This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-518T 
entitled 'South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Improved Science 
Coordination Needed to Increase the Likelihood of Success' which was 
released on March 26, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Testimony:



Before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:



Wednesday, March 26, 2003:



SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:



Improved Science Coordination Needed to Increase the Likelihood 

of Success:



Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment:



South Florida Restoration:



GAO-03-518T:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-518T, a report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House 

Appropriations Committee



Why GAO Did This Study:



Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is a complex, long-term 

federal and state undertaking that requires the development of 

extensive scientific information. GAO was asked to report on the funds 

spent on scientific activities for restoration, the gaps that exist in 

scientific information, and the extent to which scientific activities 

are being coordinated.



What GAO Found:



From fiscal years 1993 through 2002, eight federal agencies and one 

state agency collectively spent $576 million to conduct mission-

related scientific research, monitoring, and assessment in support of 

the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. With this funding, 

which was almost evenly split between the federal agencies and the 

state agency, scientists have made progress in developing information—

including information on the past, present, and future flow of water 

in the ecosystem—for restoration. 



While some scientific information has been obtained and understanding 

of the ecosystem improved, key gaps remain in scientific information 

needed for restoration. If not addressed quickly, these gaps could 

hinder the success of restoration. One particularly important gap is 

the lack of information regarding the amount and risk of contaminants, 

such as fertilizers and pesticides, in water and sediment throughout 

the ecosystem. 



The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force—comprised of 

federal, state, local, and tribal entities—is responsible for 

coordinating the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative. The 

Task Force is also responsible for coordinating scientific activities 

for restoration, but has yet to establish an effective means of doing 

so. In 1997, it created the SCT to coordinate the science activities 

of the many agencies participating in restoration. However, the Task 

Force did not give the SCT clear direction to carry out its 

responsibilities in support of the Task Force and restoration. 

Furthermore, unlike the full-time science coordinating bodies created

for other restoration efforts, the SCT functions as a voluntary group 

with no full-time and few part-time staff. Without an effective means 

to coordinate restoration, the Task Force cannot ensure that 

restoration decisions are based on sound scientific information.



What GAO Recommends:



To improve the coordination of scientific activities for the South 

Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, GAO recommends that as chair

of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force), 

the Secretary of the Interior 

* clarify the plans and documents the Science Coordination Team (SCT) 

needs to complete and the time frames for completing them;

* evaluate staffing needs of the SCT and allocate sufficient staff to 

carry out its duties; and

* take measures to improve the working relationship between the Task 

Force and the SCT. 



In commenting on the draft report, the Department of the Interior 

agreed with the premises of the report that scientific activities need 

to be better coordinated and that the SCT’s role needs to be clarified.

Interior stated that the Task Force would ultimately review GAO’s 

recommendations and approve actions, as warranted.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-518T. To view the full report, 

including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more 

information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512-3841.



[End of section]



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:



The South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative seeks to restore the 

vast, mixed wetland habitat of South Florida--including the Everglades. 

Restoration efforts are expected to cost $15 billion and take as long 

as 50 years to complete, and the ecological effects of these efforts 

may not be known until many years thereafter. Because of the long-term, 

complex nature of the initiative, the South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force (Task Force)--the group of federal, state, 

local, and tribal entities that Congress formally established in 1996 

to coordinate the restoration efforts--determined that restoration 

decisions should be based on sound scientific information. To 

coordinate scientific activities for the initiative, in 1997, the Task 

Force created the Science Coordination Team (SCT).[Footnote 1] Because 

of the urgency to move forward with the initiative, complete scientific 

information may not be available when restoration decisions must be 

made. Recognizing that scientific information may be incomplete and 

uncertain, the Task Force has endorsed “adaptive management.” This 

approach requires scientific information to be updated throughout the 

restoration and provides flexibility to make changes to restoration 

projects and plans as needed.



