South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs
Released: 2007-07-02T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

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.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

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.

CERP-Related and Non- CERP Projects

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.

Use of Mathematical Models in Decision Making

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.

Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing, Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects Not Yet Implemented

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.

Completed Restoration Projects Primarily Improve Water Quality or Provide Wildlife Habitat

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.

Projects Being Implemented Primarily Include Land Acquisitions to Preserve Wildlife Habitat and Two Key CERP-Related Projects

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.

Projects Not Yet Implemented Are Largely Part of CERP and Are Crucial to Achieving Overall Restoration Goals

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.

Officials Report Progress in Several Areas, Including Key CERP Agreements and State Efforts to Advance Overall Restoration Goals

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.

The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and While CERP Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been Fully Applied

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.

Required Sequencing and Other Criteria Have Been Developed for CERP Projects, but the Corps Has Not Fully Applied the Criteria

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.

Implementation Decisions for CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects Are Based Largely on Available Funding

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.

Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a Variety of Restoration Activities Since 1999

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.

Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total Cost Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise

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.

Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased

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.

Increases in Total Restoration Costs Are Likely to Continue for Multiple Reasons

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.

Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness

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.

Twenty-Seven of More Than 100 Models Are Primary to the Restoration Effort

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.

Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Models’ Usefulness

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-CERP Categories

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).

Appendix III: Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006

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.

Appendix IV: Summary of the Primary Models

Entity responsible for development

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.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VII: Comments from the State of Florida

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Staff Acknowledgments

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.