South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs
Published: 2007-05-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles and is home to the Everglades, a national resource. Over the past 100 years, efforts to manage the flow of water through the ecosystem have jeopardized its health. In 2000, a strategy to restore the ecosystem was set; restoration was expected to take at least 40 years and cost $15.4 billion. The restoration comprises hundreds of projects, including 60 key projects known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), to be undertaken by a partnership of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Given the size and complexity of the restoration, GAO was asked to report on the (1) status of project implementation and expected benefits, (2) factors that determine project sequencing, (3) amount of funding provided for the effort and extent that costs have increased, and (4) primary mathematical models that guide the restoration.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While many of the restoration effort's 222 projects have been completed or are ongoing, a core set of projects that are critical to the success of the restoration are behind schedule or not yet started. Specifically, 43 projects have been completed, 107 are being implemented, and 72 are in design, in planning, or are not yet started. The completed projects will provide improved water quality and additional habitat for wildlife, and the ongoing projects will also help restore wildlife habitat and improve water flow within the ecosystem. However, the projects most critical to the restoration's overall success--the CERP projects--are among those that are currently being designed, planned, or have not yet been started. Some of these projects are behind schedule by up to 6 years. Despite project delays, officials believe that significant progress has been made in acquiring land, constructing water quality projects, and restoring a natural water flow to the Kissimmee River--the headwater of the ecosystem. In addition, many of the policies, strategies, and agreements required to guide the restoration in the future are now in place. To help provide further momentum to the restoration, Florida recently began expediting the design and construction of eight key projects, with the hope that they would immediately benefit the environment, enhance flood control, and increase water supply. There are no overarching sequencing criteria that restoration officials use when making implementation decisions for all 222 projects that make up the restoration effort. Instead, decisions for 162 projects are driven largely by the availability of funds. For the remaining 60 projects--which are among the most critical to the success of the restoration effort--the Corps of Engineers and the Congress established criteria to ensure the goals and purposes of CERP are achieved. However, the sequencing plan developed for these projects in 2005 is not consistent with the criteria established by the Corps. Therefore, there is little assurance that the plan will be effective. From fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the federal government contributed $2.3 billion, and Florida contributed $4.8 billion, for a total of about $7.1 billion for the restoration. However, CERP funding was about $1.2 billion short of the funds originally projected for this period. In addition, the total estimated costs for the restoration have increased by 28 percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7 billion in 2006. More importantly, these cost estimates do not represent the true costs for the overall restoration effort because they do not include all cost components for a number of projects. There are 27 primary mathematical models that guide the restoration effort. These include (1) hydrological, (2) water quality, and (3) ecological models. Although 21 of the 27 models are able to interface with other models and provide a more comprehensive pictureof the impact of restoration efforts on the ecosystem, many agency officials stated that additional interfaces are needed. Because coordinating the development of these interfaces is resource intensive, it has been a low priority for the agencies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The South Florida ecosystem, which covers about 18,000 square miles,  extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando, Florida, to  the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. This vast ecosystem is home to  the Everglades, one of the world’s unique environmental resources, and to  the only living coral reef in North America. The South Florida ecosystem is  also home to a rapidly growing population of more than 6 million people  and supports a large agriculture-, tourism-, and recreation-based economy.  Over the past 100 years, engineering projects designed to control floods  and supply water to the residents of South Florida have diverted water  from the Everglades. This alteration of the water flow, coupled with  agricultural and industrial activities and urbanization, has jeopardized the  ecosystem’s health and reduced the Everglades to about half its original  size. In 2000, when the strategy for restoring the South Florida ecosystem  was set, the restoration effort was expected to take at least 40 years and  cost $15.4 billion.
In response to growing signs of ecosystem deterioration, federal agencies  established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in 1993  to coordinate ongoing federal restoration activities. The Water Resources  Development Act of 1996 formally established the Task Force and  expanded its membership to include state, local, and tribal  representatives, and charged it with coordinating and facilitating efforts to  restore the ecosystem. To accomplish the restoration, the Task Force  established the following three goals:    Get the water right. The purpose of this goal is to deliver the right  amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places, at the right  times. However, restoring a more natural water flow to the ecosystem  while providing adequate water supplies and controlling floods will  require efforts to expand the ecosystem’s freshwater supply and  improve the delivery of water to natural areas. Natural areas of the  ecosystem are made up of federal and state lands, and coastal waters,  estuaries, bays, and islands.
Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species. To restore  lost and altered habitats and recover the endangered or threatened  species native to these habitats, the federal and state governments will  have to acquire lands and reconnect natural habitats that have become  disconnected through growth and development, and halt the spread of  invasive species.
Foster compatibility of the built and natural systems. To achieve the  long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, the restoration effort has the  goal of maintaining the quality of life in urban areas while ensuring that  (1) development practices limit habitat fragmentation and support  conservation and (2) traditional industries, such as agriculture, fishing,  and manufacturing, continue to be supported and do not damage the  ecosystem.
To achieve these three overall goals, agencies participating in the  restoration effort are implementing 222 ecosystem restoration projects.  These 222 projects comprise a full spectrum of restoration activities and  include the following:   Water storage and flow. These types of projects include (1)  constructing reservoirs and underground wells to store rainwater that  would otherwise flow to the ocean through Florida’s canal system; (2)  removing barriers such as canals, levees, and roads to allow this stored  water to flow naturally throughout the ecosystem; (3) reducing seepage  of groundwater from natural areas; and (4) developing new protocols  for managing water levels and flows across South Florida to ensure  that the right quantity of water gets to the right places at the right  times.
Water quality. These types of projects involve (1) constructing man- made wetlands that can function as stormwater treatment areas and  help reduce contaminants such as phosphorus and nitrogen in urban  and agricultural runoff and (2) developing regulatory approaches and promoting best management practices that can further help reduce  these contaminants.
Water supply. These types of projects help reduce the amount of water  used by the public and in commerce, landscaping, and agriculture as  well as increase water resources. These projects include revising water  permitting procedures, encouraging the reuse of wastewater in regions  throughout the ecosystem, and developing alternative technologies.
Habitat acquisition and improvement. These types of projects  include federal and state purchases of land tracts or easements, or  improvements made to lands already in public ownership, that can be  used to preserve habitat for native plants and animals, provide sites for  reservoirs, and act as buffers near existing natural areas.
Invasive species control. These types of projects include efforts to  eradicate invasive plants that have displaced native plant and animal  species throughout the South Florida ecosystem.
One of the key components of the restoration effort is the Comprehensive  Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)—the primary means by which the  goal of “getting the water right” will be achieved. Approved by the Water  Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), CERP is one of the  most ambitious restoration efforts the federal government has ever  undertaken. It currently encompasses 60 individual projects that will be  designed and implemented over approximately 40 years. These projects  are intended to increase the water available for the natural areas by  capturing much of the water that is currently being diverted, storing the  water in many different reservoirs and storage wells, and releasing it when  it is needed. The cost of implementing CERP will be shared equally  between the federal government and the state of Florida and will be  carried out primarily by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and  the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which is the state  authority that manages water resources for South Florida. After the Corps  and SFWMD complete the initial planning and design for individual CERP  projects, they must submit the proposed projects to the Congress to obtain  authorization and funding for construction.
In addition to the CERP projects, another 162 projects are also part of the  overall restoration effort. Twenty-eight of these projects, when completed,  will serve as the foundation for many of the CERP projects and are  intended to restore a more natural water flow to Everglades National Park  and improve water quality in the ecosystem. Nearly all of these “CERP- related” projects were already being designed or implemented by federal  and state agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and SFWMD, in  2000 when the Congress approved CERP. The remaining 134 projects  include a variety of efforts that will, among other things, expand wildlife  refuges, eradicate invasive species, and restore wildlife habitat, and are  being implemented by a number of federal, state, and tribal agencies, such  as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of  Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.  Because these projects were not authorized as part of CERP and do not  serve as CERP’s foundation, for the purposes of this report we refer to  them as “non-CERP” projects.
Success in completing the restoration effort to achieve the expected  benefits for the ecosystem as quickly as possible and in the most cost- effective manner depends on the order, or sequencing, in which many of  the 222 projects will be designed and completed. Appropriate sequencing  is also important to ensure that interdependencies among restoration  projects are not ignored. For example, projects that will construct water  storage facilities and stormwater treatment areas need to be completed  before undertaking projects that remove levees and restore a more natural  water flow to the ecosystem.
The Task Force has identified a set of key guiding principles for managing  the restoration effort and its many related projects. One of the key  principles is that decisions about restoration projects will be based on  sound scientific information. A tool that can provide agencies with this  kind of scientific information is the use of mathematical models that  simulate hydrological, ecological, and water quality processes and shows  how restoration projects will change, or have changed, the ecosystem. The  models also help identify project adjustments that are needed to achieve  the restoration goals. Because no single model can comprehensively  predict and assess all of the effects of a project, models may need to be  designed to interface with other models so that they can exchange  information for a more holistic simulation of a project’s impact.
Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem  restoration, you asked us to review the current status of the effort,  focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and their  expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of project  implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the restoration effort  since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have occurred and the  reasons for these increases; and (5) primary mathematical models used to  guide the restoration effort and the extent to which these models have  interfaces.
To determine the extent to which restoration projects have been  completed and to identify their expected benefits, we obtained and  analyzed documents from the Task Force and agencies participating in the  restoration effort and interviewed agency and Task Force officials. On the  basis of this information, we compiled a master list of completed, ongoing,  and planned restoration projects and their benefits. For this review, we  generally categorized projects and expected benefits by their primary  purpose, as identified by the Task Force.
To determine the factors that participating agencies considered when  deciding on the sequence for implementing restoration projects, we  contacted the agencies responsible for the largest number of restoration  projects—the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD, and FDEP.  We also selected certain CERP projects for more detailed analysis,  obtained and reviewed documents and related material, and conducted  interviews with the Corps and SFWMD officials responsible for sequencing  decisions related to these projects. In addition, we reviewed comments by  other agencies and external stakeholders about the appropriateness of the  factors used to determine the sequencing of CERP projects. To determine  the amount of funding that participating agencies provided and the extent  to which restoration costs have increased, we asked participating federal  and state agencies to provide funding information for fiscal years 1999  through 2006 and estimated project costs through June 30, 2006. We  interviewed agency officials about the factors contributing to cost  increases. All funding and cost data presented in this report are in  constant 2006 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the funding and cost  data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our study. To determine the primary models that can be used  to guide the restoration effort and the interfaces among them, we  compiled a universe of models available for the restoration effort, and  then asked managers and scientists familiar with modeling and the  restoration effort to identify those primary models and their interfaces. We  also reviewed academic and agency Web sites to obtain supplemental  information about these models and their interfaces.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I. We performed our work between January 2006 and April 2007  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles in 16  counties and extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando  to Lake Okeechobee, and continues south past the Florida Bay to the reefs  southwest of the Florida Keys. The ecosystem is in jeopardy today because  of past efforts that diverted water from the Everglades to control flooding  and to supply water for urban and agricultural development. The Central  and Southern Florida project, a large-scale water control project begun in  the late 1940s, constructed more than 1,700 miles of canals and levees and  over 200 water control structures that drain an average of 1.7 billion  gallons of water per day into the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.  This construction resulted in insufficient water for the natural system and  for the growing population, along with degraded water quality. Today, the  Everglades has been reduced to half its original size and the ecosystem  continues to deteriorate because of the alteration of the water flow,  impacts of agricultural and industrial activities, and increasing  urbanization. Figure 1 shows the South Florida ecosystem before and after  the Central and Southern Florida project construction.
subsections: section_title: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
paragraphs: In an effort to stem the deterioration of the ecosystem and restore the  Everglades to a more natural state, federal agencies created the South  Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) in 1993, an  interagency partnership to coordinate federal restoration activities. The  Congress formally established the Task Force and expanded its  membership in 1996 to include state and local agencies and two American  Indian tribes and charged the Task Force with the following  responsibilities for restoring the South Florida ecosystem:    coordinating the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans,  programs, projects, activities, and priorities for addressing the restoration,  preservation, and protection of the ecosystem;   exchanging information on programs, projects, and activities of the  agencies and entities represented on the Task Force to promote ecosystem  restoration and maintenance; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts  associated with the restoration of the ecosystem among the agencies and  entities represented on the Task Force;   coordinating scientific and other research associated with the restoration    providing assistance and support to agencies and entities represented on  the Task Force in their restoration activities.
section_title: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
paragraphs: The centerpiece for achieving the goal to get the water right is the CERP,  approved by the Congress in WRDA 2000. CERP provides a conceptual  framework for increasing freshwater volume and improving the delivery  and quantity of water to natural areas in the South Florida ecosystem. It  also provides for the region’s other water-related needs, such as water  supply and flood protection in urban and agricultural areas. The estimated  cost for CERP in 2000 was $8.8 billion, to be shared on an equal basis  between the Corps and the state of Florida. Table 1 details the primary  purposes for the 60 CERP projects.
Before the Corps can proceed with implementing a CERP construction  project, WRDA 2000 requires that the Corps obtain congressional  authorization by submitting a detailed report on the project’s design, cost,  and other information (known as a project implementation report). WRDA  2000 also required the Corps to issue programmatic regulations for  implementing CERP projects. These regulations, effective in December  2003, required the Corps, among other things, to take the following  actions:  Issue no later than December 13, 2004, a master implementation  sequencing plan (MISP) that establishes the order in which CERP projects  will be planned, designed, and constructed, and periodically update the  plan.
Issue an interim goals agreement, no later than December 13, 2004, signed  by the Secretaries of the Army and of the Interior and the Governor of  Florida, for evaluating the restoration’s success and for assessing  improvements in the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water to  restore the natural system.
Establish an adaptive management program, which is an approach for  addressing the uncertainty associated with project decisions by  continuously incorporating new and updated information. Where  performance is determined to be less than anticipated, the adaptive  management approach allows for making needed changes to the interim  goals, projects, and the overall CERP program. Many of the program’s  efforts are led by a federal and state interagency science group known as  the Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) team.  RECOVER’s responsibilities under the program include assessing and  reporting whether interim goals are being achieved, developing monitoring  and assessment programs, and preparing technical reports.
section_title: CERP-Related and Non- CERP Projects
paragraphs: Agencies participating in the restoration effort are also implementing a  number of projects that serve as CERP’s foundation (CERP-related) as  well as projects that are not as closely related to CERP (non-CERP). The  CERP-related projects are a group of 28 projects, carried out primarily by  the Corps and SFWMD, that lay the foundation for the CERP projects. The  projects are being constructed throughout the ecosystem and are related  to storing, treating, and moving water. The 28 CERP-related projects also  include some projects that were authorized in WRDA 1996 and are  referred to as Critical Projects for the restoration of the South Florida  ecosystem. These water quality and related projects are essential to  successfully achieving the goal of getting the water right.
The non-CERP projects are a group of 134 projects that are being  sponsored by federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in South Florida. A  number of these projects had started—and some were completed—prior  to WRDA 2000. The projects vary in their purposes, with some involving  feasibility studies or plans to control invasive species and others focusing  on land acquisition for conservation and restoring habitat. Although these  projects are part of the overall restoration of the South Florida ecosystem,  their implementation generally does not depend upon other projects.  However, certain CERP and CERP-related projects will incorporate  portions of non-CERP land acquisitions into their project footprints as the  restoration progresses.
section_title: Use of Mathematical Models in Decision Making
paragraphs: Among the guiding principles of the South Florida ecosystem restoration  initiative is a commitment to managing projects and making decisions on  the basis of sound scientific information. Models, particularly  mathematical models, are among the tools that agency managers and  scientists use to support decision making on the basis of sound science.  These models are important to simulate ecosystem changes resulting from  restoration activities and to provide managers and scientists with  assurance that projects will work as intended to achieve environmental  benefits. Managers and scientists use mathematical hydrological,  ecological, and water quality models to predict regional or systemwide  impacts of project alternatives and to predict benefits that may result from  various possible alternatives.
To increase the ability of hydrological, ecological, and water quality  models to effectively predict environmental benefits and evaluate changes  to possible project alternatives, interfaces are needed. Interfaces allow  models to share and exchange data and simulate the impact of projects on  the ecosystem more comprehensively and effectively. The term interface  can cover a variety of mechanisms that allow a model to interact with  other models, such as computer software that allows users to  simultaneously view the results of multiple individual models, and  programs that allow for the exchange of input or output data between  models, or allow for hydrological, water quality, and ecological processes  to be simulated simultaneously in real time.
section_title: Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing, Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects Not Yet Implemented
paragraphs: Forty-three of the 222 projects that constitute the South Florida ecosystem  restoration effort have been completed, while the remaining projects are  currently being implemented or are either in design, being planned, or  have not yet started. Many of the completed projects are intended  primarily to improve water quality in natural areas or to acquire or  improve tracts of land in order to preserve wildlife habitat. The projects  now being implemented also emphasize the restoration of wildlife habitat  by acquiring or improving land, as well as the construction of key CERP- related projects that will improve water flow to natural areas. The projects  not yet implemented are largely CERP projects that are crucial to realizing  the restoration’s overall goals, but these projects are progressing slowly.  However, both agency and Task Force officials report a number of  achievements, such as finalizing key CERP agreements and restoring a  more natural water flow to the Kissimmee River. Table 2 shows the status  of the 222 restoration projects.
subsections: section_title: Completed Restoration Projects Primarily Improve Water Quality or Provide Wildlife Habitat
paragraphs: Of the 222 projects the Task Force and participating agencies identified as  part of the South Florida ecosystem restoration, 43 have been completed  since the beginning of the restoration effort: 9 before 2000 (including 1 as  early as 1986), and 34 between 2000 and 2006. However, this latter total is  far short of the 91 projects the Task Force and participating agencies  reported in 2000 would be completed by 2006. The nine projects  completed before 2000 are expected to provide benefits primarily in the  area of habitat acquisition and improvement. The primary purposes of the  34 projects completed between 2000 and 2006 range from the construction  of stormwater treatment areas, to the acquisition or improvement of land  for habitat, to the drafting of water supply plans. (App. II includes detailed  information on the 43 completed projects, their sponsors, primary  purposes, completion dates, and reported costs; the only projects  completed to date belong to the CERP-related and non-CERP categories.)
