

monitoring plan to track relevant indicators.



Indicators of significant ecosystem conditions such as the condition of 

uplands and related monitoring plans need to be developed before the 

process of adaptive management--tracking changes in the ecosystem and 

making necessary changes to restoration actions--can be successfully 

accomplished. Even though the restoration initiative and the various 

programs will be implemented over a long period of time, scientists 

stated that it is important to establish current (baseline) conditions 

as quickly as possible and to begin monitoring to develop sufficient 

data on which to base analyses of trends. Analyzing trends is difficult 

without sufficient data and may lead to inaccurate or indeterminate 

conclusions. Further, if the set of indicators is not comprehensive--

that is, if it excludes significant parts of the ecosystem or does not 

allow the tracking of important management actions--then the adaptive 

management process will not be comprehensive nor will it indicate the 

success of restoration.



Important Models Are Needed:



As with monitoring plans, models are also important tools for carrying 

out adaptive management because they allow scientists to forecast and 

evaluate the potential effects of proposed restoration actions. In our 

review of restoration projects and plans, scientists identified the 

need for several important models--including three for Florida Bay, 

Biscayne Bay, and systemwide vegetation. Models are mathematical 

representations of physical conditions and processes; for example, 

scientists use a model to determine how much water is available in 

different parts of the ecosystem based on rainfall amounts, water 

levels in canals, and the amount of water available from groundwater. 

They can be simple, requiring a few calculations or data 

transformations, or they can be extremely complicated, requiring data 

collection for tens or hundreds of variables. Table 4 shows the gaps in 

models that scientists stated are needed to support restoration 

efforts.



Table 4: Gaps in Modeling Tools and the Effects of the Gaps:



Project/plan and purpose: Florida Bay Feasibility Study: To study 

options for improving water management for Florida Bay, including the 

development of a hydrodynamic model of the bay.; Gap in modeling tools: 

Hydrodynamic model of the bay. A hydrodynamic model shows the 

circulation of water, including the changing depth of water, and shows 

changes in water quality, such as salinity, related to circulation and 

depth.; Effect of missing tool: Without such a model, scientists will 

have a more difficult time determining the effects of adding water--

from the water management changes associated with water projects in 

South Florida--to the bay. They also cannot determine salinity and 

water quality levels that may affect seagrass, algae, and organisms in 

the bay.



Project/plan and purpose: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project: To 

promote more gradual flow of freshwater into the Biscayne Bay, by 

restoring tidal creeks along the bay, thus reducing salinity levels and 

improving habitat for oysters and fish.; Gap in modeling tools: 

Hydrologic model and an associated groundwater model.; Effect of 

missing tool: Without hydrologic and groundwater models of the project 

area, scientists do not know how much groundwater is available for the 

bay--which in turn affects salinity levels--or how it will be altered 

by the project.



Project/plan and purpose: Modified Water Delivery project: To restore 

water to Northeast Shark River Slough on the eastern side of Everglades 

National Park to improve wetland habitat for birds and animals.; Gap in 

modeling tools: Ecological/vegetation models.; Effect of missing tool: 

Without a model, or several models, to help assess the change in 

vegetation that results from different hydrological conditions, 

scientists and managers will have more difficulty in determining the 

possible changes that will occur in the ecosystem as a result of 

proposed restoration actions.



[End of table]



Sources: Federal agencies (data and analysis), GAO (analysis).



Scientists stated that a model is needed to help them understand the 

conditions of Florida Bay. The restoration of the South Florida 

ecosystem includes the restoration of the bay, which has been subject 

to die-off of its seagrasses and increased algae blooms and which will 

receive increased flows of freshwater as changes to inland water 

management occur. Scientists, in trying to prevent such die-offs and 

algae blooms, anticipated that a model would show the circulation of 

the bay and should forecast changes in water quality conditions to 

enable them to understand what changes in water management--that is 

increased or redistributed freshwater flows--will bring to the bay. The 

model is needed relatively early in the restoration process to help 

explain how changes in the bay relate to changes in the flow of water 

from inland areas, which will change as the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan projects are built and operated.



Scientists also pointed to two other models that are needed: a linked 

hydrologic and groundwater model for Biscayne Bay and an ecological 

model for vegetation in the ecosystem. The hydrologic and groundwater 

models for Biscayne Bay would show how much water flows underground in 

the vicinity of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project and will 

allow scientists to determine how the inflows will change salinity 

levels off the coast, changing habitat for vegetation, fish, and 

oysters that they are attempting to recover. An ecological model, or a 

set of interconnected models or indices, would enable scientists to 

show how changes in water management will cause changes in the 

different types of vegetation in the ecosystem. Because the ultimate 

purpose of restoration is to restore habitats and species, scientists 

are interested in such a model to help them assess the effects of 

various alternatives for managing and restoring flows of water.



Without these models, scientists have a difficult time determining the 

effects of changes on ecological and biological resources. Scientists 

need modeling tools available in time to help them analyze the changes 

that occur as a result of implementing restoration projects and plans. 

All three models are currently being developed but they have not been 

satisfactorily completed. For example, a hydrodynamic model of Florida 

Bay has been developed, but because of the variability of the bay 

(containing at least 27 distinct basins created by shallow mudbanks) 

the model does not satisfactorily represent the bays conditions. In 

addition, according to scientists, insufficient efforts were made to 

include in the model the comments from the multiple agencies involved 

in scientific activities in the bay. Similarly, although the agencies 

responsible for assessing the changes on vegetation have stated they 

need some sort of tool to analyze changes in vegetation, limited tools 

are available. Several agencies have developed ecological models for 

different regions of the ecosystem or animal species, but these models 

are in various stages of completion. In seeking to complete models for 

use in assessing restoration actions, several scientists and managers 

cautioned that the models should be developed to provide tools for 

analyzing the changes to the ecosystem that result from restoration 

actions and decisions, not simply to demonstrate new models or modeling 

techniques.



