South Florida Restoration
Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood of Success
Gao ID: GAO-03-345 March 18, 2003
Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is a significant federal and state priority, requiring the development and use of extensive scientific information. GAO was asked to report on the funds spent on scientific activities for restoration, the gaps that exist in scientific information, and the extent to which scientific activities are being coordinated.
From fiscal years 1993 through 2002, federal and state agencies spent $576 million to conduct mission-related scientific research, monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. Eight federal agencies spent a little less than half of this amount, or $273 million. The South Florida Water Management District--the state agency most heavily involved in the restoration initiative--spent $303 million. With this federal and state funding, agencies made progress in developing information and the adaptive management tools necessary for restoration purposes. "Adaptive management" is an approach for improving resource management that uses models and monitoring as tools to improve the probability of achieving restoration goals. In particular, scientists state that they identified the key factors responsible for ecosystem degradation, such as altered water flow patterns throughout the ecosystem. While scientific understanding of these restoration issues has improved, significant gaps remain in the scientific information and adaptive management tools needed, that, if not addressed soon, will hinder the success of restoration. Gaps in the development of scientific information, such as information on the risks of contaminants to plants and animals in the ecosystem, may prevent action to address risks to the entire ecosystem or to one or more of its regions. Gaps are also present in the development of adaptive management tools--such as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan based on key indicators--that allow scientists to assess how the implementation of restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem and whether this implementation is resulting in successful restoration. The development of these tools is important to allow scientists to track the progress of restoration. Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is being coordinated and facilitated by the Task Force, formed from participating federal, state, and local agencies and tribal entities. The Task Force is responsible for coordinating scientific activities for restoration, but has yet to establish an effective means of doing so, thereby limiting the extent to which restoration decisions can be based on sound scientific information. The Task Force established the Science Coordination Team (SCT) to coordinate the science activities of the many agencies involved in restoration, but it did not give the SCT clear direction on which of the responsibilities were a priority for supporting the Task Force, contributing to the SCT's inability to accomplish several of its most important tasks. Further, unlike other restoration initiatives, the SCT works as a voluntary group with no full-time and few part-time staff. Recognizing its resource limitations, the SCT has focused on a few priority responsibilities. Without first clarifying the responsibilities of the SCT and then providing it sufficient resources to accomplish these responsibilities, the Task Force cannot ensure that scientific activities are being adequately coordinated, or that key scientific information is available for restoration decisions.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-03-345, South Florida Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood of Success
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-345
entitled 'South Florida Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve
Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood of Success' which was
released on March 26, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives:
March 2003:
South Florida Restoration:
Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the
Likelihood of Success:
GAO-03-345:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-345, a report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is a significant federal
and state priority, requiring the development and use of extensive
scientific information. GAO was asked to report on the funds spent
on scientific activities for restoration, the gaps that exist in
scientific information, and the extent to which scientific activities
are being coordinated.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal years 1993 through 2002, federal and state agencies spent
$576 million to conduct mission-related scientific research,
monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem. Eight federal agencies spent a little less than
half of this amount, or $273 million. The South Florida Water
Management District”the state agency most heavily involved in the
restoration initiative”spent $303 million. With this federal and state
funding, agencies made progress in developing information and the
adaptive management tools necessary for restoration purposes.
’Adaptive management“ is an approach for improving resource management
that uses models and monitoring as tools to improve the probability of
achieving restoration goals. In particular, scientists state that they
identified the key factors responsible for ecosystem degradation,
such as altered water flow patterns throughout the ecosystem.
While scientific understanding of these restoration issues has
improved, significant gaps remain in the scientific information and
adaptive management tools needed, that, if not addressed soon, will
hinder the success of restoration. Gaps in the development of
scientific information, such as information on the risks of
contaminants to plants and animals in the ecosystem, may prevent
action to address risks to the entire ecosystem or to one or more of
its regions. Gaps are also present in the development of adaptive
management tools”such as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan
based on key indicators”that allow scientists to assess how the
implementation of restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem
and whether this implementation is resulting in successful restoration.
The development of these tools is important to allow scientists to
track the progress of restoration.
Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is being coordinated and
facilitated by the Task Force, formed from participating federal,
state, and local agencies and tribal entities. The Task Force is
responsible for coordinating scientific activities for restoration,
but has yet to establish anm effective means of doing so, thereby
limiting the extent to which restoration mdecisions can be based on
sound scientific information. The Task Force established the SCT to
coordinate the science activities of the many agencies involved in
restoration, but it did not give the SCT clear direction on which
of the responsibilities were a priority for supporting the Task Force,
contributing to the SCT‘s inability to accomplish several of its most
important tasks. Further, unlike other restoration initiatives, the
SCT works as a voluntary group with no full-time and few part-time
staff. Recognizing its resource limitations, the SCT has focused on a
few priority responsibilities. Without first clarifying the
responsibilities of the SCT and then providing it sufficient resources
to accomplish these responsibilities, the Task Force cannot ensure that
scientific activities are being adequately coordinated, or that key
scientific information is available for restoration decisions.
What GAO Recommends:
In order to improve the coordination of scientific activities
for the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task
Force), clarify the plans and documents the Science
Coordination Team (SCT) needs to complete and the time frames
for completing them, as well as evaluate the SCT‘s staff resources
and allocate sufficient staff to carry out its responsibilities. We
are also making recommendations to improve working relations between
the Task Force and the SCT.
In commenting on the draft report, the Department of the Interior
agreed with the premises of our report that scientific activities
need to be coordinated better and that the SCT‘s role needs to be
clarified. Interior said that ultimately the Task Force needs to
review and approve actions on GAO‘s recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-345.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry Hill at
(202) 512-3841.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Science for the
South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas:
Gaps in Scientific Information and Adaptive Management Tools Remain--
That If Not Addressed, Could Hinder Ongoing Restoration Efforts:
The Task Force Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate Science
Activities:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Response:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Gaps in Information and the Effects of the Gaps:
Table 2: Gaps in Information Related to Individual Projects:
Table 3: Gaps in Indicators and Monitoring Plans and
the Effects of the Gaps:
Table 4: Gaps in Modeling Tools and the Effects of the Gaps:
Table 5: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:
Table 6: Expenditures by Federal and State Agencies for Research,
Monitoring, and Assessment Activities, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Everglades--Past, Present, and Future:
Figure 2: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida
Ecosystem
Restoration and Restoration Science:
Figure 3: Federal Expenditures by Science Activity, Fiscal Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 4: Total Federal Expenditures for Science Activities by Amount
and Percent, Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 5: Percent of District Expenditures for Research, Monitoring,
and
Assessments for Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 6: District Expenditures for Science Activities, Fiscal Years
1993 through 2002:
Figure 7: Old World Climbing Fern Smothering Vegetation:
Figure 8: Mangrove Habitat and Ridge and Slough Habitat with Tree
Islands:
Abbreviations:
CESI: Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative:
CROGEE: Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem:
RECOVER: Restoration Coordination and Verification :
SCT: Science Coordination Team:
STAR: Science to Achieve Results:
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:
March 18, 2003:
The Honorable Charles H. Taylor
Chairman
The Honorable Norman Dicks
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
South Florida, famous for the vast expanse of the Everglades wetlands,
is an 18,000 square mile (about 11.5 million acre) area that includes a
broad range of natural habitats, 6.5 million people, and significant
tourist, agricultural, and other industries. Development of the state‘s
varied natural resources has spurred the growth of South Florida‘s
population and economy, but at the same time, caused the deterioration
of its ecosystem and its natural areas. Restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem has been a significant federal and state priority
throughout the 1990s and into the new century. While efforts to restore
parts of the ecosystem began earlier, the Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) of 1996 formally established the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force (Task Force) to coordinate and facilitate the
efforts of the many federal, state, and local agencies and tribes
participating in restoration projects.[Footnote 1] The Task Force--with
the assistance of a working group formed of managers from federal,
state, local, and tribal entities in South Florida--has identified the
need to achieve three overall goals--improving water, improving
habitat, and making development compatible with the ecosystem--to help
achieve restoration. They have also identified over 200 restoration
projects designed to help restore the ecosystem. It will take as long
as 50 years and as much as $15 billion to complete the many related
restoration projects--the ecological effects of which may not be known
until many years thereafter.
Because of the long-term nature and complexity of the initiative, the
Task Force has identified key guiding principles for managing the
restoration initiative and its many related projects. One of these
principles is that decisions about restoration projects and plans will
be based on sound scientific information. Scientific information is an
umbrella term that includes the results of research and monitoring to
identify how and why the ecosystem has been damaged, as well as
assessments that integrate available research and monitoring results to
help restoration managers make decisions about what actions should be
taken to help restore the ecosystem. The Task Force has also adopted a
process called ’adaptive management“--an iterative approach for
improving resource management that recognizes that because scientific
information is imperfect and, as decisions are implemented based upon
best available science, a structure must be in place to acquire better
information and adjust the implemented actions accordingly to improve
the probability of achieving the goals of restoration. Such a process
requires the development of key tools--such as models, continued
research, and monitoring--to provide a baseline and periodically track
and assess ecosystem health to provide managers with updated
information on the effects of management actions designed to achieve
restoration. By participating in and providing information for
restoration efforts, scientists can help define and measure the
progress of restoration and the success of individual restoration
projects and plans.
To help coordinate the science needed for the restoration initiative,
the Task Force established a Science Coordination Team (SCT) in
1997.[Footnote 2] It gave the team responsibility for recommending
research plans and priorities and to facilitate the integration,
synthesis, and application of the best available scientific information
for restoration. The SCT is comprised of at least 14 members: 7 members
of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group (Working
Group) and 7 scientists from key agencies participating in the
restoration effort. In addition, Working Group members can nominate
additional members to the SCT.
In this context, you asked us to (1) identify the source and amount of
federal and state funding for scientific activities, the purpose of
these activities, and progress made in gaining scientific information
for the restoration; (2) determine the extent to which gaps exist in
key scientific information and the adaptive management tools needed for
restoration; and (3) assess the process used to coordinate scientific
activities and information central to restoration.
Among the efforts undertaken to respond to these objectives, GAO
gathered and analyzed funding data for 1993 through 2002 from federal
agencies that conduct scientific activities in South Florida and the
state‘s South Florida Water Management District (District). Because the
agencies do not routinely track data by category of science activity,
agency officials provided their best estimates of the funds spent in
specific science categories. Throughout this report, unless otherwise
noted, all years are fiscal years, rather than calendar years.[Footnote
3] GAO also analyzed documents related to 10 key restoration projects
and plans. The projects and plans were selected based on their cost
(the majority could cost over $100 million), the diversity and extent
of geographic areas they affect, and the status of their
implementation. Because the projects are a subset of the more than 200
restoration projects, the analysis is not meant to be generalized to
the remaining projects. GAO further analyzed the SCT charter and other
documents and examined other similar restoration efforts, such as the
effort to restore natural areas around San Francisco Bay in California
and Chesapeake Bay. GAO‘s scope and methodology is more fully discussed
in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
From 1993 through 2002, federal and state agencies spent $576 million
to conduct mission-related scientific research, monitoring, and
assessment in support of the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem. Eight federal agencies spent a little less than half of this
amount, or $273 million. The Department of the Interior, the largest
federal participant, spent about $139 million, the majority of which it
directed toward research, such as studying how federal lands would be
affected by changing water levels. The South Florida Water Management
District--the state agency most heavily involved in the restoration
initiative--spent $303 million. One major focus of the District‘s work
has been Everglades and Florida Bay research, including efforts to
develop different techniques to improve water quality in the ecosystem.
With this federal and state funding, agencies have made progress in
developing information and the adaptive management tools necessary for
restoration purposes. In particular, scientists state that they have
identified the key factors responsible for ecosystem degradation, such
as altered water flow patterns throughout the ecosystem. For example,
using systemwide models, scientists have a better understanding of the
amount and distribution of water in the ecosystem both before and after
it was altered by drainage. From this information, scientists have been
better able to evaluate alternatives for managing the water in the
ecosystem and have identified actions that can be taken to restore the
amounts and distribution of water to more closely reflect natural
conditions.
While scientific understanding of these restoration issues has
improved, significant gaps remain in the scientific information and
adaptive management tools needed for restoration, that, if not
addressed soon, will hinder the success of restoration. The gaps in the
development of scientific information may prevent action to address
risks to the entire ecosystem or to one or more of its regions. One
such gap is the lack of information regarding the amount and risk of
contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides, in water throughout
the entire ecosystem. If this information is not available, scientists
cannot determine whether fish and other organisms are being harmed by
these contaminants or whether the redistribution of water will
introduce potentially harmful contaminants to parts of the ecosystem
that are relatively undisturbed. Lacking this information, scientists
and managers do not know whether they are constructing a specific
restoration project that could increase the harm to plants and animals
that live in the ecosystem. Gaps are also present in the adaptive
management tools--such as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan
based on key indicators--that allow scientists to assess how the
implementation of restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem
and whether this implementation is resulting in successful restoration.