For the 43 completed projects, the three most common primary purposes  were water quality, habitat acquisition and improvement, and related  studies. For example, to improve water quality SFWMD constructed  Stormwater Treatment Areas 1, 2, 3/4, 5, and 6 within the Everglades  Agricultural Area located south of Lake Okeechobee. Similarly, for the  Cayo Costa project—a habitat acquisition and improvement project— Florida purchased a total of 1,954 acres, over 24 years, in southwestern  Florida off the coast of Fort Myers. This purchase is located within a small  chain of barrier islands that provide protection for Charlotte Harbor, one  of the state’s most productive estuaries. The project’s natural areas  demonstrate high species diversity, including some species that may be  unique to the islands. Figure 2 shows the types and locations of the 43  completed projects and their primary purposes.
section_title: Projects Being Implemented Primarily Include Land Acquisitions to Preserve Wildlife Habitat and Two Key CERP-Related Projects
paragraphs: Of the 222 ecosystem restoration projects, 107 are now being  implemented. Seven of the 107 are CERP projects, 10 are CERP-related  projects, and 90 are non-CERP projects. Five of the seven CERP projects  are being built by the state in advance of the Corps’ completion of the  necessary project implementation reports and submission of them to the  Congress for authorization and appropriations. Nonetheless, some of the  CERP projects currently in implementation are significantly behind  schedule. For example, four of the seven CERP projects in implementation  were originally scheduled for completion between November 2002 and  September 2006, but instead will be completed from 1 to 6 years behind  their original schedule, because it has taken the Corps longer than  originally anticipated to design and obtain approval for CERP projects.  Overall, 19 of the 107 projects currently being implemented have expected  completion dates by or before 2010. Of the remaining 88 projects, most are  non-CERP habitat acquisition and improvement projects that have no firm  end date because the land will be acquired from willing sellers as it  becomes available. Of the 24 non-CERP projects being implemented that  have established end dates, at least 9 are expected to be completed by or  before 2010. (App. II presents detailed information on the sponsor,  primary purpose, expected completion date, and estimated cost of each of  the 107 projects that are currently being implemented.)
More than half—65—of the 107 projects being implemented will acquire or  improve land for habitat, and at least 12 of these projects are on federal  lands. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is purchasing land in  the Big Cypress-Everglades region to provide additional habitat for the  endangered Florida panther, as part of its Florida Panther National  Wildlife Refuge acquisition. Other ongoing projects combat invasive  species on federal lands—such as the Hole-in-the-Donut, a non-CERP  project that is expected to restore approximately 6,000 acres within  Everglades National Park by eradicating Brazilian pepper, an invasive  plant species.
Among the projects currently being implemented are two key CERP- related construction projects that are expected to benefit Everglades  National Park as well as the natural areas outside of the park. The first is  the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters)  project, which is expected to restore natural hydrologic conditions across  190,000 acres of habitat in Everglades National Park and assist in the  recovery of threatened and endangered plants and wildlife. According to  Everglades National Park officials, this project is crucial to the park’s  rehydration and subsequent restoration. When we reported on the  restoration in 1999, Mod Waters was expected to be completed in 2003 at a  total cost of $157 million; the project is currently scheduled for  completion in 2009 at a total cost of $410 million, according to its most  recent capital asset plan (though agency officials do not expect the 2009  date to be met). The second project is known as C-111 South Dade, which  involves modifications to a north-south canal system (C-111) that runs  parallel to Florida’s east coast and provides flood protection and water  supply for urban and agricultural areas east of Everglades National Park.  The Corps and SFWMD are modifying the canals in the Miami-Dade  County area so that increases in freshwater and more natural flows will  enter the eastern panhandle of the park and Florida Bay. This project will  help restore the park’s natural vegetation, while maintaining flood  protection for urban and agricultural interests in south Miami-Dade  County. A combined operating plan will integrate the goals of this project  with those of Mod Waters. The Corps and SFWMD expect to complete the  C-111 South Dade project in 2012.
section_title: Projects Not Yet Implemented Are Largely Part of CERP and Are Crucial to Achieving Overall Restoration Goals
paragraphs: Of the 72 restoration projects not yet implemented—in other words that  are in design, planning, or not yet started—53 are CERP projects that are  expected to be completed in the later years of the restoration effort and  will provide benefits such as increased habitat for native species,  improved water flow, and additional water for restoration as well as other  water-related needs. The other 19 projects not yet implemented include 3  CERP-related and 16 non-CERP projects. (App. II includes detailed  information about all 72 projects not yet implemented, including their  sponsors, primary purposes, expected completion dates, and estimated  costs.) All CERP-related and non-CERP projects in this grouping that have  established end dates are expected to be completed by or before 2013. In  contrast, CERP projects in design, planning, or not yet started will be  implemented over the next 30 years. Consequently, the full environmental  benefits for the South Florida ecosystem restoration that the CERP  projects were intended to provide will not be realized for several decades.
Several of the projects now in planning and design directly benefit federal  lands and are representative of the significant natural system benefits that  were expected from CERP. One of the most important projects of this kind  is the Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow  Enhancement (Decomp) project. This project involves filling canals,  removing levees, and building bridges along the road north of Everglades  National Park to allow water to flow more naturally through the water  conservation areas above the park and into the park itself. This project is  also designed to increase the connectivity between portions of the  Everglades habitat, thus improving the quantity and quality of this habitat  for native vegetation and wildlife. Officials from the park and other  participating agencies stressed Decomp’s importance to natural system  restoration. In addition, park officials told us that the full realization of  benefits from the Mod Waters project depends upon Decomp, which  WRDA 2000 does not allow to be constructed until Mod Waters is  completed. Decomp has been divided into three phases, and the Corps has  recently proposed a major revision to its conceptual design. Pending this  re-design, phase 1 is currently scheduled for completion in 2015.
As with CERP projects currently being implemented, progress has also  been slow on CERP projects in design, in planning, or not yet begun. For  example, five projects that are not yet implemented were originally  planned for completion between December 2001 and December 2005, but  instead will be completed from 2 to 6 years behind their original schedule.  According to officials from the Corps, SFWMD, and other participating  agencies, CERP project delays have occurred for the following reasons:  It took longer than expected to develop the appropriate policy, guidance,  and regulations that WRDA 2000 requires for the CERP effort.
Some federal and state officials we spoke with noted design delays that  were caused by the need to modify the conceptual design of some projects  to comply with the requirements of WRDA 2000’s savings clause.  According to this clause, CERP projects cannot transfer or eliminate  existing sources of water unless an alternate source of comparable quantity and quality is provided, and they cannot reduce existing levels of  flood protection.
Less federal funding than expected and a lack of congressional  authorization for some of the CERP projects have limited CERP progress.
The extensive modeling that accompanies the design and implementation  of each project in addition to the “cumbersome” project review process  can contribute to delays, as well as stakeholder comment, dispute  resolution, and consensus-building that occurs at each stage of a project.  However, other restoration participants valued this opportunity for input  and noted that it could prevent costly litigation.
Delays have occurred in completing Mod Waters, which is a major building  block for CERP. These delays, in turn, have delayed CERP  implementation.
While the completion of the CERP projects is expected to provide  comprehensive environmental benefits to the ecosystem, concerns remain  about how the water will be allocated between the natural, urban, and  agricultural areas for many of these projects, and who will ultimately  benefit from these water allocation decisions. Corps regulations require  that the allocation decisions are to be included in the project  implementation reports submitted to the Congress for authorization of  each CERP project. These allocations are determined by each project’s  design team—which would normally include the Corps, SFWMD, and  other participating agencies. The allocation decisions are constrained by a  federal-state agreement that promises to allocate each CERP project’s  stored water in a manner that provides a sufficient amount for restoring  the natural system before water is made available for the region’s other  water-related needs, such as urban and agricultural water supply. Once  these water allocations are finalized, they are to be enacted into state law.  Until these water allocation decisions are agreed upon by federal and state  agencies and enacted into law by the state government, the distribution of  benefits that the CERP projects will deliver remains unclear.
section_title: Officials Report Progress in Several Areas, Including Key CERP Agreements and State Efforts to Advance Overall Restoration Goals
paragraphs: Although construction progress for the restoration effort has been uneven,  restoration officials report progress in other areas that they expect will  provide a solid foundation for the wider restoration effort in the future.  These officials identified the following developments that they expect will  improve the prospects for future success for the overall restoration effort:    Acceler8. Acceler8 is a state effort intended to expedite the  implementation of CERP projects. Many of the CERP projects advanced  by Acceler8 are among WRDA 2000’s 10 initially authorized projects,  whose costs were to be shared by the federal government and the state.  According to Florida officials, by advancing the design and construction of  these projects with its own funds, the state hopes to more quickly realize  restoration benefits for both the natural and human environments and to  jump-start the overall CERP effort once the Congress begins to authorize  individual projects. The Acceler8 projects include seven that are affiliated  with CERP and an eighth that expands existing stormwater treatment  areas. The state expects to spend more than $1.5 billion to design and  construct these projects by 2011.