The Task Force Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate Science 

Activities:



The WRDA of 1996 requires the Task Force to coordinate scientific 

research for South Florida ecosystem restoration; however, the Task 

Force has not established an effective means to do so, diminishing 

assurance that key science information will be developed and available 

to fill gaps and support restoration decisions. Although the Task 

Forces Working Group established the SCT in 1997 and gave it broad 

responsibilities for coordinating scientific activities for 

restoration, they did not clearly identify the plans that the SCT needs 

to produce to help fill gaps in scientific information or establish 

processes through which the Task Force and Working Group would support 

the SCTs planning and reporting efforts. Furthermore, unlike 

coordination entities for other major restoration initiatives, the SCT 

has operated for the most part without any full-time or part-time staff 

and must accomplish its functions through volunteer efforts. With 

limited direction and few resources, the SCT prioritized its efforts to 

focus on a few of its responsibilities. For example, the SCT sponsored 

science workshops over the past 6 years and developed reports 

synthesizing key issues, such as improving water flow and increasing 

sustainable agriculture. However, in doing this, it set aside most of 

its other important responsibilities, including prioritizing research 

needs and developing a science plan and a comprehensive monitoring 

plan.



Task Force Established the SCT with Broad Responsibilities but Did 

Not Specify Requirements or Processes for Planning and Reporting:



Although the Task Forces Working Group created the SCT as a science 

coordination group, it did not give clear direction on which of its 

responsibilities are a priority for supporting the Task Force and the 

Working Group, contributing to the SCTs inability to accomplish 

several of its most important functions. According to restoration 

managers and scientists, the SCTs main responsibilities, included in 

its charter, are planning scientific activities for restoration, 

ensuring the development of a monitoring plan, synthesizing scientific 

information, and conducting science conferences and workshops on major 

issues such as sustainable agriculture or contaminants. However, the 

Task Force and Working Group did not specify what plans the SCT should 

develop and update periodically, or establish processes through which 

to provide management input to the SCT or to ensure that significant 

scientific issues discovered by the SCT would be reported. Without 

these planning and reporting requirements and processes, the SCT has 

focused on other responsibilities and has not completed a science plan, 

a comprehensive monitoring plan, and more reports synthesizing diverse 

scientific information. Because the SCT has not fulfilled these 

responsibilities, the Task Force cannot ensure that (1) important gaps 

in scientific information are identified; (2) the highest priority 

science activities are identified and conducted; (3) a comprehensive 

monitoring plan is in place to track the progress of restoration 

projects and plans and to manage them adaptively; and (4) relevant 

scientific data has been synthesized into information that is useful in 

helping managers make important restoration decisions.



Task Force Has No Specific Planning Requirements:



Under its charter the SCT has broad planning responsibilities to 

identify and fill gaps in science and to ensure the development of 

ecosystem indicators and coordinated monitoring plans to track the 

success of restoration. In particular, the charter requires the SCT to 

conduct several activities: identify key gaps in management information 

and propose coordinated research and other programs to address the 

gaps; coordinate scientific investigations to document long-term 

ecosystem effects of restoration; and identify future science needs and 

recommend priorities. Because of the inherent difficulties of 

coordinating the efforts of the many agencies with differing missions 

that conduct science activities, planning is critical to ensure that 

coordination of these activities occurs and that gaps in scientific 

information are filled. Furthermore, because the agencies and not the 

SCT have authority to fund science activities, the team must make 

recommendations to the Task Force and its Working Group to ensure that 

these groups have the information they need to make coordinated funding 

decisions about scientific activities among the agencies. A science 

plan would (1) facilitate coordination of the multiple agency science 

plans and programs; (2) identify key gaps in scientific information and 

tools; (3) prioritize scientific activities needed to fill such gaps; 

and (4) recommend agencies with expertise to fund and conduct work to 

fill these gaps. Such plans would complement the Task Forces strategic 

plan that addresses all restoration activities and is to be updated 

every 2 years to reflect the focus and direction of the restoration 

effort.



In part because the Task Force has not required it, the SCT has not 

developed a science plan to coordinate agencies science activities and 

to report on progress in meeting restoration science needs. In 1996, 

the predecessor to the SCT--the Science Subgroup--issued a report with 

an extensive list of scientific information needs for restoration, but 

this list was never prioritized in a science plan that recommended 

specific scientific activities, responsible agencies, time frames, and 

funding needs. According to Task Force and SCT officials, no specific 

planning requirements were established because managers and scientists 

were focused on developing and getting approval of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, which Congress authorized as a study in 

1996 and finally approved, along with the State of Florida, as a plan 

in 2000. Without requiring the SCT to develop and periodically update a 

science plan, the Task Force and Working Group have little assurance 

that the information needed to guide funding to priority activities is 

available or that scientific activities will fill significant gaps in 

information.



Another of the SCTs broad planning responsibilities is to ensure the 

coordination of a systemwide monitoring plan to support the evaluation 

of restoration activities. This plan would provide scientists with a 

key tool to implement adaptive management. The SCT, however, has not 

accomplished this task. According to the SCT and managers, the Corps 

RECOVER program has developed indicators and a monitoring plan that 

will assist them in developing information needed to make adaptive 

management decisions to improve the hydrology and the wetland habitats 

in the ecosystem. The RECOVER plan does not, however, include 

indicators and monitoring needed to fully measure the achievement of 

the two remaining restoration goals--restoring, protecting, and 

preserving the natural system and fostering the compatibility of the 

built and natural systems. For example, the RECOVER monitoring plan 

excludes indicators for management actions related to reducing invasive 

species or recovering endangered species in upland areas. Without first 

developing indicators and a monitoring plan that encompass the 

ecosystem and management actions to restore the ecosystem, the Task 

Force and the Working Group have no means to determine whether 

ecosystem conditions are being restored and whether important goals of 

restoration are being or will be met.



Task Force Has Not Established Effective Processes to Support SCT 

Planning and Reporting Responsibilities:



The SCT is responsible for identifying and synthesizing scientific 

information needed for management decisions. Scientists and managers 

have noted the need for an effective process that allows the Task Force 

and the Working Group to identify significant management issues or 

questions related to the restoration that scientific activities need to 

address. Additionally, scientists and managers have noted that in order 

to assure that restoration is successfully implemented, scientists must 

be able to develop and report on issues that they believe need to be 

addressed through science activities. The SCT, as it was created by the 

Task Force, has no effective process to receive management input 

regarding management concerns related to planning for scientific 

activities or to allow scientists and managers to identify and 

prioritize scientific issues that the SCT needs to address. These 

processes are important in carrying out both the planning and synthesis 

responsibilities that the Task Force has given the SCT.