The development of these tools for the adaptive management approach is
important to allow scientists to track the progress or success of
restoration and identify when changes are needed in restoration
projects and plans to ensure that restoration goals are achieved.
The Task Force is responsible for coordinating scientific activities
for restoration, but has yet to establish an effective means of doing
so, thereby limiting the extent to which restoration decisions can be
based on sound scientific information. The Task Force established the
SCT in 1997 to coordinate the science activities of the many agencies
involved in restoration. The Task Force charged the SCT with a variety
of responsibilities, such as identifying gaps, recommending research
plans and priorities to fill those gaps, ensuring the development of
monitoring plans, and synthesizing scientific information for the Task
Force. Best practices for effective coordination and management require
the development of plans within specific time frames; however, since
the creation of the SCT nearly 6 years ago, the Task Force has not yet
specified the requirements for the plans the SCT is expected to
produce. Task Force officials indicated they were focused on getting
approval of a key plan to improve water amounts and distribution in the
ecosystem. Furthermore, unlike other restoration initiatives, the SCT
works essentially as a voluntary group with no full-time and few part-
time staff. Recognizing its resource limitations, the SCT has focused
on a few priority responsibilities, such as sponsoring science
conferences on restoration topics, and has set aside other important
responsibilities, including development of a science plan and a
comprehensive monitoring plan. In 2000, the SCT reported to the Task
Force that it could not carry out all of its broad responsibilities
given its limited resources. After nearly 3 years, the Task Force has
not yet fully addressed the SCT‘s concerns. Without first clarifying
the responsibilities of the SCT and then providing it sufficient
resources to accomplish these responsibilities, the Task Force cannot
ensure that scientific activities are adequately coordinated or that
key scientific information is available for restoration decisions.
Because multiple federal and state agencies are involved in scientific
activities for restoration and scientific information and adaptive
management tools are critical to inform decision making for South
Florida restoration, we are recommending that the Secretary of the
Interior, as chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, clarify the broad responsibilities of the SCT. In addition, we
are recommending that once SCT responsibilities are clarified, the Task
Force and Working Group should evaluate the SCT‘s staffing needs,
ensuring that the SCT has sufficient resources to carry out its
responsibilities.
In responding to a draft of our report, the Secretary of the Interior-
-who acts as chair of the Task Force--agreed with the premises of our
report that scientific information needs to be coordinated better and
that the SCT‘s responsibilities need to be clarified. The Secretary
stated that action on the specific recommendations that we made
ultimately needed to be discussed and agreed to by the members of the
Task Force. The Secretary agreed to bring these recommendations up for
discussion at the next meeting of the Task Force.
Background:
The South Florida ecosystem is an 18,000 square-mile area extending
from the Chain of Lakes and the Kissimmee River through Lake Okeechobee
to the coastal areas of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers,
Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the Florida Keys. Included in this area
are the Everglades, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the only living
coral reef in North America. Before human intervention, freshwater
flowed south from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad, slow-
moving sheet. The quantity and timing of the water‘s flow depended on
rainfall patterns and on slow releases of water stored naturally in the
ecosystem. Even during dry seasons, water stored throughout the
ecosystem supplied water to the wetlands and coastal areas. Although
these lands were--and still are--largely sustained by water and contain
a mix of wetland vegetation, they also include important dry land areas
called uplands with woody vegetation. Before it was altered by
development, the ecosystem provided habitat for many species of wading
birds and other wildlife, including Woodstorks, Roseate spoonbills,
manatees, the American crocodile, and the American alligator--all of
which depended on the natural pattern of water flow. Dry lands provided
habitat for many other types of species, including bald eagles, indigo
snakes, and the Key deer and rabbit.
The South Florida ecosystem is also home to 6.5 million people and
supports a large economy of agriculture, tourism, and industry. South
Florida‘s wetlands were first developed for agriculture and industry in
the late 1800s, but more extensive efforts were required to store water
for severe droughts, such as those that occurred in the 1930s, and to
protect the area from drenching hurricanes, such as those that occurred
in the late 1940s. In 1948, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to build the Central and Southern Florida Project--a system
of more than 1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump
stations--to prevent flooding and intrusion of saltwater into
freshwater aquifers on the Atlantic coast. The project, which was
constructed mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, reduced the natural north-
south flow of water in the ecosystem and created an east-west flow to
support agricultural and urban development. The engineering changes
that resulted from the project and subsequent agricultural, industrial,
and urban development reduced the Everglades ecosystem to about half
its original size, causing detrimental effects to wildlife habitats and
water quality. The loss of habitats has caused sharp declines in native
plant and animal populations, placing many native species at risk.
Figure 1 shows the historic and current flows of the Everglades
ecosystem as well as the proposed restored flow.
Figure 1: The Everglades--Past, Present, and Future:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Beginning in the late 1980s, the federal government began a series of
actions to restore the South Florida ecosystem. In the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to
review various reports on the Central and Southern Florida Project to
determine whether the project could be changed to improve the South
Florida ecosystem. In 1993, to coordinate the Corps‘ effort and the
input of other federal agencies that had an interest in the review, the
federal agencies participating in the restoration established a South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Congress formally created
this Task Force in the WRDA of 1996, which also expanded it to include
state, local, and tribal members and designated the Secretary of the
Interior as the group‘s chair. One of the duties of the Task Force is
to develop consistent policies, strategies, plans, priorities, and
actions for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. Finally, the Corps‘
review resulted in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which
Congress approved as a plan for restoration in the WRDA of 2000. As
shown in figure 1, the plan will attempt to reverse much of the flow of
water back to a more historic north-south pattern.
The Task Force established the following three overall goals for
achieving restoration:
* Get the water right: restore more natural hydrologic functions to the
ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies and flood control.
The goal is to deliver the right amount of water, of the right quality,
to the right places at the right times.
* Restore, protect, and preserve the natural system: restore lost and
altered habitats and change current land use patterns. Growth and
development have displaced and disconnected natural habitats. In
addition, the spread of invasive species have caused sharp declines in
native plant and animal populations. Currently, 69 native plant and
animal species, which are native to the ecosystem, have been federally
listed as threatened or endangered.[Footnote 4]
* Foster the compatibility of the built and natural systems: find
development patterns that are complementary to ecosystem
restoration and with a restored natural system. The goal is to achieve
(1) development practices that limit habitat fragmentation and support
conservation; (2) flood-protection and water supplies that are
maintained at current levels (and may be augmented); (3) quality of
life that includes clean air and water suitable for fishing, drinking,
and swimming; (4) land planning and other planning that enhances and
preserves the natural system; and (5) agricultural and urban practices
that do not damage the ecosystem by improper disposal of wastewater.
These three overall goals are expected to be accomplished as a result
of implementation of over 200 different projects and plans that,
collectively, the Task Force believes will restore the ecosystem to
conditions as close as possible to those that existed prior to the
construction of the Central and Southern Florida Project.[Footnote 5]
While some of these 200 projects and plans have been initiated, many
more projects and plans are just beginning to be implemented. For
example, the first goal, getting the water right, will be accomplished
in part by the construction of 55 projects that will modify the Central
and Southern Florida Project to enlarge the region‘s freshwater supply
and to improve the delivery of water to natural areas.[Footnote 6] Ten
of the projects and several pilot projects, which were authorized in
the WRDA of 2000, are now in the planning stages. In addition, the
Corps and the State of Florida are developing a Comprehensive
Integrated Water Quality Feasibility Study to identify ongoing water
quality efforts and to identify actions that will be needed to improve
water quality for restoration purposes.
The second restoration goal--restoring, protecting, and preserving the
natural system--will be accomplished through restoring natural
hydropatterns and through the implementation of the Fish and Wildlife
Service‘s South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (a plan to help
restore habitats and species); land acquisition plans by federal,
state, and local agencies; and the Task Force‘s strategy to assist
agencies in controlling invasive species. The third goal--fostering the
compatibility of the built and natural systems--will be achieved
largely through the coordination of state and local land and water
supply planning. This goal involves such efforts as improving
comprehensive planning and growth management; continued acquisition,
protection, and linkage of park, recreation, and open space; developing
sustainable agriculture, such as applying best management practices to
remove nutrients from agricultural water that runs off of the land and
into canals, rivers, and ultimately freshwater and coastal wetlands and
the ocean; and maintaining or improving flood protection service.
One of the Task Force‘s principles for accomplishing restoration is to
use scientific information to guide restoration decisions. Science
refers to several different disciplines--biology, chemistry, geology,
hydrology, ecology, and social sciences--all of which play a role in
providing scientific information for restoration. Scientific
information can be the results of research and monitoring, or
assessments that integrate available research and monitoring results,
such as the environmental assessments that agencies are required to
conduct under the National Environmental Policy Act. Scientific
research involves conducting ’cause and effect“ experiments, either
through field or laboratory studies that investigate the cause of
specific natural conditions. The development of mathematical models to
simulate various ecosystem functions is also a type of research,
although models can also be used to help scientists assess ecosystem
conditions. Monitoring provides information developed from physical
observation or samples of a resource--for example, a water sample or a
bird count--over a period of time, which allows the identification of
trends that may occur in that resource over time.
Because of the complexity of the ecosystem and efforts underway to
restore it, and the urgency to begin the long-term ecosystem
restoration effort, not all of the scientific information that is
needed is available to make restoration decisions. As a result,
scientists will continually need to develop information and restoration
decision makers will continually need to review it. According to the
Task Force, scientists participating in restoration are expected to
identify and determine what information is needed to fill gaps in
scientific knowledge critical to meeting restoration objectives and
provide managers with updated scientific information for critical
restoration decisions. Generally, decisions about restoration projects
and plans have been--and will continue to be--made by the agencies
participating in the restoration initiative. To provide these managers-
-as well as its own members--with updated scientific information, the
Task Force endorsed the use of a process called adaptive management,
which involves the (1) development of performance indicators of the key
factors causing the ecosystem to be degraded and the key ecosystem
characteristics to be restored; (2) a long-term monitoring plan to
track the status and trends in measures and indicators, research to
help understand factors that affect measures and indicators, and
assessment of monitoring and research data to determine whether
restoration actions are successful; and (3) feedback so that managers
will know what management changes may be needed.
The SCT is the primary group responsible for coordinating agency
science activities--to address information gaps and the adaptive
management process. As the restoration initiative has progressed, the
Task Force and participating agencies have created other groups with
science coordination responsibilities, although these groups are more
narrowly focused than the SCT (see fig. 2).[Footnote 7]
Figure 2: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration and Restoration Science:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District established the Restoration Coordination and
Verification (RECOVER) program to assess, monitor, and evaluate
progress in implementing the plan. As part of this responsibility, the
RECOVER program is to ensure that scientific information is available
to make decisions on the effect of the plan on the ecosystem. In
addition, the Corps and the local sponsor plan to establish a Project
Delivery Team for each of the 55 restoration projects that they will
construct. Each team can include scientists from other agencies for the
purposes of identifying scientific information that is relevant to the
design of the project and to identify information that is not available
and needs to be developed. To carry out the Multi-Species Recovery
Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service created a multiagency, multiparty
implementation team called the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery
Implementation Team, which is responsible for identifying and
prioritizing actions that can be taken to help recover species that are
threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. To
coordinate and implement scientific information on invasive species,
the Task Force created a team called the Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team
and plans to create a second team, called the Noxious Exotic Animal
Task Team, to address invasive animals.
In addition to these teams, the Task Force worked with the National
Academy of Sciences to form the Committee on Restoration of the Greater
Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE), which is responsible for providing the
Task Force with independent scientific and technical reviews for
several elements of the restoration, including restoration of marine
areas and ecological indicators. The CROGEE existed prior to the
passage of WRDA 2000, which authorizes the creation of an independent
scientific group that will review progress toward achieving the goals
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and that will assess
and report to Congress on the ecological indicators and other measures
of progress in the plan. The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of
the Interior, and the Governor of Florida plan to jointly establish the
independent scientific review provisions of WRDA 2000 by entering into
a 5-year contract with the Academy of Sciences.
Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Science for the
South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas:
Federal and state agencies spent $576 million from fiscal years 1993
through 2002 to conduct mission-related scientific research,
monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem. Eight federal departments and agencies spent
$273 million for science activities, with the Department of the
Interior spending $139 million (50 percent) of the funds.[Footnote 8]
Federal expenditures, which increased by more than 34 percent from 1996
through 1997, have remained relatively constant since. The South
Florida Water Management District--the state agency most heavily
involved in scientific activities for restoration--spent $303 million
during the same period. The state‘s expenditures increased steadily
from 1993, with significant increases in 2000 and 2002. The federal and
state funds have helped scientists make progress in developing
scientific information and adaptive management tools related to the
first goal of restoration--getting the water right. A detailed table of
the funding by federal and state agencies since 1993 is presented in
appendix II.
Federal Agencies Spent $273 Million on Science for the Restoration
Initiative:
Eight agencies spent a total of $273 million to develop scientific
information for the South Florida ecosystem since 1993. The agencies
involved in scientific activities for the restoration are the
Department of Interior‘s National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Department
of Commerce‘s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the
Department of Agriculture‘s Agricultural Research Service; the
Department of the Army‘s Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The agencies‘ expenditures for research, monitoring,
and assessment are provided in detail in appendix II. Echoing the
increased federal attention to restoration efforts, federal
expenditures for science activities--which include research,
monitoring, and assessments--rose from $9 million in 1993 to $34
million in 1997 and have remained relatively steady since (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Federal Expenditures by Science Activity, Fiscal Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: All dollars have been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.
Federal agencies spent $166 million (61 percent) on research
activities, $64 million (23 percent) on monitoring activities, and
almost $43 million (16 percent) on assessment activities from 1993
through 2002. As shown in figure 3, expenditures have increased since
1993, with a jump in expenditures in 1997. The jump resulted from an
increase in funding provided for research activities by Interior and
the Corps. That year, Interior began funding its Critical Ecosystem
Studies Initiative (CESI), a program designed to accelerate the
development of scientific information associated with areas of
importance to Interior, such as Everglades National Park.In the same
year, the Corps increased its spending on research for a few key water
projects designed to provide restoration benefits.
Interior Spent Half of the Federal Funds Designated for Science
Activities:
The Department of the Interior spent half of the total federal funds
expended for science activities for restoration. Figure 4 shows the
total amount and percent of funds spent by the 8 federal agencies for
science activities from 1993 through 2002.
Figure 4: Total Federal Expenditures for Science Activities by Amount
and Percent, Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Total federal expenditures for science activities for fiscal
years 1993 through 2002 equaled $273 million. Individual dollar figures
and percentages may not total because of rounding. All dollars have
been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.
Four agencies in the Interior Department--the U.S. Geological Survey,
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs--were responsible for $139 million or more than 50
percent of federal funding for science activities for South Florida.
The U.S. Geological Survey spent $77 million--the most of any federal
agency--primarily on its Placed-Based Studies Program, which provides
information, data, and models to other agencies to support decisions
for ecosystem restoration:
and management.[Footnote 9] The U.S. Geological Survey focused the
program on the following five scientific areas:
* the historic ecosystem--how it functioned and its plants and animals;
* the hydrological models that describe water flow through the
Everglades, both above and below ground;
* the ecological models that determine the effect of altered water flow
on several individual species, such as the Cape Sable seaside sparrow
and the Florida panther (both federally listed endangered species);
* the mapping of the physical features of the natural system; and:
* the effects of contaminants, such as mercury, on biological,
geological, and chemical processes in the Everglades.
In addition, U.S. Geological Survey also supports a Web site that
provides access to the reports, publications, and data that it produces
for restoration.
One example of the research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey is
a study in Florida Bay using clamshells to determine the age of
sediment and to further determine the salinity of the bay in
corresponding periods. The data and information collected from this
study provide an ecological history of Florida Bay and can be linked to
historical rainfall data. This allows scientists to determine the
historical range of salinity for different parts of the bay, which can
in turn be used to establish the amounts of freshwater flow from the
mainland that would best recreate those conditions.
After the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service spent
the second largest amount of funds within Interior and the federal
government--about $48 million. The National Park Service spent the
funds for its CESI program, begun in 1997 to accelerate research needed
to provide scientific information for the restoration initiative.
Because two particular Corps water projects are expected to provide
restoration results within the next few years for public lands such as
Everglades National Park and others, the National Park Service focused
the CESI program on conducting research and gathering information to
understand the potential effects of these projects, funding hydrologic
modeling, ecological modeling, ecological processes, and water quality
studies in the project areas.[Footnote 10] The largest portion of CESI
funding has been spent on research to characterize the predrainage
ecosystem and to define the current conditions of the ecosystem. CESI
funding has also been spent on identifying indicators for monitoring
the success of restoration of Everglades National Park, other parks and
public lands, and on developing models and tools to assess the effects
of water projects on these natural lands.[Footnote 11]
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs spent
the remainder of Interior‘s funds, about $10 million and $3 million
respectively. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent the majority of its
funds to develop the Multi-Species Recovery Plan, which documents the
actions needed to help recover 68 of the federally listed species in
South Florida.[Footnote 12] The Bureau distributed its funds to the
Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes of Florida--whose lands are located
within the ecosystem--for the tribes to conduct research and to plan
for water quality and distribution systems on their tribal lands.
Both the Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration spent approximately $37 million each, primarily on
research activities. The Corps focused its $37 million on developing
and running models for water projects that it is building for
Everglades restoration. For example, the Corps has used hydrological
models to examine many different alternative configurations for the C-
111 project near the eastern boundary of Everglades National Park. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focused its $37 million
on research activities such as studying the conditions of coastal and
ocean areas surrounding South Florida. One major use of this research
is to determine the effect of inland restoration efforts and changing
freshwater flow on Florida Bay and its habitats. For example, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is conducting research
that will enable scientists to understand environmental problems such
as the die-off of seagrass in Florida Bay and the deterioration of
mangroves along the southern coast of Florida.
Two other federal agencies--the Agricultural Research Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency--spent the remaining $60 million in
federal funds. The Agricultural Research Service used a portion of its
$35 million to conduct research on biological control and management of
invasive pest plant species in South Florida. In particular, the agency
focused its research on identifying and collecting natural enemies for
development of biological controls of Melaleuca--a hardy, fast-growing
invasive tree imported from Australia that overruns natural vegetation
in the ecosystem. In addition, the Agricultural Research Service spent
some of its funds on developing strains of water-tolerant sugar cane in
an effort to make agriculture more compatible with the higher water
levels expected with restoration actions and has also developed
hydrological models for agricultural lands in South Dade County that
will be most affected by restoration actions. In contrast, the
Environmental Protection Agency spent most of its $25 million on
monitoring the conditions of seagrass, the Florida Keys coral reef, and
water quality in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The
Environmental Protection Agency has also conducted research on the
sources and distribution of mercury contamination in the
ecosystem.[Footnote 13]
In addition to conducting scientific activities, some federal agencies
provide grants to universities to conduct scientific activities related
to restoration in South Florida. For example, CESI has granted money to
the University of Florida to support a monitoring program for the
American crocodile in Everglades National Park to help study the animal
as an indicator of ecosystem health for restoration. Other entities,
such as the National Science Foundation, also provide grants for
science in South Florida.[Footnote 14] For example, the foundation has
funded the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research
Program through Florida International University to ensure long-term
funding for ecosystem research in South Florida. The study has received
$700,000 annually since 2000 and will continue to receive this much per
year for a total of 6 years; the grant will be reviewed every 6 years
for renewal of funding.[Footnote 15]
While total expenditures for federal agencies‘ science activities
generally increased over the past 10 years, some agencies‘ expenditures
decreased. For example, expenditures by the Environmental Protection
Agency decreased from $4.4 million in 1998 to approximately $816,000 in
2002 (approximately 80 percent). The agency‘s expenditures decreased
due to the discontinuation of funding for its monitoring program--the
South Florida Regional Ecosystem Monitoring and Assessment Program--as
well as some of its mercury contamination research programs.
Key State Agency Has Spent $303 Million on Scientific Activities for
the Restoration Initiative:
In addition to the $273 million spent by federal agencies for science-
related activities, the State of Florida‘s South Florida Water
Management District provided $303 million for such activities from 1993
to 2002. The District spent much of its funding on scientific
activities related to water projects in line with its major
responsibility to manage and operate the Central and Southern Florida
Project and water resources in the ecosystem. The District spent nearly
half of its science funding--$141 million--on monitoring activities
including water quality monitoring for which the District is
responsible (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Percent of District Expenditures for Research, Monitoring,
and Assessments for Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Total District expenditures for science activities for fiscal
years 1993 through 2002 equaled $303 million. Because the South Florida
Water Management District does not routinely track funds by these three
categories of science activities, District officials provided their
best estimates of the funds spent in these categories. All dollars have
been adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars.
The District spent over a quarter--$81 million--of its funding on
assessments of the ecosystem related to water projects in South
Florida, such as the C-111 project. It spent the same amount on
research activities, including efforts to develop different techniques
to improve water quality in the ecosystem and hydrologic modeling. For
example, the District spent approximately $34 million to conduct
research on advanced treatment technologies and on the optimization of
storm water treatment areas, all of which are systems that remove
nutrients such as phosphorus from urban and agricultural storm water
runoff that flows into natural areas including Everglades National
Park.
The District‘s total annual expenditures for science activities, like
total federal expenditures, have increased steadily since 1993. The
District‘s total expenditures for scientific activities rose from $19
million in 1993 to $46 million in 2002, with two funding increases in
2000 and 2002 (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: District Expenditures for Science Activities, Fiscal Years
1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Because the South Florida Water Management District does not
routinely track funds by these three categories of science activities,
District officials provided their best estimates of the funds spent in
these categories. All dollars have been adjusted to fiscal year 2002
dollars.
In 2000, the District spent more funds on assessments and monitoring
related to actions it took to help restore Lake Okeechobee by lowering
its water levels and on continued monitoring associated with historic
drought conditions. In addition, the District spent additional funds on
increased monitoring of storm water treatment areas. The 2002 increase
resulted in part from ongoing implementation of its Everglades
restoration projects and special appropriations received from the state
for Lake Okeechobee and estuary restoration initiatives.
Federal and State Agencies Made Progress in Developing Information and
Tools for Restoration Purposes:
Federal and state agencies used their funds to make progress in
developing scientific information and adaptive management tools. In
particular, scientists made progress in understanding historic and
current hydrological conditions and developed tools that allow them to
forecast the effects of water management alternatives on the ecosystem.
Specifically, scientists developed hydrological models that provide a
picture of the amount, timing, and distribution of water in the
ecosystem before and after it was altered by drainage. These models
were used to assess alternative configurations for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. The information and models developed will
help achieve the first restoration goal, which is to get the quantity,
quality, distribution, and timing of water in the ecosystem right.
Scientists have also made significant progress in developing
information on mercury, a contaminant that affects water quality and
the health of birds, animals, and humans in the South Florida
ecosystem. The presence of mercury in South Florida fish was
highlighted as a problem for wildlife in 1989 by the Florida Department
of Health, and in 1993, scientists identified mercury contamination as
one of the alarming ecological threats to the altered ecosystem. Since
then, scientists have conducted research that linked local, regional,
and global information on mercury and helped identify the root causes
of the mercury problem. In general, this information improved
understanding of the sources, transformations, and fate of mercury in
the Everglades. More specifically, scientists determined that
atmospheric sources account for greater than 95 percent of the mercury
that is added to the ecosystem. As a result, scientists confirmed that
regulatory actions taken to reduce incinerator emissions of mercury
were appropriate action to help reduce mercury in the ecosystem.
Scientists also made progress in developing control techniques for one
serious invasive species and reducing the effects of excess nutrients
on the natural system. First, scientists developed a biological control
that by 1999 had helped to reduce the acreage of Melaleuca present on
natural lands in South Florida by 26 percent. Second, scientists helped
to design over 41,000 acres of storm water treatment areas constructed
by the state and to optimize best management practices applied by
farmers and ranchers to their fields. These areas and practices have
been used to reduce the amount of excess nutrients--in particular
phosphorus--in water running off agricultural fields into natural areas
in South Florida.
Gaps in Scientific Information and Adaptive Management Tools Remain--
That If Not Addressed, Could Hinder Ongoing Restoration Efforts:
While scientists have made progress in developing scientific
information, they have also identified significant gaps in scientific
information and adaptive management tools that, if not addressed in the
near future, will hinder the overall success of the restoration effort.
Gaps in the development of scientific information may prevent action to
address risks to the entire ecosystem, specific regions of the
ecosystem, or to areas around individual projects. For example,
scientists need to know, but have little information on, the amount and
risk of contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides in water
throughout the entire ecosystem. Without this information, scientists
cannot determine whether fish and other organisms are being harmed by
these contaminants or whether the redistribution of water will spread
the potentially harmful contaminants to parts of the ecosystem that are
relatively undisturbed. In addition, scientists and managers cannot
determine whether a restoration project has the potential to increase
the levels of contaminants in parts of the ecosystem. Gaps are also
present in the development of certain adaptive management tools, such
as models and a comprehensive monitoring plan, that are based on key
indicators, which allow scientists to assess how the implementation of
restoration projects and plans affect the ecosystem and whether this
implementation is resulting in successful restoration. The only
systemwide-monitoring plan that does exist is one put together for the
RECOVER program focusing on the objectives of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. Without these types of tools, scientists
can neither track the progress or success of restoration nor identify
when changes may be needed to restoration projects and plans to ensure
that restoration goals are achieved.
Current Research Does Not Fully Address Ecosystem Threats or Individual
Project Information Needs:
Existing gaps in scientific information prevent scientists and managers
from assessing ecosystem health and limit their ability to implement
particular restoration projects and plans. Although the restoration
initiative seeks to return the ecosystem as close as possible to the
conditions that existed prior to its drainage, scientists remain
concerned over the uncertainties associated with the biological and
ecological conditions that existed and that could exist again in a
restored ecosystem. In our review of 10 ongoing projects and plans
related to restoration, scientists identified gaps in information for 6
of the projects that will potentially hinder restoration if not filled.
Four of these projects and plans have information gaps that have the
potential to affect large parts, if not the entire, ecosystem and two
projects have gaps that will make it difficult to implement particular
restoration projects within the time frames and budgets allotted for
them.
Research Needed to Fill Ecosystemwide Gaps:
In our review of restoration projects and plans, scientists identified
the need for information on two areas--invasive species and water
contaminants--that, if not developed, will potentially hinder ecosystem
health. Table 1 shows the four projects and plans that we reviewed that
revealed information gaps and their effects.
Table 1: Gaps in Information and the Effects of the Gaps:
Project/plan and purpose: Exotic plants plan: To develop a
comprehensive strategy for agencies to address invasive plants in South
Florida; Information gap: Information on (1) controls for species
present or likely to invade the ecosystem and (2) the detection of new
invasive plants.; Effect of information gap: Without controls, invasive
plants will devastate some natural areas, undermining the benefits of
other projects designed to achieve restoration benefits.
Project/plan and purpose: Canal 111 (C-111) project: To increase flows
in the southeastern portion of Everglades National Park, improving
wetland habitat for wading birds and other species.; Information gap:
Information on the presence and effects of contaminants--; such as
heavy metals, pesticides, and other chemicals--in other areas of the
ecosystem.; Effect of information gap: Without information on the
types, amounts, and potential risks of contaminants in water and
sediment, scientists and managers cannot tell whether they might
distribute contaminants to other areas.
Project/plan and purpose: Wastewater Reuse Pilot Project: To study the
use of treated wastewater to supplement water in natural areas.;
Information gap: Information on detecting and analyzing the effects of
pharmaceutical contaminants--that is hormones, steroids, and
antibiotics and other chemicals that are not removed with water
treatment technology.; Effect of information gap: Without information
on such contaminants, scientists and managers do not know if water that
is planned as supplemental supply for natural areas such as Biscayne
Bay would be of sufficient quality.
Project/plan and purpose: Storm Water Treatment Area 1-East: A
constructed wetland used to remove excess nutrients--particularly
phosphorus--from agricultural and other runoff water.; Information gap:
Information on ways to optimize the removal of phosphorus from runoff
water.; Effect of information gap: Without such information, scientists
and managers could not achieve the low levels of phosphorus needed to
restore the ecosystem using this technology, resulting in continued
degradation of native sawgrass habitat, a type of vegetation important
for a restored ecosystem.
[End of table]
Sources: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).
Invasive species--harmful plants and animals that are not native to an
ecosystem--hinder attempts to restore native species, including
threatened and endangered ones, in South Florida by strangling native
plants and depriving native animals of their habitat and food sources.
Examples of invasive species already known to exist in South Florida
include Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, the Asian swamp eel, and the Old
World climbing fern. Information is needed on control methods for the
invasive species that are already present and those that are likely to
invade the ecosystem and on methods for identifying newly introduced
species before they cause extensive harm to the ecosystem. For example,
scientists and managers reported that insufficient research on control
methods has allowed the Old World climbing fern to spread throughout
parts of the ecosystem. The fern has covered increasing amounts of
native vegetation--about 28,000 acres in 1993 and about 109,000 acres
in 1999. Growing over trees and shrubs, the fern smothers whole plant
communities, altering water movement and increasing the risk of fire
(see fig. 7). Without additional information on control and detection,
scientists stated that invasive plants and animals will continue to
devastate parts of the ecosystem, thereby hindering the success of
restoration.
Figure 7: Old World Climbing Fern Smothering Vegetation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A second area that has the potential to impede restoration efforts is
the presence of contaminants that could affect water and sediment
quality, and thus, the entire ecosystem‘s health. Scientists are
concerned that the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides near natural
areas in South Florida increases the discharge of chemical compounds
into natural areas. Contaminants found in South Florida are heavy
metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals that are
transported by water and soil and deposited in sediments. When
discharged into natural areas, contaminants are absorbed by organisms
such as aquatic insects, other invertebrates, and fish that live in the
water and sediment, affecting the survival and reproduction of those
organisms and those that feed on them. Information that is needed on
contaminants includes the amounts of contaminants that are applied and
could be discharged into the environment, the amounts that persist in
water and sediments, and the risks faced by organisms living in areas
with contaminants (even low levels on a long-term basis). Information
on analytical methods is needed for one specific type of contaminant,
pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, hormones, and steroids that
remain in water even after treatment. Information is also needed for
another specific category of contaminants--nutrients such as
phosphorus--that cause undesirable changes to vegetation by increasing
the growth of cattails that replace native sawgrass. Information that
is needed on nutrients includes how to optimize techniques already
developed to reduce phosphorus to lower levels. If information in these
areas is not developed, poor water and soil quality may continue to
degrade habitats and harm the plants and animals that are part of the
ecosystem.
No single agency has primary responsibility for developing the
scientific information needed to address problems regarding invasive
species or contaminants for restoration. Although these areas may be
systemwide priorities, agency science programs may have different
priorities, in part, because of their different missions and
objectives. As a result, systemwide information on these areas is
difficult to develop. While scientists from several agencies
participating in the restoration have conducted limited studies, no
comprehensive research or research plans have been implemented. For
example, the National Park Service granted money for research on the
amounts and types of contaminants that exist around the C-111 project
and that could be moving into Everglades National Park, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration granted funds for
research on contaminants that might flow from C-111 into Florida Bay.
While the results of these limited studies indicate the need for more
systemwide work on screening for contaminants that may be moved by
changes to water management projects, little work has been done to
address this issue on a systemwide basis.
Information Needed to Support Individual Restoration Projects:
Two of the 10 projects that we reviewed required additional scientific
information to ensure that the projects, as designed, would achieve
restoration at the local level. Scientists have identified gaps in
scientific information that, if not addressed, may delay the projects
while the information is developed or that may require the projects to
be changed after they are implemented, which could increase costs
associated with the projects. Table 2 shows the two projects, the
information needed, and the effects of the information gaps.
Table 2: Gaps in Information Related to Individual Projects:
Project and purpose: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project: To promote
more gradual flow of freshwater into Biscayne Bay, by restoring tidal
creeks along the bay, thus reducing salinity levels and improving
habitat for oysters and fish.; Information gap: Information on saline
concentrations in the bay.; Effect of information gap: Without salinity
levels for coastal areas of the bay, scientists cannot determine how to
design the project to optimize freshwater flows into the bay to restore
it.
Project and purpose: Modified Water Delivery project: To restore water
to Northeast Shark River Slough on the eastern side of Everglades
National Park to improve wetland habitat for birds and animals.;
Information gap: Information on tree islands and the effects of water
’flow“ on tree islands and ridge and slough habitat.; Effect of
information gap: Without information on the level of water needed to
sustain the formation of the islands without flooding them, the removal
of levees cannot be optimally designed. The lack of information also
affects a related project, the decompartmentalization of levees in the
state‘s water conservation areas.
[End of table]
Sources: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).
Scientists working on the Project Delivery Team for the first project,
the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, identified the need to
acquire information on salinity levels along the coast. The project
seeks to restore more natural freshwater flows into the Biscayne Bay,
which have been disrupted by the canals and operations of the Central
and Southern Florida Project. The coastal wetlands project will help
restore the estuarine conditions of the bay by recreating coastal
creeks through the mangroves fringing the bay and restricting the
effects of pulses of freshwater that are emptied periodically from
canals into the bay (see fig. 8). Information on salinity would allow
scientists to determine the amount and timing of water that should be
released into the bay to create more natural conditions. This
information would enable the scientists to determine how many tidal
creeks need to be restored as part of the project design and would help
them identify where the tidal creeks should be located. Without this
information, the project design cannot be finalized and land
acquisition cannot be completed for the project. Although the project
has a conceptual design and land is being acquired according to it, a
more detailed design is needed to assure that the right lands are
acquired for the project.[Footnote 16]
Figure 8: Mangrove Habitat and Ridge and Slough Habitat with Tree
Islands:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Scientific information is also needed to support the Modified Water
Delivery project, which has been ongoing for many years and has been
delayed primarily because of land acquisition conflicts. The Modified
Water Delivery project and a related project in the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan are expected to increase the amount of
water running through the eastern part of Everglades National Park,
lower water levels on state and tribal lands to the north of the park,
keep agricultural lands to the east of the park dry, and restore an
important type of habitat called ’ridge and slough“ habitat. This
habitat, which is one of the signature habitats native to the
Everglades, is thought to be essential to maintain the rich diversity
of habitats necessary for Everglades plants and animals. Ridge and
slough habitat contains slightly elevated, north-south ridges dominated
by sawgrass, interspersed with sloughs, which are open water areas with
sparse vegetation. This ridge and slough habitat may also have ’tree
islands,“ which have woody vegetation more suited to dry areas than
wetlands and serve as important habitat for some species (see fig. 8).
High water levels have destroyed many tree islands, areas that
scientists seek to restore. However, scientists identified the need for
continued work to understand the dynamics of tree islands and recently
identified the need to understand the role of flowing water in the
creation of ridge and slough habitat and its associated tree islands.
If the information is not developed, the project designs may be delayed
or inadequate, forcing scientists and managers to spend time
redesigning projects or making unnecessary modifications to those
already built. For example, a larger portion of the levees, roads in
the vicinity of the Modified Water Delivery project, and other barriers
may need to be removed to increase the flow of water if scientists
develop information demonstrating the need.
According to scientists and managers, even though adaptive management
allows for changes to be made to projects as new information becomes
available, it is still best to design projects with as much of the
important scientific information as possible to prevent the costly
alteration or removal of projects or potential damage to the ecosystem.
The Corps and the District are relying on some, if not most, of the
scientific work needed to be accomplished by other agencies such as the
Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the National Park Service, or the South Florida Water Management
District. However, agency science programs are generally driven by
research cycles that last from 3 to 5 years, which limits the
opportunities to start new work or to make the results available for
decisions.
Key Adaptive Management Tools Are Needed to Apply Science to
Restoration Decisions:
Key tools needed for effective adaptive management have not yet been
developed, including (1) a comprehensive monitoring plan for key
indicators of ecosystem health and (2) mathematical models that would
allow scientists to simulate aspects of the ecosystem and better
understand how the ecosystem responds to restoration actions.
Indicators and a monitoring plan were missing for the two plans we
reviewed and models were missing for three projects we reviewed.
Without such tools, the process of adaptive management will be hindered
by the fact that scientists and managers will be less able to monitor
key indicators of restoration and evaluate the effects created by
particular restoration actions.
Key Indicators and a Comprehensive Monitoring Plan Are Not Yet
Developed:
While scientists have established indicators and a monitoring plan for
the Corps‘ Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which is designed
to help achieve the first goal of restoration (getting the water
right), they have not done so for the other restoration goals--
restoring, protecting, and preserving the natural system and fostering
the compatibility of built and natural systems. Indicators are
particular features of the ecosystem--such as wading birds, vegetation,
or water quality levels--that characterize or represent the conditions
of the ecosystem that scientists and others participating in
restoration would like to restore. These indicators or features are
monitored to determine the degree to which they are changing--thereby
indicating whether the ecosystem is changing in the desired direction.
The Corps and the District, in implementing the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan under the 2000 WRDA, established the
RECOVER program to carry out an adaptive management program with a
monitoring plan for water-related projects and habitat.[Footnote 17]
Neither the Task Force nor the participating agencies have developed a
similar program for plans associated with the two other restoration
goals. As a result, scientists have not established a full set of
indicators or a monitoring plan for goals two and three of the
restoration. Table 3 shows the gaps in indicators and monitoring plans.
Table 3: Gaps in Indicators and Monitoring Plans and
the Effects of the Gaps:
Plan and purpose: South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan: Identifies
actions needed to save 68 threatened and endangered species and habitat
for these species.; Gap in indicators and monitoring plans: Indicators
for endangered species and a range of related habitats and a monitoring
plan to determine whether actions have helped them.; Effect of missing
tool: Without indicators and a long-range monitoring plan for a range
of threatened and endangered species--including habitat indicators--
scientists will have a more difficult time knowing whether species are
recovering because of restoration actions. Without the monitoring
information, scientists cannot provide information for adaptive
management decisions.
Plan and purpose: Exotic plants plan: To develop consistent monitoring
methods and control methods for agencies in South Florida.; Gap in
indicators and monitoring plans: Indicators and a monitoring plan for
invasive exotic species.; Effect of missing tool: Without indicators
and a long-range monitoring plan for the species that most threaten the
ecosystem, scientists cannot provide information about how to adapt
management decisions.
[End of table]
Sources: Federal agencies (data and analysis), GAO (analysis).
The Task Force has adopted restoring, protecting, and preserving
natural habitats as its second restoration goal, but has not ensured
the development of a monitoring plan for carrying out this goal. The
Fish and Wildlife Service--the agency leading species recovery efforts-
-has established a multiagency, multidisciplinary team to identify
actions that can be taken to recover multiple species. In addition, the
Fish and Wildlife Service monitors the status of all threatened and
endangered species, and the RECOVER program has selected particular
species as indicators of success for implementing water projects;
however, these are not the equivalent of indicators and monitoring of
the range of habitats that exist in South Florida. For example,
although indicators and a monitoring plan for key wetland species have
been selected, they have not been selected for upland species.
Scientists have also not developed indicators or a monitoring plan for
invasive species or for the changes in the extent of wetland vegetation
and coverage, both of which are related to the second restoration goal,
to restore the natural system. While the Task Force‘s invasive species
team is attempting to unify the agencies‘ diverse methods of detecting
and monitoring invasive species, it has not identified indicators of
the range and amount of invasive exotic species or developed a
monitoring plan to track relevant indicators.
Indicators of significant ecosystem conditions such as the condition of
uplands and related monitoring plans need to be developed before the
process of adaptive management--tracking changes in the ecosystem and
making necessary changes to restoration actions--can be successfully
accomplished. Even though the restoration initiative and the various
programs will be implemented over a long period of time, scientists
stated that it is important to establish current (baseline) conditions
as quickly as possible and to begin monitoring to develop sufficient
data on which to base analyses of trends. Analyzing trends is difficult
without sufficient data and may lead to inaccurate or indeterminate
conclusions. Further, if the set of indicators is not comprehensive--
that is, if it excludes significant parts of the ecosystem or does not
allow the tracking of important management actions--then the adaptive
management process will not be comprehensive nor will it indicate the
success of restoration.
Important Models Are Needed:
As with monitoring plans, models are also important tools for carrying
out adaptive management because they allow scientists to forecast and
evaluate the potential effects of proposed restoration actions. In our
review of restoration projects and plans, scientists identified the
need for several important models--including three for Florida Bay,
Biscayne Bay, and systemwide vegetation. Models are mathematical
representations of physical conditions and processes; for example,
scientists use a model to determine how much water is available in
different parts of the ecosystem based on rainfall amounts, water
levels in canals, and the amount of water available from groundwater.
They can be simple, requiring a few calculations or data
transformations, or they can be extremely complicated, requiring data
collection for tens or hundreds of variables. Table 4 shows the gaps in
models that scientists stated are needed to support restoration
efforts.
Table 4: Gaps in Modeling Tools and the Effects of the Gaps:
Project/plan and purpose: Florida Bay Feasibility Study: To study
options for improving water management for Florida Bay, including the
development of a hydrodynamic model of the bay.; Gap in modeling tools:
Hydrodynamic model of the bay. A hydrodynamic model shows the
circulation of water, including the changing depth of water, and shows
changes in water quality, such as salinity, related to circulation and
depth.; Effect of missing tool: Without such a model, scientists will
have a more difficult time determining the effects of adding water--
from the water management changes associated with water projects in
South Florida--to the bay. They also cannot determine salinity and
water quality levels that may affect seagrass, algae, and organisms in
the bay.
Project/plan and purpose: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project: To
promote more gradual flow of freshwater into the Biscayne Bay, by
restoring tidal creeks along the bay, thus reducing salinity levels and
improving habitat for oysters and fish.; Gap in modeling tools:
Hydrologic model and an associated groundwater model.; Effect of
missing tool: Without hydrologic and groundwater models of the project
area, scientists do not know how much groundwater is available for the
bay--which in turn affects salinity levels--or how it will be altered
by the project.
Project/plan and purpose: Modified Water Delivery project: To restore
water to Northeast Shark River Slough on the eastern side of Everglades
National Park to improve wetland habitat for birds and animals.; Gap in
modeling tools: Ecological/vegetation models.; Effect of missing tool:
Without a model, or several models, to help assess the change in
vegetation that results from different hydrological conditions,
scientists and managers will have more difficulty in determining the
possible changes that will occur in the ecosystem as a result of
proposed restoration actions.
[End of table]
Sources: Federal agencies (data and analysis), GAO (analysis).
Scientists stated that a model is needed to help them understand the
conditions of Florida Bay. The restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem includes the restoration of the bay, which has been subject
to die-off of its seagrasses and increased algae blooms and which will
receive increased flows of freshwater as changes to inland water
management occur. Scientists, in trying to prevent such die-offs and
algae blooms, anticipated that a model would show the circulation of
the bay and should forecast changes in water quality conditions to
enable them to understand what changes in water management--that is
increased or redistributed freshwater flows--will bring to the bay. The
model is needed relatively early in the restoration process to help
explain how changes in the bay relate to changes in the flow of water
from inland areas, which will change as the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan projects are built and operated.
Scientists also pointed to two other models that are needed: a linked
hydrologic and groundwater model for Biscayne Bay and an ecological
model for vegetation in the ecosystem. The hydrologic and groundwater
models for Biscayne Bay would show how much water flows underground in
the vicinity of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project and will
allow scientists to determine how the inflows will change salinity
levels off the coast, changing habitat for vegetation, fish, and
oysters that they are attempting to recover. An ecological model, or a
set of interconnected models or indices, would enable scientists to
show how changes in water management will cause changes in the
different types of vegetation in the ecosystem. Because the ultimate
purpose of restoration is to restore habitats and species, scientists
are interested in such a model to help them assess the effects of
various alternatives for managing and restoring flows of water.
Without these models, scientists have a difficult time determining the
effects of changes on ecological and biological resources. Scientists
need modeling tools available in time to help them analyze the changes
that occur as a result of implementing restoration projects and plans.
All three models are currently being developed but they have not been
satisfactorily completed. For example, a hydrodynamic model of Florida
Bay has been developed, but because of the variability of the bay
(containing at least 27 distinct basins created by shallow mudbanks)
the model does not satisfactorily represent the bay‘s conditions. In
addition, according to scientists, insufficient efforts were made to
include in the model the comments from the multiple agencies involved
in scientific activities in the bay. Similarly, although the agencies
responsible for assessing the changes on vegetation have stated they
need some sort of tool to analyze changes in vegetation, limited tools
are available. Several agencies have developed ecological models for
different regions of the ecosystem or animal species, but these models
are in various stages of completion. In seeking to complete models for
use in assessing restoration actions, several scientists and managers
cautioned that the models should be developed to provide tools for
analyzing the changes to the ecosystem that result from restoration
actions and decisions, not simply to demonstrate new models or modeling
techniques.
The Task Force Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate Science
Activities:
The WRDA of 1996 requires the Task Force to coordinate scientific
research for South Florida ecosystem restoration; however, the Task
Force has not established an effective means to do so, diminishing
assurance that key science information will be developed and available
to fill gaps and support restoration decisions. Although the Task
Force‘s Working Group established the SCT in 1997 and gave it broad
responsibilities for coordinating scientific activities for
restoration, they did not clearly identify the plans that the SCT needs
to produce to help fill gaps in scientific information or establish
processes through which the Task Force and Working Group would support
the SCT‘s planning and reporting efforts. Furthermore, unlike
coordination entities for other major restoration initiatives, the SCT
has operated for the most part without any full-time or part-time staff
and must accomplish its functions through volunteer efforts. With
limited direction and few resources, the SCT prioritized its efforts to
focus on a few of its responsibilities. For example, the SCT sponsored
science workshops over the past 6 years and developed reports
synthesizing key issues, such as improving water flow and increasing
sustainable agriculture. However, in doing this, it set aside most of
its other important responsibilities, including prioritizing research
needs and developing a science plan and a comprehensive monitoring
plan.
Task Force Established the SCT with Broad Responsibilities but Did
Not Specify Requirements or Processes for Planning and Reporting:
Although the Task Force‘s Working Group created the SCT as a science
coordination group, it did not give clear direction on which of its
responsibilities are a priority for supporting the Task Force and the
Working Group, contributing to the SCT‘s inability to accomplish
several of its most important functions. According to restoration
managers and scientists, the SCT‘s main responsibilities, included in
its charter, are planning scientific activities for restoration,
ensuring the development of a monitoring plan, synthesizing scientific
information, and conducting science conferences and workshops on major
issues such as sustainable agriculture or contaminants. However, the
Task Force and Working Group did not specify what plans the SCT should
develop and update periodically, or establish processes through which
to provide management input to the SCT or to ensure that significant
scientific issues discovered by the SCT would be reported. Without
these planning and reporting requirements and processes, the SCT has
focused on other responsibilities and has not completed a science plan,
a comprehensive monitoring plan, and more reports synthesizing diverse
scientific information. Because the SCT has not fulfilled these
responsibilities, the Task Force cannot ensure that (1) important gaps
in scientific information are identified; (2) the highest priority
science activities are identified and conducted; (3) a comprehensive
monitoring plan is in place to track the progress of restoration
projects and plans and to manage them adaptively; and (4) relevant
scientific data has been synthesized into information that is useful in
helping managers make important restoration decisions.
Task Force Has No Specific Planning Requirements:
Under its charter the SCT has broad planning responsibilities to
identify and fill gaps in science and to ensure the development of
ecosystem indicators and coordinated monitoring plans to track the
success of restoration. In particular, the charter requires the SCT to
conduct several activities: identify key gaps in management information
and propose coordinated research and other programs to address the
gaps; coordinate scientific investigations to document long-term
ecosystem effects of restoration; and identify future science needs and
recommend priorities. Because of the inherent difficulties of
coordinating the efforts of the many agencies with differing missions
that conduct science activities, planning is critical to ensure that
coordination of these activities occurs and that gaps in scientific
information are filled. Furthermore, because the agencies and not the
SCT have authority to fund science activities, the team must make
recommendations to the Task Force and its Working Group to ensure that
these groups have the information they need to make coordinated funding
decisions about scientific activities among the agencies. A science
plan would (1) facilitate coordination of the multiple agency science
plans and programs; (2) identify key gaps in scientific information and
tools; (3) prioritize scientific activities needed to fill such gaps;
and (4) recommend agencies with expertise to fund and conduct work to
fill these gaps. Such plans would complement the Task Force‘s strategic
plan that addresses all restoration activities and is to be updated
every 2 years to reflect the focus and direction of the restoration
effort.
In part because the Task Force has not required it, the SCT has not
developed a science plan to coordinate agencies‘ science activities and
to report on progress in meeting restoration science needs. In 1996,
the predecessor to the SCT--the Science Subgroup--issued a report with
an extensive list of scientific information needs for restoration, but
this list was never prioritized in a science plan that recommended
specific scientific activities, responsible agencies, time frames, and
funding needs. According to Task Force and SCT officials, no specific
planning requirements were established because managers and scientists
were focused on developing and getting approval of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, which Congress authorized as a study in
1996 and finally approved, along with the State of Florida, as a plan
in 2000. Without requiring the SCT to develop and periodically update a
science plan, the Task Force and Working Group have little assurance
that the information needed to guide funding to priority activities is
available or that scientific activities will fill significant gaps in
information.
Another of the SCT‘s broad planning responsibilities is to ensure the
coordination of a systemwide monitoring plan to support the evaluation
of restoration activities. This plan would provide scientists with a
key tool to implement adaptive management. The SCT, however, has not
accomplished this task. According to the SCT and managers, the Corps‘
RECOVER program has developed indicators and a monitoring plan that
will assist them in developing information needed to make adaptive
management decisions to improve the hydrology and the wetland habitats
in the ecosystem. The RECOVER plan does not, however, include
indicators and monitoring needed to fully measure the achievement of
the two remaining restoration goals--restoring, protecting, and
preserving the natural system and fostering the compatibility of the
built and natural systems. For example, the RECOVER monitoring plan
excludes indicators for management actions related to reducing invasive
species or recovering endangered species in upland areas. Without first
developing indicators and a monitoring plan that encompass the
ecosystem and management actions to restore the ecosystem, the Task
Force and the Working Group have no means to determine whether
ecosystem conditions are being restored and whether important goals of
restoration are being or will be met.
Task Force Has Not Established Effective Processes to Support SCT
Planning and Reporting Responsibilities:
The SCT is responsible for identifying and synthesizing scientific
information needed for management decisions. Scientists and managers
have noted the need for an effective process that allows the Task Force
and the Working Group to identify significant management issues or
questions related to the restoration that scientific activities need to
address. Additionally, scientists and managers have noted that in order
to assure that restoration is successfully implemented, scientists must
be able to develop and report on issues that they believe need to be
addressed through science activities. The SCT, as it was created by the
Task Force, has no effective process to receive management input
regarding management concerns related to planning for scientific
activities or to allow scientists and managers to identify and
prioritize scientific issues that the SCT needs to address. These
processes are important in carrying out both the planning and synthesis
responsibilities that the Task Force has given the SCT.
Management input into the SCT‘s planning effort is important because,
as several scientists and managers emphasized, without this input,
scientists cannot fully understand the information that managers need
in order to make key restoration decisions and may omit some important
management issues in their science planning. Some officials stated that
the process of getting input is important because scientists and
managers view restoration issues differently and ask different types of
questions. For example, a manager may ask higher-level questions such
as: ’What is causing our water to have so much algae?“ On the other
hand, to answer such a question, a scientist would formulate more
technical, detailed questions such as ’How much phosphorus is present
in the water, and what are the sources?“:
Recognizing the need for management input into science planning,
officials from the Department of the Interior, in 2002, initiated a
planning process through which managers identified their questions
related to management of the department‘s South Florida lands to
Interior scientists. In turn, these scientists developed research
questions to answer them.[Footnote 18] The Task Force, Working Group,
and SCT lack such a process for overall restoration science planning
and therefore rely on the Working Group members of the SCT to convey a
management view for planning. Thus far, this process has not been
effective because Working Group members often do not attend SCT
meetings. Without an effective process to get management input into
science planning, the Task Force has less assurance that science
activities are being conducted to address pressing management questions
related to restoration.
To fulfill its responsibility to synthesize information for managers,
the SCT needs to select the issues that it will address for the Task
Force and Working Group. According to the National Academy of Sciences,
synthesis of scientific information provides managers with an overview
of scientists‘ understanding on different restoration issues and
provides for the integration of many diverse scientific studies. A
process used to select issues for synthesis reports needs to be
transparent to members of the SCT, the Working Group, and the Task
Force and needs to facilitate the provision of a credible list of
issues that the SCT needs to address in synthesis reports. One way that
other scientific groups that are part of restoration efforts approach
the issue of transparency and credibility is to use an advisory board
to provide an independent review of the scientific plans, reports, and
issues being addressed by the scientific staff involved in the
restoration efforts. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program has a
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee that annually reviews the
research plans of the scientific staff supporting the restoration.
The SCT, the Working Group, and the Task Force do not have an advisory
group such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Nor do these groups have any
other process through which to gain agreement on the issues the SCT
will address. As a result, some scientific issues have not been
addressed. In 1999, the Task Force and Working Group rejected the SCT‘s
offer to develop a report synthesizing available scientific information
on a controversial area of land that some scientists and managers
believed needed to be acquired for restoration purposes.[Footnote 19]
According to Task Force and Working Group officials, the lack of
agreement on how to resolve issues confronting the area were political
and economic, not scientific. However, according to scientists, a
scientific analysis could have helped to clarify some of the factual
information on the debate surrounding the land acquisition, such as the
historical conditions of the land. Another reason that the groups
disagree on issues for scientific review is that Task Force officials
are concerned that the SCT scientists will advocate policy alternatives
that reflect their agencies‘ concerns. Lacking a process through which
they can agree on significant scientific issues that should be the
subject of a synthesis report by the SCT, the Task Force and
Working Group may overlook important information needed to make
restoration decisions.
Task Force Has Provided Few Resources for SCT Activities:
Aside from providing the SCT with no specific planning and reporting
requirements, the Task Force established the SCT with few resources. In
particular, although the SCT has been able to develop and sponsor a few
synthesis reports, it has done fewer reports than needed because its
members have limited time to develop the reports or organize other
groups to develop them. The SCT has identified a list of over 50
topics--such as water quality and the extent and condition of wetlands
in the ecosystem--for which synthesis reports are needed. Yet, these
reports, as well as several of the SCT‘s other responsibilities, have
not been done in part because the SCT does not have full-time
management staff to lead efforts or full-time or part-time scientists
to fulfill its primary responsibilities. Only two agencies--the
Geological Survey and the South Florida Water Management District--have
allocated some staff time for SCT duties. Furthermore, until recently,
the SCT did not have any support staff.
Because the SCT must rely on volunteer efforts, most of its work has
been accomplished by a few of its members. The SCT generally meets
about four to six times per year, and SCT members stated that they have
little or no time between meetings to devote to SCT tasks. SCT business
has been conducted by a core group of people, who accept projects in
addition to their workload at their respective agencies. SCT members
and other scientists noted that voluntary efforts are increasingly
limited by the growing number of meetings that scientists are expected
to attend for restoration activities. In particular, scientists are
expected to participate in individual project meetings for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and other meetings to develop
scientific information for restoration efforts. In contrast to the
SCT‘s efforts, the RECOVER program, which has six subteams that are
chaired and provided with full-time staff and $10 million to support
monitoring efforts, has met multiple times a year since it was created
in 2000 to develop the monitoring and assessment plan for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan--a task that also falls under
the SCT‘s broad responsibilities.
With its available resources, the SCT has, over the last 6 years,
conducted several science workshops to coordinate information and
activities among scientists. These workshops highlighted several
important restoration issues including some that identify gaps in
scientific information, such as contaminants, agriculture, social
sciences, and the habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, an
endangered bird in and near Everglades National Park. The SCT also
convened one science conference and one science forum to address
overall ecosystem issues. A 1999 science forum focused on how to
improve the interaction between scientists and managers and management
issues that need to be addressed for restoration. However, in 2000,
recognizing its inability to accomplish the other responsibilities in
its charter given limited resources, the SCT reported to the Task Force
that it could not accomplish most of its key responsibilities, such as
science planning. Instead, the SCT identified the five priority
activities and issues that it could address with available resources
and presented these to the Working Group and the Task Force. These five
were water quality, water flow, organization of science conferences,
support of CROGEE, and evaluation of science related to the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
In 2003, the Task Force partially addressed the SCT‘s request for
resources. According to Task Force officials, it did not provide
resources for the SCT when it was originally established in an effort
to keep costs down. Recognizing the limits placed on the SCT‘s ability
to plan for and coordinate scientific activities, 6 Working Group
agencies have recently agreed to provide a total of $150,000 for fiscal
year 2003 for one full-time and one or more part-time staff to provide
administrative and logistical support to the SCT.[Footnote 20]
According to SCT members, such forms of assistance will help the SCT in
accomplishing its tasks, but still do not provide management resources
to allow the team to complete the broad responsibilities, laid out in
the charter, that are needed to coordinate scientific activities for
restoration. In addition, in recognition of the threat of invasive
species to restoration success, the Task Force has assigned a full-time
scientist to coordinate and plan related efforts for South Florida. To
help coordinate invasive species activities, the Task Force also
developed the Noxious Exotic Weeds Task Team and plans to create the
Noxious Exotic Animal Task Team.
In comparison, leaders of other large ecosystem restoration efforts--
the San Francisco Bay and Chesapeake Bay area efforts--have recognized
that significant resources are required to coordinate science for such
efforts. These scientists and managers stated that their coordination
groups have full-time leadership (an executive director or chief
scientist), several full-time staff to coordinate agencies‘ science
efforts and develop plans and reports, and administrative staff to
support functions. In addition, members of the Florida Bay restoration-
-which represents a part of the overall South Florida restoration
initiative--noted that they could not have developed their science plan
without a full-time executive director because, like SCT members, they
have many restoration meetings to attend and full-time job
responsibilities within their agencies to fulfill. Further, RECOVER
program leaders stressed the importance of full-time scientists devoted
to the development of their monitoring and assessment plan.
Conclusions:
The restoration of varied, important ecosystem functions is a complex
undertaking that depends on the science activities of many federal and
state agencies. Because no one agency conducts scientific work that
supports all the restoration goals, coordination of the disparate
science activities of the different agencies is necessary to ensure
that gaps in information do not exist and that scientific information
is synthesized and provided to managers. Furthermore, because the
restoration of the ecosystem is expected to occur over several decades,
coordination of scientific efforts and continuity in their
orchestration are critical to ensure that information related to
restoration efforts is updated and made available for restoration
decisions and that indicators are monitored to determine progress
toward restoration. Many agencies have already spent considerable funds
to develop scientific information to support restoration decisions, a
trend that is expected to continue. Yet, the SCT--the group created to
coordinate scientific information for the restoration--is limited by a
number of factors. First, the SCT is limited by the lack of clear
direction on what it is to accomplish. Second, it has no processes to
ensure (1) that the Task Force identifies key management issues that
need to be addressed in science planning and (2) that the SCT, the
Working Group, and the Task Force prioritize critical science issues
requiring synthesis in order to provide input into restoration
decisions. One such process used by other restoration initiatives
utilizes an advisory group to review science plans and reports. Third,
the SCT lacks resources to adequately carry out its responsibilities.
While the Task Force‘s Working Group plans to provide administrative
resources to the SCT, these resources would not sufficiently bolster
the SCT to carry out its most important planning and reporting
responsibilities. Until the factors limiting the SCT are addressed,
coordination of scientific activities cannot be improved. As a result,
opportunities to help ensure that (1) scientific gaps are filled, (2)
progress toward restoration is monitored, and (3) adjustments to
restoration projects are made where needed will be limited. Without
effective coordination of scientific activities, the Task Force has
scant assurance that the scientific information needed to make key
restoration decisions will be available, decreasing the likelihood that
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will be successful.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to improve the coordination of scientific activities for the
South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, we recommend that, as
chair of the Task Force, the Secretary of the Interior:
* specify the plans and documents--including a science plan focused on
key information gaps, a comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress
reports for each plan--that the SCT needs to complete and the time
frames for completing them;
* establish a process that ensures the Task Force identifies key
management issues that need to be addressed by science planning;
* establish a process, such as review by an advisory group, to ensure
that the SCT, Working Group, and Task Force prioritize issues that
require synthesis and are critical to restoration decisions; and:
* evaluate the SCT‘s current staffing needs and allocate sufficient
staff, including full-time management staff, to the SCT so that it can
carry out its responsibilities.
Agency Comments and Our Response:
We provided a draft of our report to the Department of the Interior,
whose secretary chairs the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, for review and comment. Interior provided us with written
comments, which are included in appendix III of this report. Overall,
Interior agrees with the major premises of the report that improved
coordination among the agencies is necessary and that the Task Force
needs to clarify the responsibilities of the SCT and address our other
recommendations. Although we did not get formal comments from the other
Task Force agencies, we met with representatives of the agencies
involved in the restoration effort and discussed our findings and
recommendations with them, and Interior consulted them in preparing its
written response. Interior noted, however, that the Task Force could
not address these recommendations while the report was still in draft
because doing so would have led to the premature disclosure of its
contents. For this reason, Interior stated that the Task Force would,
upon public release of the report, discuss the recommendations and make
the ultimate decision on the role of the SCT and on the actions needed
to meet our recommendations. Interior also provided several technical
changes that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
Although Interior stated that it agrees with the premise of our report
that scientific activities and information need to be better
coordinated, it expressed reservations about our characterization of
the role of the Task Force in the restoration. In particular, Interior
emphasized that the Task Force has no legal authority to ’manage“ the
restoration efforts and cautioned that the GAO report could be
interpreted as indicating the Task Force can dictate executive action
to its member agencies. We agree that the Task Force‘s role in relation
to its member agencies is limited--and point this out in our report--
and that its role is to coordinate and facilitate restoration
activities. We believe that our report and recommendations are
consistent with the authority given the Task Force to ’coordinate the
development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs,
projects, activities, and priorities“ for addressing the restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem. The Task Force created the SCT
specifically to coordinate scientific activities for the restoration,
and our report identifies issues that prevent the SCT from carrying out
its responsibilities. Precisely because the restoration will be the
result of diverse agency programs, as Interior points out, we believe
that the specific science documents that we recommended are necessary
to coordinate consistent policies, programs, activities, and priorities
among the multiple agencies conducting scientific activities in South
Florida for restoration. Further, we believe that Interior
underestimates the role that the Task Force has to act as a forum for
coordination to further the cause of restoration. Namely, the Task
Force and its Working Group--made up respectively of agency policy and
decision makers--can and should use the forum to jointly focus on key
restoration issues, including science, and to resolve differences that
prevent progress in achieving restoration.
Concerning the coordination of scientific activities in particular,
Interior said that the report does not adequately acknowledge existing
processes that are being used to obtain scientific information for
restoration decisions. For example, Interior pointed to mechanisms
provided to help implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan developed by the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District. Specifically, Interior mentioned the Corps‘ pilot
projects to investigate uncertain technologies and the adaptive
management program described in the Corps‘ draft programmatic
regulations for the plan. However, in discussing the several different
groups that exist to coordinate or manage various aspects of science
for restoration, we included a discussion of the RECOVER program that
is the basis for the Corps‘ adaptive management program. In particular,
we acknowledged that this program has developed a monitoring and
assessment plan that will help determine if the water in the ecosystem
is being restored and whether wetlands are being restored. We also
discussed the Project Delivery Teams that will help to coordinate
scientific information for each of the 55 projects in the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. We clearly discussed these matters in the
report while at the same time making our point that similar mechanisms
have not been developed for programs other than the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, such as the Multi-Species Recovery Plan or
the exotic plants plan. We did make one clarification in this section,
based on technical comments from Interior, by adding a statement that
RECOVER has developed the only systemwide monitoring and assessment
plan for the restoration.
As a second example of the efforts to obtain scientific information,
Interior pointed to its own, developing science plan for South Florida.
Interior stated that its plan, if successful, may serve as a model for
other Task Force agencies in managing their science programs. We agree
that Interior‘s plan may serve as a model, if successful. In fact, we
suggested in our report that Interior‘s approach to developing its
science plan could serve as an example for the Task Force, Working
Group, and SCT to follow in developing a science plan for the
restoration. We also agree that the agencies should be encouraged to
develop clear science plans related to restoration and their other
activities. However, even with the development of agency science plans,
the actions we recommend--such as a science plan to fill gaps, a
comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress reports for each plan--
continue to be needed for coordination of the diverse activities that
are being and will continue to be pursued.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 8 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
interested congressional committees and members; the Secretary of the
Interior; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of Commerce; the
Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator, EPA; and the Governor of
Florida. We will make copies available to others upon request. This
report will also be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841. The key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine the amounts and purposes of federal science funding for
the South Florida ecosystem restoration, we collected funding
information, for fiscal years 1993 through 2002, from headquarters and
field officials of the key federal and state agencies involved in
restoration science. The key agencies providing restoration science
funding are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of
Agriculture‘s Agricultural Research Service; the Department of
Commerce‘s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the
Department of the Interior‘s National Park Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service; the
Environmental Protection Agency; and the South Florida Water Management
District. We asked each agency to provide data on appropriations,
obligations, and expenditures for the categories of restoration
science--research, monitoring, and environmental assessments. We then
converted the data to 2002 constant dollars. Some agencies provided
estimates because they do not separate funding for (1) the three
categories--research, monitoring, and environmental assessments--or
(2) South Florida as opposed to mission-related science that may also
benefit other restoration efforts as well. Although we did not
independently verify the data‘s accuracy, we compared the data with
other funding reports in an effort to identify inconsistencies. We also
worked with the agencies while they prepared their data to increase
reporting consistency among the agencies. We resolved all substantive
inconsistencies with agency budget and program officials.
To determine what gaps in scientific information exist, we identified
10 important restoration projects and plans and interviewed key
managers and scientists involved in them. We initially selected
projects or plans that cost over $100 million and from that group
selected projects that were underway or expected to be finished by 2005
in order to ensure that enough time has passed to identify and begin
developing necessary scientific information. We also selected projects
and plans from different locations (e.g., Florida Bay and Kissimmee
River) in the ecosystem and some that affected the entire ecosystem
(e.g., the exotic plants plan). This resulted in seven projects for our
review. Finally, we added three projects to our list to ensure broad
coverage of the Corps‘ pilot program approach and the Task Force‘s
restoration goals, which otherwise would not have been included in our
review: a pilot project and its related project under the Corps‘
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project and Wastewater Reuse Pilot project) and a project that
supports the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force‘s third
goal of restoration (Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study). To identify
information gaps based on the 10 projects and plans, we analyzed
project documents--such as those from the Corps of Engineers--to
determine what information was being developed. We discussed the
projects and information needs with project managers and key scientists
involved with the projects. To identify information needs for
restoration plans, we discussed the plans with appropriate agency
officials and analyzed more detailed documents related to the plans.
The 10 projects and plans we reviewed are a subset of the more than 200
restoration projects and the analysis is not meant to be generalized to
the remaining projects.
To assess the process used to coordinate scientific activities and
information for the restoration effort, we identified the groups that
have responsibility for coordination. We reviewed and analyzed
documents, such as charters and management plans that describe the
purpose and goals for each of these groups. We interviewed the leaders
of the different groups to discuss the coordination efforts undertaken
by each group. In addition, we identified several similar restoration
efforts and reviewed relevant documents and interviewed science
managers for these groups to compare and contrast the organizations,
abilities, resources, and staffing for all the efforts. The other
restoration efforts we identified were the Florida Bay restoration
effort, which is part of the overall South Florida restoration; the
restoration of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and San Francisco
Bay, called the CALFED restoration; and the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay, called the Chesapeake Bay Program.
We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration:
Table 5: Expenditures for Federal and State Agencies for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:
Dollars in millions[A].
Department of Commerce; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; [Empty];
Expenditures: 1993: 1.5; Expenditures: 1994: 2.1; Expenditures: 1995:
2.8; Expenditures: 1996: 3.1; Expenditures: 1997: 5.1; Expenditures:
1998: 4.8; Expenditures: 1999: 5.2; Expenditures: 2000: 4.3;
Expenditures: 2001: 4.3; Expenditures: 2002: 4.1; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 37.1.
Department of Agriculture; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Agency: Agriculture Research Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993:
3.3; Expenditures: 1994: 3.5; Expenditures: 1995: 2.4; Expenditures:
1996: 2.3; Expenditures: 1997: 2.2; Expenditures: 1998: 3.5;
Expenditures: 1999: 4.3; Expenditures: 2000: 4.3; Expenditures: 2001:
4.2; Expenditures: 2002: 4.8; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 34.9.
Department of Defense; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0;
Expenditures: 1994: 1.7; Expenditures: 1995: 2.8; Expenditures: 1996:
0.0; Expenditures: 1997: 6.1; Expenditures: 1998: 2.1; Expenditures:
1999: 3.5; Expenditures: 2000: 4.4; Expenditures: 2001: 5.5;
Expenditures: 2002: 11.2; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 37.5.
Department of the Interior; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1996: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1998: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1999: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2000: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2001: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 2.2;
Expenditures: 1994: 2.9; Expenditures: 1995: 7.5; Expenditures: 1996:
11.7; Expenditures: 1997: 9.4; Expenditures: 1998: 9.2; Expenditures:
1999: 9.0; Expenditures: 2000: 8.4; Expenditures: 2001: 8.4;
Expenditures: 2002: 8.5; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 77.2.
Agency: National Park Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0;
Expenditures: 1994: 0.0; Expenditures: 1995: 0.0; Expenditures: 1996:
0.0; Expenditures: 1997: 6.8; Expenditures: 1998: 10.1; Expenditures:
1999: 6.1; Expenditures: 2000: 11.2; Expenditures: 2001: 8.5;
Expenditures: 2002: 5.3; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 48.1.
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.4;
Expenditures: 1994: 0.7; Expenditures: 1995: 0.8; Expenditures: 1996:
0.9; Expenditures: 1997: 1.2; Expenditures: 1998: 1.1; Expenditures:
1999: 1.1; Expenditures: 2000: 1.3; Expenditures: 2001: 1.1;
Expenditures: 2002: 1.2; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 10.0.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 0.0;
Expenditures: 1994: 0.0; Expenditures: 1995: 0.4; Expenditures: 1996:
0.4; Expenditures: 1997: 0.4; Expenditures: 1998: 0.4; Expenditures:
1999: 0.4; Expenditures: 2000: 0.4; Expenditures: 2001: 0.4;
Expenditures: 2002: 0.4; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 3.4.
Environmental Protection Agency[B]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 1.2;
Expenditures: 1994: 2.3; Expenditures: 1995: 3.0; Expenditures: 1996:
3.5; Expenditures: 1997: 3.2; Expenditures: 1998: 4.4; Expenditures:
1999: 2.5; Expenditures: 2000: 2.1; Expenditures: 2001: 1.7;
Expenditures: 2002: 0.8; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 24.7.
Federal Total[C]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 8.7; Expenditures: 1994:
13.2; Expenditures: 1995: 19.9; Expenditures: 1996: 21.8; Expenditures:
1997: 34.4; Expenditures: 1998: 35.6; Expenditures: 1999: 32.1;
Expenditures: 2000: 36.5; Expenditures: 2001: 34.2; Expenditures: 2002:
36.4; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 272.8.
State of Florida; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: [Empty]; Expenditures:
1994: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1995: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1996:
[Empty]; Expenditures: 1997: [Empty]; Expenditures: 1998: [Empty];
Expenditures: 1999: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2000: [Empty];
Expenditures: 2001: [Empty]; Expenditures: 2002: [Empty]; [Empty];
Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
South Florida Water Management District; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993:
19.2; Expenditures: 1994: 25.5; Expenditures: 1995: 27.5; Expenditures:
1996: 27.4; Expenditures: 1997: 26.4; Expenditures: 1998: 30.5;
Expenditures: 1999: 31.1; Expenditures: 2000: 37.6; Expenditures: 2001:
31.9; Expenditures: 2002: 45.7; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 302.8.
Total Federal and State Funding[C]; [Empty]; Expenditures: 1993: 27.8;
Expenditures: 1994: 37.0; Expenditures: 1995: 47.4; Expenditures: 1996:
49.2; Expenditures: 1997: 60.8; Expenditures: 1998: 66.1; Expenditures:
1999: 63.2; Expenditures: 2000: 74.1; Expenditures: 2001: 66.0;
Expenditures: 2002: 82.1; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 575.6.
[End of table]
Source: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).
[A] All dollars have been adjusted to constant fiscal year 2002
dollars.
[B] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agency‘s funding
are its Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) grants, which total approximately $10 million and $13 million
respectively. The agency‘s Clean Water Act grants are provided for
research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality in South
Florida. Some of the agency‘s STAR grants are provided for ecosystem
research in South Florida.
[C] The sum of the agency dollars may not equal the totals due to
rounding.
Table 6: Expenditures by Federal and State Agencies for Research,
Monitoring, and Assessment Activities, Fiscal Years 1993-2002:
Dollars in millions[A].
Department of Commerce; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures:
Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Expenditures:
Research: 31.5; Expenditures: Monitoring: 5.6; Expenditures:
Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 37.1.
Department of Agriculture; Expenditures: Research: [Empty];
Expenditures: Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty];
[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Agriculture Research Service; Expenditures: Research: 34.9;
Expenditures: Monitoring: 0.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty];
Total 1993-2002[C]: 34.9.
Department of Defense; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures:
Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
Army Corps of Engineers; Expenditures: Research: 18.7; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 14.5; Expenditures: Assessment: 4.2; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 37.5.
Department of the Interior; Expenditures: Research: [Empty];
Expenditures: Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty];
[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
U.S. Geological Survey; Expenditures: Research: 45.9; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 8.1; Expenditures: Assessment: 23.1; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 77.2.
National Park Service; Expenditures: Research: 26.3; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 9.3; Expenditures: Assessment: 12.5; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 48.1.
Fish and Wildlife Service; Expenditures: Research: 0.0; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 10.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 10.0.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Expenditures: Research: 3.4; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 0.0; Expenditures: Assessment: 0.0; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 3.4.
Environmental Protection Agency[B]; Expenditures: Research: 5.7;
Expenditures: Monitoring: 16.4; Expenditures: Assessment: 2.6;
[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 24.7.
Federal Total[C]; Expenditures: Research: 166.4; Expenditures:
Monitoring: 63.9; Expenditures: Assessment: 42.4; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: 272.8.
State of Florida; Expenditures: Research: [Empty]; Expenditures:
Monitoring: [Empty]; Expenditures: Assessment: [Empty]; [Empty]; Total
1993-2002[C]: [Empty].
South Florida Water Management District; Expenditures: Research: 80.6;
Expenditures: Monitoring: 141.3; Expenditures: Assessment: 80.9;
[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 302.8.
Total Federal and State Funding[C]; Expenditures: Research: 247.0;
Expenditures: Monitoring: 205.2; Expenditures: Assessment: 123.3;
[Empty]; Total 1993-2002[C]: 575.6.
[End of table]
Source: Federal agencies (data), GAO (analysis).
[A] All dollars have been adjusted to constant fiscal year 2002
dollars.
[B] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agency‘s funding
are its Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) grants, which total approximately $10 million and $13 million
respectively. The agency‘s Clean Water Act grants are provided for
research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality in South
Florida. Some of the agency‘s STAR grants are provided for ecosystem
research in South Florida.
[C] The sum of the agency dollars may not equal the totals due to
rounding.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:
FEB 19, 2003:
Mr. Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team U.S. General
Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
The Department of the interior appreciates the opportunity to review
the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination
to Increase the Likelihood of Success (GAO-03-345).
We appreciate the focus the report provides on Everglades science
programs, which are integral to guiding the four-decade
intergovernmental restoration effort to success. As steward of
approximately one-half the remaining Everglades, the Department agrees
with the GAO that improved coordination among multi-agency science
programs is necessary. In doing so, agencies will maximize resources,
avoid duplication of effort, share scientific expertise and ensure that
the highest priority scientific needs are addressed in a timely
fashion. Proper coordination of science programs will ensure that the
best available science is incorporated into decision-making and that
monitoring and assessment functions are based upon sound scientific
principles.
Everglades restoration is a complex undertaking that will take place
over the next four decades, with many factors contributing to the total
effort. It is therefore not surprising that gaps remain in the
scientific understanding of how certain projects should be designed, or
work together, to achieve a restored Everglades ecosystem. As agencies
move forward with implementing the many projects that collectively
comprise the Everglades restoration effort, we agree with GAO that
project-specific gaps need to be filled to ensure that projects perform
as anticipated and contribute toward restoration.
Although we agree with the major premises in the report, we have some
concerns that the report does not adequately acknowledge existing
processes to obtain scientific information (and fill scientific gaps)
for ongoing Everglades restoration projects. For example, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides mechanisms to
address gaps in scientific information. Although only recently
authorized, CERP is based upon nearly two decades of scientific inquiry
associated with understanding the natural hydrology of the Everglades.
In large part, CERP is meant to improve the quantity, quality, timing
and distribution of water for the Everglades natural system. This in
turn is anticipated to result in improved ecological performance,
thereby facilitating achievement of the three primary
Everglades restoration goals, which are generally described in the
report. Despite the scientific basis upon which CERP was developed,
specific questions remain on the performance of certain CERP features,
particularly aquifer storage and retrieval and wastewater reuse, and
how best to implement individual CERP component features, both
authorized and those requiring future authorization.
The Department anticipates that the Corps of Engineers‘ pilot projects,
which will investigate uncertain technologies and planning processe,
will address the gaps in information in an orderly way so that
sufficient scientific information is available prior to finalizing
project-specific designs, or before additional projects are submitted
to the Congress for future authorization. Additionally, CERP
implementation procedures, including an adaptive management program,
are described in the Corps of Engineers‘ draft programmatic
regulations, which were released to the public last summer and are
anticipated to be finalized later this year. For example, the draft
regulations specifically implement the requirements of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which requires
processes to, among other things, ’ensure that new information
resulting from changed or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or
technical information or information that is developed through the
principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or future
authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation
of the Plan“ (emphasis added). The processes proposed by the
programmatic regulations ensure that sufficient scientific information
will be acquired and integrated into CERP decision-making, monitoring
and assessment protocols will be established, and management actions
will be based upon this information so that restoration is achieved.
To assist the Corps‘ efforts to implement CERP, as well as implement
other ongoing projects to achieve Everglades restoration goals
concerning habitat restoration and recovery of endangered species, we
are improving the coordination of our own science programs through the
development of a Department of the Interior Science Plan.
Our science plan is a direct result of improved coordination among
Interior bureaus. Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National
Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department executed
a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate Everglades science
programs. The Department‘s science plan will support the needs of the
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service - our land managing
agencies - in implementing Everglades restoration programs, including
CERP. The science plan is being developed under the leadership of the
Geological Survey and will identify the issues that must be resolved
through further scientific inquiry for each restoration project
underway. Once the issues are identified, the plan will describe the
adequacy of the scientific information gathered to date, any gaps that
remain, and a strategy to acquire sufficient scientific knowledge so
that agency decisions maybe based upon sound science. As part of this
effort, the Geological Survey will coordinate our science with our
federal, tribal and state partners by establishing the Greater
Everglades Science Coordination Council. The Council‘s first meeting is
this month and we hope to have the science plan completed by the end of
the first half of this year. If we are successful, our science plan
may serve as a model to other Task Force agencies who also manage
science programs contributing to the restoration effort. Additionally,
to improve coordination among Interior bureaus, the FY 2004 President‘s
Budget proposes to consolidate our Everglades science program funding
under the Geological Survey.
While we agree that improved coordination of scientific activities for
the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative is necessary, we
also have some concerns with the report‘s characterization of the role
of the Task Force. As you know, Section 528 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303, ’WRDA 1996“) established the
intergovernmental South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
its Florida-based Working Group to, among other things, coordinate
consistent policies, strategies, plans and programs to address the
restoration, preservation and protection of the South Florida
ecosystem. The Secretary of the Interior is designated by statute as
Task Force chair. Specifically, WRDA 1996 provides, in relevant part,
that the Task Force:
(B) shall coordinate the development of consistent policies,
strategies, plan, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for
addressing the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South
Florida ecosystem;
(C) shall exchange information regarding programs, projects, and
activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force
to promote ecosystem restoration and maintenance;
(D) shall establish a Florida-based working group which shall include
representatives of the agencies and entities represented on the
Taskforce as well as other governmental entities as appropriate for the
purpose offormulating, recommending, coordinating, and implementing
the policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and
priorities ofthe Task Force;
(G) shall coordinate scientific and other research associated with the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem;
Although the Task Force plays a key coordination role, it does not have
the legal authority to ’manage“ the restoration effort. Nor does it
direct any specific programs, including scientific research. These are
instead encompassed within the diverse agency programs that
collectively contribute to a restored Everglades. Each Task Force
member retains its authority to manage the programs for which it is
responsible and brings its unique expertise and perspective to the
entire group. This forum allows policy representatives to further
collaboration among the federal, state and tribal parties to achieve
common restoration goals. This distinction is important. We are
concerned that the GAO draft report could be read as indicating the
Task Force is ’in charge“ of the restoration effort or can dictate
executive action to its member agencies.
The draft GAO report recommends that the Task Force clarify the broad
responsibilities of the Science Coordination Team or SCT, by specifying
the plans and documents, including a science plan to focus on
information gaps, a comprehensive monitoring plan, and progress reports
for each plan, the SCT needs to complete. Additionally, the report
recommends that the Task Force evaluate the SCT‘s staffing and
personnel needs so that the SCT may carry out is responsibilities.
Further, the draft report also recommends that the Task Force establish
a process to ensure that key management issues requiring science
planning are identified and that scientific issues are synthesized.
We agree that the responsibilities of the SCT can be clarified and that
these issues should be addressed by the Task Force. However, we note
that the ultimate decision on the role of the SCT, as well as the other
recommendations for executive action contained in the report, must be
made by the Task Force, rather than the Department of the Interior. We
agree to raise these issues with the Task Force to determine how best
to proceed.
Although our comments on the draft report are informed by the views of
our South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force)
colleagues, we are not responding on behalf of the Task Force. To do so
would require the Task Force to disclose the contents of the draft
report, which was not possible given the limits placed on its
distribution. However, as soon as the report is publicly released, the
Department looks forward to fully discussing the final report with the
Task Force. We would appreciate the participation of GAO staff during
that discussion so that the Task Force may fully address the report‘s
recommendations for executive action and consider its response to the
recommendations.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
GAO draft report. More specific comments are contained in the enclosure
to this letter and certain technical comments have been provided
directly to GAO staff. If you have any additional questions or need
additional information, please contact Ann R. Klee, Counselor to the
Secretary, at (202) 208-6182.
Sincerely,
Signed by Lynn Scarlett:
Lynn Scarlett
Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Chet Janik (202) 512-6508:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Susan E. Iott, Jonathan
McMurray, Beverly Peterson, Katherine Raheb, and Shelby D. Stephan made
key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Fifteen federal agencies are involved in restoration; 10 of them
fall under 5 departments. Two Native American tribes, 7 Florida
agencies or commissions, 16 counties, and scores of municipal
governments are involved in the effort as well.
[2] In 1993, the Task Force formed a Science Subgroup; this team was
subsequently reformed as the Science Coordination Team and given a
charter with a broad range of responsibilities.
[3] Throughout this report, unless otherwise noted, dollars have been
adjusted to fiscal year 2002 dollars. Further, the fiscal year for
federal agencies and the South Florida Water Management District runs
from October through September.
[4] Sixty-eight of these species were listed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and one was listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
[5] The irreversible physical changes made to the ecosystem make
restoration to pristine conditions impossible. The restored Everglades
will be smaller and somewhat differently arranged than the historic
ecosystem.
[6] The original number of components in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan was 68; the Corps and the District have reorganized
the components to group those that are logically connected. For
example, components around Lake Okeechobee have been combined into one
project. The number of projects may continue to change for reasons of
efficiency and sequencing of projects.
[7] The Task Force and Working Group have also incorporated three
regional science groups that have been created to coordinate research
on particular regions of the ecosystem. These groups are modeled after
the Florida Bay Program Management Committee, which coordinates
scientific research for the unique area that includes Florida Bay, a
triangular estuary bounded by the mangroves in Everglades National
Park, the Florida Keys, and the Gulf of Mexico that receives water that
drains from the Everglades.
[8] Although 15 federal agencies participate in the restoration
initiative, 8 of these agencies are involved in scientific activities.
[9] The U.S. Geological Survey‘s Placed-Based Studies Program was
established to provide sound science for resource managers in critical
ecosystems such as South Florida.
[10] These projects--the Canal 111 (C-111) and Modified Water Delivery
projects--are under construction and are designed to improve the flow
of water into the eastern part of Everglades National Park.
[11] In addition, a small portion of CESI funds has supported
restoration management and planning efforts, including support for the
CROGEE.
[12] Although there are 69 threatened and endangered species in South
Florida, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s National
Marine Fisheries Service is solely responsible for one species,
Johnson‘s seagrass, which is not included in the Multi-Species Recovery
Plan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also shares
the responsibility, with the Fish and Wildlife Service, for five
different species of sea turtles, all of which are included in the
Multi-Species Recovery Plan.
[13] Not included under the Environmental Protection Agency are its
Clean Water Act grants and its Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
grants, which total approximately $13 million and $10 million,
respectively. The agency‘s Clean Water Act grants are provided for
ecosystem research, monitoring, and assessments of water quality. Some
of the agency‘s STAR grants are provided for ecosystem research in
South Florida.
[14] We did not obtain total funding dollars on the amount of grants
being given by the National Science Foundation in South Florida because
the National Science Foundation tracks its grants by scientific
discipline--such as geography, biology, ecology, or environmental
engineering--not by the geographical region in which the work in being
conducted.
[15] Base funding for the Long-Term Ecological Research Program is
$700,000 per year for 6 years. In addition, participating programs have
the opportunity to apply every year for supplemental funding for
educational programs and equipment. These supplements average
approximately $50,000 per year. The Florida Coastal Everglades Long-
Term Ecological Research Program has received approximately an
additional $50,000 per year funding from the National Science
Foundation since its inception in 2000.
[16] Lands in the vicinity of the project are already subject to
development pressures. An administrative law judge determined in
January that the Lennar property, a 516-acre parcel near Biscayne Bay,
can be developed with homes despite potential plans for the wetlands
project.
[17] RECOVER officials use the term performance measures to describe
the set of natural and human system elements that they will measure to
assess the success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Restoration officials use the term indicators to refer to a subset of
these measures that will show progress toward ecosystem restoration. We
use the term indicators to refer to the underlying performance measure
as well as the indicator.
[18] The Department of the Interior‘s science plan has yet to be
completed as of February 2003; thus we did not evaluate the
effectiveness of the department‘s planning process.
[19] This area of land is to the northeast of Everglades National Park
and is called the ’8.5 square mile area.“
[20] As of February 2003, the agencies had each provided $25,000.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: