Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Interior 

and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Wednesday, March 26, 2003 SOUTH FLORIDA 

ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION 

Improved Science 

Coordination Needed to 

Increase the Likelihood 

of Success 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-03-518T 
From fiscal years 1993 through 2002, eight federal agencies and one state 

agency collectively spent $576 million to conduct mission-related scientific 

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

South Florida ecosystem. With this funding, which was almost evenly split 

between the federal agencies and the state agency, scientists have made 

progress in developing information—including information on the past, 

present, and future flow of water in the ecosystem—for restoration. 

While some scientific information has been obtained and understanding 

of the ecosystem improved, key gaps remain in scientific information 

needed for restoration. If not addressed quickly, these gaps could hinder 

the success of restoration. One particularly important gap is the lack of 

information regarding the amount and risk of contaminants, such as 

fertilizers and pesticides, in water and sediment throughout the ecosystem. 

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force—comprised of 

federal, state, local, and tribal entities—is responsible for coordinating the 

South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative. The Task Force is also 

responsible for coordinating scientific activities for restoration, but has yet 

to establish an effective means of doing so. In 1997, it created the SCT to 

coordinate the science activities of the many agencies participating in 

restoration. However, the Task Force did not give the SCT clear direction 

to carry out its responsibilities in support of the Task Force and restoration. 

Furthermore, unlike the full-time science coordinating bodies created for 

other restoration efforts, the SCT functions as a voluntary group with no 

full-time and few part-time staff. Without an effective means to coordinate 

restoration, the Task Force cannot ensure that restoration decisions are 

based on sound scientific information. 

Past, Present, and Future Flow of Water in South Florida 

Restoration of the South Florida 

ecosystem is a complex, long-term 

federal and state undertaking that 

requires the development 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. 

To improve the coordination of 

scientific activities for the South 

Florida ecosystem restoration 

initiative, GAO recommends that 

as chair of the South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force 

(Task Force), the Secretary of the 

Interior 

• clarify the plans and 

documents the Science 

Coordination Team (SCT) 

needs to complete and the 

time frames for completing 

them; 

• evaluate staffing needs of the 

SCT and allocate sufficient 

staff to carry out its duties; and

• take measures to improve the 

working relationship between 

the Task Force and the SCT. 

In commenting on the draft report, 

the Department of the Interior 

agreed with the premises of the 

report that scientific activities need 

to be better coordinated and that 

the SCT’s role needs to be clarified. 

Interior stated that the Task Force 

would ultimately review GAO’s 

recommendations and approve 

actions, as warranted. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-518T.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841. 

Highlights of GAO-03-518T, a report to the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior and Related 

Agencies, House Appropriations 

Committee 

March 26, 2003 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION 

Improved Science Coordination Needed 

to Increase the Likelihood of Success 
Page 1 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

The South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative seeks to restore the 

vast, mixed wetland habitat of South Florida—including the Everglades. 

Restoration efforts are expected to cost $15 billion and take as long as 

50 years to complete, and the ecological effects of these efforts may not 

be known until many years thereafter. Because of the long-term, complex 

nature of the initiative, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force (Task Force)—the group of federal, state, local, and tribal entities 

that Congress formally established in 1996 to coordinate the restoration 

efforts—determined that restoration decisions should be based on sound 

scientific information. To coordinate scientific activities for the initiative, 

in 1997, the Task Force created the Science Coordination Team (SCT).1

Because of the urgency to move forward with the initiative, complete 

scientific information may not be available when restoration decisions 

must be made. Recognizing that scientific information may be incomplete 

and uncertain, the Task Force has endorsed “adaptive management.” This 

approach requires scientific information to be updated throughout the 

restoration and provides flexibility to make changes to restoration 

projects and plans as needed. 

The Members of this Subcommittee have had a long-standing interest in 

the restoration initiative and recognize that science plays a critical role in 

the success of restoration. Multiple federal and state agencies that are 

involved in the initiative develop scientific information for restoration. 

These agencies conduct scientific research, monitoring, and assessments 

of environmental and other conditions in support of their individual 

agency goals, mandates, and missions. We are here to discuss our report 

being released today on (1) federal and state agency funding for scientific 

activities related to the restoration and the progress made in developing 

scientific information for the restoration, (2) gaps in scientific information 

needed for restoration, and (3) coordination of scientific information 

for restoration.2

 1

 In 1993, the Task Force—which at the time was only a federal group—formed a Science 

Subgroup; this team was subsequently reformed as the Science Coordination Team. 

2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Task Force Needs 

to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood of Success, GAO-03-345, 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2003). 
Page 2 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

Federal and state agencies have already committed considerable funds to 

develop scientific information to support South Florida ecosystem 

restoration decisions, a trend that is expected to continue. Since 1993, 

eight federal agencies and one key state agency spent $576 million to 

develop scientific information in support of the restoration initiative.3

 The 

eight federal agencies spent a total of $273 million of which, the largest 

federal participant—the Department of the Interior—spent $139 million. In 

addition, the State of Florida’s South Florida Water Management District 

(District) spent over $303 million on scientific activities related to 

restoration. With this federal and state funding, agencies have made 

progress in developing scientific information and tools necessary for 

restoration. 

Although agencies have developed some of the information that is needed 

to facilitate restoration efforts, key gaps remain, that if not addressed 

quickly, could hinder the success of particular projects as well as affect 

the health of the entire ecosystem. One particularly important gap is the 

lack of information regarding the amount and risk of contaminants, such 

as fertilizers and pesticides, in water and sediment throughout the 

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. 

Because multiple agencies conduct scientific activities for a variety of 

purposes under the restoration initiative, coordination is necessary to 

ensure that gaps in information are addressed and that important scientific 

information is synthesized and made available to managers. However, the 

Task Force has yet to establish an effective means of coordination. The 

SCT—the group created by the Task Force to coordinate scientific 

information for the restoration—has been limited in carrying out its 

coordination responsibilities by a number of factors. First, the SCT has not 

been given clear direction on what it is expected to accomplish. Second, it 

has no processes to ensure that key management issues that need to be 

addressed in science planning are identified or that critical science issues 

that require synthesis to provide input into restoration decisions are 

 3

 All funds have been adjusted to 2002 dollars. Throughout this report, we refer 

to fiscal years unless otherwise noted. Both the federal and South Florida Water 

Management District fiscal years run from October through September. 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

prioritized. Finally, the SCT lacks the resources it needs to adequately 

carry out its broad responsibilities. 

Until the Task Force addresses these limitations, the coordination of 

scientific activities is not likely to materially improve. The SCT will 

continue to be limited in its capacity to help ensure that (1) scientific 

gaps are filled, (2) progress toward restoration is monitored, and 

(3) adjustments to restoration projects and plans are made as needed. 

Without effective coordination of scientific activities, the Task Force has 

scant assurance that the scientific information needed to make key 

restoration decisions will be made available, thus decreasing the 

likelihood that restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will be 

successful. Although we found poor coordination of scientific activities 

and gaps in scientific information for restoration, we are not advocating 

the initiative be delayed. Rather, we believe that restoration projects and 

plans should move forward, given the Task Force’s commitment to 

adaptively manage the restoration, and are therefore making 

recommendations to improve coordination. Specifically, 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 and evaluate the SCT’s staffing needs, ensuring 

that the SCT has sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities. In 

commenting on a draft of our report, the Department of the Interior—as 

chair of the Task Force—largely agreed with our recommendations, but 

stated that the Task Force itself will ultimately make the decision on the 

actions taken to address these recommendations. 

The South Florida ecosystem encompasses a broad range of natural, 

urban, and agricultural areas surrounding the remnant Everglades. Before 

human intervention, freshwater in the ecosystem flowed south from Lake 

Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad, slow-moving sheet, creating the 

mix of wetlands that form the ecosystem. These wetlands, interspersed 

with dry areas, created habitat for abundant wildlife, fish, and birds. 

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

supports a large agricultural, tourist, and industrial economy. To facilitate 

development in the area, 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 engineering changes that resulted from 

the project, and subsequent agricultural, industrial, and urban 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

development, reduced the Everglades ecosystem to about half its original 

size, causing detrimental effects to fish, bird, and other wildlife habitats 

and to water quality. 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 
Page 5 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

Efforts to reverse the detrimental effects of development on the ecosystem 

led to the formal establishment of the Task Force, authorized by the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. The Task Force, charged 

with coordinating and facilitating the restoration of the ecosystem, 

established three overall goals to: 

• 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 and the 

spread of invasive species has caused sharp declines in native plant and 

animal populations. 

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

development patterns that are complementary to ecosystem restoration 

and to a restored natural system. 

Figure 2 shows the relationship of the agencies participating in 

restoration, the Task Force, and the three restoration goals. 

Figure 2: The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Membership and Goals 
Page 6 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

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 agency 

managers and the Task Force with updated scientific information, the 

Task Force has endorsed adaptive management, a process that requires 

key tools, such as models, continued research, and monitoring plans. 

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 scientific activities, with the Department of the Interior spending 

$139 million (about half) of the funds. The level of federal expenditures, 

which increased by over 50 percent in 1997, has since remained relatively 

constant. The South Florida Water Management District—the state agency 

most heavily involved in scientific activities for restoration—spent 

$303 million from 1993 through 2002. The District’s expenditures have 

increased steadily since 1993, with significant increases in 2000 and 2002. 

Figure 3 shows the total federal and state expenditures for scientific 

activities related to restoration over the last decade. 

Federal and State 

Agencies Spent 

$576 Million on 

Scientific Activities 

for the South Florida 

Ecosystem and 

Made Progress in 

Some Areas 
Page 7 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

Figure 3: Federal and State Expenditures for Scientific Activities for South Florida Restoration, 

Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002 

Eight federal agencies are involved in scientific activities for the 

restoration: the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey, 

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

Affairs; the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research 

Service; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Within the Department of the Interior, four agencies spent $139 million on 

scientific activities. The U.S. Geological Survey spent over half of the 

Interior funding, or $77 million, primarily on its Placed-Based Studies 

Program, which provides information, data, and models to other agencies 

to support decisions for ecosystem restoration and management. The 
Page 8 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

National Park Service spent about $48 million for the Critical Ecosystem 

Studies Initiative (CESI), a program begun in 1997 to accelerate research 

to provide scientific information for the restoration initiative. The National 

Park Service used CESI funding to support research (1) to characterize the 

ecosystem’s predrainage and current conditions and (2) to identify 

indicators for monitoring the success of restoration in Everglades National 

Park, other parks, and public lands and to develop models and tools to 

assess the effects of water projects on these natural lands. Of the 

remaining Interior funding, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs spent $10 million and $3 million, respectively. 

Four agencies spent the other federal funds—$134 million. The Corps 

of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

spent approximately $37 million each, primarily on research activities. 

Two other federal agencies—the Agricultural Research Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency—spent the remaining $60 million in 

federal funds. 

In addition to the $273 million spent by federal agencies, the State of 

Florida’s 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. 

With these federal and state expenditures, scientists have made some 

progress in developing scientific information and adaptive management 

tools. In particular, scientists now better understand the historic and 

current hydrological conditions in the ecosystem and developed models 

that allow them to forecast the effects of water management alternatives 

on the ecosystem. Scientists also made significant progress in developing 

information on the sources, transformations, and fate of mercury—a 

contaminant that affects water quality and the health of birds, animals, and 

humans—in the South Florida ecosystem. Specifically, scientists 

determined that atmospheric sources account for greater than 95 percent 

of the mercury that is added to the ecosystem. In addition, scientists made 

progress in developing (1) a method that uses a natural predator to control 

Melaleuca, an invasive species, and (2) techniques to reduce high levels of 

nutrients—primarily phosphorus—in the ecosystem. 
Page 9 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

While scientists made progress in developing scientific information, they 

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. We reviewed 10 critical 

restoration projects and plans and discussed the scientific information 

needs remaining for these projects with scientists and project managers. 

On the basis of our review, we identified three types of gaps in scientific 

information: (1) gaps that threaten systemwide restoration if they are not 

addressed; (2) gaps that threaten the success of particular restoration 

projects if they are not addressed; and (3) gaps in information and tools 

that will prevent restoration officials from using adaptive management to 

pursue restoration goals. 

An example of a gap that could hinder systemwide restoration is 

information on contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides. Scientists 

are concerned that the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides—which are 

transported by water and soil and are deposited in sediments—near 

natural areas in South Florida increases the discharge of chemical 

compounds into these 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 these organisms 

and those that feed on them. Scientists need information on the amount of 

contaminants that could be discharged into the environment, the amounts 

that persist in water and sediment, and the risks faced by organisms living 

in areas with contaminants—even low levels of contaminants on a longterm basis. If this information is not available, scientists cannot determine 

whether contaminants harm fish and other organisms or whether the 

redistribution of water will introduce potentially harmful contaminants to 

parts of the ecosystem that are relatively undisturbed. 

An example of a gap that could hinder the progress of a specific project is 

information needed to complete 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, among other purposes, to increase the amount of water 

running through the eastern part of Everglades National Park and restore 

Gaps Remain in 

the Scientific 

Information Needed 

for Restoration 
Page 10 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

the “ridge and slough” habitat.4 However, scientists identified the need for 

continued work to understand the role of flowing water in the creation of 

ridge and slough habitat. If the information is not developed, the project 

designs may be delayed or inadequate, forcing scientists and project 

managers to spend time redesigning projects or making unnecessary 

modifications to those already built. 

An example of a gap in key tools needed for adaptive management is the 

lack of mathematical models that would allow scientists to simulate 

aspects of the ecosystem and better understand how the ecosystem 

responds to restoration actions. Scientists identified the need for several 

important models including models for Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and 

systemwide vegetation. Without such tools, the process of adaptive 

management will be hindered because scientists and managers will be less 

able to monitor and assess key indicators of restoration and evaluate the 

effects created by particular restoration actions. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 requires the Task Force 

to coordinate scientific research for South Florida restoration; however, 

the Task Force has not established an effective means to do so, 

diminishing assurance that key scientific information will be developed 

and available to fill gaps and support restoration decisions. The SCT’s 

main responsibilities 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 invasive species and sustainable agriculture. As the 

restoration has proceeded, other groups have been created to manage 

scientific activities and information for particular programs or issues, but 

these groups are more narrowly focused than the SCT. These groups and a 

more detailed discussion of their individual purposes appear in appendix I. 

 4

 This habitat contains slightly elevated, north-south ridges dominated by sawgrass, 

interspersed with sloughs, which are open water areas with sparse vegetation. It may also 

have “tree islands,” which have woody vegetation more suited to dry areas than wetlands 

and serve as important habitat for some species. High water levels have destroyed many 

tree islands, areas that scientists and others seek to restore. 

The Restoration 

Initiative Lacks 

an Effective Means to 

Coordinate Scientific 

Activities 
Page 11 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

Although the Task Force created the SCT as a science coordination group, 

it established the group with several organizational limitations, 

contributing to the SCT’s inability to accomplish several important 

functions. Specifically, the Task Force did not: 

• Provide specific planning requirements, including requirements for a 

science plan or comprehensive monitoring plan. 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. In addition, a comprehensive monitoring plan would support 

the evaluation of restoration activities. This plan would identify measures 

and indicators of a restored ecosystem—for all three goals of 

restoration—and would provide scientists with a key tool to implement 

adaptive management. 

• Establish processes that (1) provide management input for science 

planning and (2) identify and prioritize scientific issues for the SCT to 

address in its synthesis reports. Scientists and managers have both noted 

the need for an effective process that allows the Task Force to identify 

significant restoration management issues or questions that scientific 

activities need to address. In addition, a process used to select issues for 

synthesis reports needs to be transparent to members of the SCT and the 

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

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

scientific groups involved in restoration efforts, such as the Chesapeake 

Bay effort, address transparency and credibility is the use an advisory 

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

and issues. 

• Provide resources for carrying out its responsibilities. Only two 

agencies—the U.S. Geological Survey and the South Florida Water 

Management District—have allocated some staff time for SCT duties. 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 fulltime staff to coordinate agencies’ science efforts and develop plans and 

reports, and administrative staff to support functions. 

To improve the coordination of scientific activities for the South Florida 

ecosystem restoration initiative, we recommended in our report—released 

today—that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the Task Force, take 

several actions to strengthen the SCT. First, the plans and documents to be 
Page 12 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

produced by the SCT should be specified, along with time frames for 

completing them. Second, a process should be established to provide Task 

Force input into planning for scientific activities. Third, a process—such 

as independent advisory board review—should be established to prioritize 

the issues requiring synthesis of scientific information. Finally, an 

assessment of the SCT’s resource needs should be made and sufficient 

staff resources should be allocated to SCT efforts. In commenting on a 

draft of our report, the Department of the Interior agreed with the 

premises of our report that scientific activities for restoration need to be 

better coordinated and the SCT’s responsibilities need to be clarified. 

However, Interior noted that the Task Force itself will ultimately need to 

agree on the actions necessary to strengthen the SCT. Although Interior 

agreed to coordinate the comments of the Task Force agencies, it could 

not do so because this would require the public disclosure of the 

draft report. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. If you or other 

Members of the Subcommittee have any questions, I will be pleased to 

answer them. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

included Susan Iott, Chet Janik, Beverly Peterson, and Shelby Stephan. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 13 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and 

participating agencies have created several groups with responsibilities for 

various scientific activities. One of these teams—the Science Coordination 

Team (SCT) created by the Task Force—is the only group responsible for 

coordinating restoration science activities that relate to all three of the 

Task Force’s restoration goals (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science 

Other teams that have been created with responsibility for scientific 

activities include the Restoration Coordination and Verification 

(RECOVER) program teams, the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery 

Implementation Team, the Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team, and the 

Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem 

(CROGEE). As shown in figure 4, each of these teams is responsible for 

scientific activities related to specific aspects of restoration. 

First, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water 

Management District created the RECOVER program to help implement 

their Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which is a conceptual 

Appendix I: Groups Responsible for 

Coordinating Scientific Activities for the 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 
Page 14 GAO-03-518T South Florida Restoration 

plan for improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water 

in the South Florida ecosystem. The plan will primarily help to achieve the 

first restoration goal to restore the flow of water in the ecosystem but will 

also help to restore wetland habitats affected by water management—part 

of the second restoration goal. The program is responsible for assessing, 

monitoring, and evaluating progress in implementing the plan. As part of 

this responsibility, the RECOVER program teams are to ensure that 

scientific information is available to make decisions on the effects of the 

plan on the ecosystem. 

Second, the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team 

(MERIT) is a multiagency, multiparty implementation team created to help 

implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Multi-Species Restoration 

Plan, which is to recover species that are threatened or endangered under 

the federal Endangered Species Act. MERIT is responsible for identifying 

and prioritizing actions that can be taken to help recover 68 threatened 

and endangered species in South Florida.1

Third, to coordinate and implement scientific information on invasive 

species, the Task Force created a team called the Noxious Exotic Weed 

Task Team, which has written a strategy to coordinate the actions of 

multiple agencies in South Florida to deal with invasive plants. The Task 

Force plans to create another team to address invasive animals. 

Finally, the Task Force worked with the National Academy of Sciences to 

form the 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 was created in 1999 and existed prior to the 

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

independent scientific group to review progress toward achieving the 

goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and to 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 National Academy of Sciences. 

 1

 Currently, 69 plant and animal species that are native to the ecosystem have 

been federally listed as threatened or endangered. Sixty-eight of these species were 

listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and one was listed by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

(360303)