Kissimmee River restoration. The Corps and SFWMD have completed  phase 1 of this project to restore the ecological integrity of the South  Florida ecosystem’s headwater—the historical Kissimmee River and its  surrounding floodplain. State officials report promising results from the  restored areas, such as improved water quality and flow, the return of fish- eating birds, and the reappearance of shoreline vegetation.
Land acquisition. For the ecosystem restoration projects that are solely  or partially federally funded, including CERP, the Task Force estimates  that 62 percent of the land needed for getting the water right (goal 1) and  99 percent of the land needed for restoring, preserving, and protecting  natural habitats and species (goal 2) has already been acquired. Moreover,  55 percent of the land needed for CERP projects, 98 percent of Acceler8  project land, and all 102,061 acres needed for the Kissimmee River  restoration have been acquired. Restoration land acquisition is ahead of  schedule because the state accelerated its acquisition efforts in order to  acquire land before it was lost to development. Similarly, the federal  government provided early support to the effort through its Farm Bill  funding, and local governments have made significant land contributions  as well.
State water quality projects. In addition to the stormwater treatment  areas south of Lake Okeechobee, the state’s Lake Okeechobee Protection  Program and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan expand the  water quality effort to mitigate nutrient discharges from urban and  agricultural lands north of the lake and within its watershed. The state is  also implementing pollution reduction strategies for other impaired  surface waters within SFWMD’s boundaries.
CERP’s administrative framework. In accordance with WRDA 2000 and  subsequent requirements, CERP’s participating agencies have formulated  key policies, strategies, and agreements intended to guide the program  during its three decades of implementation.
RECOVER’s efforts. CERP’s interagency science team—known as  RECOVER—prepared a Monitoring and Assessment Plan for CERP  implementation, among other important products. This plan is the primary  tool that RECOVER will use to assess the ecosystem’s response to CERP  projects.
section_title: The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and While CERP Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been Fully Applied
paragraphs: No overall sequencing criteria guide the implementation of the 222  projects that comprise the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort. For  the 60 CERP projects, the Corps has issued regulations, as directed by  WRDA 2000, that identify the criteria to be applied when making CERP  project sequencing decisions so that restoration benefits will be achieved  as early as possible and in the most cost-effective manner. However, the  Corps and SFWMD did not follow these criteria when they developed the  2005 master implementation sequencing plan for CERP projects (the  MISP). The Corps has recently started to revisit priorities for CERP  projects’ and alter project schedules that were established in the 2005  MISP (this process is referred to as CERP-reset). However, because the  Corps continues to lack certain key data for making sequencing decisions,  the revised plan, when completed, will also not fully adhere to the criteria.  Furthermore, while CERP-related projects provide the foundation for  many CERP projects, there are no established criteria for determining the  implementation schedule for these projects and their estimated start and  completion dates largely depend upon available funds. Similarly, for non- CERP projects, agencies reported that they do not have any sequencing  criteria; instead, they decide on the scheduling and timing of these  projects primarily if and when funding becomes available.
subsections: section_title: Required Sequencing and Other Criteria Have Been Developed for CERP Projects, but the Corps Has Not Fully Applied the Criteria
paragraphs: The Corps has clearly defined criteria to be considered in determining the  scheduling and sequencing of CERP projects. As laid out in the CERP  program regulations, the Corps and SFWMD should consider the  following factors to maximize opportunities for achieving the plan’s goals  and purposes:    Technical dependencies and constraints. Because many projects are  interdependent, they have to be designed and constructed either before or  after other CERP and CERP-related projects, depending on engineering  and structural requirements.
Project benefits. Projects should be constructed in an order that achieves  environmental benefits as early as possible.
Land availability. If land is available, a CERP project can be scheduled  earlier.
Legal constraints. The Corps must ensure that CERP projects do not  eliminate or transfer current sources of water from urban and agricultural  water supplies, and for fish and wildlife, or reduce flood protection.
Funding constraints. The regulations also state that funding constraints  may be taken into account in determining the timing and order of projects.
In addition, CERP program regulations require the Corps and the SFWMD  to revise the project sequencing that had been originally developed in 2000  to reflect new scientific, technical, and other information. Examples of  such information include population growth, additional data on the  topography of the South Florida ecosystem, rainfall data, and existing  sources of water and flood controls. According to the regulations, the  restoration partners were to conduct model simulations and revise, among  other things, their sequencing decisions if the models indicated that  changes to the sequence of project implementation were warranted to  achieve environmental benefits sooner. The CERP program regulations  also required that the sequencing decisions include a consideration of  whether the projects, as sequenced, would meet interim goals. These goals  were to be established in an agreement signed by the Secretaries of the  Army and the Interior and the Governor of Florida no later than December  2004.
However, when the Corps and SFWMD developed the 2005 MISP for CERP  projects, they did not comply with the requirements of the Corps  regulations. Specifically, the MISP was not based on new information  because the model used to run the simulations and generate the data—the  South Florida Water Management Model—had not been updated by the  Corps as anticipated when the sequencing decisions were made. As a  result, the Corps and SFWMD staff used outdated modeling data from  1999. In addition, the Secretaries of the Army and the Interior, and the  Governor of Florida did not sign an agreement that established interim  goals for the restoration effort until late April/early May 2007—over 2  years after the program regulations deadline.  Consequently, the 2005  MISP was developed without the benefit of the interim goals that the  regulations required to help guide interagency planning, monitoring,  assessment, and project sequencing.
Because the agencies lacked updated environmental benefits data and  lacked interim goals, the 2005 MISP for CERP projects was primarily  based on an assessment of the technical dependencies and constraints  among projects and available funding. Specifically, Corps and SFWMD  officials first considered whether the technical constraints laid out in the  2000 CERP conceptual plan were still appropriate or whether new  information had changed those constraints and, hence, the sequence of  projects. Based on these technical dependencies and constraints, all CERP  projects were placed in one of seven 5-year periods covering 2005 to 2040.  Once Corps and SFWMD officials completed their technical constraints  analysis, they reviewed the costs of projects scheduled for completion in  each 5-year interval and the estimated funding available for that period, as  well as available staff resources. When resources—primarily funding— were insufficient to complete projects within the initial designated 5-year  period, the projects were delayed and scheduled for completion at a later  date. Table 3 shows the number of projects in the MISP and their primary  purpose, by 5-year increments, over the life of CERP. As the table shows,  the ultimate benefits from the CERP projects will not be fully realized until  2040.
Owing to delays in meeting its commitments for implementing CERP  projects in a timely manner, as well as its commitment to support the  state’s Acceler8 effort, the Corps is revising its schedules and sequencing  of CERP projects. For example, in an October 2004 letter to the state, the  Corps had committed to a list of dates for completing the project  implementation reports necessary to obtain project approval by the Corps’  management and the Congress for the CERP projects that were being  implemented through the state’s Acceler8 effort. However, the Corps has  not met the dates outlined in that letter. To address these delays and other  project implementation issues, the Corps is revising the sequencing plan  and schedules for CERP projects (known as CERP-reset). As part of this  restructuring, they are planning to incorporate the National Academy of  Sciences’ recommendation to use an incremental adaptive management  approach that allows projects to move forward with incremental steps.  However, we are concerned that the Corps’ current effort is also being  undertaken without key information on updated environmental benefits  for these projects. As a result, the revised schedules for sequencing the  CERP projects will most likely still not meet all of the sequencing criteria  outlined in the Corps regulations, and the revised CERP sequencing plan,  when issued, will continue to be based largely on technical dependencies  and funding availability.
section_title: Implementation Decisions for CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects Are Based Largely on Available Funding
paragraphs: Decisions about starting and completing CERP-related and non-CERP  projects largely depend upon when and if the implementing agency will  have sufficient funding to implement the project. Specifically,  implementation of the 162 CERP-related and non-CERP projects is to be  carried out by over 14 different federal, state, local, and tribal agencies as  part of their larger missions. Many of these agencies do not have a specific  program focused on the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.  Consequently, the priorities assigned to many of the CERP-related and  non-CERP projects are driven by the agencies’ overall priorities and  available funding in any given year, not necessarily the sequencing needs  of the restoration effort. For example, the construction of the CERP- related Mod Waters project has been delayed several times since 1997  because, among other things, Interior did not receive enough funding to  complete the construction of this project. While currently scheduled for  completion in 2009, agency officials stated that they do not expect this  project to be completed until at least 2011. However, because completion  of this project is critical to the implementation of the CERP Decomp  project, these delays have caused completion dates for Decomp to be  pushed back as well. Similarly, FDEP has a land acquisition program to  acquire lands for conservation and habitat preservation throughout the  state, including for some non-CERP projects that are part of the South  Florida ecosystem restoration effort. FDEP has identified lands and added  them to a list of priority projects proposed for acquisition throughout the  state. However, whether or not these lands will be acquired for non- CERP projects is dependent on whether there is available funding in the  annual budget, there are willing sellers, and the land is affordable based on  the available funding.
section_title: Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a Variety of Restoration Activities Since 1999
paragraphs: From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2006, federal and state agencies  participating in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem provided  $7.1 billion. Of this total, federal agencies provided $2.3 billion and Florida  provided $4.8 billion. Two agencies—the Corps and the Department of the  Interior—provided over 80 percent of the federal contribution. Figure 3  shows each federal agency’s contribution.
