    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan Would Help
    Identify Lands That Need to Be Acquired (Letter Report, 04/05/2000,
    GAO/RCED-00-84).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
    importance of land acquisition to the success of the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, focusing on: (1) what the South
    Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force did to identify and acquire
    lands needed to accomplish the goals of the initiative from 1996 through
    1999; and (2) what the Department of the Interior did to help ensure
    that it maximized the acreage purchased--that is, bought as much land as
    possible, with $200 million in Farm Bill grants.

    GAO noted that: (1) the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
    has established ecosystem restoration goals and identified land
    acquisition as critical to achieving them, but it cannot acquire lands
    on its own; (2) instead, it must accomplish its objectives through the
    participating federal and state agencies; (3) this puts a premium on
    having a systematic acquisition plan and effective communication and
    coordination among the Task Force members; (4) however, the Task Force
    has not yet developed a land acquisition plan that identifies all of the
    lands needed to accomplish the goals of the restoration initiative--each
    federal and state agency has made independent acquisition decisions; (5)
    from fiscal year (FY) 1996 through FY 1999, these agencies acquired
    about 541,300 acres for the restoration initiative; (6) without a land
    acquisition plan, the Task Force cannot: (a) identify all the lands
    needed for the restoration initiative; (b) reasonably estimate the cost
    of land acquisition for the initiative; (c) measure progress in
    acquiring lands for the restoration; or (d) increase the chances that
    the lands being acquired are needed for the restoration initiative; (7)
    to maximize the acreage acquired with $200 million in Farm Bill grants,
    the Interior developed a cost-sharing policy that required the state of
    Florida to match the federal funds dollar for dollar; (8) under this
    policy, the Secretary of the Interior retained the authority to waive
    the matching requirement; (9) Interior approved four grants, one of
    which the state matched dollar for dollar; (10) for the other three
    grants, the Secretary waived the matching requirement or accepted lands
    in place of funds; (11) the state had already acquired, or was in the
    process of acquiring, these lands that it used for matching purposes;
    (12) had Interior consistently applied its cost-sharing policy, GAO
    calculates that an additional $77 million would have been available for
    land acquisition; and (13) according to Interior officials, the agency
    did not always apply its cost-sharing policy because it wanted to give
    the state credit for lands that it had already acquired or was in the
    process of acquiring.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-84
         TITLE:  South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition
    	     Plan Would Help Identify Lands That Need to Be
    	     Acquired
          DATE:  04/05/2000
       SUBJECT:  Environmental policies
    	     Federal aid to states
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Financial management
    	     Procurement planning
    	     Cost sharing (finance)
    	     Water resources conservation
    	     Real property acquisition
    	     Land management
    IDENTIFIER:  South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
    	     Florida
    	     Everglades National Park (FL)
    	     Land and Water Conservation Fund
    	     Lake Okeechobee (FL)
    	     Florida Communities Trust Program
    	     Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program
    	     Florida Conservation and Recreation Lands Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************

    Appendix I: Members of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    Task Force

    34

    Appendix II: Federal and State Land Acquisition

    36

    Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

    43

    Appendix IV: Comments From the State of Florida

    55

    Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    67

    Table 1: Land Acquisition by Federal and State Agencies and
    Programs for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative,
    Fiscal Years 1996-99 13

    Table 2: Farm Bill Grants and the State's Dollar Match 21

    Figure 1: The Everglades--Past and Present 7

    Figure 2: Location of Lands Acquired With Farm Bill Funds 20

    CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands

    GAO General Accounting Office

    SOR Save Our Rivers

    GAO/RCED-00-84

    USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

    Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division

    B-284599

    April 5, 2000

    Congressional Requesters

    The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative is a complex, long-term
    effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem, which includes the
    Everglades, that involves federal, state, local, and tribal entities, as
    well as public and private interests. In response to growing signs of the
    ecosystem's 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
    formalized the Task Force, designated the Secretary of the Interior as its
    chair, and expanded its membership to include state, local, and tribal
    representatives. The Task Force is charged with coordinating and
    facilitating the overall restoration initiative. Restoring the ecosystem,
    which covers 18,000 square miles, or about 11.5 million acres, will take at
    least 20 years and will require the continuous effort and commitment of all
    the agencies involved.

    A key component of the restoration initiative is acquiring lands. Land
    acquisition is the critical first step in a series of
    activities−storing water needed to restore natural hydrology, building
    water quality treatment areas, restoring lost and altered habitats, and
    curtailing the outward growth of urban areas (sprawl) and making urban
    spaces more livable by acquiring green space. All of these activities are
    essential to accomplishing the goals of the initiative. Yet opportunities to
    acquire undeveloped lands in South Florida are diminishing, and some key
    lands face pressure from development. To date, federal and state agencies
    have acquired lands using their own funding and priorities or expending
    grant funds provided to the state by the Department of the Interior. In
    particular, since 1983, the state has carried out the comprehensive "Save
    Our Everglades" program to protect and restore the South Florida ecosystem
    and has had several land acquisition programs ongoing under state
    legislation. In addition, since 1996, when the federal and state governments
    began their joint restoration initiative, the state agencies have acquired
    lands using grants from two sources--$200 million provided to the Secretary
    of the Interior by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
    1996 (Farm Bill) and $151 million in appropriations from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000. The
    federal government generally has required, through legislation or other
    agreements, that the state match the funds provided through these grants.

    Because of the importance of land acquisition to the success of the
    restoration initiative, you asked us to determine (1) what the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Task Force did to identify and acquire lands needed to
    accomplish the goals of the initiative from 1996 through 1999 and (2) what
    the Department of the Interior did to help ensure that it maximized the
    acreage purchased--that is, bought as much land as possible, with $200
    million in Farm Bill grants. While moneys from another federal source, the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, have also been authorized for land
    acquisition grants to the state, some of these funds did not require a cost
    share, and the majority of the remaining funds have not yet been expended.
    Of the $151 million available, $46 million was granted to the state from
    1998 appropriations under a legal settlement requiring the federal
    government to fully fund the acquisition of lands for a storm water
    treatment area. The remaining funds--$105 million provided in 1999 and
    2000--are subject to a state matching requirement, but as of February 2000,
    only $3.8 million had been expended.

    This is our second report on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    Initiative. In April 1999, we reported on the federal funding provided for
    this initiative and on how well the initiative was being coordinated and
    managed.1

    The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has established ecosystem
    restoration goals and identified land acquisition as critical to achieving
    them, but it cannot acquire lands on its own. Instead, it must accomplish
    its objectives through the participating federal and state agencies. This
    puts a premium on having a systematic acquisition plan and effective
    communication and coordination among the Task Force members. However, the
    Task Force has not yet developed a land acquisition plan that identifies all
    of the lands needed to accomplish the goals of the restoration initiative;
    each federal and state agency has made independent acquisition decisions.
    From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999, these agencies acquired
    about 541,300 acres for the restoration initiative. Without a land
    acquisition plan, the Task Force cannot (1) identify all the lands needed
    for the restoration initiative, (2) reasonably estimate the cost of land
    acquisition for the initiative, (3) measure progress in acquiring lands for
    the restoration, or (4) increase the chances that the lands being acquired
    are needed for the restoration initiative. For these reasons, and because
    most of the information needed to develop the framework for a land
    acquisition plan is available, this report recommends that the Task Force
    develop a land acquisition plan that includes an assessment of the lands
    needed to accomplish the initiative's goals.

    To maximize the acreage acquired with $200 million in Farm Bill grants, the
    Department of the Interior developed a cost-sharing policy that required the
    state of Florida to match the federal funds dollar for dollar. Under this
    policy, the Secretary of the Interior retained the authority to waive the
    matching requirement. Interior approved four grants, one of which the state
    matched dollar for dollar. For the other three grants, the Secretary waived
    the matching requirement or accepted lands in place of funds. The state had
    already acquired, or was in the process of acquiring, these lands that it
    used for matching purposes. Had Interior consistently applied its
    cost-sharing policy, we calculate that an additional $77 million would have
    been available for land acquisition. According to Interior officials, the
    agency did not always apply its cost-sharing policy because it wanted to
    give the state credit for lands that it had already acquired or was in the
    process of acquiring.

    The South Florida ecosystem extends from the Chain of Lakes south of Orlando
    to the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. This vast region, which is home
    to more than 6 million Americans, a huge tourism industry, and a large
    agricultural economy, also encompasses one of the world's unique
    environmental resources--the Everglades. Before human intervention,
    freshwater moved south from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a broad,
    slow-moving sheet. The quantity and timing of the water's flow depended on
    rainfall patterns and on slow releases of stored water. Even during dry
    seasons, water stored throughout the vast area of the Everglades supplied
    water to wetlands and coastal bays and estuaries. For centuries, the
    Everglades provided habitat for many species of wading birds and other
    native wildlife, including the American alligator, which depended on the
    water flow patterns that existed before human intervention.

    Following major droughts from the early 1930s through the mid-1940s and
    drenching hurricanes in 1947, the Congress authorized the Central and
    Southern Florida Project in 1948. The project, an extensive system of over
    1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump stations, prevents
    flooding and saltwater intrusion into the state's aquifer while providing
    drainage and water to the residents of South Florida. However, as shown in
    figure 1, the engineering changes from the Central and Southern Florida
    Project, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities and
    urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to about half its original size
    and have had a detrimental effect on wildlife habitats and water quality.
    The loss of habitats has caused sharp declines in native plant and animal
    populations, placing many native species at risk.

    Figure 1: The Everglades--Past and Present
    Source: GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the South Florida
    Water Management District.