The Members of this Subcommittee have had a long-standing interest in 

the restoration initiative and recognize that science plays a critical 

role in the success of restoration. Multiple federal and state agencies 

that are involved in the initiative develop scientific information for 

restoration. These agencies conduct scientific research, monitoring, 

and assessments of environmental and other conditions in support of 

their individual agency goals, mandates, and missions. We are here to 

discuss our report being released today on (1) federal and state agency 

funding for scientific activities related to the restoration and the 

progress made in developing scientific information for the restoration, 

(2) gaps in scientific information needed for restoration, and (3) 

coordination of scientific information for restoration.[Footnote 2]



Summary:



Federal and state agencies have already committed considerable funds to 

develop scientific information to support South Florida ecosystem 

restoration decisions, a trend that is expected to continue. Since 

1993, eight federal agencies and one key state agency spent $576 

million to develop scientific information in support of the restoration 

initiative.[Footnote 3] The eight federal agencies spent a total of 

$273 million of which, the largest federal participant--the Department 

of the Interior--spent $139 million. In addition, the State of 

Florida’s South Florida Water Management District (District) spent over 

$303 million on scientific activities related to restoration. With this 

federal and state funding, agencies have made progress in developing 

scientific information and tools necessary for restoration.



Although agencies have developed some of the information that is needed 

to facilitate restoration efforts, key gaps remain, that if not 

addressed quickly, could hinder the success of particular projects as 

well as affect the health of the entire ecosystem. One particularly 

important gap is the lack of information regarding the amount and risk 

of contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides, in water and 

sediment throughout the ecosystem. If this information is not 

available, scientists cannot determine whether fish and other organisms 

are being harmed by these contaminants or whether the redistribution of 

water will introduce potentially harmful contaminants to parts of the 

ecosystem that are relatively undisturbed.



Because multiple agencies conduct scientific activities for a variety 

of purposes under the restoration initiative, coordination is necessary 

to ensure that gaps in information are addressed and that important 

scientific information is synthesized and made available to managers. 

However, the Task Force has yet to establish an effective means of 

coordination. The SCT--the group created by the Task Force to 

coordinate scientific information for the restoration--has been limited 

in carrying out its coordination responsibilities by a number of 

factors. First, the SCT has not been given clear direction on what it 

is expected to accomplish. Second, it has no processes to ensure that 

key management issues that need to be addressed in science planning are 

identified or that critical science issues that require synthesis to 

provide input into restoration decisions are prioritized. Finally, the 

SCT lacks the resources it needs to adequately carry out its broad 

responsibilities.



Until the Task Force addresses these limitations, the coordination of 

scientific activities is not likely to materially improve. The SCT will 

continue to be limited in its capacity to help ensure that 

(1) scientific gaps are filled, (2) progress toward restoration is 

monitored, and (3) adjustments to restoration projects and plans are 

made as needed. Without effective coordination of scientific 

activities, the Task Force has scant assurance that the scientific 

information needed to make key restoration decisions will be made 

available, thus decreasing the likelihood that restoration of the South 

Florida ecosystem will be successful. Although we found poor 

coordination of scientific activities and gaps in scientific 

information for restoration, we are not advocating the initiative be 

delayed. Rather, we believe that restoration projects and plans should 

move forward, given the Task Force’s commitment to adaptively manage 

the restoration, and are therefore making recommendations to improve 

coordination. Specifically, we are recommending that the Secretary of 

the Interior, as chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force, clarify the broad responsibilities of the SCT and evaluate the 

SCT’s staffing needs, ensuring that the SCT has sufficient resources to 

carry out its responsibilities. In commenting on a draft of our report, 

the Department of the Interior--as chair of the Task Force--largely 

agreed with our recommendations, but stated that the Task Force 

itself will ultimately make the decision on the actions taken to 

address these recommendations.



Background:



The South Florida ecosystem encompasses a broad range of natural, 

urban, and agricultural areas surrounding the remnant Everglades. 

Before human intervention, freshwater in the ecosystem flowed south 

from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad, slow-moving sheet, 

creating the mix of wetlands that form the ecosystem. These wetlands, 

interspersed with dry areas, created habitat for abundant wildlife, 

fish, and birds.



