• Home - Programs
• Documents Open for Public Review & Comment
• Adaptive Management
• CERP 2005 Report to Congress
• CERP 2006 Report to the Public
• CERP Annual Report
• CERP Guidance Memoranda
• CERP Vision Statement
• Design Agreements
• Dispute Resolution Agreement
• Management Plans
• Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP)
• Project Status Reports
• Quality Assurance Systems Requirements

Program > Program Documents > MISP

Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP)

View the MISP 1.0 Product ::
Presentations ::

Purpose:
The purpose of the Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP) is to define the order in which the many projects within the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program will be planned, designed, and constructed.

The MISP is being developed by the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other Federal, State, and local agencies.

As required by the Programmatic Regulations, the MISP includes the sequencing and scheduling of all of the projects of the CERP, including pilot projects and operational elements, based on the best scientific, technical, funding, contracting, and other information available.

Background:
The original implementation schedule for CERP is described in Section 10 of the Central and South Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (Comprehensive Plan). The schedule and sequence included in the Comprehensive Plan was based on the knowledge, experience and requirements known at that time. The most recent update to the Implementation Schedule was completed in July 2001 and is referred to as Master Implementation Schedule 1.0 (MIS 1.0).

Why update the sequencing and scheduling?

Some things have changed since the Comprehensive Plan:
The context in which CERP Implementation is occurring has shifted since the previous implementation schedule update. New legislation and updated policy have altered the way that projects are planned and implemented creating even more of a need to review and update the how the CERP projects are sequenced and packaged. The following is a list of some of the major changes affecting CERP Implementation:

• Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000
• Promulgation of the Programmatic Regulations required by WRDA 2000
• Water reservations and savings clause (elimination or transfer and flood protection) provisions:

  1) Detailed analyses required in Project Implementation Reports;
  2) May require additional project dependencies.

• Formulation analyses and justification is more detailed than originally envisioned and may also require additional project dependencies.
• Increased complexity of the project implementation process.
• Updated schedules for PIRs that are presently underway.
• Extensive agency and public involvement.

What is Banding:
The purpose of Banding is to focus our limited resources on the products that can be accomplished and generate the expected benefits within the specified timeframe. We have grouped projects in five-year "bands". These five-year bands coincide with the incremental runs described above (i.e. Band 1 = 2005-2009, Band 2 = 2010-2014, etc.)

Why do Banding:
Banding allows for focusing of resource and agency expertise. A focused and refined approach is necessary to successfully implement this program. Concentration of efforts to the successful design and implementation of fundamental projects will provide the necessary framework for continued restoration efforts.

MISP Development Process:
The Programmatic Regulations require the development of the MISP. A two-phased approach was used to develop the MISP. Phase 1 consisted of the development of a Technical Constraints Analysis (TCA), which included an analysis of component packaging, identification of benefits, project sequencing and task duration. The outputs of the TCA were then evaluated further by resource leveling.

Modeling of the Phase 1 effort at five-year increments was originally envisioned for the Phase 2 effort; however, these simulations are not available. Once the simulations become available, the MISP team will coordinate with RECOVER to conduct an appropriate review of the MISP in 5-year increments and review its relationship with Interim Goals and Interim Targets. The Bands show when construction of a CERP component or feature has been completed and that the Project Implementation Report (PIR) and design phases would have been completed.

Phase 2 then consisted of presenting the output of Phase 1 for public and stakeholder review and comment, as well as taking into account factors that will affect the sequencing, such as the state’s Acceler8 initiative. The bands provide clear priorities and allow focusing of resource and agency expertise.

View MISP 1.0 product (849,  kb, PDF).

Contacts:
Lisa Cannon, SFWMD, lcannon@sfwmd.gov
Karen Tippett, USACE, karen.s.tippett@usace.army.mil

Documents 01 Apr 2005 - MISP Version 1.0 MISP 1.0 (712,  kb, PDF) (updated 11 Apr 2005) View Comments on the Draft Guidance Memoranda 19 Nov 2004 - Draft MISP Report dated 19 November 2004. Comments for this document have been extended and are due by 10 Jan 2005. Questions and comments regarding the MISP can be directed to Joseph H. Redican (joseph.h.redican@usace.army.mil or 904.232.2479) or Juan H. Diaz-Carreras (jhdiaz@sfwmd.gov or 561.682.6781) Draft MISP Report (832 kb, PDF) 5 Nov 2004 - Draft MISP Bands (Updated) Draft MISP Bands (18 kb, PDF) 23 Jun 2004 - Draft MISP and Banding Products Project Sequencing Descriptions Construction Completion (Bands 1-7) Projects with Activities in Band 1 27 Jul 2001 - Updated CERP Master Implementation Schedule Memorandum and Schedule (154 kb, PDF) 2001 & 2002 - Interagency Workshops / Public Meetings 2002 June 26, 2002 2001 June 22, 2001 March 30, 2001 Feb 13, 2001