    Recognizing that the natural system had been damaged, the federal and state
    governments began efforts to acquire and protect lands in southern Florida.
    Since 1947, when lands for Everglades National Park were acquired, numerous
    federal, state, and county holdings have been set aside. These include three
    other national parks or preserves, 30 state parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and
    19 aquatic sanctuaries or preserves in South Florida. According to state
    officials, from 1947 through 1995, the state acquired about 3.1 million
    acres--many of which were conveyed to the federal government to be managed
    as national parks and preserves. During the same period, the federal
    government acquired about 1.0 million acres. The state of Florida has also
    taken a number of actions to restore the ecosystem, including the passage of
    the Florida Everglades Protection Act in 1991 and the Florida Everglades
    Forever Act in 1994.2

    Despite these efforts, the ecosystem continued to deteriorate, and efforts
    to restore it have escalated. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to review the Central
    and Southern Florida Project. This review, commonly known as the Restudy,
    was to determine if the project should be changed to restore the South
    Florida ecosystem. In 1993, the administration made the restoration of the
    Everglades and the South Florida ecosystem one of its highest environmental
    priorities. Through an interagency agreement, federal agencies established
    the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to facilitate the
    development of consistent policies, strategies, priorities, and plans for
    addressing concerns about the ecosystem. The Water Resources Development Act
    of 1996 directed the Corps to continue its review of the Central and
    Southern Florida Project and to develop a plan for restoring, preserving,
    and protecting the South Florida ecosystem. The act also formalized the Task
    Force; expanded its membership to include state, local, and tribal
    representatives; and designated the Secretary of the Interior as the group's
    chair. Appendix I lists the federal, state, tribal, and local governments
    represented on the Task Force.

    To accomplish the restoration initiative, the Task Force established the
    following three goals:

    � Getting the water right, which means restoring more natural hydrologic
    functions of 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. This goal will be
    accomplished primarily by modifying the Central and Southern Florida Project
    to enlarge the region's freshwater supply and to improve the delivery of
    water to natural areas.

    � Restoring and enhancing the natural system, which means restoring lost and
    altered habitats and changing current land uses. Natural habitats have
    become disconnected through growth and development, and the cumulative loss
    of habitat and spread of invasive species have caused sharp declines in
    native plant and animal populations. As of May 1999, 68 native plant and
    animal species were federally listed as threatened or endangered. Restoring
    habitats and species will require acquiring lands or changing current land
    uses. Restoring habitats and species will also require reestablishing the
    physical and biological connections between parts of the natural system.

    � Transforming the built environment, which means rebuilding and
    revitalizing urban cores to curtail outward sprawl. This third restoration
    goal involves decreasing the impact of development on the natural system in
    a way that balances human needs with those of the natural environment. This
    will entail rebuilding or revitalizing urban cores to curtail the outward
    sprawl of suburbs and development. It will also involve making urban areas
    more livable by creating green spaces (i.e., parks, trail systems, or
    greenways that function for both wildlife and people), improving transit
    systems, and providing jobs and affordable housing.

    To carry out its duties, the Task Force established a Florida-based working
    group that includes representatives of the agencies and entities represented
    on the Task Force, as well as other governmental entities as appropriate.
    The working group directs the tasks associated with the South Florida
    ecosystem's restoration and provides strategic oversight and program
    management for all South Florida ecosystem restoration activities.

    In our 1999 report on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, we
    reported that the Task Force had not developed a strategic plan that
    outlined how this complex, long-term restoration initiative would be
    accomplished. We recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, as the
    Chairperson of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, in
    conjunction with the other members of the Task Force, develop a strategic
    plan that would outline how the restoration of the ecosystem would occur. We
    also recommended that the Task Force work with organizations and entities
    participating in the restoration initiative to develop and agree on a
    decision-making process to resolve conflicts. The Congress included language
    in the Conference Report accompanying the Department of the Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 that requires the
    Secretary of the Interior to develop a regionwide strategic plan and
    recommendations for resolving the most difficult conflicts. The strategic
    plan is to be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by
    July 31, 2000. The recommendations on conflict resolution were to be
    submitted by February 15, 2000; Interior submitted recommendations to the
    Committees on February 28, 2000.

    Has Not Developed a Land Acquisition Plan

    The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force cannot acquire lands on
    its own. Instead it must accomplish its objectives through the participating
    federal and state agencies. This puts a premium on having a systematic
    acquisition plan and effective communication and coordination among members
    of the Task Force. However, the Task Force has not yet developed a land
    acquisition plan that identifies all of the lands needed to accomplish the
    goals of the restoration initiative. A land acquisition plan, which would
    supplement the strategic plan we recommended in our 1999 report, would also
    provide a blueprint of the lands necessary to achieve the goals of the
    restoration initiative and enable the Task Force to provide the Congress and
    the state of Florida with reasonable estimates of the acreage needed and of
    the costs of the land acquisition. Although it has not yet done so, the Task
    Force should be able to develop a framework for a land acquisition plan by
    using land acquisition information and assessments already available through
    the federal and state agencies.

    Acquire Lands

    The Task Force relies on the multiple federal and state agencies to identify
    and acquire lands, but it has not developed a plan that incorporates all of
    their efforts. The lands that will be acquired for the restoration
    initiative will not be acquired by the Task Force, but by the federal and
    state land management agencies that have the authority to acquire and manage
    lands for these purposes.3 The Task Force, as an entity, cannot acquire
    lands because it was not granted such authority when it was formally
    established by the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. The federal and
    state agencies that have acquired, and will continue to acquire, lands for
    the restoration initiative include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    National Park Service, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
    and the South Florida Water Management District. The land acquisition
    programs of these agencies are described in more detail in appendix II.

    Each of the federal agencies identifies lands to be acquired to fulfill the
    objectives of its individual programs and acquires lands under different
    authorities. The Park Service--which manages lands to preserve, protect, and
    interpret the nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources--and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service--which manages lands primarily to conserve animals
    and plants--each acquire lands to create and expand parks and refuges. Parks
    and refuges are usually created or expanded through congressional
    authorization, although the Fish and Wildlife Service accepts donated lands
    and lands acquired from other agencies. For example, under legislation
    passed in 1989, the Park Service is acquiring lands in South Florida to
    expand the boundaries of Everglades National Park, and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service is seeking congressional approval to use moneys from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund4 to buy nonfederally owned lands within one refuge's
    boundaries and to expand several other refuges.

    Like the federal programs, the state programs acquire lands for different
    purposes and under different authorities. The Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection, primarily through its Conservation and Recreation
    Lands program, acquires lands throughout the state to conserve animals,
    plants, and habitats and to provide for nature-based recreational
    opportunities. On the other hand, the South Florida Water Management
    District acquires lands primarily to protect the water resources of South
    Florida. It operates under state legislation authorizing water management
    districts and their acquisition of lands to protect water resources. In
    addition, the South Florida Water Management District acquires lands as the
    local sponsor for the Army Corps of Engineers. Together, the Corps and the
    District will be responsible for the over 60 projects proposed in the
    Restudy, if the Congress authorizes the Restudy.

    Just as the federal and state agencies have different authorities and
    different objectives, each of the four agencies has its own budget and
    system of priorities for land acquisition. Each of the federal agencies
    receives separate appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to acquire lands on its list of priorities. Both the Park Service and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service have a national priority list that incorporates
    and ranks acquisitions proposed by the field offices. The state agencies
    receive funds primarily from the Florida Preservation Trust Fund, which
    provides about $300 million a year for land acquisition throughout the
    state.5 Each of the programs has a process for accepting and ranking land
    acquisition proposals, although the Conservation and Recreation Lands
    program focuses on acquiring lands for conservation and recreation while the
    District concentrates on acquiring lands for water-related purposes.

    These agencies have already acquired lands that the Task Force agrees will
    be used for the restoration initiative. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal
    year 1999, the agencies acquired about 541,300 acres. Table 1 shows the
    agencies and programs acquiring lands, the acreage acquired, and the funds
    expended.

    Table 1: Land Acquisition by Federal and State Agencies and Programs for the
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Fiscal Years 1996-99

    Dollars in millions

     Agency/programa                            Acreage         Funds expended
                                                acquired
     Department of the Interior/state of
     Florida (Farm Bill/state match)            73,617          $229
     Department of the Interior (National Park
     Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Land   153,187c        76
     and Water Conservation Fund)b
     Florida Conservation and Recreation Lands
     program                                    179,130         326
     Save Our Rivers program (South Florida
     Water Management District)                 135,328         217
     Total                                      541,262         $848

    aThe data presented on acreage acquired and funds expended by the state
    agencies and programs are by calendar years. The data presented for the
    federal agencies and programs and Farm Bill funds are by fiscal years. The
    federal data presented are as of September 1999.

    bThe Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to the state is included here
    because the lands acquired with the funds are part of a settlement with the
    state under which the federal government agreed to buy lands for storm water
    treatment areas.

    cIncludes 108,000 acres that were part of the Florida-Arizona Land Exchange.
    In this exchange, Interior traded 111 acres in downtown Phoenix for 83,000
    acres to be added to the Big Cypress National Preserve, 4,000 acres to be
    added to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and 21,000 acres to
    create the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.

    Source: Prepared by GAO from data provided by participating federal and
    state agencies.

    According to Task Force officials, the acreage acquired with the Farm Bill
    funds will be used for water projects associated with the first goal,
    getting the water right. The Task Force officials said that the lands
    acquired for this goal would also support the second goal by providing
    habitat benefits, particularly by creating or improving wetlands. According
    to Task Force officials, the acreage acquired by the South Florida Water
    Management District will be used mostly for water projects associated with
    the Task Force's first restoration goal. The acreage acquired by the state
    Conservation and Recreation Lands program and the lands acquired by the
    National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service will be used for
    habitat under the second goal.

    and State Agencies Participating in the Restoration

    The importance of acquiring lands to accomplish the goals of the restoration
    initiative and the Task Force's reliance on the participating federal and
    state agencies for such land acquisition puts a premium on having a
    systematic land acquisition plan and effective communication and
    coordination among the Task Force members. A land acquisition plan would
    allow the Task Force--as the entity responsible for (1) developing plans and
    priorities to guide the restoration initiative and (2) coordinating and
    facilitating the efforts of the agencies participating in the initiative--to
    clearly communicate its land needs and priorities to the federal and state
    agencies responsible for acquiring lands. Because the South Florida
    ecosystem covers a vast area (about 11.5 million acres) and because much of
    the undeveloped land is under development pressure, it is unlikely that all
    of the lands needed to fully restore the ecosystem can be acquired, making
    it important to prioritize the acquisitions that are possible. The Task
    Force, in 1996 and 1999, developed two land acquisition lists, but these
    lists were not complete and did not contain the elements of a land
    acquisition plan. The first list, which was developed to allocate Farm Bill
    funds, contained the lands that the members of the Task Force could agree
    were important for the restoration initiative, many of them related to the
    Corps' Restudy. The second list, which was developed in response to
    congressional inquiries, was a compilation of projects proposed by state and
    local agencies and prioritized by the Task Force. Neither list identified
    all of the lands needed for the acquisition, nor did the lists include other
    elements of a land acquisition plan, such as estimated costs or time frames.
    To be useful in coordinating the agencies' acquisition efforts, a land
    acquisition plan should identify

    � the acres that will be needed to accomplish each of the goals of the
    restoration initiative or, at a minimum, the general areas where lands will
    be needed;

    � the purpose of acquiring the lands and the way the lands will be managed
    after they are acquired, such as for water management or habitat;

    � the agency responsible for acquiring and managing the lands; and

    � the time frames when lands will be needed for projects and the estimated
    costs of the lands.