The South Florida ecosystem is also home to 6.5 million people and 

supports a large agricultural, tourist, and industrial economy. To 

facilitate development in the area, in 1948, Congress authorized the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build the Central and Southern Florida 

Project--a system of more than 1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 

major pump stations--to prevent flooding and intrusion of saltwater 

into freshwater aquifers on the Atlantic coast. The engineering changes 

that resulted from the project, and subsequent agricultural, 

industrial, and urban development, reduced the Everglades ecosystem to 

about half its original size, causing detrimental effects to fish, 

bird, and other wildlife habitats and to water quality. Figure 1 shows 

the historic and current flows of the Everglades ecosystem as well as 

the proposed restored flow.



Figure 1: The Everglades--Past, Present, and Future:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Efforts to reverse the detrimental effects of development on the 

ecosystem led to the formal establishment of the Task Force, authorized 

by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. The Task Force, 

charged with coordinating and facilitating the restoration of the 

ecosystem, established three overall goals to:



* Get the water right: restore more natural hydrologic functions to the 

ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies and flood control. 

The goal is to deliver the right amount of water, of the right quality, 

to the right places at the right times.



* Restore, protect, and preserve the natural system: restore lost and 

altered habitats and change current land use patterns. Growth and 

development have displaced and disconnected natural habitats and the 

spread of invasive species has caused sharp declines in native plant 

and animal populations.



* Foster the compatibility of the built and natural systems: find 

development patterns that are complementary to ecosystem restoration 

and to a restored natural system.



Figure 2 shows the relationship of the agencies participating in 

restoration, the Task Force, and the three restoration goals.



Figure 2: The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Membership 

and Goals:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Because of the complexity of the ecosystem and efforts underway to 

restore it, and the urgency to begin the long-term ecosystem 

restoration effort, not all of the scientific information that is 

needed is available to make restoration decisions. As a result, 

scientists will continually need to develop information and restoration 

decision makers will continually need to review it. According to the 

Task Force, scientists participating in restoration are expected to 

identify and determine what information is needed to fill gaps in 

scientific knowledge critical to meeting restoration objectives and 

provide managers with updated scientific information for critical 

restoration decisions. Generally, decisions about restoration projects 

and plans have been--and will continue to be--made by the agencies 

participating in the restoration initiative. To provide agency managers 

and the Task Force with updated scientific information, the Task Force 

has endorsed adaptive management, a process that requires key tools, 

such as models, continued research, and monitoring plans.



Federal and State Agencies Spent $576 Million on Scientific Activities 

for the South Florida Ecosystem and Made Progress in Some Areas:



Federal and state agencies spent $576 million from fiscal years 1993 

through 2002 to conduct mission-related scientific research, 

monitoring, and assessment in support of the restoration of the South 

Florida ecosystem. Eight federal departments and agencies spent $273 

million for scientific activities, with the Department of the Interior 

spending $139 million (about half) of the funds. The level of federal 

expenditures, which increased by over 50 percent in 1997, has since 

remained relatively constant. The South Florida Water Management 

District--the state agency most heavily involved in scientific 

activities for restoration--spent $303 million from 1993 through 2002. 

The District’s expenditures have increased steadily since 1993, with 

significant increases in 2000 and 2002. Figure 3 shows the total 

federal and state expenditures for scientific activities related to 

restoration over the last decade.



Figure 3: Federal and State Expenditures for Scientific Activities for 

South Florida Restoration, Fiscal Years 1993 through 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Eight federal agencies are involved in scientific activities for the 

restoration: the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey, 

National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research 

Service; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental 

Protection Agency.



Within the Department of the Interior, four agencies spent $139 million 

on scientific activities. The U.S. Geological Survey spent over half of 

the Interior funding, or $77 million, primarily on its Placed-Based 

Studies Program, which provides information, data, and models to other 

agencies to support decisions for ecosystem restoration and management. 

