South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs Gao ID: GAO-07-520 May 31, 2007The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles and is home to the Everglades, a national resource. Over the past 100 years, efforts to manage the flow of water through the ecosystem have jeopardized its health. In 2000, a strategy to restore the ecosystem was set; restoration was expected to take at least 40 years and cost $15.4 billion. The restoration comprises hundreds of projects, including 60 key projects known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), to be undertaken by a partnership of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Given the size and complexity of the restoration, GAO was asked to report on the (1) status of project implementation and expected benefits, (2) factors that determine project sequencing, (3) amount of funding provided for the effort and extent that costs have increased, and (4) primary mathematical models that guide the restoration.
While many of the restoration effort's 222 projects have been completed or are ongoing, a core set of projects that are critical to the success of the restoration are behind schedule or not yet started. Specifically, 43 projects have been completed, 107 are being implemented, and 72 are in design, in planning, or are not yet started. The completed projects will provide improved water quality and additional habitat for wildlife, and the ongoing projects will also help restore wildlife habitat and improve water flow within the ecosystem. However, the projects most critical to the restoration's overall success--the CERP projects--are among those that are currently being designed, planned, or have not yet been started. Some of these projects are behind schedule by up to 6 years. Despite project delays, officials believe that significant progress has been made in acquiring land, constructing water quality projects, and restoring a natural water flow to the Kissimmee River--the headwater of the ecosystem. In addition, many of the policies, strategies, and agreements required to guide the restoration in the future are now in place. To help provide further momentum to the restoration, Florida recently began expediting the design and construction of eight key projects, with the hope that they would immediately benefit the environment, enhance flood control, and increase water supply. There are no overarching sequencing criteria that restoration officials use when making implementation decisions for all 222 projects that make up the restoration effort. Instead, decisions for 162 projects are driven largely by the availability of funds. For the remaining 60 projects--which are among the most critical to the success of the restoration effort--the Corps of Engineers and the Congress established criteria to ensure the goals and purposes of CERP are achieved. However, the sequencing plan developed for these projects in 2005 is not consistent with the criteria established by the Corps. Therefore, there is little assurance that the plan will be effective. From fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the federal government contributed $2.3 billion, and Florida contributed $4.8 billion, for a total of about $7.1 billion for the restoration. However, CERP funding was about $1.2 billion short of the funds originally projected for this period. In addition, the total estimated costs for the restoration have increased by 28 percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7 billion in 2006. More importantly, these cost estimates do not represent the true costs for the overall restoration effort because they do not include all cost components for a number of projects. There are 27 primary mathematical models that guide the restoration effort. These include (1) hydrological, (2) water quality, and (3) ecological models. Although 21 of the 27 models are able to interface with other models and provide a more comprehensive pictureof the impact of restoration efforts on the ecosystem, many agency officials stated that additional interfaces are needed. Because coordinating the development of these interfaces is resource intensive, it has been a low priority for the agencies.
RecommendationsOur 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-07-520, South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-520
entitled 'South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is
Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs'
which was released on July 2, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2007:
South Florida Ecosystem:
Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays,
Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs:
GAO-07-520:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-520, a report to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles and is
home to the Everglades, a national resource. Over the past 100 years,
efforts to manage the flow of water through the ecosystem have
jeopardized its health. In 2000, a strategy to restore the ecosystem
was set; restoration was expected to take at least 40 years and cost
$15.4 billion. The restoration comprises hundreds of projects,
including 60 key projects known as the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), to be undertaken by a partnership of federal,
state, local, and tribal governments.
Given the size and complexity of the restoration, GAO was asked to
report on the (1) status of project implementation and expected
benefits, (2) factors that determine project sequencing, (3) amount of
funding provided for the effort and extent that costs have increased,
and (4) primary mathematical models that guide the restoration.
What GAO Found:
While many of the restoration effort‘s 222 projects have been completed
or are ongoing, a core set of projects that are critical to the success
of the restoration are behind schedule or not yet started.
Specifically, 43 projects have been completed, 107 are being
implemented, and 72 are in design, in planning, or are not yet started.
The completed projects will provide improved water quality and
additional habitat for wildlife, and the ongoing projects will also
help restore wildlife habitat and improve water flow within the
ecosystem. However, the projects most critical to the restoration‘s
overall success”the CERP projects”are among those that are currently
being designed, planned, or have not yet been started. Some of these
projects are behind schedule by up to 6 years. Despite project delays,
officials believe that significant progress has been made in acquiring
land, constructing water quality projects, and restoring a natural
water flow to the Kissimmee River”the headwater of the ecosystem. In
addition, many of the policies, strategies, and agreements required to
guide the restoration in the future are now in place. To help provide
further momentum to the restoration, Florida recently began expediting
the design and construction of eight key projects, with the hope that
they would immediately benefit the environment, enhance flood control,
and increase water supply.
There are no overarching sequencing criteria that restoration officials
use when making implementation decisions for all 222 projects that make
up the restoration effort. Instead, decisions for 162 projects are
driven largely by the availability of funds. For the remaining 60
projects”which are among the most critical to the success of the
restoration effort”the Corps of Engineers and the Congress established
criteria to ensure the goals and purposes of CERP are achieved.
However, the sequencing plan developed for these projects in 2005 is
not consistent with the criteria established by the Corps. Therefore,
there is little assurance that the plan will be effective.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the federal government contributed
$2.3 billion, and Florida contributed $4.8 billion, for a total of
about $7.1 billion for the restoration. However, CERP funding was about
$1.2 billion short of the funds originally projected for this period.
In addition, the total estimated costs for the restoration have
increased by 28 percent”from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7
billion in 2006. More importantly, these cost estimates do not
represent the true costs for the overall restoration effort because
they do not include all cost components for a number of projects.
There are 27 primary mathematical models that guide the restoration
effort. These include (1) hydrological, (2) water quality, and (3)
ecological models. Although 21 of the 27 models are able to interface
with other models and provide a more comprehensive picture of the
impact of restoration efforts on the ecosystem, many agency officials
stated that additional interfaces are needed. Because coordinating the
development of these interfaces is resource intensive, it has been a
low priority for the agencies.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending actions to ensure that agencies apply the
established sequencing criteria when making implementation decisions
for some projects and that the development of models and their
interfaces is better coordinated. The agencies generally agreed with
these recommendations, although the state was concerned that the first
recommendation could lead to further delays and cost increases.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-520].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202)
512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing,
Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects Not Yet
Implemented:
The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and While
CERP Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been Fully Applied:
Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a
Variety of Restoration Activities Since 1999:
Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total
Cost Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise:
Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but
Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-
CERP Categories:
Appendix III: Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006:
Appendix IV: Summary of the Primary Models:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix VII: Comments from the State of Florida:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Primary Purposes and Number of Associated CERP Projects:
Table 2: Status of the 222 Restoration Projects by Project Group:
Table 3: Type of Project, Primary Purpose, Timing, and Number of CERP
Projects Scheduled for Completion, 2005-2040:
Table 4: Project Purpose and Funding Allocated among CERP, CERP-
Related, and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
Table 5: Model Types and Study Areas of the 27 Primary Models That
Guide the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Effort:
Table 6: 222 Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose, Completion
Date, and Project Cost:
Table 7: 43 Completed Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose,
Completion Date, and Reported Cost:
Table 8: 107 Restoration Projects Now Being Implemented, Sponsor,
Primary Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost:
Table 9: 72 Restoration Projects Not Yet Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of the South Florida Ecosystem before and after
Construction of the Central and Southern Florida Water Control Project:
Figure 2: Types and Locations of Completed Restoration Projects and
Their Primary Purposes:
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided for the Restoration Effort, Fiscal
Years 1999-2006:
Figure 4: Federal and State Funding Provided for CERP, CERP-Related,
and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
Figure 5: Total Expected and Actual Federal and State Funding for CERP,
Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
Figure 6: Total Estimated Increases in Restoration Costs for CERP, CERP-
Related, and Non-CERP Projects, and Support Activities, 2000 to 2006:
Abbreviations:
BSWCD; Broward Soil and Water Conservation District:
CERP: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan:
Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Decomp: Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow
Enhancement:
DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FDCA: Florida Department of Community Affairs:
FDEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
FDEP (OGT): Florida Department of Environmental Protection--Office of
Greenways and Trails:
FWS: U.S. Department of the Interior--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
MISP: Master Implementation Sequencing Plan:
Mod Waters: Modified Water Deliveries:
NEWTT: Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team:
NOAA: U.S. Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
NPS: U.S. Department of the Interior--National Park Service:
RECOVER: Restoration Coordination and Verification:
SFERC: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Council:
SFRPC: South Florida Regional Planning Council:
SFWMD: South Florida Water Management District:
USDA (ARS): U.S. Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Research
Service:
USDA (NRCS): U.S. Department of Agriculture--Natural Resources
Conservation Service:
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 31, 2007:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Mica:
Ranking Republican Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The South Florida ecosystem, which covers about 18,000 square miles,
extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando, Florida, to
the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. This vast ecosystem is home to
the Everglades, one of the world's unique environmental resources, and
to the only living coral reef in North America. The South Florida
ecosystem is also home to a rapidly growing population of more than 6
million people and supports a large agriculture-, tourism-, and
recreation-based economy. Over the past 100 years, engineering projects
designed to control floods and supply water to the residents of South
Florida have diverted water from the Everglades. This alteration of the
water flow, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities and
urbanization, has jeopardized the ecosystem's health and reduced the
Everglades to about half its original size. In 2000, when the strategy
for restoring the South Florida ecosystem was set, the restoration
effort was expected to take at least 40 years and cost $15.4 billion.
In response to growing signs of ecosystem deterioration, federal
agencies established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
in 1993 to coordinate ongoing federal restoration activities. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 formally established the Task Force
and expanded its membership to include state, local, and tribal
representatives, and charged it with coordinating and facilitating
efforts to restore the ecosystem.[Footnote 1] To accomplish the
restoration, the Task Force established the following three goals:
* Get the water right. The purpose of this goal is to deliver the right
amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places, at the
right times. However, restoring a more natural water flow to the
ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies and controlling
floods will require efforts to expand the ecosystem's freshwater supply
and improve the delivery of water to natural areas. Natural areas of
the ecosystem are made up of federal and state lands, and coastal
waters, estuaries, bays, and islands.
* Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species. To
restore lost and altered habitats and recover the endangered or
threatened species native to these habitats, the federal and state
governments will have to acquire lands and reconnect natural habitats
that have become disconnected through growth and development, and halt
the spread of invasive species.
* Foster compatibility of the built and natural systems. To achieve the
long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, the restoration effort has
the goal of maintaining the quality of life in urban areas while
ensuring that (1) development practices limit habitat fragmentation and
support conservation and (2) traditional industries, such as
agriculture, fishing, and manufacturing, continue to be supported and
do not damage the ecosystem.
To achieve these three overall goals, agencies participating in the
restoration effort are implementing 222 ecosystem restoration projects.
These 222 projects comprise a full spectrum of restoration activities
and include the following:
* Water storage and flow. These types of projects include (1)
constructing reservoirs and underground wells to store rainwater that
would otherwise flow to the ocean through Florida's canal system; (2)
removing barriers such as canals, levees, and roads to allow this
stored water to flow naturally throughout the ecosystem; (3) reducing
seepage of groundwater from natural areas; and (4) developing new
protocols for managing water levels and flows across South Florida to
ensure that the right quantity of water gets to the right places at the
right times.
* Water quality. These types of projects involve (1) constructing man-
made wetlands that can function as stormwater treatment areas and help
reduce contaminants such as phosphorus and nitrogen in urban and
agricultural runoff and (2) developing regulatory approaches and
promoting best management practices that can further help reduce these
contaminants.
* Water supply. These types of projects help reduce the amount of water
used by the public and in commerce, landscaping, and agriculture as
well as increase water resources. These projects include revising water
permitting procedures, encouraging the reuse of wastewater in regions
throughout the ecosystem, and developing alternative technologies.
* Habitat acquisition and improvement. These types of projects include
federal and state purchases of land tracts or easements, or
improvements made to lands already in public ownership, that can be
used to preserve habitat for native plants and animals, provide sites
for reservoirs, and act as buffers near existing natural areas.
* Invasive species control. These types of projects include efforts to
eradicate invasive plants that have displaced native plant and animal
species throughout the South Florida ecosystem.
One of the key components of the restoration effort is the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)--the primary means by
which the goal of "getting the water right" will be achieved. Approved
by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), CERP is one
of the most ambitious restoration efforts the federal government has
ever undertaken. It currently encompasses 60 individual projects that
will be designed and implemented over approximately 40 years.[Footnote
2] These projects are intended to increase the water available for the
natural areas by capturing much of the water that is currently being
diverted, storing the water in many different reservoirs and storage
wells, and releasing it when it is needed. The cost of implementing
CERP will be shared equally between the federal government and the
state of Florida and will be carried out primarily by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), which is the state authority that manages water
resources for South Florida.[Footnote 3] After the Corps and SFWMD
complete the initial planning and design for individual CERP projects,
they must submit the proposed projects to the Congress to obtain
authorization and funding for construction.
In addition to the CERP projects, another 162 projects are also part of
the overall restoration effort. Twenty-eight of these projects, when
completed, will serve as the foundation for many of the CERP projects
and are intended to restore a more natural water flow to Everglades
National Park and improve water quality in the ecosystem. Nearly all of
these "CERP-related" projects were already being designed or
implemented by federal and state agencies, such as the Department of
the Interior and SFWMD, in 2000 when the Congress approved CERP. The
remaining 134 projects include a variety of efforts that will, among
other things, expand wildlife refuges, eradicate invasive species, and
restore wildlife habitat, and are being implemented by a number of
federal, state, and tribal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and
the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Because these projects were not
authorized as part of CERP and do not serve as CERP's foundation, for
the purposes of this report we refer to them as "non-CERP" projects.
Success in completing the restoration effort to achieve the expected
benefits for the ecosystem as quickly as possible and in the most cost-
effective manner depends on the order, or sequencing, in which many of
the 222 projects will be designed and completed. Appropriate sequencing
is also important to ensure that interdependencies among restoration
projects are not ignored. For example, projects that will construct
water storage facilities and stormwater treatment areas need to be
completed before undertaking projects that remove levees and restore a
more natural water flow to the ecosystem.
The Task Force has identified a set of key guiding principles for
managing the restoration effort and its many related projects. One of
the key principles is that decisions about restoration projects will be
based on sound scientific information. A tool that can provide agencies
with this kind of scientific information is the use of mathematical
models that simulate hydrological, ecological, and water quality
processes and shows how restoration projects will change, or have
changed, the ecosystem. The models also help identify project
adjustments that are needed to achieve the restoration goals. Because
no single model can comprehensively predict and assess all of the
effects of a project, models may need to be designed to interface with
other models so that they can exchange information for a more holistic
simulation of a project's impact.
Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration, you asked us to review the current status of the effort,
focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and
their expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of
project implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the
restoration effort since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have
occurred and the reasons for these increases; and (5) primary
mathematical models used to guide the restoration effort and the extent
to which these models have interfaces.
To determine the extent to which restoration projects have been
completed and to identify their expected benefits, we obtained and
analyzed documents from the Task Force and agencies participating in
the restoration effort and interviewed agency and Task Force officials.
On the basis of this information, we compiled a master list of
completed, ongoing, and planned restoration projects and their
benefits. For this review, we generally categorized projects and
expected benefits by their primary purpose, as identified by the Task
Force.
To determine the factors that participating agencies considered when
deciding on the sequence for implementing restoration projects, we
contacted the agencies responsible for the largest number of
restoration projects--the Corps, the Department of the Interior, SFWMD,
and FDEP. We also selected certain CERP projects for more detailed
analysis, obtained and reviewed documents and related material, and
conducted interviews with the Corps and SFWMD officials responsible for
sequencing decisions related to these projects. In addition, we
reviewed comments by other agencies and external stakeholders about the
appropriateness of the factors used to determine the sequencing of CERP
projects. To determine the amount of funding that participating
agencies provided and the extent to which restoration costs have
increased, we asked participating federal and state agencies to provide
funding information for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 and estimated
project costs through June 30, 2006. We interviewed agency officials
about the factors contributing to cost increases. All funding and cost
data presented in this report are in constant 2006 dollars. We assessed
the reliability of the funding and cost data and determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our study. To
determine the primary models that can be used to guide the restoration
effort and the interfaces among them, we compiled a universe of models
available for the restoration effort, and then asked managers and
scientists familiar with modeling and the restoration effort to
identify those primary models and their interfaces. We also reviewed
academic and agency Web sites to obtain supplemental information about
these models and their interfaces.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented
in appendix I. We performed our work between January 2006 and April
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Although many of the projects that make up the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort are either completed or ongoing, a core group of
projects that are critical to the overall success of the effort are
behind schedule or not yet started. Of the 222 projects that currently
make up the restoration effort, 43 have been completed, 107 are being
implemented, and 72 are either being designed, being planned, or have
not yet started. Of the 43 projects, 9 were completed before 2000, and
34 between 2000 and 2006. The 34 projects completed since the beginning
of 2000 represent only a third of the 91 projects originally scheduled
for completion between 2000 and 2006. Many of the completed projects
will either improve water quality in natural areas or provide
additional habitat for wildlife. The 107 projects currently being
implemented will generally restore wildlife habitat and include some
key CERP-related projects that will improve water flow to the natural
areas. The remaining 72 projects currently being designed, being
planned, or that have not yet started, include primarily CERP projects,
which are the projects most critical to achieving the overall
restoration goals. Some of these CERP projects are significantly behind
their original implementation schedule. For example, nine CERP
projects--in implementation, in design, or in planning--were originally
planned for completion between 2001 and 2006, but instead will be
completed as many as 6 years behind schedule. According to restoration
officials, CERP project delays have occurred because it took longer
than expected to develop the procedures and legal assurances that WRDA
2000 required and because the projects lacked congressional
authorization and federal funding, among other reasons. Nevertheless,
these officials believe that significant progress has been made,
particularly in acquiring land, constructing water quality projects,
and restoring a more natural water flow to the Kissimmee River, which
is the headwater of the ecosystem. In addition, many of the policies,
strategies, and agreements required to guide the overall restoration in
the future are now in place. Given the continuing delays in
implementing critical CERP projects, the state has begun expediting the
design and construction of some of these projects with its own
resources. The state hopes that its efforts will provide some immediate
environmental, flood control, and water supply benefits and will help
jump-start the larger CERP effort once the Congress authorizes
individual projects.
There are no overarching criteria to ensure that the 222 projects that
make up the restoration effort are implemented in a sequence that would
ensure the achievement of environmental benefits as early as possible.
Instead, implementation decisions about the 28 CERP-related and 134 non-
CERP projects are largely driven by available funding; for the 60 CERP
projects, sequencing decisions have been made without fully complying
with the clearly defined criteria established for these projects in the
federal regulations. Recognizing the criticality of the CERP projects
to the restoration effort, both the Congress and the Corps established
criteria to ensure the goals and purposes of CERP are achieved.
However, when the Corps developed a sequencing plan for CERP projects
in 2005, it did not have key data and other information to fully apply
the criteria established in its regulations. Consequently, the
decisions in the plan were based primarily on technical dependencies
among projects and funding availability. Recently, the Corps began a
process to revise its existing CERP project schedules and sequencing
plan, but it still does not have the key information needed to fully
apply the established criteria and meet the regulatory requirements. As
a result, there is little assurance that the Corps' revised sequencing
plan, when it is final, will lead to a CERP project implementation plan
that will provide restoration benefits as early as possible and in the
most cost-effective manner. We are, therefore, recommending that the
Corps obtain the information it needs, and once obtained,
comprehensively reassess its sequencing decisions to ensure that CERP
projects have been appropriately sequenced to maximize the achievement
of the restoration goals. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation. However,
Florida expressed concern that our recommendation might lead to further
delays and increased costs. While we understand the state's concerns,
we believe, given the delays that have already occurred and the
criticality of CERP sequencing decisions to the success of the
restoration effort, that implementation of this recommendation is
necessary.
Participating federal and state agencies provided a total of $7.1
billion for the restoration effort from fiscal years 1999 through 2006.
Since 1999, the federal government contributed about $2.3 billion to
the restoration effort and Florida contributed about $4.8 billion.
Allocations from the $7.1 billion total by type of project funded were:
$2.3 billion for CERP projects, nearly $2.0 billion for CERP-related
projects, and $2.8 billion for non-CERP projects. Allocations from the
total by type of activity funded were: $2.6 billion for land
acquisition; over $1.9 billion for construction; and $2.6 billion for
restoration support activities, such as controlling invasive species,
conducting feasibility studies, and developing habitat or water
management plans. Although the federal and state governments provided
$2.3 billion for CERP projects, this amount was about $1.2 billion less
than the amount of funding that participating agencies had estimated
they would need from fiscal years 1999 through 2006. Specifically,
participating agencies had estimated that they would need approximately
$3.5 billion for implementing CERP projects from fiscal years 1999
through 2006. However, the federal government's contribution for CERP
projects was short by $1.4 billion, primarily because CERP projects did
not receive the congressional authorization and appropriations that the
agencies had expected would occur during this period. The overall
shortfall was reduced to $1.2 billion because Florida increased its
contribution for CERP projects by $250 million during this period.
The total projected cost of the restoration effort has increased by 28
percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to at least $19.7 billion in 2006-
-but neither total reflects the true cost of the restoration effort,
which could be significantly higher. The growth in total projected
costs between 2000 and 2006 occurred, in large part, because of cost
increases in CERP projects, from $8.8 billion in 2000 to $10.1 billion
in 2006. According to Corps officials, the overall cost increases are
due to project scope changes, increased construction costs, and higher
land costs. However, the projected total cost estimates of the
restoration effort do not reflect its true costs because the full cost
of most CERP projects is not yet known. This is because most CERP
projects are still in the conceptual phase--that is, detailed design
and implementation has not yet been undertaken or completed. Until the
design is finalized and construction begins, a more complete estimate
of the costs of these projects will not be known and captured in the
total estimated restoration cost. For example, in the conceptual phase,
the cost estimate for the Site 1 Impoundment project--a CERP project in
southern Palm Beach County to capture and store local runoff during wet
periods and then use the water to supplement water deliveries during
dry periods--was $46 million. Once preliminary planning and design work
was completed, however, the Corps' estimate for this project increased
to $81 million. If similar kinds of cost increases occur for the
remaining CERP projects for which initial planning and design work has
not yet been undertaken or completed, the cost of CERP, as well as the
overall restoration effort, could increase significantly.
There are 27 primary mathematical models that can be used to guide the
restoration effort, and while many of these models have interfaces,
many restoration experts believe that additional interfaces are needed
to provide more comprehensive information that can better guide the
restoration effort. These 27 models include (1) hydrological models,
which simulate processes such as runoff, the movement of groundwater,
and the flow of surface water in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans;
(2) water quality models that simulate the migration of pollutants in
both surface water and groundwater systems; and (3) ecological models
that simulate how plant and animal communities interact with their
habitat. At least 21 of the 27 models have some interfaces that allow
the models to share information with some of the other models and
thereby provide restoration officials with a better understanding of
the restoration's impact on the ecosystem. However, many agency
officials we spoke with stated that additional interfaces are needed to
provide them with a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of
the ecosystem, but developing these interfaces would require improved
coordination among agencies. Currently, coordinating their efforts to
develop models and interfaces has been a low priority for the
participating agencies. Given the importance of models and interfaces
in helping officials manage the restoration effort, we are recommending
that the Task Force, as the coordinating body for the restoration
effort, should take the lead on helping participating agencies better
coordinate the development of models and their interfaces. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior
and the state of Florida supported our recommendation. The Department
of Defense did not support this recommendation and stated that the
Interagency Modeling Center, established by the Corps and SFWMD to
coordinate and oversee the modeling needs of CERP, should serve as the
single point of responsibility for modeling services. While we
recognize that the Interagency Modeling Center plays an important role
in supporting and coordinating modeling for CERP, it does not provide
support for the entire restoration effort. As a result, we continue to
believe that the Task Force should take the lead in helping all of the
participating agencies, including the Corps and SFWMD, better
coordinate the development of models and interfaces needed for the
overall effort.
Background:
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles in 16
counties and extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando
to Lake Okeechobee, and continues south past the Florida Bay to the
reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. The ecosystem is in jeopardy today
because of past efforts that diverted water from the Everglades to
control flooding and to supply water for urban and agricultural
development. The Central and Southern Florida project, a large-scale
water control project begun in the late 1940s, constructed more than
1,700 miles of canals and levees and over 200 water control structures
that drain an average of 1.7 billion gallons of water per day into the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. This construction resulted in
insufficient water for the natural system and for the growing
population, along with degraded water quality. Today, the Everglades
has been reduced to half its original size and the ecosystem continues
to deteriorate because of the alteration of the water flow, impacts of
agricultural and industrial activities, and increasing urbanization.
Figure 1 shows the South Florida ecosystem before and after the Central
and Southern Florida project construction.
Figure 1: Map of the South Florida Ecosystem before and after
Construction of the Central and Southern Florida Water Control Project:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the South
Florida Water Management District.
[End of figure]
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force:
In an effort to stem the deterioration of the ecosystem and restore the
Everglades to a more natural state, federal agencies created the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) in 1993, an
interagency partnership to coordinate federal restoration activities.
The Congress formally established the Task Force and expanded its
membership in 1996 to include state and local agencies and two American
Indian tribes and charged the Task Force with the following
responsibilities for restoring the South Florida ecosystem:
* coordinating the development of consistent policies, strategies,
plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for addressing
the restoration, preservation, and protection of the ecosystem;
* exchanging information on programs, projects, and activities of the
agencies and entities represented on the Task Force to promote
ecosystem restoration and maintenance;
* facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental
conflicts associated with the restoration of the ecosystem among the
agencies and entities represented on the Task Force;
* coordinating scientific and other research associated with the
restoration effort; and:
* providing assistance and support to agencies and entities represented
on the Task Force in their restoration activities.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan:
The centerpiece for achieving the goal to get the water right is the
CERP, approved by the Congress in WRDA 2000. CERP provides a conceptual
framework for increasing freshwater volume and improving the delivery
and quantity of water to natural areas in the South Florida ecosystem.
It also provides for the region's other water-related needs, such as
water supply and flood protection in urban and agricultural areas. The
estimated cost for CERP in 2000 was $8.8 billion, to be shared on an
equal basis between the Corps and the state of Florida. Table 1 details
the primary purposes for the 60 CERP projects.
Table 1: Primary Purposes and Number of Associated CERP Projects:
Primary project purpose: Water storage and flow (including five pilot
projects); Number of CERP projects: 33.
Primary project purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement; Number of
CERP projects: 9.
Primary project purpose: Water quality; Number of CERP projects: 8.
Primary project purpose: Feasibility studies; Number of CERP projects:
4.
Primary project purpose: Water supply (including one pilot project);
Number of CERP projects: 5.
Primary project purpose: Invasive species control; Number of CERP
projects: 1.
Primary project purpose: Total; Number of CERP projects: 60.
Source: GAO's analysis of project documents prepared by Task Force and
participating agencies.
[End of table]
Before the Corps can proceed with implementing a CERP construction
project, WRDA 2000 requires that the Corps obtain congressional
authorization by submitting a detailed report on the project's design,
cost, and other information (known as a project implementation report).
WRDA 2000 also required the Corps to issue programmatic regulations for
implementing CERP projects. These regulations, effective in December
2003, required the Corps, among other things, to take the following
actions:
* Issue no later than December 13, 2004, a master implementation
sequencing plan (MISP) that establishes the order in which CERP
projects will be planned, designed, and constructed, and periodically
update the plan.
* Issue an interim goals agreement, no later than December 13, 2004,
signed by the Secretaries of the Army and of the Interior and the
Governor of Florida,[Footnote 4] for evaluating the restoration's
success and for assessing improvements in the quantity, quality,
timing, and distribution of water to restore the natural system.
* Establish an adaptive management program, which is an approach for
addressing the uncertainty associated with project decisions by
continuously incorporating new and updated information. Where
performance is determined to be less than anticipated, the adaptive
management approach allows for making needed changes to the interim
goals, projects, and the overall CERP program. Many of the program's
efforts are led by a federal and state interagency science group known
as the Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) team.
RECOVER's responsibilities under the program include assessing and
reporting whether interim goals are being achieved, developing
monitoring and assessment programs, and preparing technical reports.
CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects:
Agencies participating in the restoration effort are also implementing
a number of projects that serve as CERP's foundation (CERP-related) as
well as projects that are not as closely related to CERP (non-CERP).
The CERP-related projects are a group of 28 projects, carried out
primarily by the Corps and SFWMD, that lay the foundation for the CERP
projects. The projects are being constructed throughout the ecosystem
and are related to storing, treating, and moving water. The 28 CERP-
related projects also include some projects that were authorized in
WRDA 1996 and are referred to as Critical Projects for the restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem. These water quality and related
projects are essential to successfully achieving the goal of getting
the water right.
The non-CERP projects are a group of 134 projects that are being
sponsored by federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in South
Florida. A number of these projects had started--and some were
completed--prior to WRDA 2000. The projects vary in their purposes,
with some involving feasibility studies or plans to control invasive
species and others focusing on land acquisition for conservation and
restoring habitat. Although these projects are part of the overall
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, their implementation
generally does not depend upon other projects. However, certain CERP
and CERP-related projects will incorporate portions of non-CERP land
acquisitions into their project footprints as the restoration
progresses.
Use of Mathematical Models in Decision Making:
Among the guiding principles of the South Florida ecosystem restoration
initiative is a commitment to managing projects and making decisions on
the basis of sound scientific information. Models, particularly
mathematical models, are among the tools that agency managers and
scientists use to support decision making on the basis of sound
science. These models are important to simulate ecosystem changes
resulting from restoration activities and to provide managers and
scientists with assurance that projects will work as intended to
achieve environmental benefits. Managers and scientists use
mathematical hydrological, ecological, and water quality models to
predict regional or systemwide impacts of project alternatives and to
predict benefits that may result from various possible alternatives.
To increase the ability of hydrological, ecological, and water quality
models to effectively predict environmental benefits and evaluate
changes to possible project alternatives, interfaces are needed.
Interfaces allow models to share and exchange data and simulate the
impact of projects on the ecosystem more comprehensively and
effectively. The term interface can cover a variety of mechanisms that
allow a model to interact with other models, such as computer software
that allows users to simultaneously view the results of multiple
individual models, and programs that allow for the exchange of input or
output data between models, or allow for hydrological, water quality,
and ecological processes to be simulated simultaneously in real time.
Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing,
Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected to Come from Projects Not Yet
Implemented:
Forty-three of the 222 projects that constitute the South Florida
ecosystem restoration effort have been completed, while the remaining
projects are currently being implemented or are either in design, being
planned, or have not yet started. Many of the completed projects are
intended primarily to improve water quality in natural areas or to
acquire or improve tracts of land in order to preserve wildlife
habitat. The projects now being implemented also emphasize the
restoration of wildlife habitat by acquiring or improving land, as well
as the construction of key CERP-related projects that will improve
water flow to natural areas. The projects not yet implemented are
largely CERP projects that are crucial to realizing the restoration's
overall goals, but these projects are progressing slowly. However, both
agency and Task Force officials report a number of achievements, such
as finalizing key CERP agreements and restoring a more natural water
flow to the Kissimmee River. Table 2 shows the status of the 222
restoration projects.
Table 2: Status of the 222 Restoration Projects by Project Group:
CERP; Completed: 0; In implementation: 7; Not yet implemented:
Planning/design: 21; Not yet implemented: Not yet started: 32; Total:
60.
CERP-related; Completed: 15; In implementation: 10; Not yet
implemented: Planning/design: 3; Not yet implemented: Not yet started:
0; Total: 28.
Non-CERP; Completed: 28; In implementation: 90; Not yet implemented:
Planning/design: 2; Not yet implemented: Not yet started: 14; Total:
134.
Total; Completed: 43; In implementation: 107; Not yet implemented:
Planning/design: 26; Not yet implemented: Not yet started: 46; Total:
222.
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
[End of table]
Completed Restoration Projects Primarily Improve Water Quality or
Provide Wildlife Habitat:
Of the 222 projects the Task Force and participating agencies
identified as part of the South Florida ecosystem restoration, 43 have
been completed since the beginning of the restoration effort: 9 before
2000 (including 1 as early as 1986), and 34 between 2000 and 2006.
However, this latter total is far short of the 91 projects the Task
Force and participating agencies reported in 2000 would be completed by
2006.[Footnote 5] The nine projects completed before 2000 are expected
to provide benefits primarily in the area of habitat acquisition and
improvement. The primary purposes of the 34 projects completed between
2000 and 2006 range from the construction of stormwater treatment
areas, to the acquisition or improvement of land for habitat, to the
drafting of water supply plans. (App. II includes detailed information
on the 43 completed projects, their sponsors, primary purposes,
completion dates, and reported costs; the only projects completed to
date belong to the CERP-related and non-CERP categories.)
For the 43 completed projects, the three most common primary purposes
were water quality, habitat acquisition and improvement, and related
studies. For example, to improve water quality SFWMD constructed
Stormwater Treatment Areas 1, 2, 3/4, 5, and 6 within the Everglades
Agricultural Area located south of Lake Okeechobee. Similarly, for the
Cayo Costa project--a habitat acquisition and improvement project--
Florida purchased a total of 1,954 acres, over 24 years, in
southwestern Florida off the coast of Fort Myers. This purchase is
located within a small chain of barrier islands that provide protection
for Charlotte Harbor, one of the state's most productive estuaries. The
project's natural areas demonstrate high species diversity, including
some species that may be unique to the islands. Figure 2 shows the
types and locations of the 43 completed projects and their primary
purposes.
Figure 2: Types and Locations of Completed Restoration Projects and
Their Primary Purposes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
[A] One completed invasive species control project was a statewide
effort (not pictured).
[B] Twelve plans and studies were also completed (not pictured).
[End of figure]
Projects Being Implemented Primarily Include Land Acquisitions to
Preserve Wildlife Habitat and Two Key CERP-Related Projects:
Of the 222 ecosystem restoration projects, 107 are now being
implemented.[Footnote 6] Seven of the 107 are CERP projects, 10 are
CERP-related projects, and 90 are non-CERP projects. Five of the seven
CERP projects are being built by the state in advance of the Corps'
completion of the necessary project implementation reports and
submission of them to the Congress for authorization and
appropriations. Nonetheless, some of the CERP projects currently in
implementation are significantly behind schedule. For example, four of
the seven CERP projects in implementation were originally scheduled for
completion between November 2002 and September 2006, but instead will
be completed from 1 to 6 years behind their original schedule, because
it has taken the Corps longer than originally anticipated to design and
obtain approval for CERP projects. Overall, 19 of the 107 projects
currently being implemented have expected completion dates by or before
2010. Of the remaining 88 projects, most are non-CERP habitat
acquisition and improvement projects that have no firm end date because
the land will be acquired from willing sellers as it becomes available.
Of the 24 non-CERP projects being implemented that have established end
dates, at least 9 are expected to be completed by or before 2010. (App.
II presents detailed information on the sponsor, primary purpose,
expected completion date, and estimated cost of each of the 107
projects that are currently being implemented.)
More than half--65--of the 107 projects being implemented will acquire
or improve land for habitat, and at least 12 of these projects are on
federal lands. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
purchasing land in the Big Cypress-Everglades region to provide
additional habitat for the endangered Florida panther, as part of its
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge acquisition. Other ongoing
projects combat invasive species on federal lands--such as the Hole-in-
the-Donut, a non-CERP project that is expected to restore approximately
6,000 acres within Everglades National Park by eradicating Brazilian
pepper, an invasive plant species.
Among the projects currently being implemented are two key CERP-related
construction projects that are expected to benefit Everglades National
Park as well as the natural areas outside of the park. The first is the
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters)
project, which is expected to restore natural hydrologic conditions
across 190,000 acres of habitat in Everglades National Park and assist
in the recovery of threatened and endangered plants and wildlife.
According to Everglades National Park officials, this project is
crucial to the park's rehydration and subsequent restoration. When we
reported on the restoration in 1999, Mod Waters was expected to be
completed in 2003 at a total cost of $157 million;[Footnote 7] the
project is currently scheduled for completion in 2009 at a total cost
of $410 million, according to its most recent capital asset plan
(though agency officials do not expect the 2009 date to be met). The
second project is known as C-111 South Dade, which involves
modifications to a north-south canal system (C-111) that runs parallel
to Florida's east coast and provides flood protection and water supply
for urban and agricultural areas east of Everglades National Park. The
Corps and SFWMD are modifying the canals in the Miami-Dade County area
so that increases in freshwater and more natural flows will enter the
eastern panhandle of the park and Florida Bay. This project will help
restore the park's natural vegetation, while maintaining flood
protection for urban and agricultural interests in south Miami-Dade
County. A combined operating plan will integrate the goals of this
project with those of Mod Waters. The Corps and SFWMD expect to
complete the C-111 South Dade project in 2012.
Projects Not Yet Implemented Are Largely Part of CERP and Are Crucial
to Achieving Overall Restoration Goals:
Of the 72 restoration projects not yet implemented--in other words that
are in design, planning, or not yet started--53 are CERP projects that
are expected to be completed in the later years of the restoration
effort and will provide benefits such as increased habitat for native
species, improved water flow, and additional water for restoration as
well as other water-related needs. The other 19 projects not yet
implemented include 3 CERP-related and 16 non-CERP projects. (App. II
includes detailed information about all 72 projects not yet
implemented, including their sponsors, primary purposes, expected
completion dates, and estimated costs.) All CERP-related and non-CERP
projects in this grouping that have established end dates are expected
to be completed by or before 2013. In contrast, CERP projects in
design, planning, or not yet started will be implemented over the next
30 years. Consequently, the full environmental benefits for the South
Florida ecosystem restoration that the CERP projects were intended to
provide will not be realized for several decades.
Several of the projects now in planning and design directly benefit
federal lands and are representative of the significant natural system
benefits that were expected from CERP. One of the most important
projects of this kind is the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement (Decomp) project. This
project involves filling canals, removing levees, and building bridges
along the road north of Everglades National Park to allow water to flow
more naturally through the water conservation areas above the park and
into the park itself. This project is also designed to increase the
connectivity between portions of the Everglades habitat, thus improving
the quantity and quality of this habitat for native vegetation and
wildlife. Officials from the park and other participating agencies
stressed Decomp's importance to natural system restoration. In
addition, park officials told us that the full realization of benefits
from the Mod Waters project depends upon Decomp, which WRDA 2000 does
not allow to be constructed until Mod Waters is completed. Decomp has
been divided into three phases, and the Corps has recently proposed a
major revision to its conceptual design. Pending this re-design, phase
1 is currently scheduled for completion in 2015.
As with CERP projects currently being implemented, progress has also
been slow on CERP projects in design, in planning, or not yet begun.
For example, five projects that are not yet implemented were originally
planned for completion between December 2001 and December 2005, but
instead will be completed from 2 to 6 years behind their original
schedule. According to officials from the Corps, SFWMD, and other
participating agencies, CERP project delays have occurred for the
following reasons:
* It took longer than expected to develop the appropriate policy,
guidance, and regulations that WRDA 2000 requires for the CERP effort.
* Some federal and state officials we spoke with noted design delays
that were caused by the need to modify the conceptual design of some
projects to comply with the requirements of WRDA 2000's savings clause.
According to this clause, CERP projects cannot transfer or eliminate
existing sources of water unless an alternate source of comparable
quantity and quality is provided, and they cannot reduce existing
levels of flood protection.[Footnote 8]
* Less federal funding than expected and a lack of congressional
authorization for some of the CERP projects have limited CERP progress.
* The extensive modeling that accompanies the design and implementation
of each project in addition to the "cumbersome" project review process
can contribute to delays, as well as stakeholder comment, dispute
resolution, and consensus-building that occurs at each stage of a
project. However, other restoration participants valued this
opportunity for input and noted that it could prevent costly litigation.
* Delays have occurred in completing Mod Waters, which is a major
building block for CERP. These delays, in turn, have delayed CERP
implementation.
While the completion of the CERP projects is expected to provide
comprehensive environmental benefits to the ecosystem, concerns remain
about how the water will be allocated between the natural, urban, and
agricultural areas for many of these projects, and who will ultimately
benefit from these water allocation decisions. Corps regulations
require that the allocation decisions are to be included in the project
implementation reports submitted to the Congress for authorization of
each CERP project. These allocations are determined by each project's
design team--which would normally include the Corps, SFWMD, and other
participating agencies. The allocation decisions are constrained by a
federal-state agreement that promises to allocate each CERP project's
stored water in a manner that provides a sufficient amount for
restoring the natural system before water is made available for the
region's other water-related needs, such as urban and agricultural
water supply. Once these water allocations are finalized, they are to
be enacted into state law. Until these water allocation decisions are
agreed upon by federal and state agencies and enacted into law by the
state government, the distribution of benefits that the CERP projects
will deliver remains unclear.
Officials Report Progress in Several Areas, Including Key CERP
Agreements and State Efforts to Advance Overall Restoration Goals:
Although construction progress for the restoration effort has been
uneven, restoration officials report progress in other areas that they
expect will provide a solid foundation for the wider restoration effort
in the future. These officials identified the following developments
that they expect will improve the prospects for future success for the
overall restoration effort:
* Acceler8. Acceler8 is a state effort intended to expedite the
implementation of CERP projects. Many of the CERP projects advanced by
Acceler8 are among WRDA 2000's 10 initially authorized projects, whose
costs were to be shared by the federal government and the state.
According to Florida officials, by advancing the design and
construction of these projects with its own funds, the state hopes to
more quickly realize restoration benefits for both the natural and
human environments and to jump-start the overall CERP effort once the
Congress begins to authorize individual projects. The Acceler8 projects
include seven that are affiliated with CERP and an eighth that expands
existing stormwater treatment areas. The state expects to spend more
than $1.5 billion to design and construct these projects by 2011.
* Kissimmee River restoration. The Corps and SFWMD have completed phase
1 of this project to restore the ecological integrity of the South
Florida ecosystem's headwater--the historical Kissimmee River and its
surrounding floodplain. State officials report promising results from
the restored areas, such as improved water quality and flow, the return
of fish-eating birds, and the reappearance of shoreline vegetation.
* Land acquisition. For the ecosystem restoration projects that are
solely or partially federally funded, including CERP, the Task Force
estimates that 62 percent of the land needed for getting the water
right (goal 1) and 99 percent of the land needed for restoring,
preserving, and protecting natural habitats and species (goal 2) has
already been acquired.[Footnote 9] Moreover, 55 percent of the land
needed for CERP projects, 98 percent of Acceler8 project land, and all
102,061 acres needed for the Kissimmee River restoration have been
acquired. Restoration land acquisition is ahead of schedule because the
state accelerated its acquisition efforts in order to acquire land
before it was lost to development. Similarly, the federal government
provided early support to the effort through its Farm Bill
funding,[Footnote 10] and local governments have made significant land
contributions as well.
* State water quality projects. In addition to the stormwater treatment
areas south of Lake Okeechobee, the state's Lake Okeechobee Protection
Program and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan expand the water
quality effort to mitigate nutrient discharges from urban and
agricultural lands north of the lake and within its watershed. The
state is also implementing pollution reduction strategies for other
impaired surface waters within SFWMD's boundaries.
* CERP's administrative framework. In accordance with WRDA 2000 and
subsequent requirements, CERP's participating agencies have formulated
key policies, strategies, and agreements intended to guide the program
during its three decades of implementation.
* RECOVER's efforts. CERP's interagency science team--known as RECOVER-
-prepared a Monitoring and Assessment Plan for CERP implementation,
among other important products. This plan is the primary tool that
RECOVER will use to assess the ecosystem's response to CERP projects.
The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria, and While
CERP Projects Have Criteria, These Criteria Have Not Been Fully Applied:
No overall sequencing criteria guide the implementation of the 222
projects that comprise the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.
For the 60 CERP projects, the Corps has issued regulations, as directed
by WRDA 2000, that identify the criteria to be applied when making CERP
project sequencing decisions so that restoration benefits will be
achieved as early as possible and in the most cost-effective manner.
However, the Corps and SFWMD did not follow these criteria when they
developed the 2005 master implementation sequencing plan for CERP
projects (the MISP). The Corps has recently started to revisit
priorities for CERP projects' and alter project schedules that were
established in the 2005 MISP (this process is referred to as CERP-
reset). However, because the Corps continues to lack certain key data
for making sequencing decisions, the revised plan, when completed, will
also not fully adhere to the criteria. Furthermore, while CERP-related
projects provide the foundation for many CERP projects, there are no
established criteria for determining the implementation schedule for
these projects and their estimated start and completion dates largely
depend upon available funds. Similarly, for non-CERP projects, agencies
reported that they do not have any sequencing criteria; instead, they
decide on the scheduling and timing of these projects primarily if and
when funding becomes available.
Required Sequencing and Other Criteria Have Been Developed for CERP
Projects, but the Corps Has Not Fully Applied the Criteria:
The Corps has clearly defined criteria to be considered in determining
the scheduling and sequencing of CERP projects.[Footnote 11] As laid
out in the CERP program regulations,[Footnote 12] the Corps and SFWMD
should consider the following factors to maximize opportunities for
achieving the plan's goals and purposes:
* Technical dependencies and constraints. Because many projects are
interdependent, they have to be designed and constructed either before
or after other CERP and CERP-related projects, depending on engineering
and structural requirements.
* Project benefits. Projects should be constructed in an order that
achieves environmental benefits as early as possible.
* Land availability. If land is available, a CERP project can be
scheduled earlier.
* Legal constraints. The Corps must ensure that CERP projects do not
eliminate or transfer current sources of water from urban and
agricultural water supplies, and for fish and wildlife, or reduce flood
protection.
* Funding constraints. The regulations also state that funding
constraints may be taken into account in determining the timing and
order of projects.
In addition, CERP program regulations require the Corps and the SFWMD
to revise the project sequencing that had been originally developed in
2000 to reflect new scientific, technical, and other information.
Examples of such information include population growth, additional data
on the topography of the South Florida ecosystem, rainfall data, and
existing sources of water and flood controls. According to the
regulations, the restoration partners were to conduct model simulations
and revise, among other things, their sequencing decisions if the
models indicated that changes to the sequence of project implementation
were warranted to achieve environmental benefits sooner. The CERP
program regulations also required that the sequencing decisions include
a consideration of whether the projects, as sequenced, would meet
interim goals. These goals were to be established in an agreement
signed by the Secretaries of the Army and the Interior and the Governor
of Florida no later than December 2004.[Footnote 13]
However, when the Corps and SFWMD developed the 2005 MISP for CERP
projects, they did not comply with the requirements of the Corps
regulations. Specifically, the MISP was not based on new information
because the model used to run the simulations and generate the data--
the South Florida Water Management Model--had not been updated by the
Corps as anticipated when the sequencing decisions were made. As a
result, the Corps and SFWMD staff used outdated modeling data from
1999.[Footnote 14] In addition, the Secretaries of the Army and the
Interior, and the Governor of Florida did not sign an agreement that
established interim goals for the restoration effort until late April/
early May 2007--over 2 years after the program regulations
deadline.[Footnote 15] Consequently, the 2005 MISP was developed
without the benefit of the interim goals that the regulations required
to help guide interagency planning, monitoring, assessment, and project
sequencing.
Because the agencies lacked updated environmental benefits data and
lacked interim goals, the 2005 MISP for CERP projects was primarily
based on an assessment of the technical dependencies and constraints
among projects and available funding. Specifically, Corps and SFWMD
officials first considered whether the technical constraints laid out
in the 2000 CERP conceptual plan were still appropriate or whether new
information had changed those constraints and, hence, the sequence of
projects. Based on these technical dependencies and constraints, all
CERP projects were placed in one of seven 5-year periods covering 2005
to 2040. Once Corps and SFWMD officials completed their technical
constraints analysis, they reviewed the costs of projects scheduled for
completion in each 5-year interval and the estimated funding available
for that period, as well as available staff resources. When resources-
-primarily funding--were insufficient to complete projects within the
initial designated 5-year period, the projects were delayed and
scheduled for completion at a later date. Table 3 shows the number of
projects in the MISP and their primary purpose, by 5-year increments,
over the life of CERP. As the table shows, the ultimate benefits from
the CERP projects will not be fully realized until 2040.
Table 3: Type of Project, Primary Purpose, Timing, and Number of CERP
Projects Scheduled for Completion, 2005-2040:
Type of project and purpose[B]; Water storage and flow pilots; Timing
and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2005-10; 4; Timing and
number of projects by completion date[A]: 2010-15; [Empty]; Timing and
number of projects by completion date[A]: 2015-20; 1; Timing and number
of projects by completion date[A]: 2020-25; [Empty]; Timing and number
of projects by completion date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number
of projects by completion date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Water storage and flow; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2005-10; 4; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2010-15; 5; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2015-20; 11; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2020-25; 3[C]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2025-30; 1; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2035-40; 2.
Water quality (stormwater treatment and management operations); Timing
and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2005-10; 2; Timing and
number of projects by completion date[A]: 2010-15; 1; Timing and number
of projects by completion date[A]: 2015-20; 4; Timing and number of
projects by completion date[A]: 2020-25; 1; Timing and number of
projects by completion date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number of
projects by completion date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Water supply pilot; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2005-10; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2010-15; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2015-20; 1; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2020-25; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Water supply; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2005-
10; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2010-
15; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2015-
20; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2020-
25; 2; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2025-30;
[Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2035-40;
[Empty].
Habitat acquisition and improvement; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2005-10; 4; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2010-15; 2; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2015-20; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2020-25; 1; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by
completion date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Invasive species control; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2005-10; 1; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2010-15; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2015-20; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2020-25; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Feasibility studies; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2005-10; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2010-15; 1; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2015-20; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2020-25; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2025-30; [Empty]; Timing and number of projects by completion
date[A]: 2035-40; [Empty].
Total--51; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2005-
10; 15; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2010-15;
9; Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2015-20; 17;
Timing and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2020-25; 7; Timing
and number of projects by completion date[A]: 2025-30; 1; Timing and
number of projects by completion date[A]: 2035-40; 2.
Source: GAO's analysis of Corps and SFWMD MISP and project data.
Note: The total number of projects in the table is 51, which differs
from the 60 current CERP projects discussed earlier in this report. The
difference occurs because nine projects, primarily operational and
study projects, did not have a planned start date when the MISP was
developed.
[A] The CERP partners did not list projects for 2030 through 2035
because no projects were scheduled for completion during this time.
[B] Projects may have multiple purposes and some are defined as phases
where construction may take several 5-year periods to complete.
[C] The schedule for the Indian River Lagoon-South project includes the
construction of water storage components in the first 10 years, with
the natural lands acquisition component scheduled for completion by
2020.
[End of table]
Owing to delays in meeting its commitments for implementing CERP
projects in a timely manner, as well as its commitment to support the
state's Acceler8 effort, the Corps is revising its schedules and
sequencing of CERP projects. For example, in an October 2004 letter to
the state, the Corps had committed to a list of dates for completing
the project implementation reports necessary to obtain project approval
by the Corps' management and the Congress for the CERP projects that
were being implemented through the state's Acceler8 effort. However,
the Corps has not met the dates outlined in that letter. To address
these delays and other project implementation issues, the Corps is
revising the sequencing plan and schedules for CERP projects (known as
CERP-reset). As part of this restructuring, they are planning to
incorporate the National Academy of Sciences' recommendation to use an
incremental adaptive management approach that allows projects to move
forward with incremental steps. However, we are concerned that the
Corps' current effort is also being undertaken without key information
on updated environmental benefits for these projects. As a result, the
revised schedules for sequencing the CERP projects will most likely
still not meet all of the sequencing criteria outlined in the Corps
regulations, and the revised CERP sequencing plan, when issued, will
continue to be based largely on technical dependencies and funding
availability.
Implementation Decisions for CERP-Related and Non-CERP Projects Are
Based Largely on Available Funding:
Decisions about starting and completing CERP-related and non-CERP
projects largely depend upon when and if the implementing agency will
have sufficient funding to implement the project. Specifically,
implementation of the 162 CERP-related and non-CERP projects is to be
carried out by over 14 different federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies as part of their larger missions. Many of these agencies do
not have a specific program focused on the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort. Consequently, the priorities assigned to many of
the CERP-related and non-CERP projects are driven by the agencies'
overall priorities and available funding in any given year, not
necessarily the sequencing needs of the restoration effort. For
example, the construction of the CERP-related Mod Waters project has
been delayed several times since 1997 because, among other things,
Interior did not receive enough funding to complete the construction of
this project. While currently scheduled for completion in 2009, agency
officials stated that they do not expect this project to be completed
until at least 2011. However, because completion of this project is
critical to the implementation of the CERP Decomp project, these delays
have caused completion dates for Decomp to be pushed back as well.
Similarly, FDEP has a land acquisition program to acquire lands for
conservation and habitat preservation throughout the state, including
for some non-CERP projects that are part of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort. FDEP has identified lands and added them to a list
of priority projects proposed for acquisition throughout the
state.[Footnote 16] However, whether or not these lands will be
acquired for non-CERP projects is dependent on whether there is
available funding in the annual budget, there are willing sellers, and
the land is affordable based on the available funding.
Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided over $7 Billion for a
Variety of Restoration Activities Since 1999:
From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2006, federal and state
agencies participating in the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem provided $7.1 billion. Of this total, federal agencies
provided $2.3 billion and Florida provided $4.8 billion. Two agencies-
-the Corps and the Department of the Interior--provided over 80 percent
of the federal contribution. Figure 3 shows each federal agency's
contribution.[Footnote 17]
Figure 3: Federal Funding Provided for the Restoration Effort, Fiscal
Years 1999-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.
Note: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
As figure 4 shows, federal and state agencies allocated the largest
portion of the $7.1 billion to non-CERP projects for fiscal years 1999
through 2006.
Figure 4: Federal and State Funding Provided for CERP, CERP-Related,
and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state agencies restoration
funding data.
Note: Amounts do not total to $7.1 billion due to rounding. The amounts
are $1.93 billion for CERP-related, $2.35 billion for CERP, and $2.80
billion for non-CERP.
[End of figure]
Table 4 shows how the federal and state agencies used the funds
allocated to CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects and activities.
As the table shows, while federal and state funding was used to support
a range of activities, land acquisition alone accounted for about 36
percent of the $7.1 billion. Land acquisition is such a large category
primarily because Florida has devoted significant resources to purchase
land for restoration projects.
Table 4: Project Purpose and Funding Allocated among CERP, CERP-
Related, and Non-CERP Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
Type of project: Land acquisition[A,E]; CERP projects: Federal[C]: 0;
CERP projects: State[D]: $1,788.6; [Empty]; CERP- relatedprojects:
Federal[C]: 0; CERP-relatedprojects: State[D]: 0; [Empty]; Non-CERP
projects: Federal[C]: $283.4; Non-CERP projects: State[D]: $485.5;
[Empty]; Total: Federal: $283.4; Total: State: $2,274.1; $2,557.5.
Type of project: Project construction; CERP projects: Federal[C]: 0;
CERP projects: State[D]: 25.7; [Empty]; CERP-relatedprojects:
Federal[C]: 835.7; CERP- relatedprojects: State[D]: 1,097.4; [Empty];
Non-CERP projects: Federal[C]: 0; Non-CERP projects: State[D]: 0;
[Empty]; Total: Federal: 835.7; Total: State: 1,123.1; $1,958.7.
Type of project: Support activities[B]; CERP projects: Federal[C]:
341.4; CERP projects: State[D]: 191.7; [Empty]; CERP-relatedprojects:
Federal[C]: 0; CERP- relatedprojects: State[D]: 0; [Empty]; Non-CERP
projects: Federal[C]: 795.6; Non-CERP projects: State[D]: 1,230.1;
[Empty]; Total: Federal: 1,137.0; Total: State: 1,421.9; $2,558.9.
Type of project: Total; CERP projects: Federal[C]: $341.4; CERP
projects: State[D]: $2,006.0; [Empty]; CERP-relatedprojects:
Federal[C]: $835.7; CERP- relatedprojects: State[D]: $1,097.4; [Empty];
Non-CERP projects: Federal[C]: $1,079.0; Non-CERP projects: State[D]:
$1,715.7; [Empty]; Total: Federal: $2,256.1; Total: State: $4,819.0;
$7,075.1.
Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state agencies restoration
funding data.
[A] Certain judgments were made in allocating the funding by purpose
based on the available funding data. As a result, land costs for some
fiscal years are only for a partial fiscal year and do not include the
entire fiscal year.
[B] Support activities included RECOVER efforts, adaptive assessment
and monitoring, the Interagency Modeling Center, program coordination,
and science-and mission-related activities that indirectly benefit the
restoration, such as invasive species control. In addition, for the
Corps and SFWMD, support activities include, $74.4 million and $36.8
million, respectively for project design; $13.1 million and $11.8
million for pilot project design; and $9.0 million and $6.7 million for
feasibility studies.
[C] Federal funding data were provided by the agencies in response to a
GAO data request, except for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, for which we used the funding data from the Task
Force's annual cross-cut budgets.
[D] State funding data used were found in the Task Force's annual cross-
cut budgets, except for SFWMD, which provided funding data in response
to a GAO data request.
[E] Local government entities spent $207 million on non-CERP land
acquisition projects currently identified as restoration projects and
$213 million on other land acquisition projects that will become
restoration projects.
[End of table]
CERP projects. As table 4 shows, most CERP funds have been used to
purchase land--210,642 acres over the last 8 years. The state is
responsible for acquiring all land for CERP projects; the federal
agencies have not purchased any land for CERP. The Corps and Florida
spent $533 million on support activities primarily to meet the
administrative framework requirements of WRDA 2000.
While federal agencies and Florida provided about $2.3 billion during
fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for CERP projects, this amount was about
$1.2 billion less than they had estimated needing for these projects
over this period. Although the federal contribution was significantly
less than expected when the CERP project list was developed in 1999,
the state contribution increased significantly later in the period,
partially closing the funding shortfall. Initially, federal and state
agencies anticipated that they would receive a total of $400 million
each year if the funding was to keep pace with the planned project
schedule. Restoration partners reported that it was expected that this
amount would be provided equally--$200 million annually from federal
agencies and $200 million from the state. As figure 5 shows, however,
federal CERP funding fell significantly short in each year during
fiscal years 1999 through 2006--by a total of $1.4 billion. This
shortfall occurred primarily because CERP projects did not receive the
congressional authorization and appropriations that the agencies had
expected. In contrast, Florida provided a total of $2.0 billion over
the period, exceeding its expected contribution to CERP by $250 million.
Figure 5: Total Expected and Actual Federal and State Funding for CERP,
Fiscal Years 1999-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state agencies restoration
funding data.
CERP-related projects. Project construction activities constituted the
only allocation of restoration funding to CERP-related projects, with
federal agencies providing a total of $836 million and the state $1,097
million. For example, the Corps provided $170 million for removing
levees and filling a drainage canal among other things that altered the
natural flow of the Kissimmee River. Florida provided $404 million to
complete construction of six stormwater treatment areas, totaling
41,089 acres, between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades National Park.
Non-CERP projects. The largest portion of federal and state funding for
non-CERP projects was used for support activities, followed by land
acquisition. Interior bureaus, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, provided a total of $283 million to purchase land for habitat.
For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided $15 million to
purchase 913 acres in the J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge
to help preserve and protect endangered and threatened species;
feeding, nesting, and roosting areas for migratory birds; and habitat
for over 220 species of birds. Florida provided $486 million for land
purchases for non-CERP projects, such as the $28 million provided to
buy Cayo Costa Island.
Appendix III contains additional information on funding provided by
federal and state agencies for the various restoration activities of
the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.
Although Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased Since 2000, Total
Cost Estimates Are Incomplete and Likely to Rise:
Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for
the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort grew by 28 percent, from
$15.4 billion to $19.7 billion. This increase occurred primarily
because of project scope changes, increased construction costs, and
higher land costs. However, the cost estimate for the restoration
effort is likely to increase even more, in part because the current
estimate does not include the costs for the remaining land acquisitions
and final design cost estimates for CERP projects, which are not yet
known.
Estimated Restoration Costs Have Increased:
Between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total estimated cost for
the South Florida ecosystem restoration grew from $15.4 billion to
$19.7 billion, or by 28 percent. As figure 6 shows, estimated costs
increased for all categories of projects and for support activities,
such as the WRDA 2000 administrative requirements.
Figure 6: Total Estimated Increases in Restoration Costs for CERP, CERP-
Related, and Non-CERP Projects, and Support Activities, 2000 to 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state agencies restoration cost
data.
[End of figure]
As the figure also shows, estimated CERP project costs increased from
$8.8 billion to $10.1 billion. This 15-percent increase represents
nearly 31 percent of the increase in the total estimated cost for the
restoration. However, the most significant project cost increase--47
percent--was for non-CERP projects.
Federal and state officials reported that estimated CERP costs
increased primarily because of inflation and changes in the scope of
work for two CERP projects with completed project implementation
reports. For example, in the conceptual phase, the cost estimate for
the Site 1 Impoundment project--a CERP project in southern Palm Beach
County to capture and store local runoff during wet periods and then
use the water to supplement water deliveries during dry periods--was
$46 million. Once the initial planning and design was complete,
however, the Corps' estimate increased to $81 million to include
changes in the scope of the project and increased cost of construction.
In addition, the Picayune Strand Restoration project--a CERP project to
restore and enhance wetlands and distribute water across a larger area-
-was $53 million in the conceptual phase. Once the initial planning and
design was complete, however, the Corps' estimate increased to $363
million in part to include the cost of acquiring the 55,247 acres of
land needed for the project. Similarly, the scope of the Indian River
Lagoon-South project was expanded to include the acquisition of over
92,000 acres of natural lands that will provide water storage and
habitat restoration. The scope expansion increased the project's
estimated cost by $354 million. For CERP-related projects, estimated
costs increased primarily because of inflation and delays in receiving
federal funding, which led to additional increases in the costs of
labor and materials beyond that attributed to inflation, according to
federal officials.
Increases in Total Restoration Costs Are Likely to Continue for
Multiple Reasons:
The costs of restoring the South Florida ecosystem are likely to
continue to increase for a number of reasons. First, the estimated
costs for some of the projects are not known or fully known.
Specifically, for eight nonconstruction CERP projects--addressing water
management operations and water supply plans--the estimated costs were
not known as of September 2006. These nonconstruction projects seek to
improve the delivery of water to areas such as the water conservation
areas and Everglades National Park, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
estuaries, and the Rotenberger and Holey Land Wildlife Management
Areas. For the remaining 44 CERP projects that require construction,
the full estimated cost is likely to rise if they, like other CERP
projects, have higher completion costs than originally anticipated. For
example, as mentioned above for one project that we examined--the Site
1 Impoundment project--after the project implementation report was
completed the estimated total costs grew by $36 million, from $46
million to $81 million.[Footnote 18] If other CERP projects, for which
initial planning and design have not yet been completed, also
experience similar increases in project costs then the estimated total
costs of not only CERP but the overall restoration effort will grow
significantly. Since the federal government provides 50 percent of the
cost for CERP and for certain CERP-related projects, its contribution
to cover these rising costs will also continue to increase.
Second, the full cost of acquiring land for the restoration effort is
not known. For 56 non-CERP land projects, expected to total 862,796
acres, land acquisition costs have not been reported. Costs are not
estimated due to price escalation and also to avoid adversely impacting
ongoing negotiations of land acquisitions. For these non-CERP land
acquisitions, the Task Force computed an estimated range of land costs
from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion based on the 779,000 acres remaining
to be acquired as of 2004. However, the higher cost may be more
realistic, and could be a conservative estimate, given the rising costs
of land in Florida. According to state officials, Florida land prices
are escalating rapidly, owing primarily to development pressures.
Consequently, future project costs are likely to rise with higher land
costs. While land acquisition costs for CERP projects are included as
part of the total estimated project costs, thus far, the state has
acquired only 54 percent of the land needed for CERP projects, at a
cost of $1.4 billion. An additional 178,000 acres have yet to be
acquired; the cost of these purchases is not yet known and is therefore
not fully reflected in the cost of CERP and overall restoration costs.
Third, the cost of using new technologies for the restoration effort is
unknown. The Congress authorized pilot projects in 1999 and 2000 to
determine the feasibility of applying certain new technologies for
storing water, managing seepage, and reusing treated wastewater. Under
this authority, the Corps implemented six pilot projects that are
estimated to cost a total of $123 million. While the pilot projects
have been authorized, the cost to construct or implement projects based
on the results of the pilots is not yet known. For example, one of the
key water storage technologies proposed is the use of aquifer storage
and recovery (ASR). Using ASR technology would require the Corps and
SFWMD to drill many wells deep into an aquifer to store water and then
to pump it out as needed. While ASR technology has been used
successfully in the state in the past, the restoration agencies plan to
create water storage reservoirs that are larger than any previously
created. Three ASR pilot projects have been approved to address the
technical uncertainties related to the implementation of these large
scale ASRs. The agencies reported that the ASR pilot costs constitute
approximately 20 percent of the cost of CERP, but they do not know what
the ASR technology on the scale envisioned will cost or what the costs
would be for alternative water storage if the ASR technology proves to
be infeasible.
Twenty-Seven Primary Models Guide the Restoration Effort, but
Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Their Usefulness:
Of more than 100 available mathematical models, 27 primary models guide
the restoration effort. At least 21 of the 27 have some interfaces, but
agency officials told us that they need additional interfaces to make
the most effective use of the models. However, current agency efforts
are focused on meeting the modeling needs of individual agencies, not
on coordinating the efforts and needs of all the agencies involved in
the restoration effort. Agency officials recognize the need for better
coordination, but given other demands for their time, this has not been
a high priority for them.
Twenty-Seven of More Than 100 Models Are Primary to the Restoration
Effort:
Although there is no comprehensive list of all the mathematical models
available for guiding the restoration of South Florida's ecosystem, we
identified more than 100 such models. Of these 100 models, 27 are
primary for the restoration effort, according to federal and state
officials.[Footnote 19] Federal and state agencies, private
organizations, and academic institutions have developed the 27 models.
These 27 models can be used to represent the unique characteristics of
the South Florida ecosystem. For example, according to federal and
state officials the South Florida Water Management Model, which was
developed by SFWMD, is one of the most valuable modeling tools used for
the restoration. This regional model is used to simulate the hydrology
and management of water resources over a 7,600 square mile area in
South Florida and to evaluate CERP's performance. However, a RECOVER
modeling task team reported that the current model does not provide the
level of precision and detail needed to simulate flow rates of surface
and ground water; cannot predict the effects of restoration
alternatives on the salinity levels of coastal wetlands and aquifers;
and does not provide detailed enough information about the different
habitat types that exist within the analyzed area. To address these
shortcomings, SFWMD is developing the Regional Simulation Model to
replace this model, which is expected to be ready for use in 2008.
Table 5 shows the primary models used in the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort by model type and study area.
Table 5: Model Types and Study Areas of the 27 Primary Models That
Guide the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Effort:
Model types and study areas: Number of models.
Model types and study areas: Model type; [Empty].
Model types and study areas: Hydrological; 11.
Model types and study areas: Hydrological/water quality; 8.
Model types and study areas: Water quality; 5.
Model types and study areas: Ecological; 3.
Model types and study areas: Study area; [Empty].
Model types and study areas: Regional/sub-regional and project; 17.
Model types and study areas: Project; 7.
Model types and study areas: Regional/sub-regional; 3.
Source: GAO's analysis of model Web sites, agency interviews, and the
2006 RECOVER Report on Evaluation Tools, Models, Work Plans, and
Budgets.
[End of table]
As table 5 shows, there are a total of 19 primary models that can be
used in the restoration effort to simulate hydrological processes--such
as water runoff, the movement of groundwater in aquifers, and the force
of water flow in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. These models
take into account different aspects of the unique hydrology of South
Florida--flat topography, a high water table, sandy soils, and the easy
movement of water through the aquifer system. A total of 13 primary
models simulate water quality processes--such as the migration of
pollutants in both surface water and groundwater systems. The three
primary ecological models simulate how plant and animal species
interact with their habitat. For example, an ecological model might
simulate changes in the population of an endangered species, like the
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, in relation to changes in hydrological
conditions and the availability of food. The 27 models may simulate
changes that could occur in a region or sub-region of the ecosystem as
a result of multiple restoration activities or changes that could occur
as a result of a specific restoration project.
Additional Interfaces Are Needed to Enhance Models' Usefulness:
We determined that at least 21 of the 27 primary models have interfaces
that allow the models to interact with other models and provide a more
comprehensive and accurate assessment of the ecosystem. Agency
scientists and officials identified three broad types of interfaces.
The first type enables the models to share data with other models. This
type of interface requires less hands-on data processing and, according
to a Corps official, yields immediate returns for guiding the
restoration effort in terms of facilitating and expediting the exchange
of required data among models. The second type of interface allows
scientists to run multiple models and then layer the results of each
model onto a single graphic. This process expedites the review of
simulation results and enables scientists and managers to better
understand the results of different project activities. The third type
of interface--known as an integrated interface--allows scientists to
simultaneously run multiple hydrological, water quality, and ecological
models. This type of interface provides the most holistic approach for
simulating the long-term responses of the landscape and habitat to the
restoration effort, although it is the most complex and time-consuming
to develop.
However, scientists and agency officials we spoke with noted the need
for additional interfaces for these 27 models. According to agency
officials and reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the
RECOVER interagency science team, the existing model interfaces do not
allow them to provide the most comprehensive and accurate understanding
of the impact of the restoration effort. These sources identified the
need for multiple interfaces between and across the hydrological,
ecological, and water quality models and the regional, sub-regional,
and project-specific models. Such interfaces would (1) improve model
predictions; (2) expedite project-related simulations; and (3)
streamline efforts for planning, evaluation, monitoring, and adaptive
management.
Although agency scientists and officials recognize the need for
additional interfaces, neither the individual agencies nor the Task
Force, as the coordinating body for science-related activities, have
compiled a list of interfaces needed for the entire restoration effort.
Instead, agency scientists and managers focus on their specific needs
to carry out their agency's mission. For example, the Corps and SFWMD
are each focusing on certifying the reliability of the models that they
developed through a peer review process, while Interior is setting
priorities for ecological science activities that affect the
development of ecological models. However, because the agencies do not
have a formal, restoration-wide coordination effort, they rely on an
informal network to coordinate model development, create interfaces,
and set science research priorities. As a result, the agencies' mission-
related activities may not support the overall restoration effort. The
National Academy of Sciences has stated that improved coordination
would enhance the restoration effort by helping to identify and reduce
scientific uncertainties.[Footnote 20] To improve coordination, the
Corps and SFWMD established the Interagency Modeling Center in 2003 as
the single point of responsibility for CERP modeling services. However,
the Interagency Modeling Center focuses primarily on applying models to
CERP projects, and does not focus on developing and coordinating models
and interfaces for the entire restoration effort. Agency officials
agree that coordination and communication across agencies involved in
identifying interfaces could be improved. However, they also stated
that agency staff involved with the restoration efforts have other
duties that take precedence over the coordination of modeling interface
activities.
Conclusions:
Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is a vast and complex undertaking
that will ultimately depend on the successful implementation of more
than 200 different projects. In particular, the successful achievement
of the restoration's three overall goals depends to a large degree on
the effective implementation of approximately 88 key CERP and CERP-
related projects. In this context, therefore, the order in which these
projects are implemented becomes critical to ensuring that the maximum
environmental benefits are achieved as quickly as possible in the most
cost-effective manner. However, the process that participating agencies
have used so far to make sequencing decisions for these projects, and
in particular for the CERP projects, has been governed largely by
funding availability and technical dependencies and constraints among
projects, not the full range of criteria that the Corps developed under
WRDA 2000. These criteria were not fully applied when sequencing
decisions were made for the CERP projects in 2005. This happened
because key data, such as updated benefits information and interim
goals for CERP, which are needed to fully apply these criteria were not
available. In this regard, the Secretaries of the Army and the
Interior, in conjunction with the Governor of Florida, did not reach
agreement on CERP interim goals until late April/early May 2007--more
than 2 years after the date required by the regulations.
Moreover, from the outset, the restoration effort has sought to use a
science-based approach to guide its decision-making processes. A
significant contributor to this approach has been the use of
mathematical models that help agencies gauge the effects of the
restoration effort on the ecosystem. However, the effectiveness of
these models is reduced by the limited number of interfaces between and
among them. Without additional interfaces, these models cannot provide
the participating agencies with the comprehensive information that they
need. The current informal network that agency officials rely on to
coordinate their model and interface development efforts may not be the
most effective approach to ensure that the needs of the overall
restoration effort are met. In this context, we believe that the Task
Force as the coordinating body for the overall restoration effort could
provide the needed direction and emphasis.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Because the correct sequencing of CERP projects is essential to the
overall success of the restoration effort, we are recommending that the
Secretary of the Army direct the Corps of Engineers to obtain the key
data that are needed to ensure that all required sequencing factors are
appropriately considered when deciding which projects to implement.
Once this information is available, the Corps should comprehensively
reassess its sequencing decisions to ensure that CERP projects have
been appropriately sequenced to maximize the achievement of restoration
goals.
In addition, given the importance of modeling and interfaces to
managing the restoration effort, we are recommending that, as chair of
the Task Force, the Secretary of the Interior take the lead on helping
participating agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop
models and their interfaces.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and
the Interior and the state of Florida for review and comment. We
received written comments from both federal agencies and the state of
Florida.
The Department of Defense generally concurred with our recommendation
that the Corps obtain the key data needed to ensure all sequencing
factors are considered in its project sequencing decisions and to
comprehensively reassess its decisions so as to ensure CERP projects
maximize the achievement of restoration goals. The state of Florida,
however, expressed concerns that our recommendation would serve to
delay restoration and increase costs and stated that it supports the
Incremental Adaptive Restoration process recommended by the National
Research Council. While we understand the state's concerns, we do not
believe that implementing the adaptive management approach recommended
by the Council is incompatible with our recommendation. In fact, our
report discusses the Corps' plans to incorporate this approach and
allow CERP projects to move forward in incremental steps. Furthermore,
given the delays that have already occurred and the criticality of CERP
to the success of the restoration, we believe that it is even more
important for the Corps to apply the full set of sequencing factors, as
outlined in the program regulations, to ensure that CERP sequencing
decisions will achieve maximum restoration benefits as early as
possible and in the most cost-effective manner.
In responding to our recommendation that the Departments of Defense and
the Interior reach an agreement on interim goals with the Governor of
Florida, both federal agencies and the state of Florida reported that
the Secretaries of the Army and the Interior and the Governor of
Florida signed an Interim Goals Agreement in late April/early May 2007.
Because this happened after our report was sent to the agencies and the
state for comment, we have revised our report and removed the
recommendation to reflect this recent action. We believe that having
the interim goals in place will provide a way of measuring the progress
made in implementing CERP and achieve its goals as early as possible
and in a cost-effective manner.
The Department of the Interior and the state of Florida agreed with our
recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the Task
Force, take the lead on helping participating agencies better
coordinate their efforts to develop models and their interfaces and
that such an effort should include the Interagency Modeling Center.
Interior said that it agreed that coordination in the area of modeling
will be beneficial and that the Task Force's Science Coordination Group
and the Interagency Modeling Center could assist in this effort.
Interior also said that it will make such a recommendation to the Task
Force. The state of Florida said that it is important that the Task
Force provide direction to the model development process and that
interfaces for models are important. The state also recognized that
while coordination of modeling could be improved, it is important that
the Interagency Modeling Center continue to provide policy guidance.
Although this recommendation was not addressed to the Department of
Defense, in its comments the department stated that it did not agree
with the recommendation because the Interagency Modeling Center has
responsibility for coordinating and developing models and interfaces.
We have included information in the report to recognize the role of the
Interagency Modeling Center. However, we believe that because the
Interagency Modeling Center's responsibilities pertain primarily to
CERP, and not the whole restoration effort, the Task Force as the
science and research coordinating body for the overall restoration is
the most appropriate body for coordinating the development of models
and their interfaces.
We also received technical comments from the state of Florida, which we
have incorporated, as appropriate, throughout the report. The
Department of Defense's written comments are presented in appendix V,
the Department of the Interior's written comments are presented in
appendix VI, and the state of Florida's written comments are presented
in appendix VII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees and Members of Congress; the
Secretary of the Interior; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of
the Army; the Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of Agriculture; the
Administrator, EPA; and the Governor of Florida. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VIII.
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Given the complexity and enormity of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration, we were asked to review the current status of the effort,
focusing specifically on the (1) status of restoration projects and
their expected benefits; (2) factors that influence the sequencing of
project implementation; (3) amount of funding provided to the
restoration effort since 1999; (4) extent to which cost increases have
occurred and the reasons for these increases; and (5) primary
mathematical models used to guide the restoration effort and the extent
to which these models have interfaces.
To determine the status of restoration projects and to identify their
expected benefits, we first met with the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and representatives from many of
its participating agencies to determine how best to collect project
status and benefit information. On the basis of these interviews, we
determined that the most complete list of current restoration projects
was found in the Task Force's 2005 Integrated Financial Plan.[Footnote
21] This list, updated annually, is intended to contain all of the
restoration projects completed, implemented, and planned by the
federal, state, local, and tribal entities participating in the South
Florida ecosystem restoration. The list is supplemented by project
profile sheets that give additional details about each project. Using
the Task Force's list as a baseline and supplementing it with research
and agency interviews, we identified 222 restoration projects. We
requested and received information on these projects from the
participating agencies that sponsor nearly all of the 222 projects: the
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the Departments of Agriculture (USDA)-
-including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); Commerce--including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the Interior--
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park
Service (NPS); the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP); Miami-Dade County; the Miccosukee Tribe; the Seminole Tribe;
and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Specifically, we requested data on project status, project start and
end dates, and related information. We conducted follow-up interviews
where appropriate to clarify the project information we received. On
the basis of this information, we compiled a master list of completed,
ongoing, and planned restoration projects. Using the information
collected regarding project status, we grouped the projects into the
following four categories: (1) completed, (2) in implementation, (3) in
planning or design, and (4) not yet started.
To separate the 222 projects into smaller groups for further analysis,
we relied upon the project information in the Task Force's 2005
Integrated Financial Plan, as well as in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) 2005 report to the Congress.[Footnote 22] On
the basis of our analysis of these two documents and verification
provided by responses on project status from participating agencies, we
developed the following three project groups: (1) CERP projects--60
individual projects approved by the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 2000 to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida
ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region,
including water supply and flood control; (2) CERP-related projects--28
projects that provide a foundation for CERP--many of these were
authorized before WRDA 2000; and (3) non-CERP projects--134 restoration
projects that are not as closely related to CERP.
To identify project benefits, we generally categorized expected
benefits for each project by its primary purpose, as identified by the
Task Force in its 2005 Integrated Financial Plan. According to the Task
Force, these primary purposes are identified by communications between
the Task Force and each project's sponsor(s). We reviewed the project
descriptions as reported by the Task Force, as well as other available
project information, to assess the reasonableness of the Task Force's
determination for each project's primary purpose. For projects that did
not appear in the 2005 Integrated Financial Plan, or for those that
appeared in the plan but did not have a supporting project profile
sheet, we requested and reviewed project information from the project's
sponsor(s) where available. Through this analysis, we developed broad
categories of expected benefits--water storage, habitat acquisition and
improvement, and water quality, among others--and assigned each project
to one of them on the basis of its primary purpose.
Following our initial data collection, we conducted additional outreach
through April 2007 to ensure that our master project list was as
complete as possible and incorporated any changes that may have
occurred. We (1) reviewed the Task Force's draft 2006 Integrated
Financial Plan to incorporate newly completed projects and other
relevant changes; (2) requested the Task Force's assistance in
reconciling our project list with the original project list that it
published in 2000 to incorporate projects that may have been completed
and then removed from the Integrated Financial Plans issued between
2000 and 2005;[Footnote 23] and (3) contacted participating agencies
and followed up on ongoing projects with estimated end dates that were
reported as "2006" in the agencies' original status response to
determine if these projects had in fact been completed.
To determine the factors that influence the sequencing of project
implementation for the restoration projects, we obtained and reviewed
available agency guidance, regulations, and related material from the
Corps; the Department of the Interior (including NPS and FWS); FDEP;
and SFWMD. We selected these agencies because they are responsible for
the largest number of CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP projects. To
learn about sequencing criteria and to determine whether there are any
overarching criteria for all of the restoration projects, we
interviewed officials at these agencies, as well as officials at the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Natural
Resources Conservation Service; Department of Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Department of the Interior's
U.S. Geological Survey; the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes; Miami-Dade
County; and the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Once we
determined that only the CERP projects have clearly established
criteria, we met with Corps and SFWMD officials to determine the extent
to which they applied these criteria in making the sequencing decisions
listed in the 2005 sequencing plan and to identify other factors and
considerations that they took into account. In doing so, we selected
certain CERP projects for more detailed discussion and reviewed Corps
documentation in support of its sequencing decisions. Finally, we
reviewed comments by other agencies and external stakeholders about the
appropriateness of the factors used to determine the sequencing of CERP
projects.
To determine the amount of funding federal and state agencies have
contributed to the restoration effort for fiscal years 1999 through
2006, we obtained information from the following lead project sponsors:
the Department of Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the
Interior, SFWMD, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We
also obtained information from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal agencies account for their funds independently, and therefore
no complete and consolidated financial data on the restoration were
available. For the other agencies participating in the restoration
effort, we used the funding data for this period that these agencies
had provided in the Task Force's annual cross-cut budgets. These
agencies included the Department of Commerce, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Affairs, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of
Transportation, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In
reporting the funding data in total and by category type, we used
funding amounts that were sometimes rounded to the nearest million and
sometimes rounded to the nearest billion, and as a result, the amounts
we report may not always equal the funding totals originally provided
by each agency. We made certain judgments in allocating the funding
based on the available funding data. As a result, land costs for some
fiscal years are only for a partial fiscal year and do not include the
entire fiscal year. We converted all funding data to constant 2006
dollars. To assess the reliability of the funding data the agencies
provided, we asked the agencies to provide appropriation or budget
allocation documents that supported their funding contributions; the
lead project sponsors listed above provided supporting documentation.
Our review of the funding and the supporting documentation indicated
that the funding data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this review.
To determine any increases in estimated project costs and the reasons
for these increases, we used as our baseline the list of projects and
their associated costs in the Task Force's 2000 Integrated Financial
Plan. We updated this project list for any changes in projects from
July 31, 2000, through June 30, 2006. We then submitted the updated
project list to the participating federal and state agencies that were
the lead project sponsors and co-sponsors and asked them to provide the
total estimated cost for each project as of June 30, 2006, and identify
factors that contributed to increases in project costs. However, in
2000, the state of Florida discontinued reporting acquisition costs for
lands not yet acquired for habitat protection. Therefore, the Task
Force did not include these costs in its 2002 through 2006 reports.
Instead, to account for future land costs in its 2004 Biennial Report,
the Task Force computed a range of estimated costs for future land
acquisitions using a low and a high price per acre. Moreover, the 2000
Task Force restoration cost estimate consisted of total estimated costs
for some projects, and total remaining costs for other projects. In
some instances where the cost estimate provided a total remaining
project cost, this was listed as "to be determined," because the Task
Force did not identify a cost for land still to be purchased. The 2006
restoration cost estimate we developed also includes total estimated
costs for some projects, and total remaining costs for other projects.
However, we developed cost estimates for some projects whose costs were
previously listed as "to be determined." Specifically, we
conservatively estimated total remaining project costs for uncompleted
land acquisitions by multiplying the remaining acreage to be purchased
using the same low price per acre that the Task Force used in computing
these land costs in 2004. This difference in methodology could account
for some part of the estimated cost increase we report; however, we did
not assess the potential impact of this difference. In addition, for
the lead agencies that did not or could not provide estimated project
costs as of June 30, 2006, we used the estimated project costs these
agencies had provided in the 2005 Integrated Financial Plan and
converted the costs to constant 2006 dollars. We realize that
converting these 2005 project costs to 2006 dollars may not capture all
of the factors that may contribute to increases in project costs, but
given the small number of projects involved--30--we do not believe the
omission of some contributing factors would significantly alter the
total estimated cost of the restoration. In arriving at a total
estimated cost for the restoration for 2000 and 2006, we added together
the estimated project costs, future land costs, and non-project
estimated costs for each year. Having calculated total estimated
restoration costs for 2000 and 2006, we subtracted the 2000 total
estimated restoration cost from the 2006 total estimated restoration
cost to determine the increase in the total estimated cost of the
restoration. In reporting the cost data in total and by category type,
we used cost amounts that were sometimes rounded to the nearest million
and sometimes to the nearest billion.
In determining the reliability of the project and program support cost
estimates, we researched and reviewed audit reports prepared by
agencies' internal auditors, inspectors general, and outside
independent auditors for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for information
on actual costs incurred. For estimated costs, we reviewed the
processes and policies the Corps and SFWMD used to estimate the costs
for completing the projects. We limited our data reliability review to
the following agencies that were lead project sponsors because they are
responsible for tracking and reporting project costs. These agencies
were the Department of Agriculture, the Corps, the Department of the
Interior, SFWMD, and FDEP. Our review of the audit reports and cost
estimation policies and procedures indicated that the cost data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review.
To identify the primary models that can be used to guide the
restoration and their interfaces, we obtained and analyzed key
documents from managers and scientists at the Corps, the Department of
the Interior, SFWMD, and other participating agencies. We also
researched academic and model Web sites to identify additional
information related to models and interfaces for the restoration. From
these sources, we compiled a universe of over 100 mathematical models
available for the restoration effort. Additionally, we conducted
interviews with agency scientists and managers, and other stakeholders,
including the external scientific community, to determine which models
are considered primary to guide the restoration and to obtain
additional information about these models. We defined primary models as
those that have broad application for use at the project, sub-regional,
or regional level. Through our conversations with agency scientists and
managers, and our analysis of agency documents and academic and model
Web sites, we identified 27 primary models. We also determined who
developed the models, the type, and study area of the models, and the
interfaces for each of the models. We did not independently assess the
reliability or adequacy of the models we reviewed.
We performed our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Project Status and Cost by CERP, CERP-Related, and Non-
CERP Categories:
This appendix provides detailed information on the 222 projects that
comprise the restoration effort. Table 6 shows the projects by project
category--CERP, CERP-related, and non-CERP. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide
information on the status of the restoration projects--completed, being
implemented, or not yet implemented (planning, design, or not yet
started).
Table 6: 222 Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose, Completion
Date, and Project Cost:
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Acme Basin B Discharge;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2008[B]; Cost[A]: $26.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Regional Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 73.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Big Cypress / L-28 Interceptor Modifications;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost[A]: 51.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2011[B];
Cost[A]: 386.9.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Broward County Secondary Canal System;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost[A]: 15.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Broward County Water Preserve Areas;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2009[B];
Cost[A]: 408.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
C-4 Structure;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2013;
Cost[A]: 2.8.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir - Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2011[B];
Cost[A]: 530.6.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
C-43 Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2019;
Cost[A]: c.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
C-111 Spreader Canal;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015[B];
Cost[A]: 117.6.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Caloosahatchee Backpumping with Stormwater Treatment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost[A]: 99.7.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 7.9.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Central Lake Belt Storage;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2035;
Cost[A]: 155.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Change Coastal Wellfield Operations;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/FDEP;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost[A]: 9.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Environmental Water Supply Deliveries to St. Lucie Estuary;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Environmental Water Supply Deliveries to the Caloosahatchee Estuary;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Everglades Agricultural Storage Reservoir;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015[B];
Cost[A]: 542.2.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Everglades National Park Seepage Management;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost[A]: 390.9.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Everglades Rain Driven Operations;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Florida Bay and the Florida Keys Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 6.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Florida Keys Tidal Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 1.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Flow to Northwest and Central Water Conservation Area 3A;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost[A]: 36.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Flows to Eastern Water Conservation Area;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost[A]: 8.0.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Henderson Creek / Belle Meade Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/FDEP;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: 5.8.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Phase 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost[A]: c.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 9.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Indian River Lagoon-South;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2022[B,E];
Cost[A]: 1,309.7.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
L-31N (L-30) Seepage Management Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 11.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2026;
Cost[A]: 26.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2027;
Cost[A]: 1,223.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 32.3.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost[A]: 1.1.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Watershed;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost[A]: 575.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lakes Park Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Lee County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 6.0.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Lower East Coast Utility Water Conservation;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Internal Canal Structures;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost[A]: 9.1.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2025;
Cost[A]: 6.6.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Miccosukee Water Management Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miccosukee;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost[A]: 29.0.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Modify Holey Land Wildlife Management Area Operation Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Modify Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area Operation Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
North Lake Belt Storage Area;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2035;
Cost[A]: 308.2.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
North Palm Beach County - Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015[F];
Cost[A]: 533.2.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
North Palm Beach County - Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2019;
Cost[A]: 203.9.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Operational Modification to Southern Portion of L-31N and C-111;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve Reservoir - Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost[A]: 154.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve Aquifer Storage and Recovery -
Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost[A]: c.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Picayune Strand Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2009[B,G];
Cost[A]: 362.6.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Restoration of Pineland and Hardwood Hammocks in C-111 Basin;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami- Dade County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost[A]: 0.7.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost[A]: 89.5.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Site 1 Impoundment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009[B,H];
Cost[A]: 153.7.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
South Miami-Dade Reuse;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost[A]: 430.6.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Southwest Florida Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 12.0.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Strazzulla Wetlands;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 70.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply (pilot);
Completion date: 2021;
Cost[A]: 35.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Water Conservation Area 2B Flows to Everglades National Park;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost[A]: 539.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow
Enhancement (Decomp);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost[A]: 253.4.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Water Preserve Area Conveyance;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost[A]: 331.7.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
West Miami-Dade Reuse;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost[A]: 518.1.
Project name: 60 CERP projects;
Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Palm Beach County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost[A]: 17.1.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
C-111 (South Dade);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 287.6.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Chapter 298 Districts / Lease 3420 Improvements;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 24.1.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Additional Water Conveyance Structures Under Tamiami
Trail;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided[ I];
Cost[A]: 16.5.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: East Coast Canal Structures (C-4);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2003;
Cost[A]: 3.7.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Keys Carrying Capacity Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2003;
Cost[A]: 6.0.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Lake Okeechobee Water Retention / Phosphorus Removal;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 21.9.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Lake Trafford;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost[A]: 30.0.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Seminole Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation
Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 52.2.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Southern CREW;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 33.3.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Ten Mile Creek;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 40.7.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Western C-11 Water Quality Treatment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 18.1.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
East Water Conservation Area 3A Hydropattern Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 5.3.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Stormwater Treatment Areas
Expansion;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 226.7.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Indian River Lagoon Restoration Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2002;
Cost[A]: 7.9.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Kissimmee River Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016[J];
Cost[A]: 575.4.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Manatee Pass Gates;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 13.8.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Melaleuca Quarantine Facility;
Sponsor(s): USDA (ARS);
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: 8.0.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters);
Sponsor(s): NPS/Corps;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 398.4.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Rotenberger Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 3.6.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 Inflow and Distribution Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 12.7.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 West Works and Outflow Pump Station (G-
310);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2000;
Cost[A]: 82.1.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 2 Works and Outflow Pump Station (G-335);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2000;
Cost[A]: 100.4.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 3/4 Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 170.4.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 5 Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 36.2.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 6 (includes Sections 1 and 2);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 14.6.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
Water Conservation Area 2A Hydropattern Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 4.9.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
West Palm Beach Canal (C-51) and Stormwater Treatment Area 1E;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost[A]: 288.6.
Project name: 28 CERP-related projects;
West Water Conservation Area 3A Hydropattern Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 7.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
2002 Farm Bill;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost[A]: 100.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 30.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Prescribed Fire Program;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Achieve "Maintenance Control" Status for Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca,
Australian Pine, and Old World Climbing Fern in All Natural Areas
Statewide by 2020;
Sponsor(s): FWS/SFWMD/FDEP;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost[A]: 64.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Agriculture and Rural Area Study;
Sponsor(s): Miami-Dade;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2001;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Allapattah Flats / Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Alternative Water Supply Grant;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 466.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Aquatic and Upland Invasive Plant Management;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Babcock Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Belle Meade;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agriculture;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: 145.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Big Bend Swamp / Holopaw Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Big Cypress National Preserve Addition;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 75.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Big Cypress National Preserve Mineral Rights;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Big Cypress National Preserve Private Inholdings;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 244.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Big Pine and No Name Keys Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
Sponsor(s): FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2001;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Biscayne Bay Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 6.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Biscayne Coastal Wetlands Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Bombing Range Ridge;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
C-4 Flood Mitigation Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Flood protection;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost[A]: 4.3.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Caloosahatchee Ecoscape;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Catfish Creek;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Cayo Costa;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: 29.2.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Charlotte Harbor Estuary / Flatwoods / Cape Haze;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Complete an Invasive Exotics Plant Prevention, Early Detection, and
Eradication Plan by 2005;
Sponsor(s): NEWTT/FDEP/NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 5.2.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Complete Land Acquisition for Biscayne National Park;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 33.7.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Coordinate the Development of Management Plans for Top 20 South Florida
Exotic Pest Plants;
Sponsor(s): NEWTT;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: 0.6.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW);
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Corkscrew Regional Mitigation Bank;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1999;
Cost[A]: 2.7.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Coupon Bight / Key Deer / Big Pine Key;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 15.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Cypress Creek / Loxahatchee;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Cypress Creek / Trail Ridge;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Devil's Garden;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Dupuis Reserve Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1986;
Cost[A]: 23.7.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
East Coast Buffer / Water Preserve Areas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
East Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 109.9.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Eastward Ho! Brownfields Partnership;
Sponsor(s): SFRPC;
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Eastward Ho! Corridor Rival Development Trends Fiscal Impact Analysis;
Sponsor(s): FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 1998;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Estero Bay;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Buffer Reserve Enhancement and Exotic
Removal Project;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) / Talisman Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/DOI;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades National Park Exotic Control Program;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades National Park Water and Wastewater;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost[A]: 19.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades Regulation Division;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Exotic Species Removal;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost[A]: 1.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Exotic Vegetation Control (Critical) Big Cypress National Preserve;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 4.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Fakahatchee Strand;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Fisheating Creek;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Aquifer Restoration;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 0.9.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Greenways and Trails Designation Project;
Sponsor(s): FDEP (OGT);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 4.6.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 55.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 41.2.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 12.9.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Frog Pond / L-31N;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Half Circle L Ranch;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Hen Scratch Ranch;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 5.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Hole-in-the-Donut;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost[A]: 123.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Indian River Lagoon Blueway;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Integration of Federal, State, and Local Agency Invasive Exotic Control
Programs into Florida-wide Strategy;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 71.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Juno Hills / Dunes;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Jupiter Ridge;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan (KB Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 5.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee Prairie (Ecosystem);
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 1997;
Cost[A]: 22.6.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee River (Lower Basin);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee River (Upper Basin);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee-St. Johns Connector;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Hatchineha Watershed / Parker- Poinciana;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost[A]: 200.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Protection Program;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost[A]: 1,300.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 25.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study and Pilot Project;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality (pilot);
Completion date: 2003;
Cost[A]: 1.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Tributary Sediment Removal Pilot Project;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality (pilot);
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: 0.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Walk-in-Water;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1998;
Cost[A]: 4.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Long Term Plan (LTP) Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost[A]: 580.9.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (LEC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 12.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lower West Coast Regional Irrigation Distribution System Master Plan
Study;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2002;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 10.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment (LILA);
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement (pilot);
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 6.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee River;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2001;
Cost[A]: 13.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Miami-Dade County Archipelago;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Miccosukee Water Resources Management;
Sponsor(s): Miccosukee;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 26.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Model Lands;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Monitoring of Organic Soils in the Everglades;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost[A]: 1.3.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Nicodermus Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1988;
Cost[A]: 2.0.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
North Fork St. Lucie River;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
North Key Largo Hammocks;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Northern Palm Beach County and Southern Martin County Reclaimed Water
Master Plan;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2002;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
North Savannas;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Okaloacoochee Slough;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Okeechobee Battlefield;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Orlando / Kissimmee Area Regional Reclaimed Water Optimization Plan;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Osceola Pine Savannas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Pal-Mar;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Panther Glades;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Paradise Run;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Pine Island Slough Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Pineland Site Complex;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Planning and Implementation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve;
Sponsor(s): NOAA;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Ranch Reserve;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Rookery Bay;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Rotenberger-Holey Land Tract;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
S-5A Basin Runoff Diversion Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2005;
Cost[A]: 12.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Best Management Practices for the Big Cypress
Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 4.9.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Best Management Practices for the Brighton Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 0.3.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Comprehensive Surface Water Management System for the
Brighton Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 16.3.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Water Conservation Project for Big Cypress Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 50.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Shingle Creek;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Six Mile Cypress I and II;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Soil Survey Update for the Everglades Agricultural Area;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost[A]: 1.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Soil Survey Update for the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress
National Preserve, and Water Conservation Areas;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2013;
Cost[A]: 5.8.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Earth Team;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 1.6.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Non Point Source Pollution and
Disease Prevention Project;
Sponsor(s): BSWCD/SFERC/ USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: 15.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost[A]: 386.1.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
South Fork St. Lucie River;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1996;
Cost[A]: 2.6.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
South Savannas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Southern Glades;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Southern Golden Gate Estates;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Technical Assistance to Seminole and Miccosukee Indian Reservations;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: 15.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Ten Mile Creek (Land Acquisition);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2004;
Cost[A]: 5.5.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Tibet-Butler Preserve;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1999;
Cost[A]: 3.7.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for South Florida;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Twelve Mile Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Upper East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (UEC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2006;
Cost[A]: 4.4.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Upper Lakes Basin Watershed;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Water Conservation Area 2A Regulation Schedule Review;
Sponsor(s): Corps;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost[A]: d.
Project name: 134 Non-CERP projects;
Yamato Scrub;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 1996;
Cost[A]: 26.7.
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
Note: Ten projects had primary purposes--such as recreation or soil
monitoring--that fell outside of our established categories. These
project purposes are designated "Other" in this table and in tables 7,
8, and 9.
[A] Project cost shown is reported cost for completed projects and
estimated cost for all other projects.
[B] SFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project
with its own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may
result in earlier project completion.
[C] The estimated cost of this aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)
project is included in the cost estimate for the project's initial part
or phase. Specifically, the estimated cost of the C-43 Basin ASR is
included in the cost estimate for the C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir;
the estimated cost of the Hillsboro ASR is included in the cost
estimate for the Site 1 Impoundment;
and the estimated cost of the Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve ASR
is included in the cost estimate for the Palm Beach County Agriculture
Reserve Reservoir.
[D] We did not receive cost information for this project.
[E] A project implementation report was submitted to the Congress in
2005 for this project, but it has not yet received authorization.
[F] SFWMD is expediting a portion of this project with its own funds in
advance of congressional authorization. It is constructing a water
storage reservoir that it expects to finish by 2008.
[G] This project is currently being reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget before its project implementation report is
submitted to the Congress for authorization.
[H] This project is currently being reviewed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army before its project implementation report is submitted to
the Congress for authorization.
[I] Phase 1 of this project has been completed;
phase 2 is on hold pending additional funding.
[J] This date encompasses construction completion and several years of
post-construction monitoring.
[End of table]
Table 7: 43 Completed Restoration Projects, Sponsor, Primary Purpose,
Completion Date, and Reported Cost:
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Chapter 298 Districts / Lease 3420 Improvements;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2005;
$24.1.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: East Coast Canal Structures (C-4);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
2003;
3.7.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Keys Carrying Capacity Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
2003;
6.0.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Lake Okeechobee Water Retention / Phosphorus Removal;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2006;
21.9.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Ten Mile Creek;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
2006;
40.7.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Western C-11 Water Quality Treatment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2006;
18.1.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Indian River Lagoon Restoration Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2002;
7.9.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Melaleuca Quarantine Facility;
Sponsor(s): USDA (ARS);
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
2004;
8.0.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Rotenberger Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
2005;
3.6.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 Inflow and Distribution Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2005;
12.7.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 West Works and Outflow Pump Station (G-
310);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2000;
82.1.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 2 Works and Outflow Pump Station (G-335);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2000;
100.4.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 3/4 Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2005;
170.4.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 5 Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2005;
36.2.
Project name: 15 CERP-related projects;
Stormwater Treatment Area 6 (includes Sections 1 and 2);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2006;
14.6.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Agriculture and Rural Area Study;
Sponsor(s): Miami-Dade;
Primary purpose: Study;
2001;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Allapattah Flats / Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
2005;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Big Pine and No Name Keys Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
Sponsor(s): FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
2001;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Cayo Costa;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
2004;
29.2.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Corkscrew Regional Mitigation Bank;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1999;
2.7.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Dupuis Reserve Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1986;
23.7.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Eastward Ho! Corridor Rival Development Trends Fiscal Impact Analysis;
Sponsor(s): FDCA;
Primary purpose: Study;
1998;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Buffer Reserve Enhancement and Exotic
Removal Project;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
2004;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Aquifer Restoration;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2006;
0.9.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Integration of Federal, State, and Local Agency Invasive Exotic Control
Programs into Florida-wide Strategy;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
2006;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan (KB Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2006;
5.5.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee Prairie (Ecosystem);
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
1997;
22.6.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study and Pilot Project;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality (pilot);
2003;
1.0.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Tributary Sediment Removal Pilot Project;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality (pilot);
2004;
0.5.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Walk-in-Water;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1998;
4.1.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (LEC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2006;
12.1.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lower West Coast Regional Irrigation Distribution System Master Plan
Study;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2002;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2006;
10.4.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee River;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
2001;
13.5.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Nicodermus Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1988;
2.0.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Northern Palm Beach County and Southern Martin County Reclaimed Water
Master Plan;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2002;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Orlando / Kissimmee Area Regional Reclaimed Water Optimization Plan;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2004;
a.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
S-5A Basin Runoff Diversion Works;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
2005;
12.8.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
South Fork St. Lucie River;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1996;
2.6.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Ten Mile Creek (Land Acquisition);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
2004;
5.5.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Tibet-Butler Preserve;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1999;
3.7.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Upper East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (UEC Plan);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
2006;
4.4.
Project name: 28 Non-CERP projects;
Yamato Scrub;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
1996;
26.7.
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by the Task Force and
participating agencies.
[A] We did not receive cost information for this project.
[End of table]
Table 8: 107 Restoration Projects Now Being Implemented, Sponsor,
Primary Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost:
Dollars in millions.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Acme Basin B Discharge;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2008[A];
Cost: $26.5.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Everglades Agricultural Storage Reservoir;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015[A];
Cost: 542.2.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 9.4.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Indian River Lagoon-South;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2022[A,B];
Cost: 1,309.7.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 32.3.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
North Palm Beach County - Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015[C];
Cost: 533.2.
Project name: 7 CERP projects;
Picayune Strand Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2009[A,D];
Cost: 362.6.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
C-111 (South Dade);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 287.6.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Additional Water Conveyance Structures Under Tamiami
Trail;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided[E];
Cost: 16.5.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Lake Trafford;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost: 30.0.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Seminole Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation
Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Seminole;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 52.2.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Critical Project: Southern CREW;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 33.3.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Stormwater Treatment Areas
Expansion;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 226.7.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Kissimmee River Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016[F];
Cost: 575.4.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Manatee Pass Gates;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 13.8.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters);
Sponsor(s): NPS/Corps;
Primary Purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 398.4.
Project name: 10 CERP-related projects;
West Palm Beach Canal (C-51) and Stormwater Treatment Area 1E;
Sponsor(s): Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost: 288.6.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
2002 Farm Bill;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost: 100.4.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 30.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Prescribed Fire Program;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Achieve "Maintenance Control" Status for Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca,
Australian Pine, and Old World Climbing Fern in All Natural Areas
Statewide by 2020;
Sponsor(s): FWS/SFWMD/FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost: 64.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Alternative Water Supply Grant;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 466.0.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Aquatic and Upland Invasive Plant Management;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Belle Meade;
Sponsor(s): Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agriculture;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: 145.4.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Big Bend Swamp / Holopaw Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Big Cypress National Preserve Addition;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 75.5.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Big Cypress National Preserve Private Inholdings;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 244.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Biscayne Bay Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary Purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 6.4.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Biscayne Coastal Wetlands Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Bombing Range Ridge;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
C-4 Flood Mitigation Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Flood protection;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost: 4.3.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Caloosahatchee Ecoscape;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Catfish Creek;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Charlotte Harbor Estuary / Flatwoods / Cape Haze;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Complete Land Acquisition for Biscayne National Park;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 33.7.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Coordinate the Development of Management Plans for Top 20 South Florida
Exotic Pest Plants;
Sponsor(s): NEWTT;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: 0.6.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW);
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Coupon Bight / Key Deer / Big Pine Key;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 15.4.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Cypress Creek / Loxahatchee;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Cypress Creek / Trail Ridge;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
East Coast Buffer / Water Preserve Areas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
East Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 109.9.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Eastward Ho! Brownfields Partnership;
Sponsor(s): SFRPC;
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Estero Bay;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) / Talisman Land Acquisition;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/ DOI;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades National Park Exotic Control Program;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades National Park Water and Wastewater;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost: 19.0.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Everglades Regulation Division;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Exotic Species Removal;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost: 1.0.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Exotic Vegetation Control (Critical) Big Cypress National Preserve;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 4.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Fakahatchee Strand;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Fisheating Creek;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Greenways and Trails Designation Project;
Sponsor(s): FDEP (OGT);
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 4.6.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 55.0.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 41.2.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 12.9.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Frog Pond / L-31N;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 5.8.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Hole-in-the-Donut;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary Purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost: 123.8.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Indian River Lagoon Blueway;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 71.8.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Juno Hills / Dunes;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Jupiter Ridge;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee River (Lower Basin);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Kissimmee River (Upper Basin);
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Protection Program;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost: 1,300.0.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 25.8.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Long Term Plan (LTP) Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost: 580.9.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment (LILA);
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement (pilot);
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 6.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Loxahatchee Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Miami-Dade County Archipelago;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and Project name: 90 Non-CERP
projects;
improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Model Lands;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Monitoring of Organic Soils in the Everglades;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost: 1.3.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
North Fork St. Lucie River;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
North Key Largo Hammocks;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Okaloacoochee Slough;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Okeechobee Battlefield;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Osceola Pine Savannas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Pal-Mar;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Panther Glades;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Paradise Run;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Pineland Site Complex;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Planning and Implementation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve;
Sponsor(s): NOAA;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Ranch Reserve;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Rookery Bay;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Rotenberger-Holey Land Tract;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Best Management Practices for the Big Cypress
Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 4.9.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Best Management Practices for the Brighton Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 0.3.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Seminole Tribe Water Conservation Project for Big Cypress Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 50.5.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Shingle Creek;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Six Mile Cypress I and II;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Earth Team;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 1.6.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Non Point Source Pollution and
Disease Prevention Project;
Sponsor(s): BSWCD/SFERC/ USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Other;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 15.5.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan;
Sponsor(s): FWS;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 386.1.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
South Savannas;
Sponsor(s): FDEP/SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Southern Glades;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD/Miami-Dade County;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Southern Golden Gate Estates;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Technical Assistance to Seminole and Miccosukee Indian Reservations;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: 15.5.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for South Florida;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary Purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Twelve Mile Slough;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Upper Lakes Basin Watershed;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Project name: 90 Non-CERP projects;
Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary Purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: g.
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
[A] SFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project
with its own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may
result in earlier project completion.
[B] A project implementation report was submitted to the Congress in
2005 for this project, but it has not yet received authorization.
[C] SFWMD is expediting a portion of this project with its own funds in
advance of congressional authorization. It is constructing a water
storage reservoir that it expects to finish by 2008.
[D] This project is currently being reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget before its project implementation report is
submitted to the Congress for authorization.
[E] Phase 1 of this project has been completed;
phase 2 is on hold pending additional funding.
[F] This date encompasses construction completion and several years of
post-construction monitoring.
[G] We did not receive estimated cost information for this project.
[End of table]
Table 9: 72 Restoration Projects Not Yet Implemented, Sponsor, Primary
Purpose, Expected Completion Date, and Estimated Cost:
Dollars in millions
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Regional Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: $73.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Big Cypress / L-28 Interceptor Modifications;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost: 51.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2011[A];
Cost: 386.9.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Broward County Secondary Canal System;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost: 15.5.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Broward County Water Preserve Areas;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2009[A];
Cost: 408.3.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: C-4 Structure;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2013;
Cost: 2.8.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir - Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2011[A];
Cost: 530.6.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: C-43 Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2019;
Cost: b.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: C-111 Spreader Canal;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2015[A];
Cost: 117.6.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Caloosahatchee Backpumping with Stormwater Treatment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost: 99.7.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 7.9.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Central Lake Belt Storage;
Sponsor(s): Primary purpose: Corps/SFWMD;
Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2035;
Cost: 155.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Change Coastal Wellfield Operations;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: [C].
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Feasibility
Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/FDEP;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost: 9.3.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Environmental Water Supply Deliveries to St. Lucie
Estuary;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Environmental Water Supply Deliveries to the
Caloosahatchee Estuary;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Everglades National Park Seepage Management;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost: 390.9.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Everglades Rain Driven Operations;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Florida Bay and the Florida Keys Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 6.3.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Florida Keys Tidal Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 1.5.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Flow to Northwest and Central Water Conservation Area
3A;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost: 36.3.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Flows to Eastern Water Conservation Area;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2017;
Cost: 8.0.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Henderson Creek / Belle Meade Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ FDEP;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: 5.8.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Phase 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost: [B].
Project name;
53 CERP projects: L-31N (L-30) Seepage Management Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 11.3.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow (pilot);
Completion date: 2026;
Cost: 26.5.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2027;
Cost: 1,223.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2007;
Cost: 1.1.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lake Okeechobee Watershed;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2014;
Cost: 575.5.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lakes Park Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Lee County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 6.0.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Lower East Coast Utility Water Conservation;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Internal Canal
Structures;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2015;
Cost: 9.1.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: 2025;
Cost: 6.6.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Miccosukee Water Management Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/ Miccosukee;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost: 29.0.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Modify Holey Land Wildlife Management Area Operation
Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2011;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Modify Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area Operation
Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: North Lake Belt Storage Area;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2035;
Cost: 308.2.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: North Palm Beach County - Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2019;
Cost: 203.9.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Operational Modification to Southern Portion of L-
31N and C-111;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve Reservoir -
Part 1;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost: 154.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve Aquifer Storage
and Recovery - Part 2;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2018;
Cost: b.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Restoration of Pineland and Hardwood Hammocks in C-
111 Basin;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost: 0.7.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Reservation Water
Conservation Plan;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost: 89.5.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Site 1 Impoundment;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2009[A,D];
Cost: 153.7.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: South Miami-Dade Reuse;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost: 430.6.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Southwest Florida Feasibility Study;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 12.0.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Strazzulla Wetlands;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 70.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water supply (pilot);
Completion date: 2021;
Cost: 35.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Water Conservation Area 2B Flows to Everglades
National Park;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2021;
Cost: 539.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and
Sheetflow Enhancement (Decomp);
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2020;
Cost: 253.4.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Water Preserve Area Conveyance;
Sponsor(s): Corps/SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2016;
Cost: 331.7.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: West Miami-Dade Reuse;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Miami-Dade County;
Primary purpose: Water supply;
Completion date: 2022;
Cost: 518.1.
Project name;
53 CERP projects: Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration;
Sponsor(s): Corps/Palm Beach County;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: 2008;
Cost: 17.1.
Project name;
3 CERP-related projects: East Water Conservation Area 3A Hydropattern
Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 5.3.
Project name;
3 CERP-related projects: Water Conservation Area 2A Hydropattern
Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 4.9.
Project name;
3 CERP-related projects: West Water Conservation Area 3A Hydropattern
Restoration;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 7.4.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Babcock Ranch;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Big Cypress National Preserve Mineral Rights;
Sponsor(s): NPS;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Complete an Invasive Exotics Plant Prevention,
Early Detection, and Eradication Plan by 2005;
Sponsor(s): NEWTT/FDEP/NPS;
Primary purpose: Invasive species control;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 5.2.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Devil's Garden;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Half Circle L Ranch;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Hen Scratch Ranch;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Kissimmee-St. Johns Connector;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Lake Hatchineha Watershed / Parker-Poinciana;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: c.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track Projects;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: 2009;
Cost: 200.0.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Miccosukee Water Resources Management;
Sponsor(s): Miccosukee;
Primary purpose: Water quality;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: 26.0.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: North Savannas;
Sponsor(s): SFWMD;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: [C].
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Pine Island Slough Ecosystem;
Sponsor(s): FDEP;
Primary purpose: Habitat acquisition and improvement;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: [C].
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Seminole Tribe Comprehensive Surface Water
Management System for the Brighton Reservation;
Sponsor(s): Seminole;
Primary purpose: Water storage and flow;
Completion date: 2010;
Cost: 16.3.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Soil Survey Update for the Everglades
Agricultural Area;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2012;
Cost: 1.5.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Soil Survey Update for the Everglades National
Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Water Conservation Areas;
Sponsor(s): USDA (NRCS);
Primary purpose: Other;
Completion date: 2013;
Cost: 5.8.
Project Name;
16 Non-CERP projects: Water Conservation Area 2A Regulation Schedule
Review;
Sponsor(s): Corps;
Primary purpose: Study;
Completion date: To be decided;
Cost: [C].
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and
participating agencies.
[A] SFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project
with its own funds in advance of congressional authorization, which may
result in earlier project completion.
[B] The estimated cost of this aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)
project is included in the cost estimate for the project's initial part
or phase. Specifically, the estimated cost of the C-43 Basin ASR is
included in the cost estimate for the C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir;
the estimated cost of the Hillsboro ASR is included in the cost
estimate for the Site 1 Impoundment;
and the estimated cost of the Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve ASR
is included in the cost estimate for the Palm Beach County Agriculture
Reserve Reservoir.
[C] We did not receive estimated cost information for this project.
[D] This project is currently being reviewed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army before its project implementation report is submitted to
the Congress for authorization.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Funding Allocations by Federal and State Agencies for the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, FY 1999-2006:
Table 10:
Dollars in millions.
Federal Agencies.
Agency: Department of Agriculture[A];
Agricultural Research Service;
Fiscal years: 1999: $4.8;
Fiscal years: 2000: $4.8;
Fiscal years: 2001: $4.8;
Fiscal years: 2002 $5.4;
Fiscal years: 2003: $5.7;
Fiscal years: 2004: $5.7;
Fiscal years: $4.9;
Total: $42.4.
Agency: Department of Agriculture[A];
Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Fiscal years: 1999: 6.0;
Fiscal years: 2000: 7.5;
Fiscal years: 2001: 6.0;
Fiscal years: 42.1;
Fiscal years: 23.3;
Fiscal years: 25.0;
Fiscal years: 64.4;
Fiscal years: 61.5;
Total: 235.9.
Agency: Department of Commerce[B];
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Fiscal years: 1999: 19.3;
Fiscal years: 2000: 21.4;
Fiscal years: 2001: 4.8;
Fiscal years: 4.5;
Fiscal years: 4.4;
Fiscal years: 4.6;
Fiscal years: 4.5;
Fiscal years: 3.0;
Total: 66.7.
Agency: Department of Defense[A,D];
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Fiscal years: 1999: 42.7;
Fiscal years: 2000: 116.6;
Fiscal years: 2001: 137.2;
Fiscal years: 157.1;
Fiscal years: 145.4;
Fiscal years: 146.0;
Fiscal years: 122.6;
Fiscal years: 137.0;
Total: 1,004.6.
Agency: Department of the Interior[A,E];
National Park Service;
Fiscal years: 1999: 150.8;
Fiscal years: 2000: 140.1;
Fiscal years: 2001: 64.0;
Fiscal years: 97.7;
Fiscal years: 73.1;
Fiscal years: 47.0;
Fiscal years: 46.5;
Fiscal years: 44.7;
Total: 663.8.
Agency: Department of the Interior[A,E];
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Fiscal years: 1999: 9.5;
Fiscal years: 2000: 15.4;
Fiscal years: 2001: 21.1;
Fiscal years: 21.0;
Fiscal years: 18.1;
Fiscal years: 17.3;
Fiscal years: 12.4;
Fiscal years: 10.7;
Total: 125.6.
Agency: Department of the Interior[A,E];
Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Fiscal years: 1999: 0.5;
Fiscal years: 2000: 0.5;
Fiscal years: 2001: 0.4;
Fiscal years: 0.4;
Fiscal years: 0.4;
Fiscal years: 0.6;
Fiscal years: 0.6;
Fiscal years: 0.4;
Total: 3.8.
Agency: Department of the Interior[A,E];
U.S. Geological Survey;
Fiscal years: 1999: 10.2;
Fiscal years: 2000: 9.9;
Fiscal years: 2001: 9.7;
Fiscal years: 9.5;
Fiscal years: 13.2;
Fiscal years: 8.3;
Fiscal years: 8.0;
Fiscal years: 7.8;
Total: 76.7.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency[A];
Fiscal years: 1999: 7.3;
Fiscal years: 2000: 5.5;
Fiscal years: 2001: 5.2;
Fiscal years: 5.2;
Fiscal years: 3.7;
Fiscal years: 3.3;
Fiscal years: 3.0;
Fiscal years: 3.4;
Total: 36.6.
Agency: Total federal;
Fiscal years: 1999: $251.2;
Fiscal years: 2000: $321.7;
Fiscal years: 2001: $253.2;
Fiscal years: $343.0;
Fiscal years: $287.4;
Fiscal years: $258.0;
Fiscal years: $268.2;
Fiscal years: $273.4;
Total: $2,256.1.
Florida agencies.
Agency: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services[B];
Fiscal years: 1999: $6.1;
Fiscal years: 2000: $7.2;
Fiscal years: 2001: $28.0;
Fiscal years: 2002: $8.5;
Fiscal years: $16.9;
Fiscal years: $17.2;
Fiscal years: $8.8;
Fiscal years: $5.1;
Total: $97.9.
Agency: Florida Department of Community Affairs[B];
Fiscal years: 1999: 44.1;
Fiscal years: 2000: 31.6;
Fiscal years: 2001: 36.1;
Fiscal years: 2002: 10.9;
Fiscal years: 2003: 10.9;
Fiscal years: 2004: 48.6;
Fiscal years: 2005: 39.0;
Fiscal years: 2006: 37.0;
Total: 258.3.
Agency: Florida Department of Environmental Protection[C];
Fiscal years: 1999: 81.3;
Fiscal years: 2000: 179.6;
Fiscal years: 2001: 255.2;
Fiscal years: 2002: 181.7;
Fiscal years: 2003: 283.4;
Fiscal years: 2004: 210.1;
Fiscal years: 2005: 238.1;
Fiscal years: 2006: 305.1;
Total: 1,734.5.
Agency: Florida Department of Transportation[B];
Fiscal years: 1999: 51.7;
Fiscal years: 2000: 4.0;
Fiscal years: 2001: 18.3;
Fiscal years: 2002: 5.5;
Fiscal years: 2003: 11.5;
Fiscal years: 2004: 2.1;
Fiscal years: 2005: 8.1;
Fiscal years: 2006: 5.4;
Total: 106.5.
Agency: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission[B];
Fiscal years: 1999: 11.2;
Fiscal years: 2000: 11.4;
Fiscal years: 2001: 19.9;
Fiscal years: 2002: 22.4;
Fiscal years: 2003: 23.7;
Fiscal years: 2004: 27.7;
Fiscal years: 2005: 28.6;
Fiscal years: 2006: 27.9;
Total: 173.0.
Agency: South Florida Water Management District[A,F];
Fiscal years: 1999: 208.1;
Fiscal years: 2000: 126.8;
Fiscal years: 2001: 120.2;
Fiscal years: 2002: 362.7;
Fiscal years: 2003: 306.8;
Fiscal years: 2004: 352.0;
Fiscal years: 2005: 409.3;
Fiscal years: 2006: 563.1;
Total: 2,449.0.
Agency: Total state;
Fiscal years: 1999: $402.5;
Fiscal years: 2000: $360.6;
Fiscal years: 2001: $477.7;
Fiscal years: 2002: $591.7;
Fiscal years: 2003: $653.2;
Fiscal years: 2004: $657.7;
Fiscal years: 2005: $732.1;
Fiscal years: 2006: $943.6;
Total: $4,819.0.
Agency: Total restoration;
Fiscal years: 1999: $653.7;
Fiscal years: 2000: $682.3;
Fiscal years: 2001: $730.9;
Fiscal years: 2002: $934.7;
Fiscal years: 2003: $940.6;
Fiscal years: 2004: $915.7;
Fiscal years: 2005: $1,000.2;
Fiscal years: 2006: $1,217.0;
Total: $7,075.1.
Source: Federal and state agencies restoration funding data.
[A] Funding data provided in response to a GAO funding data request.
[B] Funding data used were as reported in the Task Force's annual cross-
cut budgets.
[C] Funding data used as reported in the Task Force's annual cross-cut
budgets, except for data on certain land acquisitions, which were
provided in response to a GAO funding data request.
[D] The funding data provided by the Corps differed from that reported
in the cross-cut budgets because the amounts in the cross-cut budgets
represent the amounts in the President's budget and the amounts
provided to GAO represent the amounts contained in the conference
report according to the Corps.
[E] The funding data provided by Interior differed from that reported
in the cross-cut budgets because of the timing differences in agency
budget execution and cross-cut budget data submission timeframes;
moving funding among departmental budget lines;
and/or the application of across-the-board reductions, supplementals,
and rescissions, according to an Interior official.
[F] The funding data provided by the South Florida Water Management
District differed from that reported in the cross-cut budgets because
of variations in the financial systems used to derive the funding
information according to a SFWMD official.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Summary of the Primary Models:
1;
Model name: ATLSS--Across Trophic Level System Simulation;
Entity responsible for development: DOI and University of Tennessee;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Ecological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: A suite of individual ecological models that compare
the impact of changes in hydrology on the biotic components of the
ecosystem, from zooplankton, to different species of fish, to the
Florida panther.
2;
Model name: CH3D--Curvilinear-grid Hydrodynamic Three Dimensional
Model;
Entity responsible for development: Corps, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
Research, and Y. Peter Sheng of Titon Corporation;
Model study area: Sub-regional;
Model type: Hydrological (hydrodynamic)[A];
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: A three- dimensional model that simulates the major
physical processes affecting circulation and mixing of a large water
body, taking into account the hydrology, salinity, and temperature.
3;
Model name: DMSTA--Dynamic Model for Stormwater Treatment Areas;
Entity responsible for development: W. Walker and R. Kadlec for DOI and
Corps;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Water quality, hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: Used in evaluating hydrological and water quality
impacts of stormwater treatment areas in South Florida.
4;
Model name: ECO Lab;
Entity responsible for development: Danish Hydraulic Institute;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Ecological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates chemical, biological, ecological, and
physical interactions that occur as a result of a number of variables
that influence hydrodynamic processes. Also simulates water quality.
5;
Model name: EFDC--Environmental Fluids Dynamics Code;
Entity responsible for development: John Hamrick of Tetra Tech, Inc;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Hydrological (hydrodynamic),[A] water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: A hydrodynamic model that simulates aquatic systems
in one, two, and three dimensions, and rainy and arid cycles, taking
into account the salinity, temperature, and contaminants.
6;
Model name: ELM--Everglades Landscape Model;
Entity responsible for development: SFWMD;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Ecological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Predicts the landscape response to different water
management scenarios in South Florida. In simulating changes to
habitat, the model dynamically integrates hydrology, water quality,
soils, algae, and vegetation in the Everglades region.
7;
Model name: E-MCM--Everglades Mercury Cycling Model;
Entity responsible for development: EPA, SFWMD, and FDEP;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Predicts the movement and deposit of the major forms
of mercury in marsh areas and considers physical, biological, and
chemical factors affecting fish mercury concentration.
8;
Model name: HEC-RAS--Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis
System;
Entity responsible for development: Corps;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates steady and unsteady water flows and
stages, and the movement of sediment. Also used to simulate canal
network for flood analysis.
9;
Model name: LOEM--Lake Okeechobee Environmental Model;
Entity responsible for development: SFWMD;
Model study area: Sub-regional;
Model type: Hydrological, water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: Simulates how water transports sediment in Lake
Okeechobee. Also provides long term information on water circulation
patterns, and the location of sediment under different hydrological and
management scenarios.
10;
Model name: LOWQM--Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model;
Entity responsible for development: EPA;
Model study area: Regional, sub- regional, project;
Model type: Water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates impacts of sediment management on water
quality, specifically phosphorus levels, in Lake Okeechobee.
11;
Model name: Mike 11;
Entity responsible for development: Danish Hydraulic Institute;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological, water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates water flow, level, and quality, and
sediment transport in rivers, irrigation canals, reservoirs, and other
inland water bodies.
12;
Model name: Mike She;
Entity responsible for development: Danish Hydraulic Institute;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: An integrated hydrological model that covers the
entire land phase of the hydrological cycle. Also simulates groundwater
flow, the movement of substances found in water, and agricultural
practices.
13;
Model name: MODHMS;
Entity responsible for development: HydroGeologics, Inc;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological, water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates interactions between overland flow,
channel flow, and groundwater under different water supply management
scenarios. Also simulates flood control, river flow, and wetland
restoration.
14;
Model name: MODBRANCH--MODFLOW/BRANCH Coupled Flow Model;
Entity responsible for development: DOI;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates hydrology, including groundwater and canal
flow, in three dimensions under different water management scenarios.
15;
Model name: MODFLOW--Modular Three-Dimensional Groundwater Flow Model;
Entity responsible for development: DOI;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: The recognized standard model for simulating the
movement of groundwater under a variety of hydrological conditions.
16;
Model name: RAS-MODFLOW--HEC-RAS/MODFLOW Coupled Model;
Entity responsible for development: Corps and DOI;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates projects where there are large stormwater-
groundwater exchanges and where groundwater pumping affects the water
flow in streams. Models the effects of floodplain water lost to
groundwater on downstream water flows and stream flow on adjacent
wetlands.
17;
Model name: RMA 2--Resource Management Associates 2;
Entity responsible for development: Norton, King and Orlob of Water
Resources Engineers for the Corps;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Calculates water levels and distribution of water
flow for islands, bridges, hydropower plants, river junctions, and
pumping plant channels. Also simulates the circulation and transport in
bodies of water with wetlands, and general water levels and flow
patterns in rivers, reservoirs, and estuaries.
18;
Model name: RMA 4--Resource Management Associates 4;
Entity responsible for development: Corps and Research Management
Associates;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates water levels, flow distribution,
circulation, flow patterns, and water quality in rivers, reservoirs,
and estuaries. Used to study the hydrodynamics and salinity-flow
relationships in the St. Lucie estuary and the southern reach of Indian
River Lagoon, as well as to assess the circulation patterns in a water
conservation area.
19;
Model name: SFWMM--South Florida Water Management Model;
Entity responsible for development: SFWMD;
Model study area: Regional;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates the major components of the hydrological
cycle in South Florida, including rainfall, overland and groundwater
flow and pumping, and the management of the water resources system for
a 7,600 square mile area, from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay.
20;
Model name: SICS--Southern Inland and Coastal Systems Model;
Entity responsible for development: DOI;
Model study area: Sub-regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates flows, stages, and salinities in the
southern Everglades and Florida Bay. Can be linked to the South Florida
Water Management Model and be used to quantify the effects of
restoration alternatives on flows, stages, and salinities in the SICS
area.
21;
Model name: SWMM--Storm Water Management Model;
Entity responsible for development: SFWMD;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: Evaluates changes in water restrictions and
hydrological performance of new storage areas in the Lower East Coast
and Lake Okeechobee Service Areas under different management scenarios.
22;
Model name: TABS-MDS (RMA 10);
Entity responsible for development: Corps;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates water movement, salinity, and sediment
transport in three dimensions.
23;
Model name: TIME--Tides and Inflows in the Mangroves of the Everglades;
Entity responsible for development: DOI;
Model study area: Regional, sub-regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Examines the interaction between wetland sheet flows
and the dynamic forces in the zone between the southern Everglades and
the coast. Will be used to evaluate the combined response of cyclical
water periods in wetlands and salinities in the mangrove zone to
changes in water flows.
24;
Model name: WAMView--Watershed Assessment Model;
Entity responsible for development: Soil and Water Engineering
Technology, Inc. and Mock, Roos and Associates;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Water quality, hydrological;
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: Assesses the water quality of both surface water and
groundwater based on land use, soils, climate, and other factors and
simulates the primary physical processes important for watershed
hydrological and pollutant transport.
25;
Model name: WASH123D--WAterSHed Systems of 1-D Stream-River Network, 2-
D Overland Regime, and 3-D Subsurface Media;
Entity responsible for development: Dr. George Yeh, University of
Central Florida;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological, water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: No;
Model description: Simulates flow movement from one CERP project
component to another and can be adapted to simulate on both a sub-
regional and project-specific level.
26;
Model name: WASH--WAterSHed Water Quality Model;
Entity responsible for development: URS Greiner, Inc., with some
funding by SFWMD;
Model study area: Regional, project;
Model type: Hydrological, water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Simulates hydrology in watersheds with high
groundwater tables and dense drainage canal networks.
27;
Model name: WASP--Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program;
Entity responsible for development: EPA;
Model study area: Project;
Model type: Water quality;
Does the model have an interface?: Yes;
Model description: Used to interpret and predict water quality
responses to natural phenomena and manmade pollution for various
pollution management decisions. Can dynamically simulate different
aquatic systems.
Source: GAO's analysis of agency documents, model Web sites, and agency
interviews.
[A] Hydrodynamic models include the mathematical study of the forces,
energy, and pressure of liquids in motion, and represent the various
flow and transport processes in rivers, lakes, and oceans.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department Of The Army:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Civil Works:
108 Army Pentagon:
Washington Dc 20310-0108:
May 10 2007:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resource and Environment:
U.S Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20548-1000:
Dear Ms: Mittal:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the proposed GAO
Report, GAO-07-520 (GAO Code 360662), "South Florida Ecosystem:
Restoration is Moving Forward, But it ( Is ) Facing Significant Delays,
Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs", dated April 20, 2007.
We generally, concur with the recommendation that the Corps obtain the
key data necessary for making sequencing decisions and to continually
re-evaluate the implementation sequence. We also concur that the
Secretary of the Army make it a high priority to reach agreement with
the Governor of Florida on the interim goals for the CERP project
effort, so that this information can be used to guide the sequencing of
decisions as was required by Congress. (p. 42/GAO Draft Report). In
that regard, on April 27, 2007, the Interim Goals Agreement were signed
by representatives from the Departments of the Army and Interior, and
the State of Florida.
We do not concur with the recommendation that as chair of the Task
Force, the Secretary of the Interior take the lead on helping
participating agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop
models and their interface. The Interagency Modeling Center (IMC) is
the modeling services single point of responsibility for CERP being co-
lead by the SFWMD and Corps. The Center provides, coordinates and
oversees the modeling needs and efforts of each Project Development
Team (PDT) and RECOVER as well as coordinating their efforts in the
development of various models and their interface. The IMC has the
primary organizational and production responsibilities for regional and
sub-regional CERP modeling and will be a clearinghouse for, oversee,
and coordinate all other project-specific CERP modeling.
Detailed responses to the GAO recommendations are enclosed. Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Signed by:
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Army:
(Civil Works):
Enclosures:
Gao Draft Report Dated April 20, 2007:
Gao-07-520 (Gao Codes 360662):
"South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward, But Is Facing
Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, And Rising Costs"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Army
direct the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to obtain the key data that are
needed to ensure that all required sequencing factors are appropriately
considered when deciding which projects to implement. Once this
information is available, the Corps should comprehensively reassess its
sequencing decisions to ensure that Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) projects have been appropriately sequenced to
maximize the achievement of restoration goals. (p. 42/GAO Draft Report):
DOD Response: Concur. The Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP)
Version 1.0 was completed in July 2001 based on the best available
information and resulted in a first-cut framework for restoration of
the south Florida ecosystem. The MISP sequenced and scheduled projects
to maximize efforts for achieving the goals and objectives of CERP. The
MISP was developed in phases, with Phase 1 consisting of a qualitative
review, including reviewing task durations, component packaging,
project interdependencies, cash flow and the potential impacts of the
savings clause and elimination or transfer requirements of the
Programmatic Regulations. It was envisioned that Phase 2 of the MISP
development would include model simulations at five-year increments and
an analysis of the performance of the system during each increment.
Phase 2 development was constrained to include presenting the out put
of Phase 1 into Bands. This information was presented to the public and
stakeholders for review and comment. In addition, factors that could
affect scheduling such as the State's Acceler8 Initiative and also
streamlining of the implementation process were taken into
consideration. Originally Phase 2 was envisioned to include model runs
that would assist in the optimization of sequencing of the projects.
However, during the time that Phase 2 was underway, these model runs
were not available. The MISP Team recognized that this first run would
be improved by later runs as additional information became available.
Since 2001, additional data has become available that could be used for
a new MISP run. Although an MISP 2.0 has not yet been developed,
efforts are underway to develop an integrated schedule showing the
relationship of projects, construction completion dates, and key
linkages between projects. This new integrated schedule includes all of
the Everglades restoration efforts underway by the Corps and State. It
updates and reassesses the original sequencing of projects from the
MISP 1.0, and makes necessary adjustments. As part of this effort it
will be necessary to model the integrated schedule to determine when we
can expect benefits from each project and determine if there are
projects that should be shifted within the bands to achieve certain
benefits sooner or if there are projects that should be shifted further
out in implementation due to their relationship with other projects.
This approach will greatly enhance our ability to achieve restoration
goals by the earliest date. This implementation schedule is undergoing
review by ASA(CW), USACE HQ, USACE SAD, DOI, EPA, FL DEP and SFWMD.
Likewise, modeling of the integrated schedule will be accomplished
through the interagency modeling center and will be reviewed by the
agencies listed above.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Army
make it a high priority to reach agreement with the Governor of Florida
on the interim goals for the CERP project effort, so that this
information can be used to guide the sequencing of decisions as was
required by Congress. (p. 42/GAO Draft Report):
DOD Response: Concur. On 27 April 2007 the Interim Goals and Interim
Targets Agreement was signed by the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary for the Department of Environmental Protection.
In addition to the Interim Goals agreement, the Interim targets
agreement between the Department of the Army and the State of Florida
was also signed on April 27, 2007. This agreement provides a means for
evaluating progress toward meeting other water related needs of the
region provided by the Plan. Interim targets will be used to analyze
progress at specific intervals of time by agency managers, the State,
and Congress throughout the overall planning and implementation process
for the Plan. The interim targets will also facilitate adaptive
management of the Plan to allow the Corps of Engineers and its non-
Federal sponsors opportunities to make adjustments to projects in the
Plan, including recommending changes to the Plan, if actual project
performance toward meeting other water related needs of region provided
by the Plan is less than anticipated.
Recommendation 3: Given the importance of modeling and interfaces to
managing the restoration effort, GAO does recommend that, as chair of
the Task Force, the Secretary of the Interior take the lead on helping
participating agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop
models and their interface.
DOD Response: Non-concur. The Interagency Modeling Center (IMC) is the
modeling services single point of responsibility for CERP being co-lead
by the SFWMD and Corps. The Center provides, coordinates and oversees
the modeling needs and efforts of each Project Development Team (PDT)
and recover as well as coordinating their efforts in the development of
various models and their interface. The IMC has the primary
organizational and production responsibilities for regional and sub-
regional CERP modeling and will be a clearinghouse for, oversee, and
coordinate all other project-specific CERP modeling.
The IMC is an equal partnership between the USACE Jacksonville District
and the South Florida Water Management District. These two agencies are
the sponsoring agencies of the IMC. Participation by other federal and
state agencies is welcomed and encouraged. The IMC is responsible to
its Board of Directors (IMC Board) and receives resources, management,
and technical oversight from the Corps Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch
and the SFWMD's Office of Modeling. The IMC is located in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
The team in West Palm Beach is made up of both Corps (One Team Leader/
Manager and 12 modelers and 6 support staff) and SFWMD (One Team
Leader/Manager and 12 modelers and 6 support staff) staff. Other
Agencies are expected to co-locate up to 10 staff members
(collectively) at the IMC.
The IMC has established a peer review and other technical review
processes to meet the review requirements of and maintain a high
quality CERP modeling program. This will include the assistance of
funded visiting academicians' positions with awardees selected from a
competitive process. Academicians serving at the IMC through a
competitive award will assist directly in providing reviews and will
also provide opportunities for informal educational enhancement and
renewal of the IMC staff and its tools and methods. This process
maintains an unbiased look at the modeling needs for CERP and also the
evaluation of potential models to be used in project evaluations.
In addition, to meet the CERP responsibilities and insure the quality
of the entire model development and application process, the IMC will
implement some standard procedures for working with the PDTs and
RECOVER. The IMC has identified among all the models that might be
used, which are the most appropriate to address each of these separate
groups of model applications. The IMC has established a model toolbox,
borrowing from its sponsoring agencies, and adding additional models as
necessary to meet the specific requirements of CERP. The IMC has also
established and documented procedures for evaluation and for peer
review of any model proposed for use on CERP projects.
CF:
CECW-ZB:
SAD RIT:
CESAD-DE:
CESAJ-DE:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
The Associate Deputy Secretary Of The Interior:
Washington:
May 21 2007:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C.
Dear Ms. Mittal:
The Department of the Interior appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments on the Government Accountability Office's review and
recommendations for the intergovernmental South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Program. As land manager for half of the remaining natural
Everglades, including 4 national parks and 16 national wildlife
refuges, restoring the Everglades and the South Florida Ecosystem
remains a high priority for the Department. As the GAO report noted,
the restoration is "vast and complex." We therefore appreciate your
recommendations, as well as the recommendations that we receive from
others, including the National Academy of Sciences, on how we can
improve our work to ensure that restoration goals are achieved.
We are pleased that your report recognizes the significant Federal and
State financial contributions that support programs to restore the
Everglades. Since this initiative began in 1993, the Department has
provided over $1.2 billion for Everglades restoration activities,
including funding to assist in the acquisition of over 100,000 acres of
lands for water storage, water quality improvement, and restored
habitat. Additionally, we increased efforts to remove invasive exotics,
recover species, and invest in scientific research supporting our land
management responsibilities. We are pleased that your report recognizes
that some restoration projects are complete and others are moving from
concepts and plans to on-the-ground accomplishments. This is
particularly noteworthy with respect to the State of Florida's Acceler8
initiative, which will complete key components of several important
restoration projects within the next five years.
As the report notes, since the enactment of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan in December 2000, we have worked diligently
with the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida, and our
partners to establish the legal assurances for CERP, including a
binding and enforceable agreement between the President and the
Governor of Florida, as well as programmatic regulations, to ensure
that restoration goals will be achieved. Although we have made
significant progress in the last decade in both developing and
implementing plans for restoration, we realize, as the GAO noted, that
work remains and that the restoration effort will continue for several
decades. This has always been anticipated and acknowledged. Although we
may be behind the original schedule that was submitted to the Congress
in the summer of 1999, we are pleased with the collaboration and
partnership that has developed and the strong foundation we have laid
for future restoration efforts.
With respect to your recommendations, we will address the two
recommendations that directly impact the Department and the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, which is chaired by the
Department and provides for coordination among the Federal, State,
tribal, and local units of government that carry out the restoration
effort.
First, with respect to your recommendation that the interim goals
agreement be completed, we are pleased to report that the interim goals
agreement was signed in April and May 2007 by representatives of the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, and the Governor
of Florida. (A copy of the agreement is enclosed). Although completion
of the agreement took longer than anticipated, we are pleased that the
agreement embraces all of the technical recommendations of the
Restoration, Coordination and Verification technical team to establish
interim goals and indicators for areas affected by the implementation
of CERP. Because RECOVER was unable to provide quantifiable indicators
for all of the interim goals, the agreement directs RECOVER to continue
to refine its recommendations into measurable and quantifiable
indicators that will be used to measure the restoration success of CERP
at specific intervals.
Second, the report recommends that the Secretary of the Interior, as
Chair of the Task Force, "take the lead on helping participating
agencies better coordinate their efforts to develop models and their
interface." We agree that models are an important predictive tool to
assist in the evaluation of how projects will affect various attributes
of the South Florida landscape (groundwater and surface water flow,
salinity, endangered species, etc.) so that agencies can develop
projects with restoration objectives to replicate as much as possible
the predrainage conditions that characterized the South Florida
ecosystem. We also agree that coordination in the modeling area will be
beneficial, and it is for these reasons that we supported the
establishment several years ago of the Interagency Modeling Center,
which is comprised of technical representatives of key agencies.
However, we note that models are only one predictive tool to develop
restoration project plans. A 2006 report from the National Academy of
Sciences, while noting that much of the science, including modeling,
that has been done to date is valuable, urges the agencies to avoid
delaying action until all scientific uncertainty is removed and
implement instead an "incremental adaptive restoration" strategy that
is based upon monitoring and assessing the performance of restoration
projects that are in place and as they are being implemented. Utilizing
physical evidence observed from monitoring the performance of current
restoration projects, in lieu of modeling, is another important tool to
assist agencies in carrying out projects to achieve restoration goals.
As Chair of the Task Force, we will encourage the agencies to improve
technical coordination among the models being used so that appropriate
investments may be made in the models being used to allow them to work
together productively. Because this matter is highly technical, we
believe that it may be beneficial for the Task Force's Science
Coordination Group and the Interagency Modeling Center to assist in
this effort, and we will make that recommendation to the Task Force.
Once again, we appreciate the GAO review of the Everglades restoration
program and the opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to
receiving a copy of the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James E. Cason:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the State of Florida:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building:
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard:
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000:
South Florida Water Management District:
3301 Gun Club Road:
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406:
May 14, 2007:
Ms. Anu Mittal, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW, Room 2T23A:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report to the House of
Representatives' Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
regarding the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem.
The State of Florida commends the GAO for its considerable undertaking
to analyze a full spectrum of restoration activities, compile varied
and intricate information and offer recommendations for improvement.
While the State agrees with the major areas studied, the report fails
to adequately acknowledge and address the pressing need for the federal
authorizations and appropriations required to fulfill the 50-50 State-
federal partnership to restore the Everglades.
As the GAO noted, restoring the 18,000-square mile South Florida
ecosystem encompasses hundreds of projects and is an enormous and
complex responsibility whose very success relies on the coordination
and cooperation of government at every level.
Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is this State's highest
environmental priority. As the report identifies, Florida has invested
more than $4.8 billion since 1999 toward restoration and has
demonstrated a continued commitment to move aggressively forward with
land acquisition, project construction and water quality improvement.
Since 1999, Florida has:
* Invested more than $2 billion to improve the quality, timing and
distribution of water in this unique ecosystem;
* Acquired 97 percent of the real estate needed to complete the first
ten restoration projects authorized by the Congress in the 2000 Water
Resources Development Act;
* Completed acquiring all of the land needed to fully restore the
Kissimmee River - a foundation project to restore the upper limits of
the ecosystem;
* Under its own initiative, assumed the burden of funding and
constructing eight restoration projects identified by the Congress as
priorities;
* Used Certificates of Participation --a funding technique never before
utilized for environmental restoration --to generate a half billion
dollars to begin building the fast-tracked Acceler8 projects;
* Added 5,120 acres of treatment area to the State's 36,000-acre system
of constructed wetlands to enhance treatment capacity by more than 40
percent;
* Started constructing three massive above-ground reservoirs, including
one of the world's most expansive;
* Launched restoration of Picayune Strand, a project wholly devoted to
the restoration of the natural system;
* Started building the Acme Basin B Discharge Project to add a new
source of clean, fresh water to directly benefit the Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge;
and:
* Most recently, expanded Florida's Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to
focus restoration efforts in the northern extent of the ecosystem and
improve the environmental health of Lake Okeechobee and the coastal
estuaries, and extended the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund through 2020
to dedicate another $2.3 billion in State funding toward restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem.
While these achievements are indeed laudable, the GAO's attention to
specific areas of the restoration effort - project status, sequencing,
cost and modeling --highlight the complicated challenges facing
scientists, resource managers and agency leadership. The State's
complete technical review is enclosed and the following briefly
summarizes Florida's comments on the report's recommendations:
Determining Project Sequencing:
The report concludes that the process used by agencies to determine
project sequencing has been based more on funding availability,
technical dependencies and constraints among projects rather than the
full range of criteria developed by the Army Corps of Engineers as
directed by Congress in 2000.
Contrary to the report, the sequencing of Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan projects is driven less by funding and more
appropriately by the March 2005 Master Implementation Sequencing Plan.
The plan was developed in partnership according to the 2000 Water
Resources Development Act, the Programmatic Regulations, environmental
benefits as well as technical and resource constraints, as outlined and
required in the Central and Southern Florida Project and Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan.
Any deviations from the Master Implementation Sequencing Plan are due
largely to the lengthy federal planning and approval process,
uncertainty with the timing of future Congressional authorization,
delays in federal funding and a desire to begin achieving environmental
results sooner. The current Master Implementation Sequencing Plan was
also driven by a delay in completing the federal Modified Water
Deliveries project, a foundation project that was authorized 18 years
ago and is essential to the successful restoration of the Everglades.
Because of delays in funding, estimated costs have now quadrupled and
this core project to restore the natural sheetflow of water to
Everglades National Park is nearly two decades behind schedule.
The GAO's recommendation that the Secretary of the Army direct the
Corps of Engineers to obtain more data for project sequencing
determinations may simply serve to delay restoration and increase
costs. While the State acknowledges that uncertainties remain and
additional information is needed to help determine project sequencing
and benefits, we also recognize the importance of advancing
restoration. Florida fully supports science-based restoration using the
best available data, consistent with the approach recently recommended
by the National Research Council's: Progress Toward Restoring the
Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. The Council recommends
Incremental Adaptive Restoration, which supports applied restoration to
provide immediate environmental benefits at today's costs, while at the
same time addressing critical scientific uncertainties and promoting
learning to guide future project design. This approach has already
proved effective during the early start on the restoration of Picayune
Strand, a project that is already witnessing the return of habitat and
wildlife including the Florida panther.
Beyond the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, it is also
important to note that the timing and sequencing of land acquisition
for conservation and project construction by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection is determined by land availability, resource
quality and connectivity as well as available funding.
Executing the Interim Goals Agreement:
The GAO report identifies reaching agreement on the Interim Goals for
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, as required by the
Programmatic Regulations, as a priority for guiding project sequencing.
The good news is that the Interim Goals Agreement to evaluate success
of ecosystem restoration and ensure protection of the natural system
was finalized and signed by the State of Florida, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Department of Interior on April 27, 2007. The
agreement was the result of years of assessment, deliberation and
consultation with a wide range of interests. As predictive capabilities
improve and ecosystem relationships are better understood, these
interim goals will be fine-tuned to more accurately reflect restoration
expectations.
Restoration Guided by Modeling:
The GAO report states that the limited number of interfaces between and
among the mathematical models impedes the participating agencies from
obtaining the comprehensive information needed to implement projects.
The agencies realized early the value of coordinated and integrated
modeling in the implementation and success of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. So far, while considering interfaces, the
partner agencies have focused on developing the appropriate application
tools to adequately and effectively guide Everglades restoration.
Development of interfaces is an important objective that is being
addressed through the Interagency Modeling Center, which co-locates
technical modeling resources from each agency. With the participation
of the U.S. Department of Interior and the Interagency Modeling Center
functioning as a true multi-agency institution, the need for the
Secretary of Interior to coordinate modeling efforts may not be
warranted. While the State supports the GAO's recommendation that the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force provide direction, we
believe it important that the Board of the Interagency Modeling Center
continue to provide policy guidance on modeling and interfacing
consistent with the Task Force's objectives.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the GAO's report.
Florida is serious about its commitment to improving the ecological
health of the South Florida ecosystem. There remains, however, the need
for focused federal involvement beyond process and procedure. Until
projects are authorized and appropriated through the Congress, the full
potential of the restoration program and the environmental benefits
derived will remain limited. We believe, however, that with the federal
government's full and equal partnership we can indeed succeed in
fulfilling the promise of the largest environmental restoration in the
nation's history.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael W. Sole:
Secretary:
Department of Environmental Protection:
Signed by:
Carol Ann Wehle:
Executive Director:
South Florida Water Management District:
MWS/jo:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant
Director; David Brown; Maureen Driscoll; Les Mahagan; Leigh Ann Nally;
and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report.
Also contributing to this report were Kevin Bray, Katherine Raheb, and
Greg Wilmoth.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Task Force consists of 14 members representing 7 federal
agencies, 2 American Indian tribes, and 5 state or local governments.
Representatives from the state's major industries, environmental
groups, and other stakeholders provide comments to the Task Force
through public meetings and forums.
[2] The original number of individual projects in CERP was 68. In
addition to these 68, CERP included 6 pilot projects and 3 proposed
feasibility studies. Since CERP's approval in 2000, the Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District have reorganized the projects
to group those that are logically connected into broader projects. For
example, several projects around Lake Okeechobee have been combined
into one project. At the time of this review, CERP consisted of 60
projects, but the total number of projects that make up CERP may
continue to change as implementation progresses and projects are added,
combined, divided into multiple parts or phases, or deleted.
[3] Although SFWMD is CERP's primary nonfederal sponsor, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection as well as three county
governments and two American Indian tribes also serve as nonfederal
sponsors for portions of the plan.
[4] The Secretary of the Army signs the agreement on behalf of the
Corps.
[5] South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Coordinating
Success: Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem,
Volume 2 (Miami, Fla.: July 31, 2000).
[6] Some projects have multiple components, and while the entire
project cannot be counted as completed, important components of it may
be finished. Unless all components of the project were complete, we
counted these projects as being implemented.
[7] GAO, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan
and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track,
GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999).
[8] The sources of water and levels of flood protection that must be
protected are those that were in existence on the date of WRDA 2000's
enactment--December 11, 2000.
[9] The Task Force did not estimate the percentage of land acquired to
foster compatibility of the built and natural systems (goal 3), but did
note that participating agencies have secured easements on 15,370 acres
and another 4,265 acres have been acquired. Percentages do not include
state, local government, or nongovernmental organization land
acquisition projects undertaken without federal funding, many of which
are part of goal 2.
[10] Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-127, § 390, 110 Stat. 888, 1022.
[11] The program regulations required the MISP to be issued by December
13, 2004, and to be revised at least every 5 years.
[12] Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, 33 C.F.R. pt. 385 (effective Dec. 12, 2003).
[13] The Secretary of the Army is to sign the agreement on behalf of
the Corps.
[14] The CERP Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement of 1999 laid out the conceptual plan and
an initial schedule for implementing the projects based on modeling and
other information known at the time.
[15] The Department of the Army and the state of Florida reported that
they signed an Interim Goals Agreement on April 27, 2007, and the
Secretary of the Interior signed the agreement on May 2, 2007.
[16] FDEP contracts with willing sellers to acquire land at an agreed
price in advance of the actual purchase. Depending upon funding, FDEP
may commence with partial purchases of the land over the period of the
contract.
[17] While funding documents show that $1 billion was allocated for
restoring the ecosystem during fiscal years 1999 through 2006, the
Corps only received $735 million primarily because of its internal
funding polices and practices. Before fiscal year 2006, the Corps
reprogrammed individual project funding by moving excess funds from
projects which did not require all the funds to complete the projects
or that had fallen behind in their construction schedules so that the
projects did not require the funding allocated to them. The Corps
agreed to limit this practice beginning with its fiscal year 2006
budget in response to GAO recommendations. See GAO, Army Corps of
Engineers: Improved Planning and Financial Management Should Replace
Reliance on Reprogramming Actions to Manage Project Funds, GAO-05-946
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2005). For example, for fiscal years 1999
through 2006, the Corps received $292 million for CERP. However, the
Corps reduced that amount--reprogrammed it--by $39 million, so that the
CERP received only $251 million after a rescission of $2 million.
[18] Total does not add due to rounding.
[19] Federal and state officials pointed to the 2006 RECOVER Report on
Evaluation Tools, Models, Work Plans, and Budgets, which lists 29
models, for a list of models that are primary. However, two models--the
Regional Engineering Model for Ecosystem Restoration (REMER) and the
Regional Simulation Model (RSM)--are not yet developed;
therefore, we concluded that only 27 models are primary.
[20] Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades
Restoration Progress, National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial
Review, 2006 (Washington, D.C.: 2006).
[21] South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Tracking Success:
2005 Integrated Financial Plan for the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force (Miami, Fla.: undated).
[22] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of the Interior,
Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan: 2005 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: undated).
[23] South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Coordinating
Success: Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem,
Volume 2 (Miami, Fla.: July 31, 2000).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