Management input into the SCTs planning effort is important because, 

as several scientists and managers emphasized, without this input, 

scientists cannot fully understand the information that managers need 

in order to make key restoration decisions and may omit some important 

management issues in their science planning. Some officials stated that 

the process of getting input is important because scientists and 

managers view restoration issues differently and ask different types of 

questions. For example, a manager may ask higher-level questions such 

as: What is causing our water to have so much algae? On the other 

hand, to answer such a question, a scientist would formulate more 

technical, detailed questions such as How much phosphorus is present 

in the water, and what are the sources?:



Recognizing the need for management input into science planning, 

officials from the Department of the Interior, in 2002, initiated a 

planning process through which managers identified their questions 

related to management of the departments South Florida lands to 

Interior scientists. In turn, these scientists developed research 

questions to answer them.[Footnote 18] The Task Force, Working Group, 

and SCT lack such a process for overall restoration science planning 

and therefore rely on the Working Group members of the SCT to convey a 

management view for planning. Thus far, this process has not been 

effective because Working Group members often do not attend SCT 

meetings. Without an effective process to get management input into 

science planning, the Task Force has less assurance that science 

activities are being conducted to address pressing management questions 

related to restoration.



To fulfill its responsibility to synthesize information for managers, 

the SCT needs to select the issues that it will address for the Task 

Force and Working Group. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 

synthesis of scientific information provides managers with an overview 

of scientists understanding on different restoration issues and 

provides for the integration of many diverse scientific studies. A 

process used to select issues for synthesis reports needs to be 

transparent to members of the SCT, the Working Group, and the Task 

Force and needs to facilitate the provision of a credible list of 

issues that the SCT needs to address in synthesis reports. One way that 

other scientific groups that are part of restoration efforts approach 

the issue of transparency and credibility is to use an advisory board 

to provide an independent review of the scientific plans, reports, and 

issues being addressed by the scientific staff involved in the 

restoration efforts. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program has a 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee that annually reviews the 

research plans of the scientific staff supporting the restoration.



The SCT, the Working Group, and the Task Force do not have an advisory 

group such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Nor do these groups have any 

other process through which to gain agreement on the issues the SCT 

will address. As a result, some scientific issues have not been 

addressed. In 1999, the Task Force and Working Group rejected the SCTs 

offer to develop a report synthesizing available scientific information 

on a controversial area of land that some scientists and managers 

believed needed to be acquired for restoration purposes.[Footnote 19] 

According to Task Force and Working Group officials, the lack of 

agreement on how to resolve issues confronting the area were political 

and economic, not scientific. However, according to scientists, a 

scientific analysis could have helped to clarify some of the factual 

information on the debate surrounding the land acquisition, such as the 

historical conditions of the land. Another reason that the groups 

disagree on issues for scientific review is that Task Force officials 

are concerned that the SCT scientists will advocate policy alternatives 

that reflect their agencies concerns. Lacking a process through which 

they can agree on significant scientific issues that should be the 

subject of a synthesis report by the SCT, the Task Force and 

Working Group may overlook important information needed to make 

restoration decisions.



Task Force Has Provided Few Resources for SCT Activities:



Aside from providing the SCT with no specific planning and reporting 

requirements, the Task Force established the SCT with few resources. In 

particular, although the SCT has been able to develop and sponsor a few 

synthesis reports, it has done fewer reports than needed because its 

members have limited time to develop the reports or organize other 

groups to develop them. The SCT has identified a list of over 50 

topics--such as water quality and the extent and condition of wetlands 

in the ecosystem--for which synthesis reports are needed. Yet, these 

reports, as well as several of the SCTs other responsibilities, have 

not been done in part because the SCT does not have full-time 

management staff to lead efforts or full-time or part-time scientists 

to fulfill its primary responsibilities. Only two agencies--the 

Geological Survey and the South Florida Water Management District--have 

allocated some staff time for SCT duties. Furthermore, until recently, 

the SCT did not have any support staff.



Because the SCT must rely on volunteer efforts, most of its work has 

been accomplished by a few of its members. The SCT generally meets 

about four to six times per year, and SCT members stated that they have 

little or no time between meetings to devote to SCT tasks. SCT business 

has been conducted by a core group of people, who accept projects in 

addition to their workload at their respective agencies. SCT members 

and other scientists noted that voluntary efforts are increasingly 

limited by the growing number of meetings that scientists are expected 

to attend for restoration activities. In particular, scientists are 

expected to participate in individual project meetings for the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and other meetings to develop 

scientific information for restoration efforts. In contrast to the 

SCTs efforts, the RECOVER program, which has six subteams that are 

chaired and provided with full-time staff and $10 million to support 

monitoring efforts, has met multiple times a year since it was created 

in 2000 to develop the monitoring and assessment plan for the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan--a task that also falls under 

the SCTs broad responsibilities.



With its available resources, the SCT has, over the last 6 years, 

conducted several science workshops to coordinate information and 

activities among scientists. These workshops highlighted several 

important restoration issues including some that identify gaps in 

scientific information, such as contaminants, agriculture, social 

sciences, and the habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, an 

endangered bird in and near Everglades National Park. The SCT also 

convened one science conference and one science forum to address 

overall ecosystem issues. A 1999 science forum focused on how to 

improve the interaction between scientists and managers and management 

issues that need to be addressed for restoration. However, in 2000, 

recognizing its inability to accomplish the other responsibilities in 

its charter given limited resources, the SCT reported to the Task Force 

that it could not accomplish most of its key responsibilities, such as 

science planning. Instead, the SCT identified the five priority 

activities and issues that it could address with available resources 

and presented these to the Working Group and the Task Force. These five 

were water quality, water flow, organization of science conferences, 

support of CROGEE, and evaluation of science related to the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.



In 2003, the Task Force partially addressed the SCTs request for 

resources. According to Task Force officials, it did not provide 

resources for the SCT when it was originally established in an effort 

to keep costs down. Recognizing the limits placed on the SCTs ability 

to plan for and coordinate scientific activities, 6 Working Group 

agencies have recently agreed to provide a total of $150,000 for fiscal 

year 2003 for one full-time and one or more part-time staff to provide 

administrative and logistical support to the SCT.[Footnote 20] 

According to SCT members, such forms of assistance will help the SCT in 

accomplishing its tasks, but still do not provide management resources 

to allow the team to complete the broad responsibilities, laid out in 

the charter, that are needed to coordinate scientific activities for 

restoration. In addition, in recognition of the threat of invasive 

species to restoration success, the Task Force has assigned a full-time 

scientist to coordinate and plan related efforts for South Florida. To 

help coordinate invasive species activities, the Task Force also 

developed the Noxious Exotic Weeds Task Team and plans to create the 

Noxious Exotic Animal Task Team.



In comparison, leaders of other large ecosystem restoration efforts--

the San Francisco Bay and Chesapeake Bay area efforts--have recognized 

that significant resources are required to coordinate science for such 

efforts. These scientists and managers stated that their coordination 

groups have full-time leadership (an executive director or chief 

scientist), several full-time staff to coordinate agencies science 

efforts and develop plans and reports, and administrative staff to 

support functions. In addition, members of the Florida Bay restoration-

-which represents a part of the overall South Florida restoration 

initiative--noted that they could not have developed their science plan 

without a full-time executive director because, like SCT members, they 

have many restoration meetings to attend and full-time job 

responsibilities within their agencies to fulfill. Further, RECOVER 

program leaders stressed the importance of full-time scientists devoted 

to the development of their monitoring and assessment plan.



Conclusions:



The restoration of varied, important ecosystem functions is a complex 

undertaking that depends on the science activities of many federal and 

state agencies. Because no one agency conducts scientific work that 

supports all the restoration goals, coordination of the disparate 

science activities of the different agencies is necessary to ensure 

that gaps in information do not exist and that scientific information 

is synthesized and provided to managers. Furthermore, because the 

restoration of the ecosystem is expected to occur over several decades, 

coordination of scientific efforts and continuity in their 

orchestration are critical to ensure that information related to 

restoration efforts is updated and made available for restoration 

decisions and that indicators are monitored to determine progress 

toward restoration. Many agencies have already spent considerable funds 

to develop scientific information to support restoration decisions, a 

trend that is expected to continue. Yet, the SCT--the group created to 

coordinate scientific information for the restoration--is limited by a 

number of factors. First, the SCT is limited by the lack of clear 

direction on what it is to accomplish. Second, it has no processes to 

ensure (1) that the Task Force identifies key management issues that 

need to be addressed in science planning and (2) that the SCT, the 

Working Group, and the Task Force prioritize critical science issues 

requiring synthesis in order to provide input into restoration 

decisions. One such process used by other restoration initiatives 

utilizes an advisory group to review science plans and reports. Third, 

the SCT lacks resources to adequately carry out its responsibilities. 

While the Task Forces Working Group plans to provide administrative 

resources to the SCT, these resources would not sufficiently bolster 

the SCT to carry out its most important planning and reporting 

responsibilities. Until the factors limiting the SCT are addressed, 

coordination of scientific activities cannot be improved. As a result, 

opportunities to help ensure that (1) scientific gaps are filled, (2) 

progress toward restoration is monitored, and (3) adjustments to 

restoration projects are made where needed will be limited. Without 

effective coordination of scientific activities, the Task Force has 

scant assurance that the scientific information needed to make key 

restoration decisions will be available, decreasing the likelihood that 

restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will be successful.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



In order to improve the coordination of scientific activities for the 

South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, we recommend that, as 

chair of the Task Force, the Secretary of the Interior:



* specify the plans and documents--including a science plan focused on 

key information gaps, a comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress 

reports for each plan--that the SCT needs to complete and the time 

frames for completing them;



* establish a process that ensures the Task Force identifies key 

management issues that need to be addressed by science planning;



* establish a process, such as review by an advisory group, to ensure 

that the SCT, Working Group, and Task Force prioritize issues that 

require synthesis and are critical to restoration decisions; and:



* evaluate the SCTs current staffing needs and allocate sufficient 

staff, including full-time management staff, to the SCT so that it can 

carry out its responsibilities.



Agency Comments and Our Response:



We provided a draft of our report to the Department of the Interior, 

whose secretary chairs the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force, for review and comment. Interior provided us with written 

comments, which are included in appendix III of this report. Overall, 

Interior agrees with the major premises of the report that improved 

coordination among the agencies is necessary and that the Task Force 

needs to clarify the responsibilities of the SCT and address our other 

recommendations. Although we did not get formal comments from the other 

Task Force agencies, we met with representatives of the agencies 

involved in the restoration effort and discussed our findings and 

recommendations with them, and Interior consulted them in preparing its 

written response. Interior noted, however, that the Task Force could 

not address these recommendations while the report was still in draft 

because doing so would have led to the premature disclosure of its 

contents. For this reason, Interior stated that the Task Force would, 

upon public release of the report, discuss the recommendations and make 

the ultimate decision on the role of the SCT and on the actions needed 

to meet our recommendations. Interior also provided several technical 

changes that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.



Although Interior stated that it agrees with the premise of our report 

that scientific activities and information need to be better 

coordinated, it expressed reservations about our characterization of 

the role of the Task Force in the restoration. In particular, Interior 

emphasized that the Task Force has no legal authority to manage the 

restoration efforts and cautioned that the GAO report could be 

interpreted as indicating the Task Force can dictate executive action 

to its member agencies. We agree that the Task Forces role in relation 

to its member agencies is limited--and point this out in our report--

and that its role is to coordinate and facilitate restoration 

activities. We believe that our report and recommendations are 

consistent with the authority given the Task Force to coordinate the 

development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, 

projects, activities, and priorities for addressing the restoration of 

the South Florida ecosystem. The Task Force created the SCT 

specifically to coordinate scientific activities for the restoration, 

and our report identifies issues that prevent the SCT from carrying out 

its responsibilities. Precisely because the restoration will be the 

result of diverse agency programs, as Interior points out, we believe 

that the specific science documents that we recommended are necessary 

to coordinate consistent policies, programs, activities, and priorities 

among the multiple agencies conducting scientific activities in South 

Florida for restoration. Further, we believe that Interior 

underestimates the role that the Task Force has to act as a forum for 

coordination to further the cause of restoration. Namely, the Task 

Force and its Working Group--made up respectively of agency policy and 

decision makers--can and should use the forum to jointly focus on key 

restoration issues, including science, and to resolve differences that 

prevent progress in achieving restoration.