The National Park Service spent about $48 million for the Critical 

Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI), a program begun in 1997 to 

accelerate research to provide scientific information for the 

restoration initiative. The National Park Service used CESI funding to 

support research (1) to characterize the ecosystem’s predrainage and 

current conditions and (2) to identify indicators for monitoring the 

success of restoration in Everglades National Park, other parks, and 

public lands and to develop models and tools to assess the effects of 

water projects on these natural lands. Of the remaining Interior 

funding, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

spent $10 million and $3 million, respectively.



Four agencies spent the other federal funds--$134 million. The Corps 

of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

spent approximately $37 million each, primarily on research activities. 

Two other federal agencies--the Agricultural Research Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency--spent the remaining $60 million in 

federal funds.



In addition to the $273 million spent by federal agencies, the State of 

Florida’s South Florida Water Management District provided $303 million 

for such activities from 1993 to 2002. The District spent much of its 

funding on scientific activities related to water projects in line with 

its major responsibility to manage and operate the Central and Southern 

Florida Project and water resources in the ecosystem.



With these federal and state expenditures, scientists have made some 

progress in developing scientific information and adaptive management 

tools. In particular, scientists now better understand the historic and 

current hydrological conditions in the ecosystem and developed models 

that allow them to forecast the effects of water management 

alternatives on the ecosystem. Scientists also made significant 

progress in developing information on the sources, transformations, and 

fate of mercury--a contaminant that affects water quality and the 

health of birds, animals, and humans--in the South Florida ecosystem. 

Specifically, scientists determined that atmospheric sources account 

for greater than 95 percent of the mercury that is added to the 

ecosystem. In addition, scientists made progress in developing (1) a 

method that uses a natural predator to control Melaleuca, an invasive 

species, and (2) techniques to reduce high levels of nutrients--

primarily phosphorus--in the ecosystem.



Gaps Remain in the Scientific Information Needed for Restoration:



While scientists made progress in developing scientific information, 

they also identified significant gaps in scientific information and 

adaptive management tools that, if not addressed in the near future, 

will hinder the overall success of the restoration effort. We reviewed 

10 critical restoration projects and plans and discussed the scientific 

information needs remaining for these projects with scientists and 

project managers. On the basis of our review, we identified three types 

of gaps in scientific information: (1) gaps that threaten systemwide 

restoration if they are not addressed; (2) gaps that threaten the 

success of particular restoration projects if they are not addressed; 

and (3) gaps in information and tools that will prevent restoration 

officials from using adaptive management to pursue restoration goals.



An example of a gap that could hinder systemwide restoration is 

information on contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides. 

Scientists are concerned that the heavy use of fertilizers and 

pesticides--which are transported by water and soil and are deposited 

in sediments--near natural areas in South Florida increases the 

discharge of chemical compounds into these areas. Contaminants are 

absorbed by organisms such as aquatic insects, other invertebrates, and 

fish that live in the water and sediment, affecting the survival and 

reproduction of these organisms and those that feed on them. Scientists 

need information on the amount of contaminants that could be discharged 

into the environment, the amounts that persist in water and sediment, 

and the risks faced by organisms living in areas with contaminants--

even low levels of contaminants on a long-term basis. If this 

information is not available, scientists cannot determine whether 

contaminants harm fish and other organisms or whether the 

redistribution of water will introduce potentially harmful contaminants 

to parts of the ecosystem that are relatively undisturbed.



An example of a gap that could hinder the progress of a specific 

project is information needed to complete the Modified Water Delivery 

project, which has been ongoing for many years and has been delayed 

primarily because of land acquisition conflicts. The Modified Water 

Delivery project and a related project in the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan are expected, among other purposes, to increase the 

amount of water running through the eastern part of Everglades National 

Park and restore the “ridge and slough” habitat.[Footnote 4] However, 

scientists identified the need for continued work to understand the 

role of flowing water in the creation of ridge and slough habitat. If 

the information is not developed, the project designs may be delayed or 

inadequate, forcing scientists and project managers to spend time 

redesigning projects or making unnecessary modifications to those 

already built.



