South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Improved Science Coordination Needed to Increase the Likelihood of Success
Published: 2003-03-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 Science Coordination Team (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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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).  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
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.
section_title: Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Scientific Activities for the South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Gaps Remain in the Scientific Information Needed for Restoration
paragraphs: 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 long- term 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  the “ridge and slough” habitat. 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.
section_title: The Restoration Initiative Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate Scientific Activities
paragraphs: 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.
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 full- time 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  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.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Groups Responsible for Coordinating Scientific Activities for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
paragraphs: 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).
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.