Concerning the coordination of scientific activities in particular, 

Interior said that the report does not adequately acknowledge existing 

processes that are being used to obtain scientific information for 

restoration decisions. For example, Interior pointed to mechanisms 

provided to help implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan developed by the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water 

Management District. Specifically, Interior mentioned the Corps pilot 

projects to investigate uncertain technologies and the adaptive 

management program described in the Corps draft programmatic 

regulations for the plan. However, in discussing the several different 

groups that exist to coordinate or manage various aspects of science 

for restoration, we included a discussion of the RECOVER program that 

is the basis for the Corps adaptive management program. In particular, 

we acknowledged that this program has developed a monitoring and 

assessment plan that will help determine if the water in the ecosystem 

is being restored and whether wetlands are being restored. We also 

discussed the Project Delivery Teams that will help to coordinate 

scientific information for each of the 55 projects in the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. We clearly discussed these matters in the 

report while at the same time making our point that similar mechanisms 

have not been developed for programs other than the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, such as the Multi-Species Recovery Plan or 

the exotic plants plan. We did make one clarification in this section, 

based on technical comments from Interior, by adding a statement that 

RECOVER has developed the only systemwide monitoring and assessment 

plan for the restoration.



As a second example of the efforts to obtain scientific information, 

Interior pointed to its own, developing science plan for South Florida. 

Interior stated that its plan, if successful, may serve as a model for 

other Task Force agencies in managing their science programs. We agree 

that Interiors plan may serve as a model, if successful. In fact, we 

suggested in our report that Interiors approach to developing its 

science plan could serve as an example for the Task Force, Working 

Group, and SCT to follow in developing a science plan for the 

restoration. We also agree that the agencies should be encouraged to 

develop clear science plans related to restoration and their other 

activities. However, even with the development of agency science plans, 

the actions we recommend--such as a science plan to fill gaps, a 

comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress reports for each plan--

continue to be needed for coordination of the diverse activities that 

are being and will continue to be pursued.



As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 8 days 

after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to 

interested congressional committees and members; the Secretary of the 

Interior; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of Commerce; the 

Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator, EPA; and the Governor of 

Florida. We will make copies available to others upon request. This 

report will also be available at no charge on GAOs Web site at http:/

/www.gao.gov.



If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841. The key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.



Signed by Barry T. Hill:



Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources and Environment:



[End of section]



Appendixes:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



To determine the amounts and purposes of federal science funding for 

the South Florida ecosystem restoration, we collected funding 

information, for fiscal years 1993 through 2002, from headquarters and 

field officials of the key federal and state agencies involved in 

restoration science. The key agencies providing restoration science 

funding are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of 

Agricultures Agricultural Research Service; the Department of 

Commerces National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the 

Department of the Interiors National Park Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service; the 

Environmental Protection Agency; and the South Florida Water Management 

District. We asked each agency to provide data on appropriations, 

obligations, and expenditures for the categories of restoration 

science--research, monitoring, and environmental assessments. We then 

converted the data to 2002 constant dollars. Some agencies provided 

estimates because they do not separate funding for (1) the three 

categories--research, monitoring, and environmental assessments--or 

(2) South Florida as opposed to mission-related science that may also 

benefit other restoration efforts as well. Although we did not 

independently verify the datas accuracy, we compared the data with 

other funding reports in an effort to identify inconsistencies. We also 

worked with the agencies while they prepared their data to increase 

reporting consistency among the agencies. We resolved all substantive 

inconsistencies with agency budget and program officials.



To determine what gaps in scientific information exist, we identified 

10 important restoration projects and plans and interviewed key 

managers and scientists involved in them. We initially selected 

projects or plans that cost over $100 million and from that group 

selected projects that were underway or expected to be finished by 2005 

in order to ensure that enough time has passed to identify and begin 

developing necessary scientific information. We also selected projects 

and plans from different locations (e.g., Florida Bay and Kissimmee 

River) in the ecosystem and some that affected the entire ecosystem 

(e.g., the exotic plants plan). This resulted in seven projects for our 

review. Finally, we added three projects to our list to ensure broad 

coverage of the Corps pilot program approach and the Task Forces 

restoration goals, which otherwise would not have been included in our 

review: a pilot project and its related project under the Corps 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Biscayne Bay Coastal 

Wetlands project and Wastewater Reuse Pilot project) and a project that 

supports the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Forces third 

goal of restoration (Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study). To identify 

information gaps based on the 10 projects and plans, we analyzed 

project documents--such as those from the Corps of Engineers--to 

determine what information was being developed. We discussed the 

projects and information needs with project managers and key scientists 

involved with the projects. To identify information needs for 

restoration plans, we discussed the plans with appropriate agency 

officials and analyzed more detailed documents related to the plans. 

The 10 projects and plans we reviewed are a subset of the more than 200 

restoration projects and the analysis is not meant to be generalized to 

the remaining projects.



To assess the process used to coordinate scientific activities and 

information for the restoration effort, we identified the groups that 

have responsibility for coordination. We reviewed and analyzed 

documents, such as charters and management plans that describe the 

purpose and goals for each of these groups. We interviewed the leaders 

of the different groups to discuss the coordination efforts undertaken 

by each group. In addition, we identified several similar restoration 

efforts and reviewed relevant documents and interviewed science 

managers for these groups to compare and contrast the organizations, 

abilities, resources, and staffing for all the efforts. The other 

restoration efforts we identified were the Florida Bay restoration 

effort, which is part of the overall South Florida restoration; the 

restoration of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and San Francisco 

Bay, called the CALFED restoration; and the restoration of the 

Chesapeake Bay, called the Chesapeake Bay Program.



We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration:



Table 5: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:



Dollars in millions[A].



Department of Commerce; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1993: 1.5; Expenditures: 1994: 2.1; Expenditures: 1995: 

2.8; Expenditures: 1996: 3.1; Expenditures: 1997: 5.1; Expenditures: 

1998: 4.8; Expenditures: 1999: 5.2; Expenditures: 2000: 4.3; 

Expenditures: 2001: 4.3; Expenditures: 2002: 4.1; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 37.1.



Department of Agriculture; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Agency: Agriculture Research Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 

3.3; Expenditures: 1994: 3.5; Expenditures: 1995: 2.4; Expenditures: 

1996: 2.3; Expenditures: 1997: 2.2; Expenditures: 1998: 3.5; 

Expenditures: 1999: 4.3; Expenditures: 2000: 4.3; Expenditures: 2001: 

4.2; Expenditures: 2002: 4.8; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 34.9.



Department of Defense; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Agency: Army Corps of Engineers; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0; 

Expenditures: 1994: 1.7; Expenditures: 1995: 2.8; Expenditures: 1996: 

0.0; Expenditures: 1997: 6.1; Expenditures: 1998: 2.1; Expenditures: 

1999: 3.5; Expenditures: 2000: 4.4; Expenditures: 2001: 5.5; 

Expenditures: 2002: 11.2; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 37.5.



Department of the Interior; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Agency: U.S. Geological Survey; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 2.2; 

Expenditures: 1994: 2.9; Expenditures: 1995: 7.5; Expenditures: 1996: 

11.7; Expenditures: 1997: 9.4; Expenditures: 1998: 9.2; Expenditures: 

1999: 9.0; Expenditures: 2000: 8.4; Expenditures: 2001: 8.4; 

Expenditures: 2002: 8.5; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 77.2.



Agency: National Park Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0; 

Expenditures: 1994: 0.0; Expenditures: 1995: 0.0; Expenditures: 1996: 

0.0; Expenditures: 1997: 6.8; Expenditures: 1998: 10.1; Expenditures: 

1999: 6.1; Expenditures: 2000: 11.2; Expenditures: 2001: 8.5; 

Expenditures: 2002: 5.3; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 48.1.



Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.4; 

Expenditures: 1994: 0.7; Expenditures: 1995: 0.8; Expenditures: 1996: 

0.9; Expenditures: 1997: 1.2; Expenditures: 1998: 1.1; Expenditures: 

1999: 1.1; Expenditures: 2000: 1.3; Expenditures: 2001: 1.1; 

Expenditures: 2002: 1.2; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 10.0.



Bureau of Indian Affairs; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0; 

Expenditures: 1994: 0.0; Expenditures: 1995: 0.4; Expenditures: 1996: 

0.4; Expenditures: 1997: 0.4; Expenditures: 1998: 0.4; Expenditures: 

1999: 0.4; Expenditures: 2000: 0.4; Expenditures: 2001: 0.4; 

Expenditures: 2002: 0.4; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 3.4.



Environmental Protection Agency[B]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 1.2; 

Expenditures: 1994: 2.3; Expenditures: 1995: 3.0; Expenditures: 1996: 

3.5; Expenditures: 1997: 3.2; Expenditures: 1998: 4.4; Expenditures: 

1999: 2.5; Expenditures: 2000: 2.1; Expenditures: 2001: 1.7; 

Expenditures: 2002: 0.8; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 24.7.



Federal Total[C]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 8.7; Expenditures: 1994: 

13.2; Expenditures: 1995: 19.9; Expenditures: 1996: 21.8; Expenditures: 

1997: 34.4; Expenditures: 1998: 35.6; Expenditures: 1999: 32.1; 

Expenditures: 2000: 36.5; Expenditures: 2001: 34.2; Expenditures: 2002: 

36.4; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 272.8.



State of Florida; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; Expenditures: 

1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1996: 

[Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; 

Total

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



South Florida Water Management District; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 

19.2; Expenditures: 1994: 25.5; Expenditures: 1995: 27.5; Expenditures: 

1996: 27.4; Expenditures: 1997: 26.4; Expenditures: 1998: 30.5; 

Expenditures: 1999: 31.1; Expenditures: 2000: 37.6; Expenditures: 2001: 

31.9; Expenditures: 2002: 45.7; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 302.8.



Total Federal and State Funding[C]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 27.8; 

Expenditures: 1994: 37.0; Expenditures: 1995: 47.4; Expenditures: 1996: 

49.2; Expenditures: 1997: 60.8; Expenditures: 1998: 66.1; Expenditures: 

1999: 63.2; Expenditures: 2000: 74.1; Expenditures: 2001: 66.0; 

Expenditures: 2002: 82.1; [Empty]; Total

1993-2002[C]: 575.6.



[End of table]



Source: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).



[A] All dollars have been adjusted to constant fiscal year 2002 

dollars.



[B] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agencys funding 

are its Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results 

(STAR) grants, which total approximately $10 million and $13 million 

respectively. The agencys Clean Water Act grants are provided for 

research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality in South 

Florida. Some of the agencys STAR grants are provided for ecosystem 

research in South Florida.



[C] The sum of the agency dollars may not equal the totals due to 

rounding.



Table 6: Expenditures by Federal and State Agencies for Research, 

Monitoring, and Assessment Activities, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:



Dollars in millions[A].



Department of Commerce; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Expenditures: 

Research: 31.5; Expenditures: Monitoring: 5.6; Expenditures: 

Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 37.1.



Department of Agriculture; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; 

[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Agriculture Research Service; Expenditures: Research: 34.9; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: 0.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; 

Total 1993-2002[C]: 34.9.



Department of Defense; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



Army Corps of Engineers; Expenditures: Research: 18.7; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 14.5; Expenditures: Assessment: 4.2; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 37.5.



Department of the Interior; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; 

[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



U.S. Geological Survey; Expenditures: Research: 45.9; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 8.1; Expenditures: Assessment: 23.1; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 77.2.



National Park Service; Expenditures: Research: 26.3; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 9.3; Expenditures: Assessment: 12.5; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 48.1.



Fish and Wildlife Service; Expenditures: Research: 0.0; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 10.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 10.0.



Bureau of Indian Affairs; Expenditures: Research: 3.4; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 0.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 3.4.



Environmental Protection Agency[B]; Expenditures: Research: 5.7; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: 16.4; Expenditures: Assessment: 2.6; 

[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 24.7.



Federal Total[C]; Expenditures: Research: 166.4; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: 63.9; Expenditures: Assessment: 42.4; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: 272.8.



State of Florida; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures: 

Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total 

1993-2002[C]: [Empty].



South Florida Water Management District; Expenditures: Research: 80.6; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: 141.3; Expenditures: Assessment: 80.9; 

[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 302.8.



Total Federal and State Funding[C]; Expenditures: Research: 247.0; 

Expenditures: Monitoring: 205.2; Expenditures: Assessment: 123.3; 

[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 575.6.



[End of table]



Source: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).



[A] All dollars have been adjusted to constant fiscal year 2002 

dollars.



[B] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agencys funding 

are its Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results 

(STAR) grants, which total approximately $10 million and $13 million 

respectively. The agencys Clean Water Act grants are provided for 

research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality in South 

Florida. Some of the agencys STAR grants are provided for ecosystem 

research in South Florida.