    The land acquisition plan we envision would supplement the strategic plan we
    recommended in our 1999 report. We recommended that a strategic plan be
    developed to lay out how the restoration initiative would be accomplished
    and to set goals and performance measures to help coordinate the
    participating agencies' activities. A similar effort to develop a plan
    laying out the lands to be acquired for the restoration would help
    coordinate the agencies' land acquisition activities. In addition, a land
    acquisition plan would provide other benefits. In particular, it would
    enable the Task Force to give the Congress and the state of Florida--both of
    which will provide the necessary funding--a reasonable estimate of the total
    acreage needed and the full cost of the acquisition. As such, a land
    acquisition plan would provide the necessary justification for acquiring
    particular lands and for requesting the funding needed from the federal and
    state governments. A land acquisition plan would also serve as a benchmark
    for measuring the progress being made in acquiring the lands needed to
    accomplish the restoration initiative's goals, and would allow the Task
    Force and the agencies to adjust project schedules, reallocate acquisition
    budgets, or identify alternative lands for acquisition. Furthermore, if
    certain lands cannot be acquired because a landowner is unwilling to sell, a
    land acquisition plan would allow the Task Force and the agencies to
    identify other means of protecting the lands. For example, if a key parcel
    cannot be acquired, the Task Force--through an agency--may elect to offer
    other incentives to a landowner to protect the land, such as an easement or
    tax incentive.

    Some Task Force officials we spoke with during our review did not believe
    that enough information was currently available to develop a land
    acquisition plan. We believe that considerable progress is possible. If the
    Task Force were to (1) assess the lands already identified as needed by the
    federal and state agencies, (2) assess additional lands that are needed, and
    (3) incorporate the information from these assessments into a single
    document, the Task Force would have the framework for a land acquisition
    plan that could be expanded to include other necessary components, such as
    costs, priorities, responsible agencies, and time frames for acquisition.
    Such a plan would serve as a valuable tool for the Task Force to ensure that
    the lands needed for the initiative are acquired. Other federal and state
    officials were concerned that the development of a plan that publicly
    identified the lands needed would cause the price of the lands to rise.
    While this concern is valid, we believe that the benefits of developing the
    plan outweigh the drawbacks. When specific lands cannot be identified, the
    Task Force could identify the general areas where lands will be needed,
    estimate the acreage needed, and indicate when the specific lands will be
    identified. As the restoration initiative progresses, the land acquisition
    plan could be revised to reflect changes and additions to the specific lands
    identified as needed for the initiative.

    Plan

    Although the Task Force has not developed a land acquisition plan,
    information that would be included in the plan is generally available.
    First, the federal and state agencies participating in the initiative have
    already identified some lands in the ecosystem that they plan to acquire.
    Although the Task Force has not yet assessed those lands, it could do so to
    determine how and to what extent they could be used to further the goals of
    the restoration. Second, the federal and state agencies have also completed
    studies and assessments that identify areas of potential acquisition. The
    Task Force has not used these studies and assessments to independently
    identify additional lands needed to achieve its restoration goals. A land
    acquisition plan would specify the parcels needed and the purpose of the
    lands, along with cost estimates and time frames. The plan could also
    include the general areas where lands will be needed, together with the
    purposes for which the lands will be used and general estimates of acres and
    costs, until the information is refined. The following paragraphs summarize,
    for each of the restoration goals, (1) the acreage already identified by the
    agencies, (2) the studies and assessments that the Task Force could use to
    identify other land needs, and (3) the additional information that the
    acquisition plan would need to include.

    Goal 1--Getting the water right: The Corps has estimated that about 220,000
    acres are needed for water storage areas, such as reservoirs, and for water
    quality treatment areas. The Corps identified the general locations of these
    acres and modifications in the Restudy, completed in 1999. Of the 220,000
    acres, 70,000 acres are on the land acquisition lists for the state's
    Conservation and Recreation Lands and Save Our Rivers programs. The
    remaining parcels have yet to be identified. A land acquisition plan would
    include the parcels already identified and could include general areas until
    more precise information was developed. The Restudy does not comprehensively
    address water quality issues, which is one of the purposes of this goal. As
    a result, the lands that will be needed to achieve the water quality portion
    of this goal have not yet been identified. For example, in August 1999, the
    Task Force's working group published a plan, called the Lake Okeechobee
    Action Plan, that makes recommendations for reducing phosphorous pollution
    in the lake--a water quality problem. One of the plan's recommendations--to
    create storm water treatment areas for removing pollutants from urban and
    agricultural runoff--will require lands. Until the state and federal
    agencies determine what actions will be taken to improve the quality of the
    lake's water, the number of water quality areas and the acreage needed are
    unknown. If a land acquisition plan were developed, it could include the
    lands that would be needed for these areas. Until the information is
    refined, the Task Force can include general estimates.

    Goal 2--Restoring and enhancing the natural system: While federal and state
    agencies participating in the restoration have identified about 630,000
    acres that need to be acquired for habitat in the South Florida ecosystem,
    the Task Force has not assessed how or to what extent these lands would be
    used to accomplish goal 2. In addition, the Task Force has not identified
    other lands that will be needed to accomplish this goal. For example, the
    goal requires that physical and biological connections be made between
    existing natural areas, but Task Force officials could not identify where
    all these habitat connectors or corridors would be and thus could not
    identify the lands that remained to be acquired. Furthermore, the Task Force
    has not used two assessments that identify lands or actions necessary to
    preserve threatened and endangered species and their habitats in the South
    Florida ecosystem, including potential habitat corridors, to identify
    additional lands that might be needed to accomplish this goal. The first
    assessment, the Multi-Species Recovery Plan produced by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, identifies actions to recover the 68 federally listed
    species and their habitats. The second study, Closing the Gaps in Florida's
    Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, produced by the Florida Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission, identifies 4.8 million acres whose
    acquisition or protection would preserve key species and their habitats
    throughout Florida, including the South Florida ecosystem. If a plan were
    developed, it could include the parcels the agencies have identified as
    needed. The plan would also include a schedule for the Task Force to review
    the agencies' assessments and identify other lands needed to accomplish this
    goal.

    Goal 3--Transforming the built environment: The Task Force included a few
    projects involving county lands on the list of priorities it developed in
    1999. These projects were proposed by local governments, since the Task
    Force has not assessed what lands would be needed to support this goal.
    According to Task Force officials, the lands for the third goal will be
    identified by local community and city governments, with state and Task
    Force involvement. The state has two programs that the Task Force could use
    to identify lands for this goal, the Florida Communities Trust program and
    the Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program. For this goal, as for
    the first two goals, the land acquisition plan, if developed, could include
    the parcels identified by the localities and would include a schedule for
    reviewing lands in the available assessments to determine additional needs.

    Maximize Its Land Acquisitions

    To maximize the acreage acquired with $200 million in Farm Bill grants, the
    Department of the Interior developed a cost-sharing policy that required the
    state of Florida to match the federal funds dollar for dollar. Under this
    policy, the Secretary of the Interior retained the authority to waive the
    matching requirement. Interior approved four grants to buy lands in the East
    Coast Buffer, the Carroll property, the Southern Golden Gate Estates, and
    the Talisman lands.6 While the state contributed matching funds for one
    grant, the Secretary waived the matching requirement or accepted lands in
    place of funds for the other three grants. The state had already acquired,
    or was in the process of acquiring, these lands that it used for matching
    purposes. Had Interior consistently applied its cost-sharing policy, we
    calculate that an additional $77 million would have been available for land
    acquisition. According to Interior officials, the agency did not always
    apply its cost-sharing policy because it wanted to give the state credit for
    lands that it had already acquired or was in the process of acquiring.
    Furthermore, Interior agreed to share the cost of another 12 parcels equally
    with the state; the state had agreed to acquire these parcels to settle a
    lawsuit that began almost 2 years before the grant was approved. Had the
    Department not approved this purchase, we calculate that an additional $4
    million would have been available for land acquisition.

    Interior developed a cost-sharing policy for spending the $200 million in
    Farm Bill funds, even though the legislation did not require such a policy.
    To set forth the manner in which these funds would be spent, Interior
    entered into a framework agreement with the U.S. Department of the Army
    (Corps), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South
    Florida Water Management District in October 1996. Interior entered into an
    agreement with these agencies because they have active land acquisition
    programs and would be the likely recipients of Farm Bill funds to acquire
    lands for the restoration initiative. Both the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District
    receive funds for land acquisition from the Florida Preservation Trust
    Fund--a fund that makes about $300 million available annually for land
    acquisition throughout the state. The framework agreement included a
    provision for leveraging that, unless waived by the Secretary, required the
    Farm Bill funds to be matched dollar for dollar. According to Interior
    officials responsible for overseeing these funds, the land acquisition needs
    of the ecosystem exceeded the $200 million provided by the Farm Bill. Having
    the state match the funds would have doubled the funding available to
    acquire lands and maximized the acreage that could be acquired.

    Interior approved four grants to buy lands in the East Coast Buffer, the
    Carroll property, the Southern Golden Gate Estates, and the Talisman lands.
    The East Coast Buffer consists of approximately 72,000 acres of marshes,
    reservoirs, and groundwater recharge areas in Palm Beach, Broward, and
    Miami-Dade counties. The East Coast Buffer is also referred to as a water
    preserve area and is expected to become part of a future Corps project that
    will help restore the Everglades ecosystem, in part by preventing water from
    being lost through seepage and by regaining lost capacity for storing water.
    The Carroll property consists of 1,233 acres in the Everglades Agricultural
    Area and is also intended to become part of a future Corps project. The
    lands would serve as part of a water management area designed to assist in
    the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem by improving water quality and
    regaining lost water storage capacity. The Southern Golden Gate Estates
    comprises about 57,200 acres in southwest Florida and is a diverse landscape
    of freshwater marshes, wet and dry prairies, hardwood hammocks, and pine
    flatwoods. The acquisition of these lands will protect essential habitat for
    numerous threatened and endangered plants and animals and will help preserve
    and restore the freshwater flow to Gulf Coast estuaries. The Talisman lands
    encompass over 50,000 acres and are located south of Lake Okeechobee in the
    Everglades Agricultural Area. According to agency officials, these lands
    have been identified in the Restudy as a good candidate for regional water
    storage to meet the ecosystem's long-term restoration needs. Figure 2 shows
    the locations and boundaries of these projects.