As figure 4 shows, federal and state agencies allocated the largest portion  of the $7.1 billion to non-CERP projects for fiscal years 1999 through 2006.
Table 4 shows how the federal and state agencies used the funds allocated  to CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects and activities. As the table  shows, while federal and state funding was used to support a range of  activities, land acquisition alone accounted for about 36 percent of the $7.1  billion. Land acquisition is such a large category primarily because Florida  has devoted significant resources to purchase land for restoration  projects.
CERP projects. As table 4 shows, most CERP funds have been used to  purchase land—210,642 acres over the last 8 years. The state is  responsible for acquiring all land for CERP projects; the federal agencies  have not purchased any land for CERP. The Corps and Florida spent $533  million on support activities primarily to meet the administrative  framework requirements of WRDA 2000.
While federal agencies and Florida provided about $2.3 billion during fiscal  years 1999 through 2006 for CERP projects, this amount was about $1.2  billion less than they had estimated needing for these projects over this  period. Although the federal contribution was significantly less than  expected when the CERP project list was developed in 1999, the state  contribution increased significantly later in the period, partially closing the  funding shortfall. Initially, federal and state agencies anticipated that they  would receive a total of $400 million each year if the funding was to keep  pace with the planned project schedule. Restoration partners reported that  it was expected that this amount would be provided equally—$200 million  annually from federal agencies and $200 million from the state. As figure 5  shows, however, federal CERP funding fell significantly short in each year  during fiscal years 1999 through 2006—by a total of $1.4 billion. This  shortfall occurred primarily because CERP projects did not receive the  congressional authorization and appropriations that the agencies had  expected. In contrast, Florida provided a total of $2.0 billion over the  period, exceeding its expected contribution to CERP by $250 million.
CERP-related projects. Project construction activities constituted the only  allocation of restoration funding to CERP-related projects, with federal  agencies providing a total of $836 million and the state $1,097 million. For  example, the Corps provided $170 million for removing levees and filling a  drainage canal among other things that altered the natural flow of the  Kissimmee River. Florida provided $404 million to complete construction  of six stormwater treatment areas, totaling 41,089 acres, between Lake  Okeechobee and the Everglades National Park.
Non-CERP projects. The largest portion of federal and state funding for  non-CERP projects was used for support activities, followed by land  acquisition. Interior bureaus, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  provided a total of $283 million to purchase land for habitat. For example,  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided $15 million to purchase 913  acres in the J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge to help preserve  and protect endangered and threatened species; feeding, nesting, and  roosting areas for migratory birds; and habitat for over 220 species of  birds. Florida provided $486 million for land purchases for non-CERP  projects, such as the $28 million provided to buy Cayo Costa Island.
Appendix III contains additional information on funding provided by  federal and state agencies for the various restoration activities of the  South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.
section_title: Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total Cost Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise
paragraphs: Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for the  South Florida ecosystem restoration effort grew by 28 percent, from $15.4  billion to $19.7 billion. This increase occurred primarily because of project  scope changes, increased construction costs, and higher land costs.  However, the cost estimate for the restoration effort is likely to increase  even more, in part because the current estimate does not include the costs  for the remaining land acquisitions and final design cost estimates for  CERP projects, which are not yet known.
subsections: section_title: Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased
paragraphs: Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for the  South Florida ecosystem restoration grew from $15.4 billion to $19.7  billion, or by 28 percent. As figure 6 shows, estimated costs increased for  all categories of projects and for support activities, such as the WRDA  2000 administrative requirements.
As the figure also shows, estimated CERP project costs increased from  $8.8 billion to $10.1 billion. This 15-percent increase represents nearly 31  percent of the increase in the total estimated cost for the restoration.  However, the most significant project cost increase—47 percent—was for  non-CERP projects.
Federal and state officials reported that estimated CERP costs increased  primarily because of inflation and changes in the scope of work for two  CERP projects with completed project implementation reports. For  example, in the conceptual phase, the cost estimate for the Site 1  Impoundment project—a CERP project in southern Palm Beach County to  capture and store local runoff during wet periods and then use the water  to supplement water deliveries during dry periods—was $46 million. Once  the initial planning and design was complete, however, the Corps’ estimate  increased to $81 million to include changes in the scope of the project and  increased cost of construction. In addition, the Picayune Strand  Restoration project—a CERP project to restore and enhance wetlands and  distribute water across a larger area—was $53 million in the conceptual  phase. Once the initial planning and design was complete, however, the  Corps’ estimate increased to $363 million in part to include the cost of  acquiring the 55,247 acres of land needed for the project. Similarly, the  scope of the Indian River Lagoon-South project was expanded to include  the acquisition of over 92,000 acres of natural lands that will provide water  storage and habitat restoration. The scope expansion increased the  project’s estimated cost by $354 million. For CERP-related projects,  estimated costs increased primarily because of inflation and delays in  receiving federal funding, which led to additional increases in the costs of  labor and materials beyond that attributed to inflation, according to  federal officials.
section_title: Increases in Total Restoration Costs Are Likely to Continue for Multiple Reasons
paragraphs: The costs of restoring the South Florida ecosystem are likely to continue  to increase for a number of reasons. First, the estimated costs for some of  the projects are not known or fully known. Specifically, for eight  nonconstruction CERP projects—addressing water management  operations and water supply plans—the estimated costs were not known  as of September 2006. These nonconstruction projects seek to improve the  delivery of water to areas such as the water conservation areas and  Everglades National Park, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, and  the Rotenberger and Holey Land Wildlife Management Areas. For the  remaining 44 CERP projects that require construction, the full estimated  cost is likely to rise if they, like other CERP projects, have higher  completion costs than originally anticipated. For example, as mentioned  above for one project that we examined—the Site 1 Impoundment  project—after the project implementation report was completed the  estimated total costs grew by $36 million, from $46 million to $81 million.  If other CERP projects, for which initial planning and design have not yet  been completed, also experience similar increases in project costs then  the estimated total costs of not only CERP but the overall restoration  effort will grow significantly. Since the federal government provides 50  percent of the cost for CERP and for certain CERP-related projects, its  contribution to cover these rising costs will also continue to increase.
Second, the full cost of acquiring land for the restoration effort is not  known. For 56 non-CERP land projects, expected to total 862,796 acres,  land acquisition costs have not been reported. Costs are not estimated due  to price escalation and also to avoid adversely impacting ongoing  negotiations of land acquisitions. For these non-CERP land acquisitions,  the Task Force computed an estimated range of land costs from $2.5  billion to $4.1 billion based on the 779,000 acres remaining to be acquired  as of 2004. However, the higher cost may be more realistic, and could be a  conservative estimate, given the rising costs of land in Florida. According  to state officials, Florida land prices are escalating rapidly, owing  primarily to development pressures. Consequently, future project costs are  likely to rise with higher land costs. While land acquisition costs for CERP  projects are included as part of the total estimated project costs, thus far,  the state has acquired only 54 percent of the land needed for CERP  projects, at a cost of $1.4 billion. An additional 178,000 acres have yet to be  acquired; the cost of these purchases is not yet known and is therefore not  fully reflected in the cost of CERP and overall restoration costs.
Third, the cost of using new technologies for the restoration effort is  unknown. The Congress authorized pilot projects in 1999 and 2000 to  determine the feasibility of applying certain new technologies for storing  water, managing seepage, and reusing treated wastewater. Under this  authority, the Corps implemented six pilot projects that are estimated to  cost a total of $123 million. While the pilot projects have been authorized,  the cost to construct or implement projects based on the results of the  pilots is not yet known. For example, one of the key water storage  technologies proposed is the use of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR).  Using ASR technology would require the Corps and SFWMD to drill many  wells deep into an aquifer to store water and then to pump it out as  needed. While ASR technology has been used successfully in the state in  the past, the restoration agencies plan to create water storage reservoirs  that are larger than any previously created. Three ASR pilot projects have  been approved to address the technical uncertainties related to the  implementation of these large scale ASRs. The agencies reported that the  ASR pilot costs constitute approximately 20 percent of the cost of CERP,  but they do not know what the ASR technology on the scale envisioned  will cost or what the costs would be for alternative water storage if the  ASR technology proves to be infeasible.
section_title: Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness
paragraphs: Of more than 100 available mathematical models, 27 primary models guide  the restoration effort. At least 21 of the 27 have some interfaces, but  agency officials told us that they need additional interfaces to make the  most effective use of the models. However, current agency efforts are  focused on meeting the modeling needs of individual agencies, not on  coordinating the efforts and needs of all the agencies involved in the  restoration effort. Agency officials recognize the need for better  coordination, but given other demands for their time, this has not been a  high priority for them.
subsections: section_title: Twenty-Seven of More Than 100 Models Are Primary to the Restoration Effort
paragraphs: Although there is no comprehensive list of all the mathematical models  available for guiding the restoration of South Florida’s ecosystem, we  identified more than 100 such models. Of these 100 models, 27 are primary  for the restoration effort, according to federal and state officials. Federal  and state agencies, private organizations, and academic institutions have  developed the 27 models. These 27 models can be used to represent the  unique characteristics of the South Florida ecosystem. For example,  according to federal and state officials the South Florida Water  Management Model, which was developed by SFWMD, is one of the most  valuable modeling tools used for the restoration. This regional model is  used to simulate the hydrology and management of water resources over a  7,600 square mile area in South Florida and to evaluate CERP’s  performance. However, a RECOVER modeling task team reported that the  current model does not provide the level of precision and detail needed to  simulate flow rates of surface and ground water; cannot predict the effects  of restoration alternatives on the salinity levels of coastal wetlands and  aquifers; and does not provide detailed enough information about the  different habitat types that exist within the analyzed area. To address  these shortcomings, SFWMD is developing the Regional Simulation Model  to replace this model, which is expected to be ready for use in 2008. Table  5 shows the primary models used in the South Florida ecosystem  restoration effort by model type and study area.
As table 5 shows, there are a total of 19 primary models that can be used in  the restoration effort to simulate hydrological processes—such as water  runoff, the movement of groundwater in aquifers, and the force of water  flow in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. These models take into  account different aspects of the unique hydrology of South Florida—flat  topography, a high water table, sandy soils, and the easy movement of  water through the aquifer system. A total of 13 primary models simulate  water quality processes—such as the migration of pollutants in both  surface water and groundwater systems. The three primary ecological  models simulate how plant and animal species interact with their habitat.  For example, an ecological model might simulate changes in the  population of an endangered species, like the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow,  in relation to changes in hydrological conditions and the availability of  food. The 27 models may simulate changes that could occur in a region or  sub-region of the ecosystem as a result of multiple restoration activities or  changes that could occur as a result of a specific restoration project.
section_title: Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Models’ Usefulness
paragraphs: We determined that at least 21 of the 27 primary models have interfaces  that allow the models to interact with other models and provide a more  comprehensive and accurate assessment of the ecosystem. Agency  scientists and officials identified three broad types of interfaces. The first  type enables the models to share data with other models. This type of  interface requires less hands-on data processing and, according to a Corps  official, yields immediate returns for guiding the restoration effort in terms  of facilitating and expediting the exchange of required data among models.
The second type of interface allows scientists to run multiple models and  then layer the results of each model onto a single graphic. This process  expedites the review of simulation results and enables scientists and  managers to better understand the results of different project activities.  The third type of interface—known as an integrated interface—allows  scientists to simultaneously run multiple hydrological, water quality, and  ecological models. This type of interface provides the most holistic  approach for simulating the long-term responses of the landscape and  habitat to the restoration effort, although it is the most complex and time- consuming to develop.
However, scientists and agency officials we spoke with noted the need for  additional interfaces for these 27 models. According to agency officials  and reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the RECOVER  interagency science team, the existing model interfaces do not allow them  to provide the most comprehensive and accurate understanding of the  impact of the restoration effort. These sources identified the need for  multiple interfaces between and across the hydrological, ecological, and  water quality models and the regional, sub-regional, and project-specific  models. Such interfaces would (1) improve model predictions; (2)  expedite project-related simulations; and (3) streamline efforts for  planning, evaluation, monitoring, and adaptive management.
Although agency scientists and officials recognize the need for additional  interfaces, neither the individual agencies nor the Task Force, as the  coordinating body for science-related activities, have compiled a list of  interfaces needed for the entire restoration effort. Instead, agency  scientists and managers focus on their specific needs to carry out their  agency’s mission. For example, the Corps and SFWMD are each focusing  on certifying the reliability of the models that they developed through a  peer review process, while Interior is setting priorities for ecological  science activities that affect the development of ecological models.  However, because the agencies do not have a formal, restoration-wide  coordination effort, they rely on an informal network to coordinate model  development, create interfaces, and set science research priorities. As a  result, the agencies’ mission-related activities may not support the overall  restoration effort. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that  improved coordination would enhance the restoration effort by helping to  identify and reduce scientific uncertainties. To improve coordination, the  Corps and SFWMD established the Interagency Modeling Center in 2003 as  the single point of responsibility for CERP modeling services. However,  the Interagency Modeling Center focuses primarily on applying models to  CERP projects, and does not focus on developing and coordinating models  and interfaces for the entire restoration effort. Agency officials agree that  coordination and communication across agencies involved in identifying  interfaces could be improved. However, they also stated that agency staff  involved with the restoration efforts have other duties that take  precedence over the coordination of modeling interface activities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is a vast and complex undertaking  that will ultimately depend on the successful implementation of more than  200 different projects. In particular, the successful achievement of the  restoration’s three overall goals depends to a large degree on the effective  implementation of approximately 88 key CERP and CERP-related projects.  In this context, therefore, the order in which these projects are  implemented becomes critical to ensuring that the maximum  environmental benefits are achieved as quickly as possible in the most  cost-effective manner. However, the process that participating agencies  have used so far to make sequencing decisions for these projects, and in  particular for the CERP projects, has been governed largely by funding  availability and technical dependencies and constraints among projects,  not the full range of criteria that the Corps developed under WRDA 2000.  These criteria were not fully applied when sequencing decisions were  made for the CERP projects in 2005. This happened because key data,  such as updated benefits information and interim goals for CERP, which  are needed to fully apply these criteria were not available. In this regard,  the Secretaries of the Army and the Interior, in conjunction with the  Governor of Florida, did not reach agreement on CERP interim goals until  late April/early May 2007—more than 2 years after the date required by the  regulations.
Moreover, from the outset, the restoration effort has sought to use a  science-based approach to guide its decision-making processes. A  significant contributor to this approach has been the use of mathematical  models that help agencies gauge the effects of the restoration effort on the  ecosystem. However, the effectiveness of these models is reduced by the  limited number of interfaces between and among them. Without additional  interfaces, these models cannot provide the participating agencies with the  comprehensive information that they need. The current informal network  that agency officials rely on to coordinate their model and interface  development efforts may not be the most effective approach to ensure that  the needs of the overall restoration effort are met. In this context, we  believe that the Task Force as the coordinating body for the overall  restoration effort could provide the needed direction and emphasis.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Because the correct sequencing of CERP projects is essential to the  overall success of the restoration effort, we are recommending that the  Secretary of the Army direct the Corps of Engineers to obtain the key data  that are needed to ensure that all required sequencing factors are  appropriately considered when deciding which projects to implement.  Once this information is available, the Corps should comprehensively  reassess its sequencing decisions to ensure that CERP projects have been  appropriately sequenced to maximize the achievement of restoration  goals.
In addition, given the importance of modeling and interfaces to managing  the restoration effort, we are recommending that, as chair of the Task  Force, the Secretary of the Interior take the lead on helping participating  agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop models and their  interfaces.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and the  Interior and the state of Florida for review and comment. We received  written comments from both federal agencies and the state of Florida.
The Department of Defense generally concurred with our  recommendation that the Corps obtain the key data needed to ensure all  sequencing factors are considered in its project sequencing decisions and  to comprehensively reassess its decisions so as to ensure CERP projects  maximize the achievement of restoration goals. The state of Florida,  however, expressed concerns that our recommendation would serve to  delay restoration and increase costs and stated that it supports the  Incremental Adaptive Restoration process recommended by the National  Research Council. While we understand the state’s concerns, we do not  believe that implementing the adaptive management approach  recommended by the Council is incompatible with our recommendation.
In fact, our report discusses the Corps’ plans to incorporate this approach  and allow CERP projects to move forward in incremental steps.  Furthermore, given the delays that have already occurred and the  criticality of CERP to the success of the restoration, we believe that it is  even more important for the Corps to apply the full set of sequencing  factors, as outlined in the program regulations, to ensure that CERP  sequencing decisions will achieve maximum restoration benefits as early  as possible and in the most cost-effective manner.
In responding to our recommendation that the Departments of Defense  and the Interior reach an agreement on interim goals with the Governor of  Florida, both federal agencies and the state of Florida reported that the  Secretaries of the Army and the Interior and the Governor of Florida  signed an Interim Goals Agreement in late April/early May 2007. Because  this happened after our report was sent to the agencies and the state for  comment, we have revised our report and removed the recommendation  to reflect this recent action. We believe that having the interim goals in  place will provide a way of measuring the progress made in implementing  CERP and achieve its goals as early as possible and in a cost-effective  manner.
The Department of the Interior and the state of Florida agreed with our  recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the Task  Force, take the lead on helping participating agencies better coordinate  their efforts to develop models and their interfaces and that such an effort  should include the Interagency Modeling Center. Interior said that it  agreed that coordination in the area of modeling will be beneficial and that  the Task Force’s Science Coordination Group and the Interagency  Modeling Center could assist in this effort. Interior also said that it will  make such a recommendation to the Task Force. The state of Florida said  that it is important that the Task Force provide direction to the model  development process and that interfaces for models are important. The  state also recognized that while coordination of modeling could be  improved, it is important that the Interagency Modeling Center continue to  provide policy guidance. Although this recommendation was not  addressed to the Department of Defense, in its comments the department  stated that it did not agree with the recommendation because the  Interagency Modeling Center has responsibility for coordinating and  developing models and interfaces. We have included information in the  report to recognize the role of the Interagency Modeling Center. However,  we believe that because the Interagency Modeling Center’s responsibilities  pertain primarily to CERP, and not the whole restoration effort, the Task  Force as the science and research coordinating body for the overall  restoration is the most appropriate body for coordinating the development  of models and their interfaces.
We also received technical comments from the state of Florida, which we  have incorporated, as appropriate, throughout the report. The Department  of Defense’s written comments are presented in appendix V, the  Department of the Interior’s written comments are presented in appendix  VI, and the state of Florida’s written comments are presented in appendix  VII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested  congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretary of the  Interior; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary  of Commerce; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator, EPA; and  the Governor of Florida. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem  restoration, we were asked to review the current status of the effort,  focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and their  expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of project  implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the restoration effort  since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have occurred and the  reasons for these increases; and (5) primary mathematical models used to  guide the restoration effort and the extent to which these models have  interfaces.
To determine the status of restoration projects and to identify their  expected benefits, we first met with the South Florida Ecosystem  Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and representatives from many of its  participating agencies to determine how best to collect project status and  benefit information. On the basis of these interviews, we determined that  the most complete list of current restoration projects was found in the  Task Force’s 2005 Integrated Financial Plan. This list, updated annually, is  intended to contain all of the restoration projects completed,  implemented, and planned by the federal, state, local, and tribal entities  participating in the South Florida ecosystem restoration. The list is  supplemented by project profile sheets that give additional details about  each project. Using the Task Force’s list as a baseline and supplementing it  with research and agency interviews, we identified 222 restoration  projects. We requested and received information on these projects from  the participating agencies that sponsor nearly all of the 222 projects: the  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the Departments of Agriculture  (USDA)—including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Natural  Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); Commerce—including the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the  Interior—including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National  Park Service (NPS); the Florida Department of Environmental Protection  (FDEP); Miami-Dade County; the Miccosukee Tribe; the Seminole Tribe;  and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Specifically, we requested data on project status, project start and end  dates, and related information. We conducted follow-up interviews where  appropriate to clarify the project information we received. On the basis of  this information, we compiled a master list of completed, ongoing, and  planned restoration projects. Using the information collected regarding  project status, we grouped the projects into the following four categories:  (1) completed, (2) in implementation, (3) in planning or design, and (4) not  yet started.
To separate the 222 projects into smaller groups for further analysis, we  relied upon the project information in the Task Force’s 2005 Integrated  Financial Plan, as well as in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration  Plan (CERP) 2005 report to the Congress. On the basis of our analysis of  these two documents and verification provided by responses on project  status from participating agencies, we developed the following three  project groups: (1) CERP projects—60 individual projects approved by the  Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 to restore, preserve,  and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water- related needs of the region, including water supply and flood control; (2)  CERP-related projects—28 projects that provide a foundation for CERP— many of these were authorized before WRDA 2000; and (3) non-CERP  projects—134 restoration projects that are not as closely related to CERP.
To identify project benefits, we generally categorized expected benefits for  each project by its primary purpose, as identified by the Task Force in its  2005 Integrated Financial Plan. According to the Task Force, these primary  purposes are identified by communications between the Task Force and  each project’s sponsor(s). We reviewed the project descriptions as  reported by the Task Force, as well as other available project information,  to assess the reasonableness of the Task Force’s determination for each  project’s primary purpose. For projects that did not appear in the 2005  Integrated Financial Plan, or for those that appeared in the plan but did  not have a supporting project profile sheet, we requested and reviewed  project information from the project’s sponsor(s) where available.  Through this analysis, we developed broad categories of expected  benefits—water storage, habitat acquisition and improvement, and water  quality, among others—and assigned each project to one of them on the  basis of its primary purpose.
Following our initial data collection, we conducted additional outreach  through April 2007 to ensure that our master project list was as complete  as possible and incorporated any changes that may have occurred. We (1)  reviewed the Task Force’s draft 2006 Integrated Financial Plan to  incorporate newly completed projects and other relevant changes; (2)  requested the Task Force’s assistance in reconciling our project list with  the original project list that it published in 2000 to incorporate projects  that may have been completed and then removed from the Integrated  Financial Plans issued between 2000 and 2005; and (3) contacted  participating agencies and followed up on ongoing projects with estimated  end dates that were reported as “2006” in the agencies’ original status  response to determine if these projects had in fact been completed.
To determine the factors that influence the sequencing of project  implementation for the restoration projects, we obtained and reviewed  available agency guidance, regulations, and related material from the  Corps; the Department of the Interior (including NPS and FWS); FDEP;  and SFWMD. We selected these agencies because they are responsible for  the largest number of CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects. To  learn about sequencing criteria and to determine whether there are any  overarching criteria for all of the restoration projects, we interviewed  officials at these agencies, as well as officials at the Department of  Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources  Conservation Service; Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration; Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological  Survey; the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes; Miami-Dade County; and the  South Florida Regional Planning Council. Once we determined that only  the CERP projects have clearly established criteria, we met with Corps  and SFWMD officials to determine the extent to which they applied these  criteria in making the sequencing decisions listed in the 2005 sequencing  plan and to identify other factors and considerations that they took into  account. In doing so, we selected certain CERP projects for more detailed  discussion and reviewed Corps documentation in support of its  sequencing decisions. Finally, we reviewed comments by other agencies  and external stakeholders about the appropriateness of the factors used to  determine the sequencing of CERP projects.
To determine the amount of funding federal and state agencies have  contributed to the restoration effort for fiscal years 1999 through 2006, we  obtained information from the following lead project sponsors: the  Department of Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the Interior,  SFWMD, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We also  obtained information from the Environmental Protection Agency. Federal  agencies account for their funds independently, and therefore no complete  and consolidated financial data on the restoration were available. For the  other agencies participating in the restoration effort, we used the funding  data for this period that these agencies had provided in the Task Force’s  annual cross-cut budgets. These agencies included the Department of  Commerce, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida  Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Florida Department of  Community Affairs, Florida Department of Transportation, and Florida  Department of Environmental Protection. In reporting the funding data in  total and by category type, we used funding amounts that were sometimes  rounded to the nearest million and sometimes rounded to the nearest  billion, and as a result, the amounts we report may not always equal the  funding totals originally provided by each agency. We made certain  judgments in allocating the funding based on the available funding data. As  a result, land costs for some fiscal years are only for a partial fiscal year  and do not include the entire fiscal year. We converted all funding data to  constant 2006 dollars. To assess the reliability of the funding data the  agencies provided, we asked the agencies to provide appropriation or  budget allocation documents that supported their funding contributions;  the lead project sponsors listed above provided supporting  documentation. Our review of the funding and the supporting  documentation indicated that the funding data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this review.
To determine any increases in estimated project costs and the reasons for  these increases, we used as our baseline the list of projects and their  associated costs in the Task Force’s 2000 Integrated Financial Plan. We  updated this project list for any changes in projects from July 31, 2000,  through June 30, 2006. We then submitted the updated project list to the  participating federal and state agencies that were the lead project  sponsors and co-sponsors and asked them to provide the total estimated  cost for each project as of June 30, 2006, and identify factors that  contributed to increases in project costs. However, in 2000, the state of  Florida discontinued reporting acquisition costs for lands not yet acquired  for habitat protection. Therefore, the Task Force did not include these  costs in its 2002 through 2006 reports. Instead, to account for future land  costs in its 2004 Biennial Report, the Task Force computed a range of  estimated costs for future land acquisitions using a low and a high price  per acre. Moreover, the 2000 Task Force restoration cost estimate  consisted of total estimated costs for some projects, and total remaining  costs for other projects. In some instances where the cost estimate  provided a total remaining project cost, this was listed as “to be  determined,” because the Task Force did not identify a cost for land still to  be purchased. The 2006 restoration cost estimate we developed also  includes total estimated costs for some projects, and total remaining costs  for other projects. However, we developed cost estimates for some  projects whose costs were previously listed as “to be determined.”  Specifically, we conservatively estimated total remaining project costs for  uncompleted land acquisitions by multiplying the remaining acreage to be  purchased using the same low price per acre that the Task Force used in  computing these land costs in 2004. This difference in methodology could  account for some part of the estimated cost increase we report; however,  we did not assess the potential impact of this difference. In addition, for  the lead agencies that did not or could not provide estimated project costs  as of June 30, 2006, we used the estimated project costs these agencies  had provided in the 2005 Integrated Financial Plan and converted the costs  to constant 2006 dollars. We realize that converting these 2005 project  costs to 2006 dollars may not capture all of the factors that may contribute  to increases in project costs, but given the small number of projects  involved—30—we do not believe the omission of some contributing  factors would significantly alter the total estimated cost of the restoration.  In arriving at a total estimated cost for the restoration for 2000 and 2006,  we added together the estimated project costs, future land costs, and non- project estimated costs for each year. Having calculated total estimated  restoration costs for 2000 and 2006, we subtracted the 2000 total estimated  restoration cost from the 2006 total estimated restoration cost to  determine the increase in the total estimated cost of the restoration. In  reporting the cost data in total and by category type, we used cost  amounts that were sometimes rounded to the nearest million and  sometimes to the nearest billion.
In determining the reliability of the project and program support cost  estimates, we researched and reviewed audit reports prepared by  agencies’ internal auditors, inspectors general, and outside independent  auditors for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for information on actual costs  incurred. For estimated costs, we reviewed the processes and policies the  Corps and SFWMD used to estimate the costs for completing the projects.  We limited our data reliability review to the following agencies that were  lead project sponsors because they are responsible for tracking and  reporting project costs. These agencies were the Department of  Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD, and  FDEP. Our review of the audit reports and cost estimation policies and  procedures indicated that the cost data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this review.
To identify the primary models that can be used to guide the restoration  and their interfaces, we obtained and analyzed key documents from  managers and scientists at the Corps, the Department of the Interior,  SFWMD, and other participating agencies. We also researched academic  and model Web sites to identify additional information related to models  and interfaces for the restoration. From these sources, we compiled a  universe of over 100 mathematical models available for the restoration  effort. Additionally, we conducted interviews with agency scientists and  managers, and other stakeholders, including the external scientific  community, to determine which models are considered primary to guide  the restoration and to obtain additional information about these models.  We defined primary models as those that have broad application for use at  the project, sub-regional, or regional level. Through our conversations  with agency scientists and managers, and our analysis of agency  documents and academic and model Web sites, we identified 27 primary  models. We also determined who developed the models, the type, and  study area of the models, and the interfaces for each of the models. We did  not independently assess the reliability or adequacy of the models we  reviewed.
We performed our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-CERP Categories
paragraphs: This appendix provides detailed information on the 222 projects that  comprise the restoration effort. Table 6 shows the projects by project  category—CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide  information on the status of the restoration projects—completed, being  implemented, or not yet implemented (planning, design, or not yet  started).
section_title: Appendix III: Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006
paragraphs: Funding data used were as reported in the Task Force’s annual cross-cut budgets.
Funding data used as reported in the Task Force’s annual cross-cut budgets, except for data on  certain land acquisitions, which were provided in response to a GAO funding data request.
The funding data provided by the Corps differed from that reported in the cross-cut budgets because  the amounts in the cross-cut budgets represent the amounts in the President’s budget and the  amounts provided to GAO represent the amounts contained in the conference report according to the  Corps.
The funding data provided by Interior differed from that reported in the cross-cut budgets because of  the timing differences in agency budget execution and cross-cut budget data submission timeframes;  moving funding among departmental budget lines; and/or the application of across-the-board  reductions, supplementals, and rescissions, according to an Interior official.
The funding data provided by the South Florida Water Management District differed from that  reported in the cross-cut budgets because of variations in the financial systems used to derive the  funding information according to a SFWMD official.
section_title: Appendix IV: Summary of the Primary Models
subsections: section_title: Entity responsible for development
paragraphs: A suite of individual  ecological models that  compare the impact of  changes in hydrology on the  biotic components of the  ecosystem, from  zooplankton, to different  species of fish, to the  Florida panther.
Corps, Iowa  Institute of  Hydraulic  Research, and Y.  Peter Sheng of  Titon Corporation  (hydrodynamic)
A three-dimensional model  that simulates the major  physical processes affecting  circulation and mixing of a  large water body, taking into  account the hydrology,  salinity, and temperature.
Used in evaluating  hydrological and water  quality impacts of  stormwater treatment areas  in South Florida.
Simulates chemical,  biological, ecological, and  physical interactions that  occur as a result of a  number of variables that  influence hydrodynamic  processes. Also simulates  water quality.
John Hamrick of  Tetra Tech, Inc.
A hydrodynamic model that  simulates aquatic systems  in one, two, and three  dimensions, and rainy and  arid cycles, taking into  account the salinity,  temperature, and  contaminants.
Predicts the landscape  response to different water  management scenarios in  South Florida. In simulating  changes to habitat, the  model dynamically  integrates hydrology, water  quality, soils, algae, and  vegetation in the  Everglades region.
Predicts the movement and  deposit of the major forms  of mercury in marsh areas  and considers physical,  biological, and chemical  factors affecting fish  mercury concentration.
Simulates steady and  unsteady water flows and  stages, and the movement  of sediment. Also used to  simulate canal network for  flood analysis.
Simulates how water  transports sediment in Lake  Okeechobee. Also provides  long term information on  water circulation patterns,  and the location of sediment  under different hydrological  and management  scenarios.
Simulates impacts of  sediment management on  water quality, specifically  phosphorus levels, in Lake  Okeechobee.
Simulates water flow, level,  and quality, and sediment  transport in rivers, irrigation  canals, reservoirs, and  other inland water bodies.
An integrated hydrological  model that covers the entire  land phase of the  hydrological cycle. Also  simulates groundwater flow,  the movement of  substances found in water,  and agricultural practices.
HydroGeologics,  Inc.
Simulates interactions  between overland flow,  channel flow, and  groundwater under different  water supply management  scenarios. Also simulates  flood control, river flow, and  wetland restoration.
Simulates hydrology,  including groundwater and  canal flow, in three  dimensions under different  water management  scenarios.
The recognized standard  model for simulating the  movement of groundwater  under a variety of  hydrological conditions.
Simulates projects where  there are large stormwater- groundwater exchanges  and where groundwater  pumping affects the water  flow in streams. Models the  effects of floodplain water  lost to groundwater on  downstream water flows  and stream flow on adjacent  wetlands.
Calculates water levels and  distribution of water flow for  islands, bridges,  hydropower plants, river  junctions, and pumping  plant channels. Also  simulates the circulation  and transport in bodies of  water with wetlands, and  general water levels and  flow patterns in rivers,  reservoirs, and estuaries.
Simulates water levels, flow  distribution, circulation, flow  patterns, and water quality  in rivers, reservoirs, and  estuaries. Used to study the  hydrodynamics and salinity- flow relationships in the St.  Lucie estuary and the  southern reach of Indian  River Lagoon, as well as to  assess the circulation  patterns in a water  conservation area.
Simulates the major  components of the  hydrological cycle in South  Florida, including rainfall,  overland and groundwater  flow and pumping, and the  management of the water  resources system for a  7,600 square mile area,  from Lake Okeechobee to  Florida Bay.
Simulates flows, stages,  and salinities in the  southern Everglades and  Florida Bay. Can be linked  to the South Florida Water  Management Model and be  used to quantify the effects  of restoration alternatives  on flows, stages, and  salinities in the SICS area.
Evaluates changes in water  restrictions and hydrological  performance of new storage  areas in the Lower East  Coast and Lake  Okeechobee Service Areas  under different  management scenarios.
Simulates water movement,  salinity, and sediment  transport in three  dimensions.
Examines the interaction  between wetland sheet  flows and the dynamic  forces in the zone between  the southern Everglades  and the coast. Will be used  to evaluate the combined  response of cyclical water  periods in wetlands and  salinities in the mangrove  zone to changes in water  flows.
Assesses the water quality  of both surface water and  groundwater based on land  use, soils, climate, and  other factors and simulates  the primary physical  processes important for  watershed hydrological and  pollutant transport.
Simulates flow movement  from one CERP project  component to another and  can be adapted to simulate  on both a sub-regional and  project-specific level.
Simulates hydrology in  watersheds with high  groundwater tables and  dense drainage canal  networks.
Used to interpret and  predict water quality  responses to natural  phenomena and manmade  pollution for various  pollution management  decisions. Can dynamically  simulate different aquatic  systems.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the State of Florida
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant  Director; David Brown; Maureen Driscoll; Les Mahagan; Leigh Ann Nally;  and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing to this report were Kevin Bray, Katherine Raheb, and Greg  Wilmoth.