[C] The sum of the agency dollars may not equal the totals due to 

rounding.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:



United States Department of the Interior:



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:



FEB 19, 2003:



Mr. Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team U.S. General 

Accounting Office

441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548:



Dear Mr. Hill:



The Department of the interior appreciates the opportunity to review 

the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination 

to Increase the Likelihood of Success (GAO-03-345).



We appreciate the focus the report provides on Everglades science 

programs, which are integral to guiding the four-decade 

intergovernmental restoration effort to success. As steward of 

approximately one-half the remaining Everglades, the Department agrees 

with the GAO that improved coordination among multi-agency science 

programs is necessary. In doing so, agencies will maximize resources, 

avoid duplication of effort, share scientific expertise and ensure that 

the highest priority scientific needs are addressed in a timely 

fashion. Proper coordination of science programs will ensure that the 

best available science is incorporated into decision-making and that 

monitoring and assessment functions are based upon sound scientific 

principles.



Everglades restoration is a complex undertaking that will take place 

over the next four decades, with many factors contributing to the total 

effort. It is therefore not surprising that gaps remain in the 

scientific understanding of how certain projects should be designed, or 

work together, to achieve a restored Everglades ecosystem. As agencies 

move forward with implementing the many projects that collectively 

comprise the Everglades restoration effort, we agree with GAO that 

project-specific gaps need to be filled to ensure that projects perform 

as anticipated and contribute toward restoration.



Although we agree with the major premises in the report, we have some 

concerns that the report does not adequately acknowledge existing 

processes to obtain scientific information (and fill scientific gaps) 

for ongoing Everglades restoration projects. For example, the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides mechanisms to 

address gaps in scientific information. Although only recently 

authorized, CERP is based upon nearly two decades of scientific inquiry 

associated with understanding the natural hydrology of the Everglades. 

In large part, CERP is meant to improve the quantity, quality, timing 

and distribution of water for the Everglades natural system. This in 

turn is anticipated to result in improved ecological performance, 

thereby facilitating achievement of the three primary 

Everglades restoration goals, which are generally described in the 

report. Despite the scientific basis upon which CERP was developed, 

specific questions remain on the performance of certain CERP features, 

particularly aquifer storage and retrieval and wastewater reuse, and 

how best to implement individual CERP component features, both 

authorized and those requiring future authorization.



The Department anticipates that the Corps of Engineers pilot projects, 

which will investigate uncertain technologies and planning processe, 

will address the gaps in information in an orderly way so that 

sufficient scientific information is available prior to finalizing 

project-specific designs, or before additional projects are submitted 

to the Congress for future authorization. Additionally, CERP 

implementation procedures, including an adaptive management program, 

are described in the Corps of Engineers draft programmatic 

regulations, which were released to the public last summer and are 

anticipated to be finalized later this year. For example, the draft 

regulations specifically implement the requirements of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which requires 

processes to, among other things, ensure that new information 

resulting from changed or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or 

technical information or information that is developed through the 

principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or future 

authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation 

of the Plan (emphasis added). The processes proposed by the 

programmatic regulations ensure that sufficient scientific information 

will be acquired and integrated into CERP decision-making, monitoring 

and assessment protocols will be established, and management actions 

will be based upon this information so that restoration is achieved.



To assist the Corps efforts to implement CERP, as well as implement 

other ongoing projects to achieve Everglades restoration goals 

concerning habitat restoration and recovery of endangered species, we 

are improving the coordination of our own science programs through the 

development of a Department of the Interior Science Plan.



Our science plan is a direct result of improved coordination among 

Interior bureaus. Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National 

Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department executed 

a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate Everglades science 

programs. The Departments science plan will support the needs of the 

National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service - our land managing 

agencies - in implementing Everglades restoration programs, including 

CERP. The science plan is being developed under the leadership of the 

Geological Survey and will identify the issues that must be resolved 

through further scientific inquiry for each restoration project 

underway. Once the issues are identified, the plan will describe the 

adequacy of the scientific information gathered to date, any gaps that 

remain, and a strategy to acquire sufficient scientific knowledge so 

that agency decisions maybe based upon sound science. As part of this 

effort, the Geological Survey will coordinate our science with our 

federal, tribal and state partners by establishing the Greater 

Everglades Science Coordination Council. The Councils first meeting is 

this month and we hope to have the science plan completed by the end of 

the first half of this year. If we are successful, our science plan 

may serve as a model to other Task Force agencies who also manage 

science programs contributing to the restoration effort. Additionally, 

to improve coordination among Interior bureaus, the FY 2004 Presidents 

Budget proposes to consolidate our Everglades science program funding 

under the Geological Survey.



While we agree that improved coordination of scientific activities for 

the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative is necessary, we 

also have some concerns with the reports characterization of the role 

of the Task Force. As you know, Section 528 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303, WRDA 1996) established the 

intergovernmental South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and 

its Florida-based Working Group to, among other things, coordinate 

consistent policies, strategies, plans and programs to address the 

restoration, preservation and protection of the South Florida 

ecosystem. The Secretary of the Interior is designated by statute as 

Task Force chair. Specifically, WRDA 1996 provides, in relevant part, 

that the Task Force:



(B) shall coordinate the development of consistent policies, 

strategies, plan, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for 

addressing the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South 

Florida ecosystem;



(C) shall exchange information regarding programs, projects, and 

activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force 

to promote ecosystem restoration and maintenance;



(D) shall establish a Florida-based working group which shall include 

representatives of the agencies and entities represented on the 

Taskforce as well as other governmental entities as appropriate for the 

purpose offormulating, recommending, coordinating, and implementing 

the policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and 

priorities ofthe Task Force;



(G) shall coordinate scientific and other research associated with the 

restoration of the South Florida ecosystem;



Although the Task Force plays a key coordination role, it does not have 

the legal authority to manage the restoration effort. Nor does it 

direct any specific programs, including scientific research. These are 

instead encompassed within the diverse agency programs that 

collectively contribute to a restored Everglades. Each Task Force 

member retains its authority to manage the programs for which it is 

responsible and brings its unique expertise and perspective to the 

entire group. This forum allows policy representatives to further 

collaboration among the federal, state and tribal parties to achieve 

common restoration goals. This distinction is important. We are 

concerned that the GAO draft report could be read as indicating the 

Task Force is in charge of the restoration effort or can dictate 

executive action to its member agencies.