An example of a gap in key tools needed for adaptive management is the 

lack of mathematical models that would allow scientists to simulate 

aspects of the ecosystem and better understand how the ecosystem 

responds to restoration actions. Scientists identified the need for 

several important models including models for Florida Bay, Biscayne 

Bay, and systemwide vegetation. Without such tools, the process of 

adaptive management will be hindered because scientists and managers 

will be less able to monitor and assess key indicators of restoration 

and evaluate the effects created by particular restoration actions.



The Restoration Initiative Lacks an Effective Means to Coordinate 

Scientific Activities:



The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 requires the Task Force 

to coordinate scientific research for South Florida restoration; 

however, the Task Force has not established an effective means to do 

so, diminishing assurance that key scientific information will be 

developed and available to fill gaps and support restoration decisions. 

The SCT’s main responsibilities are planning scientific activities for 

restoration, ensuring the development of a monitoring plan, 

synthesizing scientific information, and conducting science 

conferences and workshops on major issues such as invasive species and 

sustainable agriculture. As the restoration has proceeded, other groups 

have been created to manage scientific activities and information for 

particular programs or issues, but these groups are more narrowly 

focused than the SCT. These groups and a more detailed discussion of 

their individual purposes appear in appendix I.



Although the Task Force created the SCT as a science coordination 

group, it established the group with several organizational 

limitations, contributing to the SCT’s inability to accomplish several 

important functions. Specifically, the Task Force did not:



* Provide specific planning requirements, including requirements for a 

science plan or comprehensive monitoring plan. A science plan would 

(1) facilitate coordination of the multiple agency science plans and 

programs, (2) identify key gaps in scientific information and tools, 

(3) prioritize scientific activities needed to fill such gaps, and 

(4) recommend agencies with expertise to fund and conduct work to fill 

these gaps. In addition, a comprehensive monitoring plan would support 

the evaluation of restoration activities. This plan would identify 

measures and indicators of a restored ecosystem--for all three goals of 

restoration--and would provide scientists with a key tool to implement 

adaptive management.



* Establish processes that (1) provide management input for science 

planning and (2) identify and prioritize scientific issues for the SCT 

to address in its synthesis reports. Scientists and managers have both 

noted the need for an effective process that allows the Task Force to 

identify significant restoration management issues or questions that 

scientific activities need to address. In addition, a process used to 

select issues for synthesis reports needs to be transparent to members 

of the SCT and the Task Force and needs to facilitate the provision of 

a credible list of issues that the SCT needs to address in its 

synthesis reports. One way that other scientific groups involved in 

restoration efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay effort, address 

transparency and credibility is the use an advisory board to provide an 

independent review of the scientific plans, reports, and issues.



* Provide resources for carrying out its responsibilities. Only two 

agencies--the U.S. Geological Survey and the South Florida Water 

Management District--have allocated some staff time for SCT duties. In 

comparison, leaders of other large ecosystem restoration efforts--the 

San Francisco Bay and Chesapeake Bay area efforts--have recognized that 

significant resources are required to coordinate science for such 

efforts. These scientists and managers stated that their coordination 

groups have full-time leadership (an executive director or chief 

scientist), several full-time staff to coordinate agencies’ science 

efforts and develop plans and reports, and administrative staff to 

support functions.



To improve the coordination of scientific activities for the South 

Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, we recommended in our report-

-released today--that the Secretary of the Interior, as chair of the 

Task Force, take several actions to strengthen the SCT. First, the 

plans and documents to be produced by the SCT should be specified, 

along with time frames for completing them. Second, a process should be 

established to provide Task Force input into planning for scientific 

activities. Third, a process--such as independent advisory board 

review--should be established to prioritize the issues requiring 

synthesis of scientific information. Finally, an assessment of the 

SCT’s resource needs should be made and sufficient staff resources 

should be allocated to SCT efforts. In commenting on a draft of our 

report, the Department of the Interior agreed with the premises of our 

report that scientific activities for restoration need to be better 

coordinated and the SCT’s responsibilities need to be clarified. 

However, Interior noted that the Task Force itself will ultimately need 

to agree on the actions necessary to strengthen the SCT. Although 

Interior agreed to coordinate the comments of the Task Force agencies, 

it could not do so because this would require the public disclosure of 

the draft report.



Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. If you or other 

Members of the Subcommittee have any questions, I will be pleased to 

answer them.



Contact and Acknowledgments:



For further information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill 

at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony included Susan Iott, Chet Janik, Beverly Peterson, and Shelby 

Stephan.



[End of section]



Appendix I: Groups Responsible for Coordinating Scientific Activities 

for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration:



The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and 

participating agencies have created several groups with 

responsibilities for various scientific activities. One of these teams-

-the Science Coordination Team (SCT) created by the Task Force--is the 

only group responsible for coordinating restoration science activities 

that relate to all three of the Task Force’s restoration goals (see 

fig. 4).



Figure 4: Groups Responsible for Coordination of South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration Science:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Other teams that have been created with responsibility for scientific 

activities include the Restoration Coordination and Verification 

(RECOVER) program teams, the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery 

Implementation Team, the Noxious Exotic Weed Task Team, and the 

Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE). 

As shown in figure 4, each of these teams is responsible for scientific 

activities related to specific aspects of restoration.



First, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water 

Management District created the RECOVER program to help implement their 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which is a conceptual plan 

for improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water 

in the South Florida ecosystem. The plan will primarily help to achieve 

the first restoration goal to restore the flow of water in the 

ecosystem but will also help to restore wetland habitats affected by 

water management--part of the second restoration goal. The program is 

responsible for assessing, monitoring, and evaluating progress in 

implementing the plan. As part of this responsibility, the RECOVER 

program teams are to ensure that scientific information is available to 

make decisions on the effects of the plan on the ecosystem.



Second, the Multi-Species Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team 

(MERIT) is a multiagency, multiparty implementation team created to 

help implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Multi-Species 

Restoration Plan, which is to recover species that are threatened or 

endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MERIT is 

responsible for identifying and prioritizing actions that can be taken 

to help recover 68 threatened and endangered species in South 

Florida.[Footnote 5]



Third, to coordinate and implement scientific information on invasive 

species, the Task Force created a team called the Noxious Exotic Weed 

Task Team, which has written a strategy to coordinate the actions of 

multiple agencies in South Florida to deal with invasive plants. The 

Task Force plans to create another team to address invasive animals.



Finally, the Task Force worked with the National Academy of Sciences to 

form the CROGEE, which is responsible for providing the Task Force with 

independent scientific and technical reviews for several elements of 

the restoration, including restoration of marine areas and ecological 

indicators. The CROGEE was created in 1999 and existed prior to the 

passage of WRDA of 2000, which authorizes the creation of an 

independent scientific group to review progress toward achieving the 

goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and to assess 

and report to Congress on the ecological indicators and other measures 

of progress in the plan. The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of 

the Interior, and the Governor of Florida plan to jointly establish the 

independent scientific review provisions of WRDA 2000 by entering into 

a 5-year contract with the National Academy of Sciences.



FOOTNOTES



[1] In 1993, the Task Force--which at the time was only a federal 

group--formed a Science Subgroup; this team was subsequently reformed 

as the Science Coordination Team. 



[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to 

Increase the Likelihood of Success, GAO-03-345, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

18, 2003).



[3] All funds have been adjusted to 2002 dollars. Throughout this 

report, we refer to fiscal years unless otherwise noted. Both the 

federal and South Florida Water Management District fiscal years run 

from October through September.



[4] This habitat contains slightly elevated, north-south ridges 

dominated by sawgrass, interspersed with sloughs, which are open water 

areas with sparse vegetation. It may also have “tree islands,” which 

have woody vegetation more suited to dry areas than wetlands and serve 

as important habitat for some species. High water levels have destroyed 

many tree islands, areas that scientists and others seek to restore.



[5] Currently, 69 plant and animal species that are native to the 

ecosystem have been federally listed as threatened or endangered. 

Sixty-eight of these species were listed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and one was listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.