    Figure 2: Location of Lands Acquired With Farm Bill Funds
    Source: GAO's adaptation of a map prepared by the Department of the
    Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service.

    In granting the Farm Bill funds, Interior implemented its cost-sharing
    policy requiring the state to provide a dollar-for-dollar match for one of
    the four grants (the Carroll property). For the remaining three grants,
    Interior either waived the cost-sharing requirement (Talisman) or accepted
    as a match lands that the state had already purchased (Southern Golden Gate
    Estates) or that the state had begun purchasing (East Coast Buffer). If
    Interior had required the state to match the Farm Bill funds dollar for
    dollar for each of the properties acquired with these funds, we calculate
    that an additional $77 million could have been available to acquire lands in
    the ecosystem. Table 2 summarizes the information on how the Farm Bill funds
    were spent, how much the state contributed, and how much would be needed for
    the state to fully match the Farm Bill grants as provided in the framework
    agreement. A detailed discussion of each of the grants follows the table.

    Table 2: Farm Bill Grants and the State's Dollar Match

    Dollars in millions

                             State's actual
                             dollar-for-dollar contribution  Additional amount
                    Farm     to the grant or equivalent      needed for a 50/50
     Grant          Bill     state spending                  match
                    funds
     East Coast
     Buffera        $50.8    $39.8b                          $11b
     Carroll
     property       3.1      3.1c                            0
     Southern
     Golden Gate    38.1     38.1d                           0d
     Estates
     Talisman       100.6    34.4                            66
     Othere         7.5      f                               f
     Total          $200.0   $115.4                          $77

    Note: Numbers may not add because of rounding.

    aIn addition to the original Farm Bill grant of $36.9 million, Interior
    awarded $13.9 million in Farm Bill funds to an existing Land and Water
    Conservation Fund grant that required the state to match the grant.

    bAs part of its match, the state provided 33 parcels that the South Florida
    Water Management District had purchased for $21 million. If Interior had
    required the dollar-for-dollar match, $21 million would have been available
    to acquire additional lands. The District has continued to acquire lands on
    its own in the East Coast Buffer, spending an additional $10 million,
    thereby reducing its cost-sharing requirement to about $11 million.

    cThe state did not share the cost of the Carroll property. However, the
    state contributed an additional $3.1 million to the East Coast Buffer grant
    and in doing so met its cost-sharing match for this grant. For the purposes
    of our table, we have included the state's contribution as part of the
    Carroll property grant.

    dThe Secretary of the Interior decided that the state had met the matching
    requirement because it had already spent over $97 million to acquire lands
    in this vicinity and did not require the state to provide a
    dollar-for-dollar match. However, the state also continued to acquire lands
    under its own program and spent about $47 million in 1998 and 1999. In doing
    so, the state effectively met its cost-sharing requirement of $38.1 million,
    even though matching was not required.

    eIncluded in the other category is $6.2 million provided to the Corps to
    construct a melaleuca research facility and $1.3 million in administrative
    costs.

    fNot applicable.

    Source: GAO's analysis of federal and state land acquisition data.

    Carroll Property Grant

    Interior implemented its cost-sharing policy when it acquired the Carroll
    property. The state originally agreed to provide half of the acquisition
    costs and anticipated using Preservation 2000 funds. However, because the
    Carroll property generates income from a sod farm and the state is
    restricted from acquiring income-generating lands with Preservation 2000
    funds, the state was unable to share the cost of the property. Instead,
    Interior purchased the Carroll property entirely with Farm Bill funds for a
    total of about $3.1 million. To compensate for being unable to share in the
    cost of the Carroll property, the state increased its contribution to the
    East Coast Buffer grant by $3.1 million--the amount that Interior provided
    to acquire the Carroll property. By contributing additional moneys to the
    East Coast Buffer grant, the District retained an overall 50/50 cost-share
    ratio for the Carroll property.

    Talisman Land Acquisition Grant

    Interior entered into a cooperative agreement with the South Florida Water
    Management District and The Nature Conservancy to purchase the Talisman
    lands owned by the St. Joe Company. The Department chose the framework of a
    cooperative agreement because it believed that acquiring the Talisman lands
    would require significantly more federal involvement and would allow
    Interior to bring in The Nature Conservancy, a third party with extensive
    experience in complex real estate transactions, to assist in the
    negotiations.

    The federal government decided to acquire the tract in full and obligated
    $133.5 million for the acquisition because it was concerned that the state
    would not have matching funds available. Later, the state of Florida
    contributed a total of $34.4 million toward the purchase of lands that it
    needed for water treatment within the Talisman area. The federal
    government's final share of the project totaled $100.6 million. Because
    Interior waived its cost-sharing policy, the state was not required to
    provide a full dollar-for-dollar match. As a result, in acquiring all of the
    Talisman lands, the federal government paid 75 percent of their cost and the
    state paid 25 percent.7 Had the state provided a full 50-percent match, an
    additional $66 million could have been available for land acquisition.8

    Southern Golden Gate Estates Grant

    Interior awarded a grant for $38.1 million to the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection to acquire 29,250 of the 57,200 acres in the
    privately-owned Southern Golden Gate Estates. The grant agreement, which was
    signed in April 1998 and amended in December 1999, did not require the state
    to provide a dollar-for-dollar match because the Secretary of the Interior
    accepted as a match lands that the state had already purchased. According to
    Interior officials, the Secretary did this because the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection, through its Conservation and Recreation Lands
    program, had met the matching requirement by spending $97 million on lands
    in the Southern Golden Gate Estates area and in four nearby areas. Over half
    of the $97 million--or $52 million--was spent by the state from 1993 through
    1997--a period of 1 to 5 years before Interior and the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection signed the grant agreement. By giving the state
    credit for lands it had previously purchased, Interior sacrificed its
    objective of maximizing the acreage that could be acquired with the grant
    funds.

    In fairness, the state has continued to purchase lands in these areas on its
    own and, as a result, has essentially met the cost-sharing requirement, even
    though it did not provide a dollar-for-dollar match. Since 1998--the year
    the grant agreement was signed--the state has spent about $47 million to
    acquire lands in the Southern Golden Gate Estates and nearby areas. This $47
    million exceeds the $38.1 million needed to satisfy the matching
    requirement. However, the state's expenditure of $47 million in 1998 and
    1999 to acquire lands in this area was not a result of Interior's actions or
    efforts to ensure the purchase of as much land as possible with Farm Bill
    funds. Moreover, in taking this approach, Interior does not retain control
    over the management of these lands, as it would have done if the lands had
    been purchased as part of the Farm Bill grant. Because the state acquired
    the lands independently, they may not have to be managed to meet the
    purposes of the Farm Bill (conservation and/or part of a Corps project) or
    of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (consideration of benefits to fish
    and wildlife).9

    East Coast Buffer Grant

    For this grant, Interior awarded $36.9 million to the South Florida Water
    Management District in December 1996 to acquire lands in the East Coast
    Buffer.10 The East Coast Buffer covers three counties and consists of 72,000
    acres. According to state officials responsible for land acquisition, the
    East Coast Buffer lands are under intense development pressure from urban
    and agricultural expansion, and their acquisition must be accelerated to
    prevent them from being converted to incompatible uses, such as housing
    developments.

    For the Farm Bill grant of $36.9 million for the East Coast Buffer, Interior
    accepted as the state's match (1) $15.9 million in funds and (2) 33 parcels
    of land that the District was in the process of acquiring for $21 million.
    As part of the grant agreement, Interior agreed to accept parcels that the
    District was acquiring as long as the parcels were purchased after the
    enactment of the Farm Bill (Apr. 4, 1996). Although the acquisition of each
    of the 33 parcels was completed after this date, the District had begun to
    purchase all of these parcels before the Farm Bill was passed. The District
    had ordered appraisals for each of the 33 properties from 1 to 9 months
    before the Farm Bill's passage. According to Interior officials, the
    Secretary accepted the 33 parcels as part of the state's match because it
    wanted to give the state credit for the lands it was acquiring. Because
    Interior accepted parcels that the District was in the process of acquiring,
    it did not further its goal of buying as much land as possible with the
    grant funds. If Interior had required a dollar-for-dollar match, $21 million
    would have been available to acquire additional lands.

    In fairness, as with the Southern Golden Gate Estates grant, the District
    has continued to acquire lands on its own in the East Coast Buffer and has
    thus essentially met part of its cost-sharing requirement, even though the
    lands it has acquired were not purchased as part of the grant. Since the
    grant agreement was approved in 1996, the District has spent an additional
    $10 million to acquire lands in the East Coast Buffer. By acquiring these
    lands, the District has effectively reduced its cost-sharing obligation to
    $11 million ($21 million − $10 million = $11 million).

    Interior approved the purchase of another 12 parcels in the East Coast
    Buffer area and agreed to share the cost of these parcels equally with the
    state. The state was acquiring these 12 parcels as part of the settlement of
    a lawsuit filed against the District in December 1994, or 2 years before the
    approval of the Farm Bill grant. Specifically, the owners of the 12 parcels
    sued the District for inverse condemnation,11 claiming that the District had
    flooded their lands and publicly marked them for acquisition, thereby
    decreasing their value. After the parties failed to resolve the lawsuit, the
    District's governing board agreed to acquire the 12 parcels by condemnation
    for $4.3 million, a price set by the court that included interest and legal
    fees. The federal share came from the $36.9 million in Farm Bill funds, and
    the state's share came from its $15.9 million contribution--Interior paid
    $2.14 million, and the state paid another $2.14 million. Interior approved
    the purchase of these parcels because nothing in the Farm Bill legislation
    or the grant agreement precluded the District from spending grant funds to
    acquire property by condemnation and because Interior had previously
    accepted lands that the state had bought as part of a legal settlement. Had
    Interior not accepted the purchase of these parcels, $4.3 million would have
    been available to acquire additional lands.

    While land acquisition is critical to the success of the restoration effort,
    the South Florida ecosystem is so large that not all of the lands within it
    can be acquired and preserved. In our 1999 report, we concluded that a
    strategic plan outlining how the restoration of the ecosystem will occur
    would increase the chances of success for this complex, long-term
    restoration initiative. Similarly, a land acquisition plan would increase
    the Task Force's chances of success. Although the Task Force cannot acquire
    lands, it is responsible for coordinating the federal and state agencies
    that do acquire lands. A land acquisition plan that clearly articulates the
    needs and priorities of the Task Force to participating federal and state
    agencies would be valuable in coordinating the agencies' land acquisition
    activities. Furthermore, without a plan, the Task Force cannot (1) determine
    how much land will be needed to accomplish its goals, (2) estimate the full
    cost of acquiring these lands, (3) measure progress in acquiring lands for
    the restoration, or (4) increase the chance that the lands acquired are
    those that are most needed. Such information is important to provide status
    reports to the Congress and the state of Florida, which are jointly funding
    the restoration initiative. The efforts of the federal and state agencies to
    identify lands for acquisition could serve as a good starting point for
    developing a plan, and the Task Force should build on these efforts. We
    envision that the land acquisition plan will be a work in progress that the
    Task Force and others--such as the Congress--can use to monitor progress in
    land acquisition throughout the course of the initiative.

    As important as a land acquisition plan is the acquisition of as much land
    as possible with the funds available for this purpose, because undeveloped
    land in South Florida is becoming increasingly scarce and costly. Although
    the Farm Bill did not require cost sharing, Interior recognized the
    importance of this approach and established a cost-sharing policy with the
    state. To the extent that Interior did not choose to follow its own
    cost-sharing guidance, it did not achieve its goal of purchasing as much
    land as possible with the Farm Bill funds. We are not making a
    recommendation because the grant agreements for all of the Farm Bill funds
    have been finalized and most of the $200 million in Farm Bill funds has been
    spent. Furthermore, appropriations to Interior for land acquisition grants
    to the state of Florida from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1999
    and 2000 provide for a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement and provide that new
    state appropriations must be used for the state's share.

    To ensure that the lands needed to accomplish the goals of the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Initiative are identified and acquired, we recommend
    that the Secretary of the Interior, as the Chairperson of the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, in conjunction with the other members of
    the Task Force, develop a land acquisition plan. This plan would include (1)
    an assessment of the lands needed to accomplish each of the goals of the
    restoration, (2) a description of the purpose for which the lands will be
    acquired and how they will be managed, (3) an estimate of the cost of these
    lands, (4) an estimate of when the lands will be needed for related
    restoration projects, and (5) the agencies responsible for acquiring the
    lands. This plan should be updated to reflect changes and additions to the
    restoration initiative's land acquisition needs.

    We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior, whose
    Secretary chairs the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; the
    state of Florida's Everglades Policy Coordinator; the South Florida Water
    Management District; and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
    for review and comment.

    The Department of the Interior provided comments signed by the Counselor to
    the Secretary, who, as the Secretary's designee, also serves as the chair of
    the Task Force. The Department concurred with our recommendation that the
    Task Force develop an overall land acquisition plan and stated that it would
    recommend that the member agencies undertake an effort to integrate existing
    land acquisition programs into a single overall plan. The Department, noting
    that the plan would build on the land acquisition plans and programs of the
    Task Force's member agencies, agreed with us that the Task Force is the
    appropriate entity and has the statutory authority under the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 to coordinate the development of an overall land
    acquisition plan.

    The Department did not agree with our conclusion that it did not follow the
    cost-sharing guidance it established for spending Farm Bill funds and,
    therefore, did not achieve its goal of purchasing as much land as possible
    with these funds. In its comments, the Department stated that we did not
    fully reflect the goals for the expenditure of the $200 million in Farm Bill
    funds and that we did not accurately represent the expected ultimate cost
    share for the lands acquired with Farm Bill funds. The Department stated
    that one of the goals of spending Farm Bill funds was to acquire the
    Talisman lands. The Department decided to purchase these lands, even though
    the state was not able to provide its full cost share for the transaction,
    because the acquisition was of paramount importance for future water storage
    and water quality improvement. In addition, the Department stated that the
    East Coast Buffer and Talisman lands will ultimately be used for the Corps'
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (formerly called the Restudy) and,
    as such, will be subject to a full cost share between the Corps and the
    state. The Department also provided technical clarifications to the report,
    which we incorporated as appropriate.

    We recognize that these land acquisitions have been identified as important
    to the restoration initiative, and we are not taking issue with their
    acquisition. The focus of our review was to determine whether the Department
    had accomplished its intended purpose of maximizing the amount of land
    acquired with Farm Bill funds. The Department, in its comments to us and in
    an internal memo, stated that the main purpose of establishing the
    cost-sharing agreement was to increase the amount of funds available so that
    it could buy as much land as possible. Numerous federal and state officials
    have told us that the opportunity to acquire lands in South Florida is
    disappearing and that lands--particularly those on the east side of the
    natural system where the East Coast Buffer is located--are under intense
    development pressure. We acknowledge that the cost-sharing agreement was not
    legislatively mandated, and we believe that the Department showed financial
    acuity in establishing such an agreement. However, while we recognize that
    the Secretary of the Interior retained the discretion to waive the
    cost-sharing requirement under the framework agreement, we continue to
    believe that that the Secretary's decision to waive the cost-sharing
    requirement or to approve other cost-sharing approaches for the Farm Bill
    grants did not achieve the Department's goal of buying as much land as
    possible. Furthermore, although the Department believes that the cost share
    for at least the East Coast Buffer and Talisman parcels will be equalized
    when the Restudy components are built, we do not agree that the Department
    should rely on future contributions--for as-yet-unauthorized projects--to
    meet the cost-sharing requirement. The Department of the Interior's comments
    and our detailed responses appear in appendix III.

    The state of Florida provided comments from the Everglades Policy
    Coordinator, together with an additional set of consolidated comments from
    the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida
    Water Management District. The state fundamentally disagreed with the
    conclusions and recommendation in our report. The state's disagreement
    focused on three areas, which are presented and discussed below. The state
    also provided technical clarifications to the report, which we incorporated
    as appropriate. The state of Florida's comments and our responses appear in
    appendix IV.

    First, the state believes that our report did not fairly characterize the
    state's past contributions and continued commitment to land acquisition in
    support of the protection and restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. We do
    not believe that this is true. We recognize throughout the report that the
    state has a number of land acquisition initiatives and, over the years, has
    contributed significantly to the acquisition of lands for the ecosystem.
    Furthermore, our report discusses the role of the state agencies in
    acquiring lands for the initiative and describes the programs in some
    detail.

    Second, the state disagreed with our recommendation that the Task Force
    create a land acquisition plan because it believes our report and
    recommendation imply that the Task Force should plan to acquire and manage
    all the lands needed for the restoration initiative. The state indicated
    that because it has the best-funded and most comprehensive conservation land
    acquisition program in the nation, it is in a better position than the
    federal government to acquire and manage land acquisitions for the
    restoration initiative. We did not envision, in recommending that the Task
    Force develop a land acquisition plan, that the Task Force would be the
    entity to acquire and manage all lands for the initiative or that the
    process of acquiring lands would be federally driven. We believe--and
    clearly state in our report--that the federal and state agencies
    participating in the initiative are responsible for the acquisition and
    management of lands and that these agencies have developed a number of plans
    and studies that are a good starting point for the Task Force to use in
    developing a land acquisition plan. The Task Force was created specifically
    to coordinate and facilitate the efforts of the agencies participating in
    the restoration initiative, and we believe that it is the appropriate entity
    to develop a land acquisition plan to communicate the initiative's land
    needs and priorities to those agencies that have land acquisition
    responsibilities.

    Third, the state said that throughout the report, our characterization of
    its compliance with Interior's cost-sharing requirement is misleading
    because, according to the state, it has spent more than the amount needed
    for a 50-percent match. The state's assertion is not accurate. We
    specifically point out the cost share required by each grant and identify
    the dollar amount contributed by the state in each instance. We believe that
    the state disagrees with our interpretation of what the cost-sharing
    requirement entailed and would like us to count as part of its match lands
    that it acquired before the Farm Bill grants were approved. However, we
    believe that lands acquired or in the process of being acquired before the
    grants were approved should not be counted as part of the match because
    these lands do not maximize the acreage acquired with Farm Bill funds
    (including the state's matching funds) and do not, therefore, help the
    Department meet its goal of maximizing the lands purchased with Farm Bill
    funds. We did give the state credit for lands it acquired on its own after
    the Farm Bill grants were approved because these lands increased the acreage
    purchased after the Farm Bill was passed and the funds used to purchase them
    could have served as the state's match.

    To determine what the Task Force has done to identify and acquire lands
    needed to accomplish the goals of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    Initiative, we contacted officials from the South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration Task Force. We also obtained and analyzed applicable reports,
    plans, and other documents related to identifying and acquiring lands for
    the restoration initiative, such as the Task Force's Fiscal Year 2000
    Cross-Cut Budget, Integrated Financial Plan: Calendar Year 1999, and 1999
    biennial report called Maintaining the Momentum. In addition, we met with
    the Chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, the
    executive director of the Task Force, the chair of the working group, the
    chair of the Task Force's Science Coordination Team, the counselor to the
    Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and the environmental
    coordinator for the governor of Florida. We also met with representatives of
    the Miccosukee Tribe and of Florida's sugar industry.

    Because the Task Force cannot acquire lands and must rely on the
    participating agencies to do so, we contacted both headquarters and field
    officials from the federal and state agencies involved in land acquisition.
    These agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District.
    At each agency, we interviewed cognizant officials about their land
    acquisition programs, including the criteria and process used to identify
    and prioritize land for acquisition. We also obtained and reviewed
    information, including annual reports, related to the agencies' land
    acquisition programs. In addition, we obtained, analyzed, and compiled data
    from these five agencies on the funds expended for land acquisition for the
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative from 1996 through 1999 and
    the acreage acquired. We did not independently verify the reliability of
    these data or trace the data to the systems from which they came, nor did we
    verify the completeness or accuracy of the data. Such an effort would have
    required a significant investment of time and resources and these data were
    not critical to our findings and conclusions.

    To determine how the Department of the Interior maximized the lands acquired
    with $200 million in Farm Bill funds, we interviewed officials from the
    Department of the Interior, the South Florida Water Management District, and
    the Florida Department of Environmental Protection who were responsible for
    submitting, approving, and administering the grants funded with these
    moneys. We reviewed applicable laws and regulations and criteria developed
    by the Department of the Interior for allocating the Farm Bill funds. We
    held extensive discussions with officials from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Division of Federal Aid in Atlanta about the policies and
    procedures developed to administer the Farm Bill grants and about Interior's
    cost-sharing policy and process for reviewing, approving, and monitoring
    individual grants and the funds expended. In addition, we discussed the
    review and approval of specific parcels acquired under these grants,
    including Federal Aid's examination of appraisals. We also reviewed the
    files maintained by Federal Aid officials on the individual grants. We
    analyzed related quarterly and annual progress reports to determine how the
    grant funds were expended and how many acres were acquired. In addition, we
    obtained and compared the four Farm Bill grant agreements with the
    Department's cost-sharing policy to determine whether the grants were
    consistent with the policy. We obtained and analyzed data on the hundreds of
    individual parcels acquired with these funds to determine how the costs were
    shared between the federal and state governments and when the parcels were
    acquired. While Land and Water Conservation funds have been authorized for
    grants to the state for land acquisition in fiscal years 1998 through 2000,
    only the funds for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 have a statutory matching
    requirement, which means that the state will match these funds with new
    state funds. One grant has been awarded from the funds for fiscal years 1999
    and 2000, but the grant funds had not been expended as of September 1999. As
    a result, we could not determine if the cost-sharing requirement for these
    funds had been applied and did not include them in our review.

    We conducted our review from July 1999 through March 2000 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    We are providing copies of this report to the Honorable Bruce Babbitt,
    Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; and
    other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
    request.

    If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.
    Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
    Jim Wells
    Director, Energy, Resources,
    and Science Issues

    List of Requesters

    The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski
    Chairman, Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Craig Thomas
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Historic Preservation, and Recreation
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Slade Gorton
    Chairman, Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Ralph Regula
    Chairman, Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations
    House of Representatives

    Members of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

    The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force consists of
    representatives from 15 federal, state, and local agencies and tribal
    governments participating in the restoration initiative. The members of the
    Task Force as of February 2000 are listed below.

    Mary Doyle, Chair
    Counselor to the Secretary
    Department of the Interior

    Michael L. Davis
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
    Department of Defense

    Jonathan Charles Fox
    Assistant Administrator for Water
    Environmental Protection Agency

    Vacant
    Department of Transportation

    Glenda Humiston
    Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources
    Department of Agriculture

    Lois Schiffer
    Assistant Attorney General--Environment
    and Natural Resources
    Department of Justice

    Sally J. Yozell
    Deputy Assistant Secretary--Oceans and
    Atmosphere
    National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
    Administration
    Department of Commerce

    Terrence "Rock" Salt
    Executive Director
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

    J. Allison DeFoor, II
    Environmental Policy Coordinator
    Office of the Governor
    State of Florida

    David B. Struhs
    Secretary
    Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection

    Michael Collins
    Chairman
    Governing Board
    South Florida Water Management District

    Clarence E. Anthony
    Mayor
    City of South Bay

    Raoul Valdes-Fauli
    Mayor
    City of Coral Gables

    Dexter Lehtinen
    Special Assistant for Everglades Issues
    to the Miccosukee Tribe

    Jim Shore
    General Counsel to the Seminole Tribe
    of Florida

    Federal and State Land Acquisition

    A number of federal and state agencies are acquiring lands for the South
    Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. The federal and state governments
    already own and manage many lands in South Florida, and these lands will be
    managed for restoration purposes. The federal government manages over 20
    areas, totaling about 2.9 million acres, including 4 national parks and
    preserves and 16 federal wildlife refuges. The state manages a total of
    about 1.7 million acres in the region, including parks, refuges, forests,
    and water management areas. Both the federal and state governments intend to
    acquire more lands for the restoration initiative. Together with already
    existing parks, preserves, refuges, and other public lands, the lands
    acquired will form the core of the natural ecosystem and will be managed to
    achieve the three goals of the initiative--getting the water right,
    restoring and enhancing the natural system, and transforming the built
    environment.

    The federal agencies that are acquiring lands for the South Florida
    ecosystem are the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is acquiring lands
    for water projects related to other lands being acquired by the Park
    Service. The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service each manage
    significant portions of land in the ecosystem; in total, the agencies manage
    about 2.9 million acres of parks and refuges. The agencies generally acquire
    lands either to expand the boundaries of existing parks or refuges or to
    acquire inholdings--nonfederally owned lands within the boundaries of parks
    or refuges. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the primary source of
    funding for lands acquired by the Park Service and one of the main sources
    of funding for lands acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The money in
    this fund, which is largely raised through royalties on offshore oil and gas
    development rights on federal lands, is appropriated by the Congress.

    The Park Service is acquiring lands for its South Florida parks and
    preserve--Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress
    National Preserve. Lands for national parks are generally acquired through
    congressionally authorized and funded expansions or purchases of inholdings.
    Each year, the National Park Service proposes a number of land acquisition
    projects, identified by the individual parks and prioritized by Park Service
    headquarters. During the budget process, the Congress authorizes and
    appropriates Land and Water Conservation Funds for these projects. For
    fiscal year 2000, Everglades National Park received $20 million, Big Cypress
    National Preserve received $11.3 million, and Biscayne National Park
    received $600,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
    acquisition.

    The Congress authorized a 146,000-acre expansion of Big Cypress National
    Preserve in 1988 and a 107,600-acre expansion of Everglades National Park in
    1989. During fiscal years 1996 through 1999, the Park Service acquired
    14,618 acres for Everglades National Park and, in total, has acquired 75,250
    acres in the expansion area, including some lands donated by the state.
    According to Park Service officials, the expansion lands will be mostly
    acquired by the end of fiscal year 2000. The Park Service acquired 93,393
    acres for the preserve from 1996 through 1999 and, in total, has acquired
    107,002 acres for the expansion, including lands donated by the state. The
    Park Service has been acquiring lands within the authorized boundaries of
    Biscayne National Park and, from 1996 through 1999, acquired about 1,065
    acres for the park.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands to protect important wetlands,
    protect important habitats for threatened and endangered species, and
    provide wildlife-oriented public use. The Service identifies lands to create
    or expand refuges under several authorities, including the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act of 1929, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Fish and
    Wildlife Act of 1956. Lands for acquisition are generally identified by the
    field offices, and then, depending on the source of the funds intended to be
    used to acquire the lands, some lands are placed on a nationally prioritized
    list and others are prioritized by the Service's regional offices. Funds for
    acquisition come primarily from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the
    Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, some of whose funding is raised through
    the sale of duck stamps and taxes on hunting equipment. In addition to
    acquiring lands for habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service develops
    protection plans for threatened and endangered species, some of which
    include land acquisition. For South Florida, the agency developed the
    Multi-Species Recovery Plan, which identifies habitats throughout the
    ecosystem that can be acquired by other federal and state agencies or
    protected through other means, such as purchases of conservation easements.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 16 refuges in South Florida, including
    the Ten Thousand Island refuge; the J.N. "Ding" Darling refuge, the Matlacha
    Pass refuge, the Hobe Sound refuge, and the National Key Deer refuge. The
    Fish and Wildlife Service also considers its activities in three other
    refuges--Archie Carr, Lake Wales Ridge, and Pelican Island--to be part of
    the restoration effort; these refuges are outside the boundaries of the
    South Florida Water Management District, which is the official boundary of
    the ecosystem, but the Service includes these refuges because they provide
    habitat protection to threatened and endangered species. In South Florida,
    from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999, the agency acquired 40,194
    acres of land for nine refuges. The agency spent $12 million for these
    lands, mostly from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In fiscal year
    2000, the agency plans to spend $8.8 million to acquire lands for four
    refuges.

    The state of Florida has several ongoing land acquisition programs. Two of
    the state's key programs for land acquisition are the Conservation and
    Recreation Lands (CARL) program and the Save Our Rivers (SOR) program. CARL,
    which was created in 1979, identifies, prioritizes, and acquires lands
    statewide for recreation and conservation purposes, and SOR, which was
    created in 1981, identifies and acquires lands significant for water
    management purposes. The state considers the recommendations of the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the state Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission's Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife
    Habitat Conservation System in planning and prioritizing land acquisition
    projects. In addition, the state acquires lands through its Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission, its Greenways program, and its Florida
    Community Trust program. These programs acquire lands for the conservation
    and protection of natural lands and open spaces, for the creation of
    greenways (natural areas along rivers and other corridors such as trails),
    or for wildlife management areas, parks, and forests.

    The state's acquisition programs are funded from two primary sources--the
    Florida Preservation Trust Fund and documentary stamp taxes. The
    Preservation 2000 fund was established in 1990, when the state legislature
    passed the Preservation 2000 Act to establish a land acquisition fund to
    protect the integrity of ecological systems in the state, provide for the
    preservation of fish and wildlife habitats, provide lands for recreation,
    and protect water sources. The fund generated about $300 million per year
    from the sale of bonds, which will continue through the end of 2000. In
    1999, the program was reauthorized for another 10 years as the Florida
    Forever program.12 Money from the Preservation 2000 fund is distributed to
    each of the land acquisition programs in the state in varying shares--CARL
    and SOR receive a total of 80 percent of the funds. The state's documentary
    stamp tax, which raised about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999, repays the
    Preservation 2000 bonds and provides additional funding for the CARL and SOR
    programs. These two sources provide an annual payment to the CARL and SOR
    programs. In fiscal year 1999, the programs received about $213 million and
    about $153 million, respectively, to acquire lands throughout the state.

    This program, the state's largest, acquires environmentally endangered
    lands, lands to protect species and habitats, lands to protect or restore
    important ecosystems, and lands to provide recreational opportunities. In
    fiscal year 2000, CARL had 1.4 million acres remaining to be acquired in its
    state plan. From 1996 through 1999, CARL acquired 179,130 acres in South
    Florida, worth $326 million.13 According to state officials, about 630,000
    acres in South Florida remain to be acquired for habitat and conservation
    purposes.

    Lands to be acquired by the CARL program are first proposed by any party,
    including the public, state or federal employees or agencies, or others.
    These proposals are evaluated by biologists, land managers, and other
    specialists to determine the boundaries needed to preserve important natural
    communities and within which lands will be acquired. The lands are also
    evaluated for public access and recreational opportunities. On the basis of
    these evaluations, the Land Acquisition and Management Advisory
    Council--which includes the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Florida
    Department of Environmental Protection, the Director of the Florida Division
    of Forestry, the Executive Director of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
    Commission, the Director of the Division of Historical Resources, and the
    Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs--votes initially whether to
    conduct a further evaluation and public hearing process.

    After a project has been proposed and initially approved, it receives a
    public hearing, during which landowners can request that their lands not be
    considered for acquisition. If a proposal makes it through this public
    hearing, the Advisory Council then holds another vote on whether to design a
    project for the land, which includes an analysis of the land's ownership,
    ease of acquisition, and regulatory controls in place. A team of land
    managers, real estate appraisers, and land acquisition agents develops a
    plan to acquire the land, which includes the proposed cost, the possible
    coordination among different agencies for land management, and proposed
    phases for acquisition. Further public hearings are held, and then the
    Advisory Council ranks the projects that have made it through this process.
    New projects are added to the state priority list, which is organized into
    six groups--projects that are a priority, projects that can be acquired at a
    bargain or cost-shared price, projects that are substantially complete,
    multiparcel projects, less-than-fee-simple purchase projects, and projects
    involved in negotiations that have reached an impasse. These are then
    approved by the Board of Trustees--the Governor and the Cabinet--of the
    Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

    The state acquires land through SOR, which enables each of the state's five
    water management districts to acquire lands that are important for water
    management, including river floodplains, wetlands, acquifer recharge areas,
    springs, and lakes. The water districts are responsible for managing the
    state's water resources for the benefit of the public and for providing
    environmental protection, water supply, flood control, and water-quality
    protection. The South Florida Water Management District is responsible for
    these activities within its boundary, which surrounds the Chain of Lakes,
    Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades area and is considered the official
    boundary of the South Florida ecosystem for restoration purposes. The
    District is also the local agency, with the Army Corps of Engineers,
    responsible for acquiring land and constructing water projects proposed in
    the review of the Central and Southern Florida Project (Restudy). From
    fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999, the District acquired about
    135,328 acres worth about $217 million.14 According to the District, about
    110,000 acres remain to be acquired in South Florida for water projects.

    The lands that the District proposes to acquire are nominated by private and
    public groups and by the District's staff, in accordance with the District's
    strategic planning needs. A team of technical staff evaluates the water and
    natural resource values of a proposed acquisition. This evaluation analyzes
    the land's usefulness for water management purposes, water supply,
    conservation and protection purposes, habitat diversity, species diversity,
    vulnerability (to development), public use, and other purposes. In addition
    to this analysis, the team evaluates the benefits of lands that will be used
    primarily for off-site benefits. For example, the evaluation considers the
    ability of wetlands to serve as water quality systems, to serve as recharge
    areas for underground acquifers, or to serve as buffers to protect habitats
    or to provide public enjoyment. After this evaluation, the projects are
    reviewed by the District's management and are discussed in public meetings.
    Projects that are approved at these levels are discussed and selected by the
    District's governing board. At any point in the process, private landowners
    can request that their lands be removed from consideration, and the District
    honors these requests.

    The state, using its Preservation 2000 funds, also acquires greenways,
    wildlife lands, and other community lands. The state programs, which have
    received about $40 million per year from Preservation 2000 in addition to
    other funding, include the following:

    � The Florida Communities Trust helps local governments acquire conservation
    lands and open spaces.

    � The Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program acquires lands to
    conserve greenways and trails to link natural areas and open spaces,
    conserve natural landscapes and ecosystems, and offer recreational
    opportunities.

    � The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida State
    Parks, and Florida Division of Forestry each acquire inholdings and
    additions to wildlife management areas, state parks, and forests.

    These programs identify and acquire lands. In addition, the Florida Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission conducted a statewide review of habitat
    lands that can be acquired by other agencies or protected by such means as
    conservation easements, cooperative agreements with private owners, or tax
    breaks. This study, Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat
    Conservation System, identifies strategic habitat areas that should be
    protected to save rare plants, animals, and natural communities.

    Comments From the Department of the Interior

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's letter,
    dated March 10, 2000.

    1. Our review focused on the Department's establishment and implementation
    of the cost-sharing policy. While one of the Department's goals was to
    acquire the Talisman lands with Farm Bill funds, we believe it is evident
    that the purpose of requiring a dollar-for-dollar match is to increase the
    funds available and thus acquire more lands than otherwise would be
    possible. Furthermore, our report noted that the lands acquired with Farm
    Bill funds--particularly the East Coast Buffer and Talisman lands--will
    likely be used for the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
    (formerly the Restudy). While it is expected that the cost of the Corps'
    restoration plan will be shared equally by the federal and state
    governments, the Department's assertions about the future use of the land
    and about sharing the cost of the plan's projects--which may or may not come
    to pass because the plan has not yet been authorized--are not a substitute
    for the finite match required under its own policy. By not consistently
    requiring that this cost-share be met, the Department did not achieve its
    goal of acquiring as much land as possible with these funds, which had to be
    obligated by December 1999, and missed opportunities to acquire more land.

    Our report recognizes that the Congress did not require a cost-share for the
    Farm Bill funds, and the report commends the Department for demonstrating
    the financial acuity to establish one. We do not take issue with the
    acquisition of the Talisman lands, nor do we disagree that one of the
    purposes of the Congress in providing Farm Bill funds was to acquire the
    property. However, because we believe that the establishment of the
    cost-sharing requirement reflects the Department's intent to acquire as much
    land as possible with the Farm Bill funds, we continue to believe that the
    Department should have required a 50/50 match from the state. We therefore
    did not revise the report.

    2. The Department also notes that its concern that the state of Florida
    would not be able to provide 50 percent of the funds for the acquisition. As
    noted in our report and in the comments provided by the state, Florida has
    $300 million per year for land acquisition programs and is working closely
    with the Task Force and federal agencies on the acquisition of lands that
    will be used for the restoration. We believe that the Department and the
    state could have worked out an arrangement--as they did for the Carroll
    property when the state could not provide its share for that parcel--under
    which the state would have acquired lands in other areas over time to
    provide its match. The Department indicated in an internal memo that it was
    going to seek a commitment from the state to fund land acquisition at least
    equal to the state's matching requirement; however, the Department never
    sought such an agreement.

    3. We revised our report accordingly.

    4. Our report acknowledges that the 1996 Farm Bill did not include a
    cost-sharing requirement and that the Secretary of the Interior retained the
    right to waive the matching requirement established by the Department.
    However, our purpose is to point out that the Department, after taking the
    commendable step of establishing a policy to increase the funds available
    for land acquisition, did not consistently apply this policy. While the
    Department correctly states that in-kind contributions are allowed under the
    federal grant regulations, its acceptance of lands that had already been
    purchased or were in the process of being purchased in place of cash did not
    increase the funds available for land acquisition and thus did not maximize
    the lands purchased with Farm Bill funds.

    5. We revised our report accordingly.

    6. We revised our report accordingly.

    7. Our review focused on the cost-sharing agreement between the federal and
    state governments. The Department is correct that the total cost of the
    parcel was $152.5 million, plus $0.7 million for The Nature Conservancy's
    administrative costs, and that the federal government's share of the total
    cost was 66 percent. The remaining share (34 percent) was paid not only by
    the state but was also by third-party purchasers. Therefore, we did not
    change our discussion of the federal and state costs for this reason, but we
    revised our report to reflect the full cost of the parcel and the
    contribution of outside parties in the transaction.

    8. As noted in our report, state-purchased lands located within the Southern
    Golden Gate Estates are not subject to the same management and use
    provisions as those included in the grant. However, we did revise our report
    to indicate that the Department of the Interior and the state are currently
    developing protocols that will govern the use and management of lands
    acquired in the Southern Golden Gate Estates, whether these lands are
    acquired with Farm Bill funds or independently by the state. Once the
    protocols are finalized, the lands acquired independently by the state will
    be subject to the same grant provisions as those acquired directly with
    federal funding. In addition, in discussing the state's cost-share for the
    Southern Golden Gate Estates, we gave the state credit for effectively
    matching the $38.1 million in federal funds provided in the grant, even
    though the Department did not require the state to match the funds. We did
    not change the figure to $60 million as the Department suggested because the
    figure cited by the Department is an anticipated amount, not a final amount,
    and because we already acknowledged in our report that the state had
    independently purchased lands in the area worth $52 million.

    9. We recognize that in-kind contributions are allowed under the federal
    grant regulations. However, as we noted earlier, the Department, by
    accepting lands that had already been purchased or were in the process of
    being purchased instead of cash, did not increase the funds available for
    land acquisition and thus did not maximize the lands purchased with Farm
    Bill funds. We also believe that the state was responsible for acquiring the
    12 parcels in the East Coast Buffer that were part of a legal settlement
    against the South Florida Water Management District because the state took
    the actions that resulted in the settlement and the subsequent acquisition.

    10. We revised our report accordingly.

    11. We revised our report accordingly.

    Comments From the State of Florida

    The following are GAO's comments on the state of Florida's letter, dated
    March 10, 2000.

    1. Our report does not recommend that the Task Force acquire and manage all
    lands for the restoration initiative; we clearly state that the federal and
    state agencies participating in the initiative are responsible for these
    activities. We recognize that the state is committed to the restoration
    effort and has initiated a number of activities and programs aimed at
    restoring the ecosystem. However, because the Task Force was created
    specifically to coordinate and facilitate the efforts of the numerous
    federal, state, local, and tribal entities participating in the restoration
    initiative, we believe that the Task Force is the appropriate body to
    develop a land acquisition plan. Furthermore, we believe that a land
    acquisition plan will allow the Task Force to clearly communicate the
    initiative's land needs and priorities to the federal and state agencies
    that are responsible for land acquisition. Our recommendation does not
    envision that the Task Force would usurp the authorities of the agencies
    that acquire lands, nor that it would supplant or duplicate the planning
    processes they have under way. As we point out in our report, we believe
    that the planning efforts of the federal and state agencies are a good
    starting point for the Task Force to develop a land acquisition plan.

    2. The numbered items referred to by the state were not intended to reflect
    the goals but were intended to describe activities for which lands will be
    needed. However, to avoid confusion with the goals, we revised the report
    accordingly.

    3. The state is correct that regional and local agencies acquire lands in
    the ecosystem. However, we did not make this change because our report
    focuses specifically on lands acquired by the federal and state agencies.

    4. Our report recognizes that the Farm Bill legislation did not require
    cost-sharing and that the state agreed to match Farm Bill funds dollar for
    dollar. Our report also acknowledges that the state has continued to acquire
    lands on its own--separate from the grant agreements--in the Southern Golden
    Gate Estates and the East Coast Buffer. In the case of Southern Golden Gate
    Estates, our report clearly states that the funds expended by Florida in
    this area have more than exceeded the cost share required for the grant. In
    addition, we point out that the state's expenditure to acquire lands in the
    East Coast Buffer that were not part of the grant reduced its cost-sharing
    obligation. Therefore, we did not revise our report.

    5. As we stated earlier, our recommendation does not envision that the Task
    Force would usurp the authorities of the agencies that acquire lands, nor
    that it would supplant or duplicate the planning processes they have under
    way. However, we believe that because lands are so critical to achieving the
    initiative's goals, a land acquisition plan such as the one we recommend
    would increase the initiative's chances of success.

    Furthermore, we believe that the map recently developed by the state that
    shows the past and planned acquisitions of the federal and state agencies is
    a valuable tool to visualize the ecosystem and locate lands for future
    acquisition. However, because the map does not provide the information on
    cost, time frames, or alternatives to acquisition that a land acquisition
    plan would provide, we do not believe that the map alone can take the place
    of a land acquisition plan.

    6. Our report recognizes that state of Florida has a history of acquiring
    lands for conservation purposes, and our report includes information in the
    introduction and background sections and in appendix II on the state's land
    acquisition programs and holdings. We do not disagree that the state has
    spent more than the federal government on restoration activities. However,
    our report correctly points out that the state agreed to match the Farm Bill
    funds dollar for dollar. This cost share was established, even though the
    Farm Bill legislation did not require it, because the Department of the
    Interior recognized that lands in South Florida are under development
    pressure and wanted to maximize the lands acquired with these funds. In
    addition, we acknowledge that the state has continued to buy lands in the
    ecosystem on its own.

    7. Our report already includes some discussion of Florida's efforts in 1991
    and 1994. However, we added a statement to describe the 1983 Save Our
    Everglades effort and indicate that the program is ongoing.

    8. Our report does not state that the "right" lands for the restoration
    initiative have not been identified. Rather, our report focuses on the fact
    that the Task Force has established three restoration goals and has not
    identified all the lands needed to achieve these goals. Our report refers to
    hundreds of thousands of acres of land, including many lands identified by
    the state programs, that could be used for the restoration goals. We believe
    that as the entity responsible for coordinating the federal, state, local,
    and tribal restoration activities, the Task Force should develop a plan that
    identifies lands needed for each of the restoration goals. Most important,
    we do not envision that the Task Force would supplant the ongoing efforts of
    the federal and state agencies; rather, we see it as building on those
    efforts.

    9. We revised our report accordingly.

    10. For the purposes of describing lands acquired for the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, we focused on lands acquired from 1996
    through 1999. We chose this period of time because the South Florida
    Ecosystem Task Force was expanded in 1996 to include state, local, and
    tribal representatives, as well as federal agency representatives. While not
    presented separately in the report, information on the acreage acquired by
    the state for conservation and preservation purposes was added to the
    report. In addition, the state's land acquisition programs are described in
    appendix II of the report.

    11. Because the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force established
    three goals to accomplish the restoration--all of which require lands, we
    believe that the Task Force is the appropriate entity to develop a land
    acquisition plan. Accordingly, our recommendation is addressed to the
    Secretary of the Interior, as the Chairperson of the Task Force.

    12. We revised our report accordingly.

    13. Our purpose in discussing the Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Closing
    the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System in our report is
    to show that studies and assessments identifying lands needed for
    conservation and habitat preservation have already been done and that this
    information is available to the Task Force. We also revised our discussion
    of the state's land acquisition programs in appendix II of the report to
    reflect the state's consideration of this information in its planning
    process.

    14. We agree with the state that questions such as how much land has been
    acquired and where, and how much remains to be acquired are critical and
    need to be answered. Accordingly we recommended that the Task Force develop
    a land acquisition plan that would identify the lands that need to be
    acquired to accomplish the initiative's goals. We also agree that lands need
    to be acquired to protect and restore the ecosystem. As we have stated, we
    commend the Department of the Interior for showing the foresight to
    establish a cost-sharing policy that would enable it to acquire as much land
    as possible, given that undeveloped land in South Florida is becoming
    increasingly scarce.

    15. Our report already acknowledges the efforts of the state to
    independently acquire lands for the protection and restoration of the
    ecosystem. Although we recognize that several local governments have
    established land acquisition programs, consolidated information on the
    acreage and the funds expended by local governments to acquire lands for the
    restoration initiative was not readily available.

    16. The purpose of this table is to show the state's dollar contribution to
    the Farm Bill funds, as written into each of the grant agreements. Our
    report clearly shows that the state continued to acquire lands independently
    in the East Coast Buffer and Southern Golden Gate Estates grant areas. As
    the state requested, we revised the table to reflect the state's ongoing
    independent acquisition of lands in the grant areas--we added $10 million
    for the East Coast Buffer and $38.1 million for the Southern Golden Gate
    Estates.

    17. As noted in our report, state-purchased lands located within the
    Southern Golden Gate Estates are not subject to the same management and use
    provisions as those included in the grant. However, we did include a
    footnote to indicate that the Department of the Interior and the state are
    currently developing protocols that will govern the use and management of
    lands acquired in the Southern Golden Gate Estates whether the lands are
    acquired with Farm Bill funds or independently by the state. Once the
    protocols are finalized, the lands acquired independently by the state will
    be subject to the same grant provisions as those acquired directly with
    federal funding.

    18. We carefully considered all of the state's comments and incorporated the
    suggested changes where appropriate. However, we believe that our report
    accurately reflects the results of our work, and we did not revise our
    conclusions.

    19. We recognize that the Farm Bill grant was in place when the 12 parcels,
    which the South Florida Water Management District had agreed to buy to
    settle an inverse condemnation action, were acquired. However, we believe
    that the state should be responsible for acquiring these lands because the
    actions that resulted in the legal settlement and subsequent acquisition
    were the state's.

    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Barry Hill (202) 512-3841

    Alfredo G�mez, Susan Iott, Chet Janik, and Sherry McDonald also made key
    contributions to this report.

    (141352)

    Table 1: Land Acquisition by Federal and State Agencies and
    Programs for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative,
    Fiscal Years 1996-99 13

    Table 2: Farm Bill Grants and the State's Dollar Match 21

    Figure 1: The Everglades--Past and Present 7

    Figure 2: Location of Lands Acquired With Farm Bill Funds 20

    1. 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, Apr. 22, 1999).

    2. The Florida Everglades Protection Act, passed in 1991, provided water
    management districts with tools for restoring ecosystems. The Florida
    Everglades Forever Act, passed in 1994, established a plan to restore
    significant portions of the South Florida ecosystem through construction,
    research, and regulation.

    3. In addition, numerous local governments in South Florida can acquire
    land, including the governments of Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Martin
    counties and of the city of Miami.

    4. The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended, created the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund and authorizes appropriations from the Fund for
    (1) matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and (2) land
    acquisition for various federal agencies.

    5. The Florida Preservation Trust Fund was created by the Preservation 2000
    Act. Enacted in 1990, the Preservation 2000 Act created a coordinated land
    acquisition program to protect the integrity of ecological systems and
    provide multiple benefits, including the preservation of fish and wildlife
    habitat, recreation space, and water recharge areas. The act provided about
    $300 million per year for land acquisition. The Preservation 2000 Act was
    reauthorized in 1999 as the Florida Forever Act.

    6. More specifically, Interior approved three grants and one cooperative
    agreement. For this discussion, we will refer to all of these as grants. In
    addition to these grants, Interior entered into an interagency agreement
    with the Corps and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the
    construction of a quarantine research facility for melaleuca (a rapidly
    spreading exotic tree from Australia). Interior provided a total of $6.2
    million to the Corps to construct the facility. USDA will operate and
    maintain the facility, which will facilitate ongoing research into the
    eradication of melaleuca through the use of biologic control agents. If left
    unchecked, melaleuca displaces native plant and animal communities and
    threatens the stability of the Florida Everglades ecosystem. Under the terms
    of the original framework agreement, the Corps is not required to match the
    funds.

    7. The Talisman transaction was more complicated than this because it
    involved third-party cost-sharing. The total cost of the lands was actually
    $152.5 million, with an additional $0.7 million being paid to The Nature
    Conservancy for its services in the transaction. The federal government paid
    $100.6 million for the transaction, including $99.9 million for the land (66
    percent of the total cost) and $0.7 million for The Nature Conservancy's
    expenses. The state contributed $34.4 million to the total cost and other
    parties, which included other sugar companies, provided $18.1 million toward
    the total cost. For the sake of discussing the state's cost share for the
    parcel, we focused only on the total costs provided by the federal and state
    governments.

    8. While we recognize that the additional $66 million would have exceeded
    the cost of the Talisman acquisition, these funds could have been used to
    acquire lands in other projects.

    9. Although the grant does not explicitly give the federal government any
    control over lands acquired independently by the state in the project area,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state are drafting protocols that
    would require all the lands in the project area to be used and managed
    according to the grant provisions, whether the lands were acquired with Farm
    Bill funds or independently by the state.

    10. In addition, Interior awarded $13.9 million in Farm Bill funds to an
    existing Land and Water Conservation Fund grant, also made to purchase lands
    in the East Coast Buffer. In total, Interior awarded $50.8 million in Farm
    Bill funds to purchase land in the East Coast Buffer. Interior also required
    the state to provide $13.9 million to match the Farm Bill funds that were
    added to the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant in the East Coast
    Buffer; however, no parcels have been approved for purchase with these
    funds.

    11. The term "inverse condemnation" refers to governmental action that
    substantially diminishes the economic value of private property and for
    which compensation must be paid.

    12. The legislation includes some changes in the administration and
    allocation of the Preservation 2000 fund. According to state officials,
    under the new program, the local agencies will receive a larger share of the
    funding and the fund will be managed by a new governing board.

    13. These figures do not include the acres that the state acquired with Farm
    Bill grant funds.

    14. These figures do not include the acres acquired by the state with Farm
    Bill grant funds or the funds contributed by the state to match the grant
    funds.
    *** End of document. ***