The draft GAO report recommends that the Task Force clarify the broad 

responsibilities of the Science Coordination Team or SCT, by specifying 

the plans and documents, including a science plan to focus on 

information gaps, a comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress reports 

for each plan, the SCT needs to complete. Additionally, the report 

recommends that the Task Force evaluate the SCTs staffing and 

personnel needs so that the SCT may carry out is responsibilities. 

Further, the draft report also recommends that the Task Force establish 

a process to ensure that key management issues requiring science 

planning are identified and that scientific issues are synthesized.



We agree that the responsibilities of the SCT can be clarified and that 

these issues should be addressed by the Task Force. However, we note 

that the ultimate decision on the role of the SCT, as well as the other 

recommendations for executive action contained in the report, must be 

made by the Task Force, rather than the Department of the Interior. We 

agree to raise these issues with the Task Force to determine how best 

to proceed.



Although our comments on the draft report are informed by the views of 

our South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) 

colleagues, we are not responding on behalf of the Task Force. To do so 

would require the Task Force to disclose the contents of the draft 

report, which was not possible given the limits placed on its 

distribution. However, as soon as the report is publicly released, the 

Department looks forward to fully discussing the final report with the 

Task Force. We would appreciate the participation of GAO staff during 

that discussion so that the Task Force may fully address the reports 

recommendations for executive action and consider its response to the 

recommendations.



The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 

GAO draft report. More specific comments are contained in the enclosure 

to this letter and certain technical comments have been provided 

directly to GAO staff. If you have any additional questions or need 

additional information, please contact Ann R. Klee, Counselor to the 

Secretary, at (202) 208-6182.



Sincerely,



Signed by Lynn Scarlett:



Lynn Scarlett 

Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget:



[End of section]



Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contact:



Chet Janik (202) 512-6508:



Acknowledgments:



In addition to the person named above, Susan E. Iott, Jonathan 

McMurray, Beverly Peterson, Katherine Raheb, and Shelby D. Stephan made 

key contributions to this report.



FOOTNOTES



[1] Fifteen federal agencies are involved in restoration; 10 of them 

fall under 5 departments. Two Native American tribes, 7 Florida 

agencies or commissions, 16 counties, and scores of municipal 

governments are involved in the effort as well.



[2] In 1993, the Task Force formed a Science Subgroup; this team was 

subsequently reformed as the Science Coordination Team and given a 

charter with a broad range of responsibilities.



[3] Throughout this report, unless otherwise noted, dollars have been 

adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars. Further, the fiscal year for 

federal agencies and the South Florida Water Management District runs 

from October through September. 



[4] Sixty-eight of these species were listed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and one was listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.



[5] The irreversible physical changes made to the ecosystem make 

restoration to pristine conditions impossible. The restored Everglades 

will be smaller and somewhat differently arranged than the historic 

ecosystem.



[6] The original number of components in the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan was 68; the Corps and the District have reorganized 

the components to group those that are logically connected. For 

example, components around Lake Okeechobee have been combined into one 

project. The number of projects may continue to change for reasons of 

efficiency and sequencing of projects.



[7] The Task Force and Working Group have also incorporated three 

regional science groups that have been created to coordinate research 

on particular regions of the ecosystem. These groups are modeled after 

the Florida Bay Program Management Committee, which coordinates 

scientific research for the unique area that includes Florida Bay, a 

triangular estuary bounded by the mangroves in Everglades National 

Park, the Florida Keys, and the Gulf of Mexico that receives water that 

drains from the Everglades.



[8] Although 15 federal agencies participate in the restoration 

initiative, 8 of these agencies are involved in scientific activities.



[9] The U.S. Geological Surveys Placed-Based Studies Program was 

established to provide sound science for resource managers in critical 

ecosystems such as South Florida.



[10] These projects--the Canal 111 (C-111) and Modified Water Delivery 

projects--are under construction and are designed to improve the flow 

of water into the eastern part of Everglades National Park.



[11] In addition, a small portion of CESI funds has supported 

restoration management and planning efforts, including support for the 

CROGEE.



[12] Although there are 69 threatened and endangered species in South 

Florida, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National 

Marine Fisheries Service is solely responsible for one species, 

Johnsons seagrass, which is not included in the Multi-Species Recovery 

Plan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also shares 

the responsibility, with the Fish and Wildlife Service, for five 

different species of sea turtles, all of which are included in the 

Multi-Species Recovery Plan.



[13] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agency are its 

Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) 

grants, which total approximately $13 million and $10 million, 

respectively. The agencys Clean Water Act grants are provided for 

ecosystem research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality. Some 

of the agencys STAR grants are provided for ecosystem research in 

South Florida.



[14] We did not obtain total funding dollars on the amount of grants 

being given by the National Science Foundation in South Florida because 

the National Science Foundation tracks its grants by scientific 

discipline--such as geography, biology, ecology, or environmental 

engineering--not by the geographical region in which the work in being 

conducted.



[15] Base funding for the Long-Term Ecological Research Program is 

$700,000 per year for 6 years. In addition, participating programs have 

the opportunity to apply every year for supplemental funding for 

educational programs and equipment. These supplements average 

approximately $50,000 per year. The Florida Coastal Everglades Long-

Term Ecological Research Program has received approximately an 

additional $50,000 per year funding from the National Science 

Foundation since its inception in 2000.



[16] Lands in the vicinity of the project are already subject to 

development pressures. An administrative law judge determined in 

January that the Lennar property, a 516-acre parcel near Biscayne Bay, 

can be developed with homes despite potential plans for the wetlands 

project.



[17] RECOVER officials use the term performance measures to describe 

the set of natural and human system elements that they will measure to 

assess the success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 

Restoration officials use the term indicators to refer to a subset of 

these measures that will show progress toward ecosystem restoration. We 

use the term indicators to refer to the underlying performance measure 

as well as the indicator.



[18] The Department of the Interiors science plan has yet to be 

completed as of February 2003; thus we did not evaluate the 

effectiveness of the departments planning process.



[19] This area of land is to the northeast of Everglades National Park 

and is called the 8.5 square mile area.



[20] As of February 2003, the agencies had each provided $25,000.



GAOs Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOs commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAOs Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as Todays Reports, on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: