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:

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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

ï¿½ 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;

ï¿½ 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;

ï¿½ the agency responsible for acquiring and managing the lands; and

ï¿½ 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:

ï¿½ The Florida Communities Trust helps local governments acquire conservation
lands and open spaces.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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 Gï¿½mez, 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. ***