Restoring the Everglades: Public Participation in Federal Efforts (Letter
Report, 10/24/95, GAO/RCED-96-5).

Pursuant to congressional requests, GAO reviewed: (1) federal efforts to
involve nonfederal stakeholders in environmental restoration efforts in
South Florida; and (2) the lessons learned about federal and nonfederal
collaboration and consensus-building in South Florida that might be
applicable elsewhere.

GAO found that: (1) federal agencies have involved nonfederal
stakeholders in their environmental restoration efforts in South Florida
by making their meetings and draft products publicly available,
establishing groups with nonfederal members, holding workshops,
soliciting information from the public and then providing feedback on
how it was used, and entering into formal mediation; (2) the working
group of the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem
includes state and tribal officials, but it does not include local
officials and representatives of nongovernmental interests; (3)
restrictions on and uncertainties about advisory committees have limited
nonfederal interests in federal restoration efforts except those for the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; (4) nonfederal stakeholders
prefer to present their environmental concerns during rather than after
the development of federal environmental proposals; (5) external
constraints often dictate the extent of nonfederal involvement in agency
activities and preclude a consensus on appropriate solutions; and (6)
the most federal agencies may be able to achieve is an open airing and
full consideration of all views within the constraints imposed by
external factors.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-5
     TITLE:  Restoring the Everglades: Public Participation in Federal 
             Efforts
      DATE:  10/24/95
   SUBJECT:  Environmental monitoring
             Advisory committees
             Public relations
             National parks
             Natural resources
             Environmental policies
             Federal/state relations
             Interagency relations
             Land management
             Conservation
IDENTIFIER:  Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (FL)
             Florida
             Florida Bay (FL)
             Lake Okeechobee (FL)
             Everglades Agricultural Area (FL)
             Everglades National Park (FL)
             Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FL)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1995

RESTORING THE EVERGLADES - PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL EFFORTS

GAO/RCED-96-5

Restoring the Everglades

(140525)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act
  NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
  NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261985

October 24, 1995

Congressional Requesters

The flow of water has substantially shaped the environment and
economy of central and southern Florida.  In this region, where
national parks and wildlife refuges lie next to agricultural lands,
urban areas, and Indian reservations, the boundaries between public
and private lands and between federal, state, local, and tribal
jurisdictions overlay the ecological boundaries created by the flow
of water.  Therefore, human activities that change the quality or
flow of the water in one area of South Florida can affect the
environment and local economy of other areas.  During the last half
century, engineering projects have altered the quantity and timing of
the water's flow, agricultural runoff has altered the quality of the
water, and urbanization has fragmented the region's ecosystem.  As a
result, South Florida--including the Everglades (described by some as
a river of grass, unique on earth) and Florida Bay (located at the
southern tip of the Florida peninsula)--is showing signs of
environmental distress.  These signs are cause for concern in the
localities whose economies depend on tourism and commercial fishing. 

At the urging of the Secretary of the Interior, federal agencies
began an effort in 1993 to coordinate environmental restoration
activities in South Florida.  These activities include efforts to (1)
manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and protect its
resources, (2) modify the effects of engineering projects that have
diverted water from the Everglades, and (3) reduce agricultural
pollutants in the water entering the Everglades.  Federal funding for
these activities totaled about $90 million in fiscal year 1995. 

In addition, the administration has identified South Florida as an
appropriate site for testing a new approach to ensuring a healthy
environment and managing the nation's lands and natural resources. 
This approach recognizes the interrelationship between natural
systems and healthy, sustainable economies.  It cuts across the
boundaries of ownership and jurisdiction and is variously termed
"ecosystem management," "regional partnerships," "cross-media problem
solving," or "the next generation of environmental conservation."

Central to the administration's new approach is the need for federal
and nonfederal stakeholders to collaborate and build consensus on
solutions to problems or issues of mutual concern.\1 In response to
two separate congressional requests, we identified (1) the processes
used by federal agencies to involve nonfederal stakeholders in
environmental restoration efforts in South Florida and (2) the
lessons learned about federal and nonfederal collaboration and
consensus-building in South Florida that may be applicable elsewhere. 

In reviewing federal agencies' involvement of nonfederal
stakeholders, we examined the agencies' experience with or use of
advisory committees chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA).  Passed in 1972, FACA, among other things, seeks to
prevent special interest groups from obtaining unfair access to
federal officials.  It requires federal agencies, under certain
circumstances, when working with state, local, or other governmental
agencies or other parties, to create an advisory committee to provide
advice on issues of mutual concern.  The advisory committee must be
balanced in terms of the points of view it represents, and it must
take a number of steps to ensure open public meetings. 


--------------------
\1 See Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.  16, 1994). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Federal agencies have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their
efforts to coordinate activities, develop plans, and implement
solutions to specific environmental concerns in South Florida. 
Within the constraints imposed by external factors--such as
legislative requirements and limitations, agencies' regulations and
procedures, executive orders, and litigation--the agencies have,
among other things, opened their meetings to the public, made draft
products available for public review and comment, established groups
and committees that include nonfederal members, held workshops with
various interest groups, solicited information from the public and
then provided feedback on how it was used, and/or entered into formal
mediation.  However, the Federal Advisory Committee Act's
requirements seem cumbersome to some federal officials, and a
February 1993 executive order that requires federal agencies to limit
the establishment of federal advisory committees, coupled with
uncertainty over when federal parties can meet with nonfederal
parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under
the act, has limited nongovernmental interests' formal participation
in federal restoration efforts.  In particular, the federal
interagency task force established to coordinate environmental
restoration activities in South Florida has developed a strategy to
collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that does not include formal
participation by local officials or representatives of diverse
nongovernmental interests across the region. 

Among the lessons learned so far in South Florida is that nonfederal
stakeholders would generally prefer to present their concerns,
positions, and supporting documentation during rather than after the
development of federal proposals to address environmental concerns. 
However, constraints imposed by external factors often dictate the
extent to which federal agencies can involve nonfederal stakeholders
in their activities.  Furthermore, although consensus among federal
and nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are
inherently contentious, and consensus on solutions that directly
affect various interests may not be attainable.  In addition,
dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement expressed
by stakeholders directly affected by a public policy decision often
cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the outcome of
the process.  Therefore, the most that federal agencies may be able
to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views
within the constraints imposed by external factors. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

For centuries, the Everglades has provided habitat for many species
of wading birds and other native wildlife, including the American
alligator, which depend on the water flow patterns that existed
before human intervention.  With Florida Bay, the Everglades provides
important nursery grounds for fin fish, shrimp, lobster, stone crab,
and other commercial species.  The wildlife, fish, and recreational
opportunities in the Everglades and Florida Bay have made tourism and
commercial fishing mainstays of the local economy. 

Before human intervention, freshwater moved south from Lake
Okeechobee in a broad, slow-moving sheet and then emptied into
Florida Bay.  The quantity and timing of the water's flow depended
upon rainfall patterns and natural processes that resulted in the
slow release of stored water.  Water stored throughout the vast area
of the Everglades supplied water to wetlands even during dry seasons. 

During recent decades, engineering projects, agricultural activities,
and urbanization have altered past ecological patterns.  As figure 1
shows, agricultural, industrial, and residential development have
reduced the Everglades to about half its original size. 

   Figure 1:  The Everglades--Past
   and Present

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO's adaptation of an
   illustration prepared by the
   South Florida Water Management
   District.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Central and Southern Florida Project--an extensive system of
canals, levees, pump stations, and other structures--was authorized
by the Congress in 1948, initially to prevent flooding, provide
drainage, and supply water in South Florida.  Areas immediately south
of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades Agricultural Area, which is
drained by the project, are now farmed--primarily by sugar
growers--while the eastern part of the region is heavily urbanized. 
Canals carry water away from the Everglades Agricultural Area into
levied water conservation areas or directly into the Atlantic Ocean,
bypassing much of the former Everglades. 

These engineering changes have diminished the broad, slow flow of
water and reduced the area where water can be stored for dry seasons. 
At the same time, agricultural practices are altering native plant
communities.  Phosphorus--a plant nutrient--is carried in runoff from
sugar farms to the Everglades, where it supports the growth of
cattails, which choke out the native grasses.  Wildlife populations
have declined significantly.  For example, the number of wading
birds, once in the millions, has fallen by 90 percent in recent
decades.  Moreover, some scientists believe that the reduced flow of
freshwater into Florida Bay may be hastening the bay's environmental
decline. 


   NONFEDERAL STAKEHOLDERS'
   INVOLVEMENT IN FEDERAL
   RESTORATION EFFORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The administration has established coordination and collaboration as
essential principles of ecosystem management.  As we noted in our
August 1994 report on this approach, implementing solutions to
environmental and economic concerns that transcend the boundaries of
ownership and jurisdiction requires increased collaboration and
consensus-building among federal and nonfederal stakeholders within
most ecosystems.  The extent to which desired ecological and economic
conditions can be maintained or restored will depend in large measure
on the extent to which private landowners and government agencies can
agree on the necessary or desired trade-offs among ecological and
socioeconomic values and concerns, including those related to the
conditions and trends of local economies and industries and the
stability of communities.\2

The federal interagency task force established to coordinate
environmental restoration activities in South Florida and the
environmental restoration efforts under the task force's umbrella
have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their activities.  The
various efforts began at different times, under different
authorities, and have progressed to different stages, ranging from
planning to implementing solutions for specific concerns.  Only one
of the efforts--to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and protect its resources--has chartered an advisory committee under
FACA, as required by the act establishing the sanctuary. 

Appendix I discusses the chronology of events, the process for
involving nonfederal stakeholders, and the stakeholders' response to
that process for the effort to coordinate environmental restoration
activities in South Florida.  Appendix II discusses the effort to
manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and protect its
resources.  Appendixes III and IV discuss efforts to modify the
effects of engineering projects that have diverted water from the
Everglades.  Appendix V discusses the effort to reduce agricultural
pollutants in the water entering the Everglades.  The involvement by
nonfederal stakeholders in these efforts is summarized below. 


--------------------
\2 See footnote 1. 


      EFFORT TO COORDINATE
      RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN
      SOUTH FLORIDA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

At the urging of the Secretary of the Interior, the Interagency Task
Force on the South Florida Ecosystem was formed in September 1993 to
coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida. 
Consisting of assistant secretaries from the Departments of the
Interior, Commerce, the Army, and Agriculture; an assistant attorney
general from the Department of Justice; and an assistant
administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency, the task
force is responsible for developing consistent policies, strategies,
plans, programs, and priorities for addressing environmental concerns
in South Florida.  Among the task force's products are an annual
report and a report (prepared by a science subgroup of the task
force's working group) on the ecosystem's restoration
needs--including the need to acquire private lands in the Everglades
Agricultural Area. 

Until April 1995, membership in the working group was limited to
representatives of federal agencies.  However, after legislation was
enacted in March 1995 exempting certain meetings between federal
officials and state, local, or tribal officials from FACA's
requirements,\3 the working group increased its membership to include
state and tribal officials.  In addition, most meetings of the task
force and of the working group are open to the public, and the
working group gives the public an opportunity to comment at each open
meeting.  The working group has also scheduled some of its meetings
to coincide with meetings of the Governor's Commission on a
Sustainable South Florida\4 to facilitate the two groups' interaction
and the public's participation. 

Still missing as formal participants in the working group and its
subgroups, however, are local officials and representatives of
diverse nongovernmental interests across South Florida, including
landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and
environmental organizations.  Precedent exists, however, for
establishing a citizens' group to formally participate in the task
force's effort and to promote public involvement and outreach. 
Moreover, in its fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Department
of the Interior, the administration supported the public's
involvement in an ecological restoration effort that, like the South
Florida effort, affects a variety of interests.  According to the
budget request, the public will continue to have a major role in
developing a long-range strategy to restore and protect the aquatic
ecosystem of California's San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, in part through the creation of a citizens' advisory
committee representing urban, agricultural, environmental, and other
interests.  (See app.  I for more information about this effort.)


--------------------
\3 In March 1995, legislation was enacted exempting from FACA's
requirements meetings between federal officials and state, local, or
tribal officials that are solely for the purpose of exchanging views,
information, or advice on the management or implementation of federal
programs established under public law that explicitly or inherently
share intergovernmental responsibilities. 

\4 This commission, which consists of a wide variety of stakeholders
in South Florida, including federal officials, was established by the
governor to examine options for maintaining the Everglades' health
and sustaining South Florida's economy. 


      EFFORT TO MANAGE THE FLORIDA
      KEYS NATIONAL MARINE
      SANCTUARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
established the sanctuary and requires the Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a
comprehensive plan to manage the sanctuary and protect its resources. 
NOAA made a draft of the management plan available for public comment
in April 1995. 

To develop the plan, NOAA was required by the act to work with
relevant federal, state, and local agencies and to establish a
citizens' sanctuary advisory council whose members could include
representatives from local industries, commercial endeavors,
conservation groups, the general public, and others.  To implement
these requirements, NOAA followed a newly developed strategic
assessment approach that involved three groups of stakeholders:  (1)
a core group representing federal, state, and local agencies whose
jurisdictions affect the sanctuary, (2) a citizens' sanctuary
advisory council, chartered under FACA, representing local industries
and businesses, user groups, local citizens, environmentalists, and
scientists as well as some agency staff from the core group, and (3)
a broader network of local scientists and management experts. 

In general, the core group identified issues, effects, causes, data
needs, strategies, and alternatives for addressing management issues. 
Efforts by the core group were developed with, or reviewed by, local
scientists and management experts.  The sanctuary advisory council
also reviewed and revised the work of the core group, often after
conferring with constituents in the community, and contributed
directly to the development of a key component of the plan
establishing special-use zones within the sanctuary.  NOAA staff
facilitated each step in the process. 

Both the core group and the citizens' sanctuary advisory council
recommended the same preferred management alternative to NOAA.  This
alternative, which consists of a combination of strategies, proposes
to limit certain uses and activities to certain areas within the
sanctuary to provide different levels of protection for natural
resources.  Since the draft plan was made available for public
comment, sanctuary staff have held or planned to hold (1) information
expositions ("expos") throughout the Keys to answer residents'
questions about the plan, (2) working sessions with various interest
groups, and (3) public meetings before the comment period closes in
December 1995.  (See app.  II for more information about this
effort.)


      EFFORTS DESIGNED TO MODIFY
      THE EFFECTS OF ENGINEERING
      PROJECTS THAT HAVE DIVERTED
      WATER FROM THE EVERGLADES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

In response to federal legislation, the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has undertaken four efforts since 1985 to reverse some of the
engineering changes implemented earlier in the century and restore
the natural volume or timing of the water's flow in South Florida. 
During this period, the Corps has conducted various studies and
experiments, identified or proposed modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project, issued reports on its findings, and
prepared environmental products required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\5

Over the years, the Corps has increased nonfederal stakeholders'
involvement in its decision-making.  At first, the Corps limited
nonfederal involvement to the minimum requirements for public
participation set forth in NEPA.  This act involves nonfederal
stakeholders primarily in reviewing and commenting on products
drafted by the agency. 

However, because the environmental restoration of South Florida has
commanded the attention of the public, political officials, and the
media, the Corps has increased the opportunities for public input. 
For example, the Corps has (1) relied on a state committee
established by the governor of Florida to identify problems, goals,
and objectives for managing the east Everglades, (2) held meetings
and workshops with representatives of the agricultural community,
homeowners, conservation groups, and local government agencies to
provide information and obtain their feedback on proposed
alternatives, (3) used an interagency study team instead of relying
solely on its own staff to formulate alternative plans and recommend
further studies, and/or (4) obtained input through open meetings held
at various stages in the process.  The Corps is also considering
alternatives to increase public involvement, including chartering an
advisory committee under FACA, to provide advice on all of the Corps'
South Florida restoration efforts.  (See apps.  III and IV for
further information about the Corps' efforts.)


--------------------
\5 NEPA requires the applicable federal agency to prepare a detailed
environmental impact statement for every major federal action that
may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.  The
environmental impact statement is designed to ensure that important
environmental impacts will not be overlooked or understated before
the government makes a commitment to a proposed action.  Implementing
regulations provide that, when an agency is not sure whether a
proposed action will significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, it may undertake an environmental assessment.  This
assessment should give the agency enough information to determine
whether an environmental impact statement is necessary. 


      EFFORT TO REDUCE
      AGRICULTURAL POLLUTANTS IN
      WATER ENTERING THE
      EVERGLADES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Unlike the other efforts discussed in this report, this one does not
represent an attempt by federal agencies to implement a public policy
initiative required by law or begun at the urging of the Secretary of
the Interior.  Rather, it represents an effort to settle years of
litigation over the runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the
Everglades Agricultural Area.  The effort began in 1988 when the
federal government sued two state agencies for failing to enforce the
state's water quality standards.  It led to the enactment in 1994 of
Florida's Everglades Forever Act, which is now being implemented. 

Federal negotiators involved in this effort were not trying to build
collaboration and consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders
but to reach a fair settlement for the federal government.  Hence,
participation in the process was limited primarily to the parties to
the litigation.  However, public participation did occur during (1)
formal mediation to address technical issues and (2) the state's
legislative process leading up to the act's passage.  The enactment
of Florida's Everglades Forever Act abrogated the need for an
evidentiary hearing at which parties to the litigation had been
scheduled to present their views and evidence before an impartial
hearing officer.  (See app.  V for further information about this
effort.)


      EXPERIENCE WITH AND USE OF
      ADVISORY COMMITTEES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

NOAA's use of an advisory committee chartered under FACA to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the sanctuary indicates that the
advisory committee can be an effective tool for facilitating
communication between federal and nonfederal parties.  However, apart
from NOAA, which was required to establish a citizens' advisory
council by the act establishing the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, no federal agency has chartered an advisory committee
under FACA to bring stakeholders together. 

Some federal officials cited the cumbersome steps that an advisory
committee must take to ensure open public meetings as a primary
reason for not chartering committees under FACA.  These steps include
publishing advance notice of meetings in the Federal Register,
holding meetings in public, making detailed minutes of the meetings
available to the public, and allowing interested persons to appear
before it.  This concern is consistent with concerns raised by other
federal officials who believe that FACA's procedural requirements
make it difficult for federal agencies to establish partnerships with
stakeholders and involve the public in ecosystem activities.  These
officials believe that, in attempting to prevent special interest
groups from obtaining unfair access to federal officials, the act has
had the unintended consequence of isolating federal officials from
public contact.\6

Some federal officials cited concerns expressed by the Congress and
the administration over the proliferation of advisory committees and
their related costs as a primary reason for not chartering committees
under FACA.  These concerns culminated in Executive Order 12838,
issued on February 10, 1993, which requires federal agencies to
reduce the number of federal advisory committees and to limit the
establishment of new ones. 

In addition, some federal officials and some nonfederal stakeholders
expressed frustration to us about the difficulty of determining when
federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being
required to charter an advisory committee under FACA.  According to
federal officials responsible for interpreting FACA--including
attorneys in the Department of Justice's Civil Division and officials
in the General Services Administration's Committee Management
Secretariat, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation
of FACA and monitoring advisory committees' activities--it is often
difficult to determine when an advisory committee is required to
comply with the act, and the courts have not provided clear tests for
such a decision.  Whether federal parties can meet with
nongovernmental parties without an advisory committee often depends
on whether information--rather than advice--is exchanged, whether a
consensus is reached among the parties, and how often meetings occur
and who initiates them.  Furthermore, these officials noted that the
courts look at a combination of factors that affect the need for a
committee in a given situation; few factors by themselves clearly
indicate that a group must be chartered under FACA. 


--------------------
\6 See, for example, The Ecosystem Approach:  Healthy Ecosystems and
Sustainable Economies, Volume I - Overview, Report of the Interagency
Ecosystem Management Task Force (June 1995). 


   LESSONS LEARNED IN SOUTH
   FLORIDA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Among the lessons learned so far in implementing environmental
restoration efforts in South Florida is that nonfederal stakeholders
would generally prefer to present their concerns, positions, and
supporting documentation during rather than after the development of
federal proposals to address environmental concerns.  This lesson is
drawn from the desires expressed by nonfederal stakeholders for
greater involvement in the efforts to coordinate restoration
activities and to modify the effects of engineering projects that
have diverted water from the Everglades. 

Another lesson is that constraints imposed by external factors often
dictate the extent to which federal agencies can involve nonfederal
stakeholders in their activities.  For example, federal members of
the interagency task force's working group could still be found in
violation of FACA for holding meetings with nongovernmental parties
without the benefit of an advisory committee chartered under the act;
nevertheless, these federal officials believe that they are precluded
from expanding their membership to include nongovernmental
stakeholders because Executive Order 12838 limits the establishment
of new advisory committees under the act.\7

A third lesson is that although consensus among federal and
nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are
inherently contentious, and consensus on solutions that directly
affect various interests may not be attainable.  Consensus can begin
to wane as a restoration effort moves from the planning to the
implementation stage and stakeholders begin to feel the effects of
public policy decisions.  For example, decisions that change land-use
patterns and affect property ownership--such as the state's decision
to acquire privately owned agricultural lands adjacent to the
Everglades National Park to mitigate the effects of engineering
projects that have diverted water from the Everglades--may not be
acceptable to all stakeholders. 

A fourth lesson is that dissatisfaction with the process for
nonfederal involvement expressed by stakeholders directly affected by
a public policy decision often cannot be dissociated from their
dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process.  For example, the
dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement expressed
by agricultural landowners whose properties are adjacent to the
Everglades National Park and have been identified for acquisition by
the state cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the
state's decision to purchase their properties. 

In the final analysis, the most that a federal agency may be able to
achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views within
the constraints imposed by external factors, and any conclusion about
the extent to which an agency or effort meets this objective is
highly subjective.  For example, several parties--smaller sugar
growers in the Everglades Agricultural Area, the Miccosuke Tribe of
Indians whose reservation and leased lands border the northern
boundary of the Everglades National Park, and two environmental
groups--have criticized the process that resulted in Florida's
Everglades Forever Act for not affording full consideration of their
views and evidence.  Officials from or representatives of these
parties told us that they would have preferred an open airing of
their views and evidence at an evidentiary hearing before an
impartial hearing officer.  (As previously noted, the act's passage
abrogated the need for the hearing.) However, these groups'
dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement cannot be
dissociated from their publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the
outcome of that process. 


--------------------
\7 According to the General Services Administration's Committee
Management Secretariat, the executive order limiting the
establishment of new advisory committees under FACA does not prevent
a new advisory committee from being established if there is a "clear
need" for one. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

All of the efforts discussed in this report share the goal of
restoring the environment and local economy of South Florida.  Hence,
one effort's experience in involving nonfederal stakeholders may be
applicable to another effort.  On a broader scale, the lessons
learned in implementing environmental restoration efforts in South
Florida may be applicable to other interactions between federal and
nonfederal stakeholders.  Among these lessons is that nonfederal
stakeholders would generally prefer to present their concerns,
positions, and supporting documentation during rather than after the
development of federal proposals to address environmental concerns. 

Federal agencies have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their
efforts to restore the environment of South Florida, and some,
including the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem
and the Corps, are considering alternatives to increase public
involvement.  However, the executive order limiting the establishment
of new advisory committees under FACA, coupled with the difficulty of
determining when federal parties can meet with nongovernmental
parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under
the act, has limited formal participation by nongovernmental
interests in federal restoration efforts.  In particular, the
Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem has developed a
strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that does not
include formal participation by local officials or representatives of
diverse nongovernmental interests across the region.  Since the
extent to which desired ecological and economic conditions can be
maintained or restored will depend in large measure on the extent to
which private landowners and government agencies can agree on the
necessary or desired trade-offs among ecological and socioeconomic
values and concerns, the lack of formal participation by local
officials or representatives of the region's nongovernmental
interests could severely compromise the task force's effort. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the
Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem to develop a
strategy to extend formal participation in its working group and
subgroups to local officials and representatives of South Florida's
nongovernmental interests, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen,
commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. 
One alternative would be to establish a citizens' advisory group to
formally participate in the task force's effort and to promote public
involvement and outreach.  The task force should include its planned
strategy in its next annual report. 

We also recommend that if the task force finds that formal
participation by nongovernmental interests in federal restoration
efforts continues to be limited by Executive Order 12838 and by the
difficulty of determining when federal parties can meet with
nongovernmental parties without being required to charter an advisory
committee under FACA, the task force should inform the General
Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat of the
impact the two constraints are having on collaboration and
consensus-building between federal and nonfederal parties and suggest
alternatives to increase participation by nongovernmental interests. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries
of the Interior, Defense, and Commerce or their designees.  Interior
officials, including the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks and the Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget,
raised several concerns about the report's overall findings and about
the conclusions and recommendations that flowed from them. 

The draft report proposed two recommendations:  (1) The task force
should develop a strategy to improve collaboration with nonfederal
stakeholders in coordinating environmental restoration activities in
South Florida and should view as examples the processes used by NOAA
to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and by the Corps to consider modifications
to the Central and Southern Florida Project and (2) the task force
should inform the General Services Administration's Committee
Management Secretariat, which is responsible for drafting guidelines
to implement the March 1995 exemption to FACA, of the extent to which
the exemption and guidelines allow the task force to share
information, coordinate activities, and work routinely with state,
local, and other governmental agencies without violating the act. 

In commenting on the first proposed recommendation, Interior
officials stated that the task force had already developed a strategy
to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that has worked well and
represents a model for such partnerships around the country. 
Moreover, according to these officials, NOAA's process for developing
a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary is not an appropriate model for the task force, since the
task force is an operative and action-oriented body, not a "master
planning body." While we agree that the task force has developed a
strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders, this strategy
does not include formal participation in the working group and its
subgroups by local officials and by representatives of South
Florida's diverse nongovernmental interests.  Moreover, we believe
that NOAA's effort to manage the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary is similar to the task force's effort to coordinate
environmental restoration activities in South Florida in that both
have developed a plan of action and are moving toward implementation. 
In addition, precedent exists for establishing a citizens' group to
formally participate in the task force's effort and to promote public
involvement and outreach (see app.  I). 

We modified the second recommendation to recognize that the task
force's working group had increased its membership to include state
and tribal officials.  The recommendation now focuses on constraints
to formal participation by nongovernmental interests in federal
restoration efforts. 

Interior officials also emphasized that (1) environmental restoration
efforts should not be compared to one another, (2) the efforts are
interrelated, and (3) consensus on solutions to problems or issues
may not be attainable.  In addition, these officials suggested that
the report's discussion of the effort to coordinate restoration
activities in South Florida (see app.  I) be updated to reflect
actions taken since legislation was enacted in March 1995 that
exempts from the requirements of FACA certain meetings between
federal and state, local, or tribal officials.  They also noted that
in the effort to settle complex water quality litigation (see app. 
V), (1) litigation limited participation by the public, (2) public
participation occurred during the state's legislative process leading
up to passage of the Everglades Forever Act, (3) small sugar growers,
Indian tribes, and environmental groups were involved in the
negotiations, and (4) these groups' dissatisfaction with the process
for nonfederal involvement cannot be dissociated from their
dissatisfaction with the act.  We agree with these comments and have
revised the report to present Interior's positions. 

In addition, Interior offered updated information and editorial
comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. 
Interior's comments and our responses are summarized in appendix VI. 

Commerce provided minor editorial changes, which we made to the
report where appropriate.  Defense suggested a technical change,
which we made to the report, and concurred without further comment
(see app.  VII). 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To identify the processes used by federal agencies to involve
nonfederal stakeholders in efforts to address environmental and
economic concerns in South Florida, we met or spoke with federal
officials or scientists from the Everglades National Park, the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers' Jacksonville District, as well as with
state officials from the South Florida Water Management District and
the Department of Environmental Protection.  We also met with
representatives of several environmental groups, including the
Audubon Society and the Friends of the Everglades; the Miccosuke
Tribe of Indians; the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida;
United States Sugar Corporation; the Dade County Farm Bureau; the
East Everglades landowners; and the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Advisory Council.  In addition, we reviewed applicable laws
and regulations, court decisions, reports, plans, and other documents
on the five processes we identified.  Finally, we reviewed FACA, its
legislative history, and related court cases, and we met or spoke
with officials responsible for interpreting FACA, including attorneys
in the Department of Justice's Civil Division and officials in the
General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat. 

We conducted our work between October 1994 and August 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We are providing copies of this report to the Secretaries of the
Interior, Defense, the Army, Commerce, and Agriculture; the Attorney
General; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
and other interested parties. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me on (202)
512-8021.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII. 

Barry T.  Hill
Associate Director, Natural Resources
 Management Issues

List of Requesters

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Energy and Environment
Committee on Science
House of Representatives

The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Gerry E.  Studds
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Fisheries,
 Wildlife, and Oceans
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Charlie Rose
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Risk Management
 and Specialty Crops
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives

The Honorable Mark Foley
House of Representatives


EFFORT TO COORDINATE RESTORATION
ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH FLORIDA
=========================================================== Appendix I

At the urging of the Secretary of the Interior, federal agencies
established the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem
in 1993 to develop consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs,
and priorities for addressing environmental concerns in South
Florida. 


   CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem consists of
assistant secretaries from the Departments of the Interior, Commerce,
the Army, and Agriculture; an assistant attorney general from the
Department of Justice; and an assistant administrator from the
Environmental Protection Agency.  Officials from these agencies
signed an agreement in September 1993 to accomplish ecosystem
restoration goals together, including (1) agreeing on federal
objectives for the restoration, (2) establishing an ecosystem-based
science program, (3) developing multispecies recovery plans for
species that were listed or could be listed under the Endangered
Species Act, and (4) expediting the implementation of projects
included in coordinated plans.  The agreement created the Management
and Coordination Working Group to formulate and recommend management
activities to the task force.  According to Interior officials, the
task force and working group also coordinate the various agencies'
budget processes and resolve disputes among the agencies. 

The working group formed several subgroups to assist it in its
efforts, including a science subgroup whose members are federal
officials.  In November 1993, the science subgroup released a report
on the ecosystem's restoration needs.  This report provides a federal
scientific perspective on the goals and objectives for restoration
and presents an approach, which includes the acquisition of private
land, to help restore the natural flow of water through the
Everglades.  The report was developed for use by the U.S.  Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) in its consideration of modifications to the
Central and Southern Florida Project (see app.  IV). 

The working group's 1994 annual report to the task force, issued as a
draft in August 1994 and published in May 1995, outlines general
objectives for federal ecosystem management and recommends a large
number of actions deemed necessary to restore the ecosystem.  These
actions include improving the water's quality and supply, issuing
permits for using wetlands, restoring habitat, and promoting
sustainable development and scientific research.  The science
subgroup's scientific information needs assessment, issued as a draft
in September 1994, outlines modeling, monitoring, and special studies
needed to provide a scientific information base for ecosystem
management.  The assessment is a precursor to a science plan. 

The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement in developing
the working group's annual report and the science subgroup's report
on the ecosystem's restoration needs and draft scientific information
needs assessment are outlined in table I.1.  Stakeholders'
involvement in the task force's effort to coordinate environmental
restoration activities in South Florida is discussed in more detail
below. 



                                    Table I.1
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                      Involvement in Developing the Working
                      Group's Annual Report and the Science
                       Subgroup's Report on the Ecosystem's
                      Restoration Needs and Draft Scientific
                           Information Needs Assessment

Date                       Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Sept. 1993                 Participating agencies     Federal agencies in the
                           sign the Federal South     task force (working
                           Florida Interagency Task   group)
                           Force Agreement to         Interior (multiple
                           coordinate consistent      agencies)
                           policies, strategies,      Army
                           plans, programs, and       Corps of Engineers
                           priorities. The task       Justice
                           force creates a working    Commerce
                           group with authority to    National Oceanic and
                           establish subgroups.       Atmospheric
                                                      Administration
                                                      Agriculture
                                                      Environmental Protection
                                                      Agency

Nov. 1993                  The working group's        Federal agencies in the
                           science subgroup, with     science subgroup
                           the help of the South      Interior (multiple
                           Florida Water Management   agencies)
                           District (District),\a     National Oceanic and
                           releases a report on the   Atmospheric
                           ecosystem's restoration    Administration
                           needs.                     Agriculture
                                                      Environmental Protection
                                                      Agency

                                                      State agency
                                                      District

                                                      Public (given an
                                                      opportunity to comment on
                                                      the report)

Aug. 1994                  The task force's working   Federal agencies in the
                           group issues its draft     working group
                           1994 annual report, which
                           sets forth objectives and  Public (given an
                           recommends restoration     opportunity to comment on
                           actions.                   the draft report)

Sept. 1994                 The working group holds    Anyone--open to the public
                           four public meetings on
                           the draft annual report.

Sept. 1994                 The science subgroup       Federal agencies in the
                           completes a draft          science subgroup and the
                           scientific information     District
                           needs assessment and
                           subsequently makes it      Outside experts consulted
                           available for public       by the subgroup
                           comment and for review by
                           peers and state, local,
                           and tribal agencies.

Mar. 1994                  Two public meetings are    Anyone--open to the public
                           held on the draft
                           scientific information
                           needs assessment.

May 1995                   The working group          Federal agencies in the
                           publishes the 1994 annual  working group
                           report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The South Florida Water Management District was created by the
Florida legislature in 1949 to serve as the state's local sponsor of
the Corps' Central and Southern Florida Project.  The District
operates and maintains water control structures with funding from
property taxes levied within its boundaries.  It is responsible for
most water-related issues within its boundaries and has some
regulatory authority to protect water resources. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Soon after it was created, the working group reached consensus that
public involvement was very important to the success of its goals. 
The media throughout South Florida is informed in advance of each of
these meetings.  Each meeting is open to the public except when the
agencies' fiscal year budgets are discussed before being submitted to
the Congress.  After consulting with legal advisers in the
Departments of the Interior and Justice, the working group has
provided an opportunity for public comment at each open meeting.  In
addition, detailed minutes of each meeting are prepared. 

From June 1994 to August 1995, the task force and the Governor's
Commission on a Sustainable South Florida scheduled six of their
meetings back to back at the same location to facilitate the two
groups' interaction and the public's participation.  Moreover, at one
of these meetings, the task force, the working group, the commission,
and the South Florida Water Management District's (District)
governing board met to interact and exchange information. 

The task force's 1993 agreement recognized the need for state, local,
and tribal governments to be integral partners in developing and
implementing activities for restoring the ecosystem.  However, until
April 1995, these nonfederal entities were largely limited to
reviewing and commenting on the products drafted by the working group
and its science subgroup.  Interior officials on the task force or
working group believe that further involvement would have required
chartering an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA).  According to some members, the working group did not
charter an advisory committee under FACA primarily because of
concerns shared by the Congress and the administration over the
proliferation of advisory committees chartered under FACA and their
related costs.  These concerns culminated in Executive Order 12838,
issued on February 10, 1993, which requires federal agencies to
reduce the number of federal advisory committees and to limit the
establishment of new ones.  However, the executive director of the
task force as well as other members of the working group agreed that
FACA's requirements--such as having to file a detailed charter,
publish advance notice of meetings in the Federal Register, hold
meetings in public, and make detailed minutes of the meetings
available to the public--are cumbersome and pose a significant
barrier to coordination with nonfederal parties. 

The District did, however, help to develop the science subgroup's
November 1993 report on the ecosystem's restoration needs.  This
report was then made available for public comment after its release
at public hearings held by the Corps to discuss modifications to the
Central and Southern Florida Project (see app.  IV).  The working
group's 1994 annual report, which includes recommendations for
restoration, was completed entirely by federal officials, but the
draft report was made available for public review and comment at four
public meetings.  The science subgroup's scientific information needs
assessment, issued in draft in September 1994, was developed, in
part, on the basis of interviews with experts and contributions from
representatives of local governments on issues affecting lands and
waters within their jurisdiction.  In addition, the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida convened a high-level
meeting of state, regional, and federal scientists to provide a
general consensus on research priorities, and the draft was sent to
federal and nonfederal scientists for peer review.  Two public
meetings also were held to obtain comments from outside sources. 

Other efforts to promote federal and nonfederal collaboration under
the task force's umbrella include a steering committee established to
develop a strategy to preserve wetlands.  This committee consists not
only of relevant federal agencies but also of Indian tribes and state
and local agencies.  A multispecies recovery team is also being
established.  This team includes federal, state, and other experts on
the many South Florida species protected under the Endangered Species
Act.  The Endangered Species Act specifically exempts members of
recovery teams from FACA's requirements. 

After legislation was enacted in March 1995 exempting certain
meetings between federal officials and state, local, or tribal
officials from FACA's requirements, the working group formally
invited the state of Florida and the Seminole and Miccosuke tribes to
designate members to attend the working group's meetings.  All three
accepted and participated in the working group's April 5, 1995,
meeting. 

Still missing as formal participants in the working group and its
subgroups, however, are local officials and representatives of
diverse nongovernmental interests across South Florida, including
landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and
environmental organizations.  Interior officials on the task force
and working group informed us that, in view of Executive Order
12838's limitation on the formation of new advisory committees, they
do not plan to establish a citizens' group to formally participate in
the task force's effort. 

We believe, however, that a precedent exists for forming such a
group.  The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act of 1990 (section 303 of P.L.  101-646) established an interagency
task force that includes five of the six federal agencies on the
South Florida task force.  Its purpose is to develop a "comprehensive
approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in
Louisiana." Thus, its mission is similar to that of the South Florida
task force.  In 1991, the coastal Louisiana task force established a
Citizen Participation Group representing 17 interests across the
state's coastal zone.  The purpose of the group is to consistently
review and comment on the task force's restoration plan and lists of
high-priority projects and to assist and participate in public
involvement and outreach. 

While the Louisiana task force's Citizen Participation Group was
established before the administration issued its February 1993
executive order, the General Services Administration's Committee
Management Secretariat, which is responsible for overseeing the
implementation of FACA and monitoring advisory committees'
activities, informed us that the executive order does not prevent a
new advisory committee from being established if there is a clear
need for one.  Moreover, in its fiscal year 1996 budget request for
the Department of the Interior, the administration states that the
public will continue to have a major role in the development of a
long-range strategy to restore and protect the aquatic ecosystem of
California's San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
in part through the creation of a citizens' advisory committee
representing urban, agricultural, environmental, and other interests. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' RESPONSE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Interior officials on the task force and working group believe that
the task force can serve as a model for federal and nonfederal
partnerships around the country.  They point to the public's
overwhelming support for restoring South Florida's ecosystem, as
reflected in the results of successive elections, public opinion
surveys, and public meetings as well as in the continued willingness
of private citizens and corporations to pay the major costs of the
effort.  However, some stakeholders have raised concerns about the
process used by the task force to involve them in its effort to
coordinate restoration activities in South Florida. 

For example, the approach presented in the science subgroup's report
on the ecosystem's restoration needs, which includes the acquisition
of private land, appeared to catch some nonfederal stakeholders by
surprise.  The report raised fears among some that federal
restoration activities would eliminate agriculture in the Everglades
Agricultural Area.  The two largest sugar companies, which were then
negotiating an agreement with Interior to settle complex water
quality litigation concerning the runoff of phosphorus from sugar
farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area, used the report to claim
that the federal government had withheld information from the
negotiations and thus acted in "bad faith." According to Interior's
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the report did
not represent the position of the federal government and did not take
into account a mediated technical plan, adopted by Interior in July
1993 as the basis for water quality requirements, which assumes that
agricultural interests will remain in the Everglades Agricultural
Area (see app.  V). 

Others have expressed frustration at not being allowed to participate
actively in the meetings of the working group and the science
subgroup, although they are permitted to attend the meetings as
observers.  For example, a researcher for the state of Florida
believes that state scientists should have been involved in
developing the scientific information needs assessment. 

Two parties described instances in which they had been told by
federal officials that they were not permitted to attend meetings of
the working group, even though the 1993 agreement states that the
task force's meetings are open to the public.  These parties also
maintain that they did not receive notice of a meeting even after
requesting it or that notices of other meetings arrived after, or
only a day or two before, the meetings.  In one instance, the working
group denied several requests by the chairman of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council (see app.  II) to present
information to the working group on restoring ecosystems. 

The Miccosuke Tribe of Indians, whose reservation and leased lands
border the northern boundary of the Everglades National Park, has
sued to permanently enjoin (prohibit) the use of the 1994 annual
report and the scientific information needs assessment as the basis
for restoring the ecosystem on the grounds that the task force,
working group, and science subgroup violated FACA in developing these
products.  The tribe cites meetings with state officials and
others--including the governor's commission--as evidence of the
federal government's interaction with nonfederal parties without the
benefit of a balanced advisory committee.  They perceive a
"light-switch approach" in the working group's application of FACA: 
At some times, the working group appears to act solely with federal
employees, while at other times, it includes certain selected
nonfederal parties.\8

While the task force disagrees with the tribe's perceptions, some
federal officials and some nonfederal stakeholders expressed
frustration to us about the difficulty of determining when federal
parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being required
to charter an advisory committee under FACA.  According to federal
officials responsible for interpreting FACA--including attorneys in
the Department of Justice's Civil Division and officials in the
General Services Administration's Committee Management
Secretariat--it is often difficult to determine when an advisory
committee is required to comply with the act, and the courts have not
provided clear tests for such a decision.  Whether federal parties
can meet with nongovernmental parties without an advisory committee
often depends on whether information--rather than advice--is
exchanged, whether a consensus is reached among the parties, and how
often meetings occur and who initiates them.  Furthermore, these
officials noted that the courts look at a combination of factors that
affect the need for a committee in a given situation; few factors by
themselves clearly indicate that a group must be chartered under
FACA. 


--------------------
\8 The tribe has also filed a lawsuit against Interior and Corps
officials over flooding on tribal lands.  This issue is not directly
related to the task force's restoration efforts. 


EFFORT TO MANAGE THE FLORIDA KEYS
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
========================================================== Appendix II

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
(P.L.  101-605) established the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and requires the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive plan
to govern the overall management of the sanctuary and protect its
resources.  NOAA made a draft of a combined management plan and
environmental impact statement available for public comment in April
1995. 


   CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The 1990 act specifically requires NOAA to work with relevant
federal, state, and local agencies and to establish a citizens'
sanctuary advisory council whose members may include representatives
from local industries, commercial user groups, conservation groups,
the general public, and others.  In addition, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an
environmental impact statement in conjunction with a management plan. 

To comply with the requirements of the 1990 act and NEPA, NOAA
applied a new strategic planning process--the strategic assessment
approach--to develop the comprehensive management plan and
environmental impact statement.  This approach is a problem-driven
process that makes maximum use of existing knowledge.  It relies on
structured work sessions to identify, characterize, and assess
alternative management actions on the basis of the best available
knowledge, recognizing that precise information on many topics is not
available.  Much of the knowledge is derived from the experience of
experts--including users of the local resources. 

In carrying out this approach, NOAA relied on three groups:  (1) a
core group representing federal, state, and local agencies whose
jurisdictions affect the sanctuary, (2) a citizen's sanctuary
advisory council representing local industries and businesses, user
groups, local citizens, environmentalists, and scientists, as well as
some agency staff from the core group, and (3) a broader network of
local scientists and management experts.  The core group included
representatives from NOAA, the Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Park Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the
Governor's Office of Environmental Affairs, and the South Florida
Water Management District (District).  Local agencies from Monroe
County (Florida Keys) were also part of the core group.  A team of
staff from NOAA's Sanctuaries and Resources Division, Strategic
Environmental Assessment Division, and Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Ocean Services facilitated each step of the
process. 

To begin the process, NOAA obtained input from the general public
through scoping meetings and questionnaires to outline important
issues to be considered.  The core group then reviewed and described
these issues in conjunction with the network of scientists and
management experts, as well as with other interested parties. 

Through structured work sessions, the core group and the network of
scientists and management experts developed strategies and
alternatives for addressing the issues, as well as preliminary ideas
on zoning within the sanctuary.  The citizens' sanctuary advisory
council reviewed these strategies, studied zoning issues in depth,
and recommended zoning proposals, which the core group and NOAA
reviewed and modified slightly. 

Both the core group and the citizens' sanctuary advisory council
recommended the same preferred management alternative, consisting of
a combination of strategies, to NOAA.  According to NOAA officials,
after NOAA had finished writing a draft combined management plan and
environmental impact statement, it made this document available for
public comment.  During the public comment period, the sanctuary
staff held information "expos" to answer questions about the plan. 

The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement in developing
the draft comprehensive management plan and environmental impact
statement are outlined in table II.1.  Stakeholders' involvement in
the process is discussed in more detail below. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                        Involvement in Developing a Draft
                     Management Plan and Environmental Impact
                     Statement for the Florida Keys National
                                 Marine Sanctuary

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Nov. 1990                  The President signs        Not applicable
                           legislation creating the
                           sanctuary.

Apr. -May 1991             Six public scoping         Anyone--open to the public
                           meetings are held.
                           Questionnaires are
                           distributed for input.

Apr. -June 1991            Written comments and       NOAA team
                           responses are received.
                           Data are compiled, and
                           management issues are
                           identified.

July 1991                  The core group reviews     Core group
                           management issues and      Federal agencies
                           makes preliminary          NOAA
                           determinations of major    Fish and Wildlife Service
                           effects and causes, data   National Park Service
                           needs and potential data   Environmental Protection
                           sources, and lead          Agency
                           agencies for acquiring
                           information.               State agencies
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental
                                                      Protection
                                                      Department of Community
                                                      Affairs
                                                      Governor's Office of
                                                      Environmental Affairs
                                                      District

                                                      Local agencies
                                                      Monroe County agencies

July 1991                  A meeting is held to       Core group
                           review management issues
                           and preliminary            Scientists
                           determinations. Issues     Federal and state resource
                           are further refined        managers
                           through subsequent         Environmental groups
                           technical workshops and    User groups
                           mailings.                  Others

July 1991                  A workshop is held on the  Anyone--open to the public
                           placement of mooring
                           buoys for the draft plan.

Sept. 1991                 A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           plan for a detailed
                           mapping survey of the
                           sanctuary.

Sept. 1991                 A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           obtain input from
                           environmental educators
                           on developing an
                           education plan.

Oct. 1991                  A workshop is held to      Core group
                           obtain input on a
                           research and monitoring    Over 100 scientists
                           plan for the sanctuary.

Nov. 1991                  A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           obtain input on an
                           archaeological plan for
                           the sanctuary.

Nov. 1991                  The core group clarifies   Core group
                           issues by describing
                           activities that affect     NOAA team
                           resources and by
                           identifying possible
                           conflicts in the use of
                           resources.

Dec. 1991                  A meeting is held to       Core group
                           update resource managers
                           on the status of the       Federal and state resource
                           planning process and to    managers
                           introduce the concept of
                           marine zoning.

Jan. 1992                  A week-long series of      Anyone--open to the public
                           workshops is held to
                           introduce the concept of
                           marine zoning to the
                           public.

Feb. 1992                  A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           obtain input on a water
                           quality protection
                           program.

Feb. 1992                  In a strategy              Core group
                           identification and
                           development session, the   NOAA team
                           core group and others
                           develop proposed           Scientists
                           management strategies on   Federal and state resource
                           the basis of the best      managers
                           available knowledge and
                           describe the impact of
                           the strategies on
                           resources.

June -Sept. 1992           In a strategy work         Sanctuary advisory
                           session, the sanctuary     council
                           advisory council reviews   Local industries and
                           the proposed management    businesses
                           strategies, identifies     User groups
                           additional issues, and     Local citizens
                           adopts or revises issues.  Environmental groups
                           Council members confer     Scientists
                           with constituents on
                           issues.

June -Sept. 1992           Through work sessions,     Core group
                           the core group develops
                           alternatives to address    NOAA team
                           issues and incorporate
                           strategies into
                           alternatives for the
                           environmental impact
                           statement.

July 1992                  A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           obtain input on a water
                           quality monitoring and
                           research program.

Aug. 1992                  A workshop is held to      Anyone--open to the public
                           obtain input on
                           institutional management
                           and engineering options
                           for a water quality
                           protection program.

Sept. 1992                 The core group develops    Core group
                           preliminary ideas on
                           zones: their types and     NOAA team
                           boundaries and the types
                           of activities that can
                           take place in them.

Oct. 1992                  In a second strategy       Core group
                           identification and
                           development session,       NOAA team
                           implementation costs are
                           estimated and              Scientists
                           institutional              Federal and state resource
                           responsibilities are       managers
                           identified.

Dec. 1992                  Preliminary zoning ideas   Core group
                           are presented to the       Sanctuary advisory council
                           sanctuary advisory
                           council. The council
                           agrees to break into
                           subcommittees to consider
                           the ideas in detail.

Jan. -Feb. 1993            Five workshops are held    Core group
                           to consider and develop    NOAA
                           zones.                     Sanctuary advisory
                                                      council
                                                      Others

Feb. 1993                  The sanctuary advisory     Sanctuary advisory
                           council's subcommittees    council
                           meet, develop criteria     Subset of core group and
                           for zones, apply the       NOAA team serve as
                           criteria to proposed       facilitators
                           areas, and refine
                           boundaries.

Feb. 1993                  The sanctuary advisory     Sanctuary advisory
                           council presents the       council
                           subcommittees' zoning      Anyone--open to the public
                           proposals to the public,
                           hears public comments on
                           the proposals, votes on
                           the proposals, and
                           recommends the proposals
                           to the core group and
                           NOAA.

Apr. 1993                  The core group and NOAA    Core group
                           review the sanctuary       NOAA team
                           advisory council's zoning
                           recommendations,
                           modifying and refining
                           some proposals slightly.

Apr. 1993                  The core group reviews     Core group
                           and refines socioeconomic  NOAA team
                           and environmental impact
                           assessments to develop
                           the preferred alternative
                           for the environmental
                           impact statement.

July 1993                  The sanctuary advisory     Sanctuary advisory
                           council votes on a         council
                           preferred alternative and  Anyone--open to the public
                           submits its
                           recommendation, with some
                           modifications and
                           concerns, to NOAA.

Aug. 1993                  The core group reviews     Core group
                           and adopts the sanctuary
                           advisory council's
                           recommendation on a
                           preferred alternative,
                           with minor modifications.

Nov. 1994                  NOAA completes the draft   NOAA
                           management plan and
                           begins the federal review
                           and approval process.

Apr. 1995                  The draft plan is made     Anyone--available to the
                           available for comment.     public

Apr. -May 1995             Information "expos" are    Anyone--available to the
                           held to explain the plan   public
                           in the Florida Keys and
                           answer questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Many meetings of the core group and all meetings of the
sanctuary advisory council were open to the public. 

\a Dates are approximate. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

The strategic assessment approach provided an opportunity for all
stakeholders to play a significant role in developing the management
plan.  In general, the core group identified issues, effects, causes,
data needs, strategies, and alternatives for addressing management
issues.  Efforts by the core group were developed with, or reviewed
by, local scientists and management experts.  The sanctuary advisory
council also reviewed and revised the work of the core group, often
after conferring with constituents in the community. 

Through the strategic assessment approach, stakeholders identified
management actions or strategies and their operational requirements,
institutional arrangements, implementation costs, and financing
alternatives.  Many of these strategies point to the need for
acquiring better knowledge of the resources before taking action.  A
NOAA official stated to us that this "back to front" approach helps
clarify research needs by identifying the research projects that
would be most helpful in finding solutions to specific management
problems. 

The sanctuary advisory council contributed directly to the
development of a key component of the management plan establishing
special-use zones within the sanctuary.  Zoning involved designating
areas within the sanctuary for different types of uses and activities
and for different levels of resource protection.  While NOAA and the
core group developed the preliminary ideas for zones, the advisory
council formed several subcommittees to examine these ideas in depth. 
The advisory council developed the criteria to be used in
establishing zones, and the subcommittees then applied the criteria
to develop proposed areas and refine boundaries.  The subcommittees'
proposals were ultimately presented to the public in an open meeting,
and the entire advisory council publicly voted to recommend the
subcommittees' proposals to NOAA and the core group. 

The advisory council recommended a preferred management alternative
to NOAA and the core group, which NOAA incorporated in the draft
management plan.  This plan and environmental impact statement were
made available for public comment in April 1995.  Afterwards, staff
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary held or planned to hold
(1) information expositions ("expos") throughout the Keys to answer
residents' questions about the plan, (2) working sessions with
various interest groups, and (3) public meetings before the comment
period closes in December 1995. 

According to a NOAA attorney, the core group's participation in this
inclusive, integrated approach complied with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA).  The core group was not a chartered advisory
committee; however, NOAA's attorney maintains that because it served
to exchange information, not advice, on how the state and federal
governments conduct operations on sanctuary waters, it did not fall
under FACA's requirements.  The citizen's sanctuary advisory council
was chartered under FACA. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' RESPONSE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

According to an official in NOAA's Strategic Environmental Assessment
Division, all participating stakeholders had opportunities throughout
the process to raise concerns and have these concerns addressed in
the management plan.  Consequently, few major concerns are expected
on the draft management plan.  However, in commenting on a draft of
this report, Interior officials on the Interagency Task Force on the
South Florida Ecosystem and its working group (see app.  I) said that
in spite of the extensive process outlined above, the plan remains
highly controversial and many stakeholders are questioning the
validity of their involvement.  They pointed out that although
consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders is desirable,
restoration efforts are, by their very nature, highly contentious and
that consensus begins to evaporate as a restoration effort moves from
the conceptual and planning stages to the implementation of solutions
that directly affect various interests.  Interior officials believe
that the most an agency can hope to achieve is an open airing and
full consideration of all views. 


EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT
THE FLOW OF WATER IN THE EAST
EVERGLADES
========================================================= Appendix III

Since 1985, the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been
experimenting with delivering water to the Everglades National Park
to improve environmental conditions.  It has also proposed
modifications to part of the Central and Southern Florida Project
(project) to better protect the park's natural values and improve the
delivery of water to the park.  The project, first authorized by the
Congress in 1948, serves multiple purposes, controlling flooding,
providing drainage, and supplying water for municipal and
agricultural purposes.  It consists of miles of levees and canals
that, together with water control structures and pump stations, drain
and move water throughout South Florida. 


   CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

In 1983, the Congress authorized experimental deliveries of water to
the Everglades National Park to identify changes to the project that
would improve environmental conditions.  The legislation required the
Department of the Interior's National Park Service, the Corps, and
the South Florida Water Management District (District) to agree on
the terms of such experiments and to acquire interest in agricultural
areas adjacent to the Everglades National Park that would be
adversely affected by modifications to the water delivery schedule. 
In 1989, the Congress authorized the Corps to modify the project's
canal system on the basis of the experiments' findings to (1)
permanently improve the delivery of water to the park and (2) restore
natural hydrological conditions.  In addition, under 1968 legislation
modifying the project, the Corps has reevaluated the project's east
Everglades canal system--known as the C-111 basin--to better protect
natural values in the Everglades National Park and to find permanent
solutions to water flow problems. 

In addition to these federal efforts, Florida laws and programs have
authorized the state to acquire some of the lands adjacent to the
park's eastern boundary to assist in restoring the Everglades and
Florida Bay.  Federal law provides some funding for acquiring these
lands. 

The experimental water deliveries authorized by the 1983 act have
proceeded since the resolution, in 1985, of a lawsuit filed by
landowners who were concerned about the increased potential for
flooding on their lands caused by the experiments.  This case was
settled out of court in an agreement that allowed the experiments to
proceed for 2 years without further litigation by the landowners. 
There have been no further lawsuits by, or agreements with, the
landowners over the experimental deliveries.\9

Since the experiments represent a major federal action that may
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the Corps
was required to comply with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The Corps completed two
environmental assessments--one in 1985 and another in 1993--to
address the impact of the experimental water deliveries to the
northeastern and southeastern portions of the park, respectively. 
Between the 1985 and 1993 assessments, the Corps, the National Park
Service, and the District prepared addendums to a letter of agreement
that outlined annual operating criteria for each iteration of the
experiments, which varied somewhat from year to year. 

In response to the 1989 legislation authorizing the Corps to modify
the project's canal system, the Corps completed a combined general
design memorandum and environmental impact statement in 1992.  The
memorandum identified the structural modifications to the project
needed to improve the delivery of water to the northeastern portion
of the park and to restore natural hydrological conditions. 

Finally, in May 1994, the Corps completed a combined general
reevaluation report and environmental impact statement on changes to
the C-111 basin.  Among other things, the report recommended
purchasing adjacent agricultural lands to better protect natural
values in the Everglades National Park and maintain flood control. 

The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement that led to
the 1985 and 1993 environmental assessments are outlined in tables
III.1 and III.2, respectively.  The chronology of events and
stakeholders' involvement that led to the 1992 combined general
design memorandum and environmental impact statement are outlined in
table III.3.  The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement
that led to the 1994 combined general reevaluation report and
environmental impact statement are outlined in table III.4. 
Stakeholders' involvement in the four processes is discussed in more
detail below. 



                                   Table III.1
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                        Involvement in Developing the 1985
                           Environmental Assessment for
                          Experimental Water Deliveries

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Jan. -May 1985             A draft environmental      Federal agencies
                           assessment is developed,   Army
                           reflecting informal        Corps of Engineers
                           coordination with other    Interior
                           agencies on the likely     Fish and Wildlife Service
                           impact of proposed         National Park Service
                           actions on endangered      Everglades National Park
                           species.
                                                      State agency
                                                      District

                                                      Local interests

June 1985                  The final environmental    Federal agency
                           assessment and finding of  Corps
                           no significant impact are
                           published and made
                           available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections
of Corps staff. 



                                   Table III.2
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                        Involvement in Developing the 1993
                           Environmental Assessment for
                          Experimental Water Deliveries

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Dec. 1992                  Scoping letters are        Federal agencies
                           mailed to all known        Environmental Protection
                           interests.                 Agency
                                                      Interior
                                                      National Park Service
                                                      Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                      U.S. Geological Survey
                                                      Commerce
                                                      National Oceanic and
                                                      Atmospheric
                                                      Administration
                                                      Agriculture
                                                      Others

                                                      State agencies
                                                      District
                                                      Governor's office
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental
                                                      Regulation\b
                                                      Department of Natural
                                                      Resources\b
                                                      Game and Freshwater Fish
                                                      Commission
                                                      Others

                                                      Local agencies
                                                      Metro-Dade County
                                                      agencies
                                                      Broward County agencies

                                                      Indian tribes
                                                      Environmental groups
                                                      Agricultural interests
                                                      Others

Jan. -Apr. 1993            The draft environmental    Federal agency
                           assessment is developed.   Corps

Apr. 1993                  Coordination and           Federal agency
                           consultation occur on the  Fish and Wildlife Service
                           impact of proposed
                           actions on wildlife and
                           endangered species.

Apr. 1993                  The draft environmental    Anyone--available to the
                           assessment is made         public
                           available for public
                           comment.                   (A notice and/or copy is
                                                      mailed to those on scoping
                                                      mailing list)

Apr. 1993                  A public meeting is        Anyone--open to the public
                           held.


June 1993                  The final environmental    Federal agency
                           assessment and finding of  Corps
                           no significant impact are
                           completed and published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections
of Corps staff. 

\b Now part of the Department of Environmental Protection. 



                                   Table III.3
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                      Involvement in Developing the Combined
                          General Design Memorandum and
                        Environmental Impact Statement for
                            Modifying Water Deliveries

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Jan. 1985                  Alternatives are           Federal agencies
                           developed for public       Corps
                           consideration.             National Park Service
                                                      Everglades National Park

                                                      State agency
                                                      District

Apr. 1985                  Recommendations are        State agency
                           developed on goals,        East Everglades Resource
                           objectives, and            Management and
                           alternatives.              Implementation Committee

Jan. 1987                  The first round of         Various stakeholders
                           coordination workshops is
                           held to review
                           alternatives.

Oct. 1987                  Alternatives are revised   Federal agency
                           in response to comments.   Corps

Oct. 1987 -Apr. 1988       A second round of          Various stakeholders
                           coordination workshops is
                           held to review changes.

Jan. 1989 -Feb. 1990       Consultations occur on     Federal agencies
                           the impact of proposed     Fish and Wildlife Service
                           actions on endangered      Corps
                           species.

June 1989 -Oct. 1989       A final round of           Various stakeholders
                           coordination workshops is
                           held to consider changes
                           to protect endangered
                           species.

Aug. 1990                  A draft combined general   Anyone--available to the
                           design memorandum and      public
                           environmental impact
                           statement is made
                           available for public
                           comment.

Sept. -Oct. 1990           Public meetings are held   Anyone--open to the public
                           on the draft.

June 1992                  The final combined         Federal agency
                           general design memorandum  Corps
                           and environmental impact
                           statement with a
                           preferred alternative is
                           completed and published.

Sept. 1992                 Comments are received on   Anyone--available to the
                           the final combined         public
                           general design memorandum
                           and environmental impact
                           statement.

June 1993                  Responses to comments and  Federal agency
                           the Corps' record of       Corps
                           decision are published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections
of Corps staff.  Distinctions among rounds of coordination workshops
are not clear:  Workshops were held continuously throughout the
process. 



                                   Table III.4
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                      Involvement in Developing the Combined
                         General Reevaluation Report and
                        Environmental Impact Statement for
                            Changes in the C-111 Basin

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Sept. 1993                 Scoping letters are        Federal agencies
                           mailed to all known        Interior
                           interests.                 National Park Service
                                                      Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                      Commerce
                                                      National Marine Fisheries
                                                      Service
                                                      Others

                                                      State agencies
                                                      Game and Fresh Water Fish
                                                      Commission
                                                      District
                                                      Others

                                                      Local agencies
                                                      Dade County agencies
                                                      Others

                                                      Tribes
                                                      Environmentalists
                                                      Agricultural interests
                                                      Others

June -Dec. 1993            A preliminary draft        Federal agency
                           general reevaluation       Corps
                           report and environmental
                           impact statement is
                           developed.

Dec. 1993                  The preliminary draft is   Anyone--available to the
                           made available for public  public
                           comment.

Dec. 1993 and Feb. 1994    The Corps briefs the       Anyone--open to the public
                           District's subcommittee
                           on Florida Bay.

Jan. -Mar. 1994            Three new alternatives     Federal agency
                           are incorporated into the  Corps
                           draftin response to
                           comments on the
                           preliminary draft from
                           the National Park
                           Service, agricultural
                           interests, and others.

Mar. 1994                  The draft general          Anyone--available to the
                           reevaluation report and    public
                           environmental impact
                           statement is made
                           available for public
                           comment.

Mar. 1994                  A public meeting is held.  Anyone--open to the public

Apr. 1994                  Meetings are held with     Federal agency
                           state agencies and         Corps
                           others.
                                                      State agencies
                                                      Governor's office
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental Protection
                                                      Department of Community
                                                      Affairs
                                                      Game and Fresh Water Fish
                                                      Commission
                                                      District

                                                      Local agencies
                                                      Dade County agencies

                                                      Agricultural interests
                                                      Environmental groups

May 1994                   The final general          Federal agency
                           reevaluation report and    Corps
                           the environmental impact
                           statement with a
                           preferred alternative is
                           published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections
of Corps staff. 


--------------------
\9 In a separate matter, adjacent agricultural landowners also
protested a decision by the Corps and the National Park Service to
cease drawing down water levels in the fall.  In 1984, these agencies
acceded to a landowners' request that they draw down water levels in
October, as a 1-year experiment.  This drawdown allowed farmers to
plant crops earlier in the season than they could otherwise have
done.  The drawdowns continued through 1987.  However, because of
concerns about their impact on the park, the agencies stopped them in
1988.  In 1993, agricultural landowners sued to have the drawdowns
reinstated but lost their case. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Regulations for implementing NEPA require federal agencies, in
preparing an environmental assessment, to involve other agencies and
the public to the extent practicable.  However, the regulations
require the agencies, in preparing an environmental impact statement,
to obtain comments early in the process from affected federal, state,
and local agencies; Indian tribes; and other interested parties so
that they can determine the scope of the issues to be addressed in
the statement.  The regulations further require the agencies, after
preparing a draft environmental impact statement, to request comments
from appropriate agencies and the public and then respond to these
comments in a final environmental impact statement.  In responding,
the agencies can modify alternatives or analyses, evaluate new
alternatives, make factual corrections, or explain why comments do
not warrant further response.  Federal agencies are free to increase
the public's involvement beyond these minimum requirements. 


      STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT IN
      DEVELOPING THE 1985 AND 1993
      ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
      FOR EXPERIMENTAL WATER
      DELIVERIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

Stakeholders' involvement in developing the 1985 environmental
assessment was limited (see table III.1).  The final environmental
assessment indicates only that informal coordination took place with
the District, local interests, the Everglades National Park, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service.  Moreover, the letters of agreement
outlining changes to annual operating criteria for each iteration of
the experiments were not made available for public comment. 

In completing the 1993 environmental assessment, the Corps involved
the public more extensively and generally followed the steps required
by NEPA for environmental impact statements (see table III.2). 
Scoping letters were mailed to a wide variety of potentially
interested federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups;
private citizens; university faculty; and others for comment early
on, and opportunities were provided for stakeholders to comment on
the draft assessment.  A public meeting was held to obtain input as
well.  However, letters of agreement outlining changes to annual
operating criteria for each iteration of the experiments were not
made available for public comment. 


      STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT IN
      DEVELOPING THE COMBINED
      GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM
      AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
      STATEMENT FOR MODIFYING
      WATER DELIVERIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

According to Corps officials in the Jacksonville District Office, the
Corps, in developing the combined general design memorandum and
environmental impact statement for modifying the project's canal
system to improve the delivery of water to the park (see table
III.3), relied on input from a state committee established by the
governor of Florida to identify problems, goals, and objectives for
managing the East Everglades.  This committee--the East Everglades
Resource Planning and Management Committee--whose members represented
a variety of interest groups and state agencies, examined a broad
range of water resource issues relevant to the East Everglades.  The
committee recommended actions for the governor to take in the East
Everglades that were adopted as state policy. 

In addition, according to Corps officials, the Corps held numerous
coordination workshops with various stakeholders--including the
agricultural community, homeowners, conservation groups, and local
government agencies--during the development of the environmental
impact statement.  The Corps provided these groups with information
about proposed alternatives before the workshops and obtained their
feedback on the proposals during the workshops.  In response to
comments received during the first round of workshops, the Corps
modified the alternatives and presented them for comment in a second
round of workshops.  The Corps held a final round of workshops to
make modifications responding to concerns about endangered species. 
It then made the draft combined general design memorandum and
environmental impact statement available for comment and held public
meetings on the draft, including one specifically for homeowners in
adjacent areas.  The Corps also made the final environmental impact
statement available for comment before completing the record of
decision. 


      STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT IN
      DEVELOPING THE COMBINED
      GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT
      AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
      STATEMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE
      C-111 BASIN
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

The Corps followed NEPA's basic requirements in completing the
combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact
statement for changes in the C-111 basin (see table III.4).  It
mailed scoping letters to all known interested parties--including
federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; and various
interest groups--provided opportunities for stakeholders to comment
on the preliminary and draft documents, and held a public meeting on
the draft document.  In addition, Corps officials informed us that
they maintained an open-door policy during the development of the
document; that is, they met with anyone who requested a meeting,
including some agricultural landowners and environmental groups. 
Moreover, the District, in addition to several federal agencies,
assisted the Corps in evaluating alternatives. 

The Corps is considering alternatives to increase public involvement,
including establishing an advisory committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice on all of the
Corps' South Florida restoration efforts (also see app.  IV).  If the
Corps finds that the establishment of such a committee is warranted
and recommended, it would have to obtain the approval of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Department
of the Army, and the Department of Defense.  In addition, the General
Service Administration would have to find that establishing the
committee complies with Executive Order 12838, which limits the
establishment of new advisory committees under FACA. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' RESPONSE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Many of the comments that the Corps received on the NEPA documents,
including those from state agencies, generally supported the proposed
federal actions, although they often raised concerns and suggested
ways to improve the alternatives under consideration.  However,
adjacent landowners maintained in comments on the 1993 draft
environmental assessment that their lands had been damaged by
flooding from the experimental water deliveries.  The National Park
Service and the Corps maintained that they had taken the steps needed
to prevent damage to the adjacent lands from the deliveries and that
flood control was better under the experiments than before.  The
experimental water delivery program has continued unimpeded. 

Agricultural interests also expressed concerns, in comments on the
draft combined general design memorandum and environmental impact
statement for modifying water deliveries, that the alternatives would
increase flooding on their land.  The Corps responded to the points
raised; however, it did not modify the alternatives, and the project
has proceeded. 

Agricultural landowners expressed concerns, in comments on the draft
combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact
statement for changes in the C-111 basin, about the economic impact
of the preferred alternative--acquisition of their land.  They
presented their own alternative--a curtain wall to prevent seepage
between the Everglades National Park and adjacent fields.  Such a
wall would have allowed the park to maintain higher water levels
without affecting the fields.  The Corps examined this proposal but
rejected it because it would have cost significantly more than
acquiring the land.  According to the landowners, the Corps' analysis
is flawed, and the Corps has not adequately considered the economic
impact of removing agricultural land from production. 

Although some landowners did not want to sell their land, portions
have been condemned for purchase by the District under state law. 
The landowners recently agreed to make all of their land available
for acquisition because they do not believe that the District's plans
are adequate to prevent flooding on land that is not acquired. 

As Interior officials noted in commenting on the effort to develop a
management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (see
app.  II), restoration efforts are inherently contentious, and
consensus on solutions can begin to wane as a restoration effort
moves from the planning to the implementation stage and stakeholders
begin to feel the effects of public policy decisions.  Similarly,
satisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement may wane
when nonfederal stakeholders perceive, as the agricultural landowners
have done, that their interests have been adversely affected by the
outcome of the process.  According to Interior officials, the most
that a federal agency may be able to achieve is an open airing and
full consideration of all views. 


EFFORT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS
TO SOUTH FLORIDA'S EXTENSIVE FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
========================================================== Appendix IV

The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L.  102-580) and two
resolutions of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation
in 1992 authorized the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to study
the feasibility of modifying the structure and operations of the
Central and Southern Florida Project (project) for environmental
quality, water supply, and other purposes.  The focus of the study is
to determine the feasibility of restoring components of the South
Florida ecosystem that were altered by the project while providing
for other water-related needs.  The Corps completed the first phase
of this study and issued a reconnaissance report in November 1994. 
This report recommended six basic plans for more detailed study in
the feasibility phase. 


   CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The Corps generally plans for water resources projects in two phases: 
a reconnaissance phase and a feasibility phase.  The objective of the
reconnaissance phase is to identify problems and opportunities,
formulate and evaluate preliminary concepts to address the problems,
and recommend further detailed studies.  During the feasibility
phase, alternative plans are studied in more detail. 

Corps officials told us that, in light of the interest shown by the
public, political officials, and the media in the restoration of the
South Florida ecosystem, the Corps recognized that its usual project
study process would not be adequate.  Hence, the Corps used an
interagency study team instead of relying solely on its own staff and
greatly increased the opportunities for public involvement.  The
interagency study team included staff from the South Florida Water
Management District (District), the Department of the Interior's
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, as well
as Corps staff. 

The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement leading up to
the issuance of the reconnaissance report are outlined in table IV.1. 
Stakeholders' involvement is subsequently discussed in more detail. 



                                    Table IV.1
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                           Involvement in Developing a
                      Reconnaissance Report on Modifications
                       to the Central and Southern Florida
                                     Project

Date\a                     Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Sept. -Oct. 1992           The Congress authorizes a  Not applicable
                           restudy so that the Corps
                           can determine whether the
                           project should be
                           modified for
                           environmental quality,
                           water supply, and other
                           purposes.

June -July 1993            A strategy is developed,   Interagency study team
                           work begins, and an        Federal agencies
                           interagency study team is  Army
                           assembled.                 Corps
                                                      Interior
                                                      Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                      National Park Service
                                                      Commerce
                                                      National Marine Fisheries
                                                      Service

                                                      State agency
                                                      South Florida Water
                                                      Management
                                                      District (District)

Sept. 1993                 The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           District's governing
                           board.

Sept. 1993                 The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           federal Interagency Task
                           Force on the South
                           Florida Ecosystem (see
                           app. I).

Dec. 1993                  The first round of public  Anyone--open to the public
                           workshops is held to
                           define the problem and
                           identify public concerns
                           for the reconnaissance
                           phase.

Jan. 1994                  An inventory of public     Interagency study team
                           concerns is developed.

Apr. 1994                  The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           District's governing
                           board.

May 1994                   The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           interagency task force
                           and its working group.

Jan. -June 1994            Technical analysis         Interagency study team
                           occurs, planning
                           objectives and
                           constraints are
                           established, and
                           preliminary ideas are
                           developed.

June 1994                  A second round of          Anyone--open to the public
                           workshops is held to
                           obtain public comment on
                           the preliminary ideas.

June 1994                  The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           Governor's Commission on
                           a Sustainable South
                           Florida.

Sept. 1994                 The study team briefs a    Anyone--open to the public
                           joint meeting of the
                           interagency task force,
                           the governor's
                           commission, and the
                           District's governing
                           board.

June -Oct. 1994            Conceptual plans for the   Interagency study team
                           reconnaissance study are
                           developed.

Oct. 1994                  The study team briefs the  Anyone--open to the public
                           District's governing
                           board.

Oct. 1994                  The study team holds a     Anyone--open to the public
                           third round of public
                           meetings.

Nov. 1994                  The study team completes   Interagency study team
                           the reconnaissance
                           report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections
of Corps staff. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

According to the Corps, a multiagency approach was essential to
facilitate the flow of information among agencies and achieve buy-in
from key stakeholders in public agencies.  The overall strategy for
involving the public in the reconnaissance phase was to solicit
information from the public for use by the study team and then
provide feedback to the public on how the information was being used. 

The Corps' strategy had three goals:  (1) to gather input from
diverse groups to help identify problems, opportunities, and
solutions, (2) to develop relationships between federal and
nonfederal stakeholders critical to the success of the study and the
implementation of its recommendations, and (3) to manage
expectations.  Public input in the reconnaissance phase was obtained
through 19 public workshops held at three stages in the process. 
Before the second and third rounds of workshops, newsletters were
made available to stakeholders describing the purposes of the
upcoming workshops, summarizing the public comments from the previous
workshops, and explaining how the comments had been incorporated into
the study.  In addition, the study team briefed interested
stakeholders--including agricultural, environmental, and tribal
groups--on an ad hoc basis.  The study team also briefed the federal
Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem (see app.  I)
and the District's governing board at key stages, giving them
opportunities to review and comment on the team's progress and
products.  These meetings were open to the public. 

The interagency study team was not chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  According to Corps officials, the
involvement of District staff on the study team does not violate the
act because the District is the Corps' local cost-share sponsor for
the study. 

Preliminary steps for implementing the feasibility phase are now
under way.  The Corps is considering alternatives to increase public
involvement, including establishing an advisory committee chartered
under FACA to provide advice on all of the Corps' South Florida
restoration efforts (also see app.  III).  If the Corps finds that
the establishment of such a committee is warranted and recommended,
it would have to obtain the approval of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Department of the Army, and
the Department of Defense.  In addition, the General Service
Administration would have to find that establishing the committee
complies with Executive Order 12838, which limits the establishment
of new advisory committees under FACA. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' RESPONSE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Our discussions with nonfederal stakeholders and Corps staff
indicated general satisfaction with the interagency study team's
process for developing the reconnaissance report.  However, according
to Corps officials involved in the reconnaissance phase, some
stakeholders have indicated that more public input would have been
desirable.  In addition, as previously noted (see app.  III),
restoration efforts typically raise contentious issues, and consensus
may be difficult to sustain as implementation affects competing
interests. 


EFFORT TO REDUCE AGRICULTURAL
POLLUTANTS IN WATER ENTERING THE
EVERGLADES
=========================================================== Appendix V

The effort to settle litigation concerning the runoff of phosphorus
from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area began in 1988,
when the federal government sued two state agencies for failing to
enforce the state's water quality standards, and led to the enactment
of Florida's Everglades Forever Act in 1994.  In contrast to the
other federal efforts discussed in this report, this one does not
represent the implementation of a public policy initiative required
by law or begun at the urging of the Secretary of the Interior. 
Rather, it represents an attempt to settle years of litigation that
ultimately resulted in a public policy initiative (the 1994 act) that
is now being implemented.  Therefore, the goal of federal negotiators
involved in this effort was not to build collaboration and consensus
among federal and nonfederal stakeholders but to reach a fair
settlement for the federal government.  Given this goal,
participation in the process was limited primarily to the parties to
the litigation.  However, public participation did occur during (1)
formal mediation to address technical issues and (2) the state's
legislative process leading up to the act's passage. 


   CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

In October 1988, the federal government sued the South Florida Water
Management District (District) and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (now part of the Department of Environmental
Protection) for failing to enforce the state's water quality
standards.  According to the federal government, phosphorus from
agricultural practices on sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural
Area was entering the Everglades National Park and the Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge, altering their plant communities.  The
federal government maintained that the addition of phosphorus--a
nutrient--was changing the composition of the vegetation from
sawgrass, which requires few nutrients, to cattails, which tolerate
more nutrients.  Cattails do not provide suitable forage or habitat
for wildlife native to the Everglades. 

In 1991, the federal government and the state of Florida entered into
negotiations, and in July 1991, they reached a settlement agreement
to resolve the lawsuit.\10

This agreement accepted the federal government's position that
phosphorus runoff from the region's sugar farms was polluting the
Everglades.  The agreement--and the state's plan for implementing
it--proposed to design and construct stormwater treatment areas--that
is, wetlands designed to filter phosphorus from the agricultural
runoff and release the cleansed water into other parts of the
Everglades.  In February 1992, a federal district court approved the
agreement as a legally binding consent decree. 

The settlement agreement, among other things, required sugar growers
in the Everglades Agricultural Area to adopt best management
practices on their farms to help reduce phosphorus levels, obtain
permits from the state to discharge water, monitor water quality, and
possibly incur certain costs in meeting these requirements.  Affected
sugar growers filed lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement. 
They disputed, and sought to obtain, the documents that formed the
scientific basis for the agreement--that is, (1) the state's water
quality standards and (2) the federal government's position that
phosphorus runoff from sugar farms was polluting the Everglades.  The
growers also petitioned for an evidentiary hearing on the findings in
the settlement agreement and on the state's plan to implement the
agreement so that they could present evidence that they believed
would cast doubt on both the federal government's position and the
effectiveness of the stormwater treatment areas in filtering
phosphorus. 

In response to the sugar growers' litigation, the district court and
a federal court of appeals ruled that the plan to implement the
settlement agreement would be subject to the state's administrative
process.  This process allows for an evidentiary hearing before an
impartial hearing officer to resolve disputed factual issues. 
Therefore, after the state issued its plan to implement the
settlement agreement in March 1992, sugar growers in the Everglades
Agricultural Area filed legal challenges to obtain an evidentiary
hearing on the plan. 

In December 1992, the parties to the litigation\11

entered into formal mediation to resolve the challenges using a
nationally recognized mediator.  Other stakeholders--including Indian
tribes and urban residents--were involved through a series of public
meetings at which they could voice their concerns.  The mediation
also included a series of technical discussions involving scientists
representing the federal government, the state, large and small sugar
growers, Indian tribes, environmentalists, and others.  The result
was a mediated technical plan based on the settlement agreement. 
Most of the parties generally supported the plan, but agreement was
not unanimous on all of its provisions.  In addition, support for the
plan depended on the parties' reaching agreement on other issues,
such as cost-sharing and land acquisition. 

Negotiations then moved to a second stage involving the parties who
would share the cost of implementing the technical plan.  These
parties included the federal government--Interior and the U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps)--the state--the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the District--and the sugar growers. 
These negotiations, hosted by Interior primarily in Washington D.C.,
resulted in a statement of principles that adopted the mediated
technical plan as the basis for water quality requirements and
outlined the financial obligations of the various parties. 
Agricultural interests were to pay $322 million over 20 years, and
taxpayers were to pay the remaining costs through several state
programs and District taxes.  The statement was signed in July 1993
by the federal and state governments, the District, and the two
largest sugar companies in the Everglades Agricultural Area--United
States Sugar Corporation (U.S.  Sugar) and Flo-Sun.\12

Negotiations among these parties continued on other issues, including
the date for compliance with the state's water quality standards. 
However, in December 1993 the two largest sugar companies walked away
from the negotiations, claiming that the federal government had
withheld information from the negotiations and thus acted in "bad
faith" (see app.  I).  Subsequently, one of the
companies--Flo-Sun--returned to the negotiations and, in January
1994, entered into an agreement to meet its financial obligations
under the statement of principles. 

The mediated technical plan and the financial obligations set forth
in the statement of principles, coupled with the compliance date in
the January 1994 agreement with Flo-Sun, formed the basis for the
state's Everglades Forever Act, which the governor signed in May
1994.  According to Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, the act was a product of committee hearings and
floor debate, including votes on numerous amendments in both houses
of the state legislature, over several months.  Public involvement,
debate, lobbying, and pressure from all interests was intense.  The
act's passage abrogated the need for the evidentiary hearing on the
plan for implementing the settlement agreement that had been
scheduled for several weeks later:  The act repealed the requirement
that the state develop such a plan for the Everglades. 

The chronology of events and stakeholders' involvement leading up to
the act's passage are outlined in table V.1.  Stakeholders'
involvement is subsequently discussed in more detail. 



                                    Table V.1
                     
                      Chronology of Events and Stakeholders'
                      Involvement Leading to the Passage of
                            the Everglades Forever Act

Date                       Event                      Participants
-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
Oct. 1988                  The U.S. attorney's        Federal agencies
                           office sues the state for  Justice
                           not enforcing the state's  U.S. attorney's office
                           water quality standards
                           for phosphorus runoff      State agencies
                           into the Everglades        District
                           National Park and the      Department of
                           Loxahatchee National       Environmental Regulation
                           Wildlife Refuge.

July 1991                  The parties reach a        Federal agencies
                           settlement agreement.      Interior
                                                      Justice

                                                      State agencies
                                                      District
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental Regulation

Feb. 1992                  A federal district court   Not applicable
                           approves the settlement
                           agreement in a consent
                           decree.

Mar. 1992                  The state issues its plan  Federal agencies
                           to implement the           Justice
                           settlement agreement.      U.S. attorney's office
                           Affected sugar growers
                           subsequently challenge     State agencies
                           the plan.                  District
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental Regulation

                                                      Sugar growers

Dec. 1992                  Formal mediation of        Anyone--open to the
                           challenges to the          public
                           settlement agreement and
                           implementation plan
                           begins.

May 1993                   Parties to the litigation  Federal agencies
                           develop a mediated         Interior
                           technical plan.            Corps

                                                      State agencies
                                                      District
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental Regulation

                                                      Sugar growers
                                                      Indian tribes
                                                      Environmental groups
                                                      Others

July 1993                  Some parties to the        Federal agencies
                           litigation sign a          Interior
                           statement of principles    Corps
                           outlining cost-sharing
                           for a mediated technical   State agencies
                           plan.                      District
                                                      Department of
                                                      Environmental Protection

                                                      Sugar companies
                                                      Flo-Sun
                                                      U.S. Sugar

Jan. 1994                  Agreement is reached       Federal agency
                           revising the date for      Interior
                           compliance with the
                           state's water quality      Sugar company
                           standards.                 Flo-Sun


Jan. -May 1994             The Florida state          Anyone through the state
                           legislature debates the    legislative process
                           Everglades Forever Act.

May 1994                   The governor signs the     Not applicable
                           Everglades Forever Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\10 A group representing agricultural interests obtained intervenor
status in July 1991, 2 days before the settlement agreement was
signed.  Other interests, including environmental groups, had
previously obtained intervenor status.  Intervenor status made these
groups parties to the litigation, allowing them to submit arguments
to the court supporting their position. 

\11 In addition to these parties--the state of Florida, the District,
and the sugar growers--the federal government and five environmental
groups had obtained intervenor status to the litigation. 

\12 South Bay Growers, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.  Sugar, also
participated in the negotiations.  A representative of U.S.  Sugar
signed the resulting statement of principles for both U.S.  Sugar and
South Bay Growers. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

According to Interior officials involved in the negotiations, there
is no legal or policy rationale for letting a person who is not a
party to a lawsuit participate in the negotiations to settle the
lawsuit.  Therefore, mediation to develop a technical plan was
limited primarily to the parties to the sugar growers' lawsuits
challenging the settlement agreement.  Similarly, negotiations on
cost-sharing and on the date for complying with the state's water
quality standards were limited primarily to the parties who would
share the cost of implementing the technical plan.  Interior
officials noted, however, that the state's enactment of the
Everglades Forever Act exhibited the workings of participatory
democracy.  Through legislative hearings and communications with
elected officials, all interested parties arrived at a broad public
consensus on what would be required to prevent phosphorus runoff from
sugar farms from entering the Everglades. 

However, Interior and the smaller sugar growers, represented by the
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, disagree on the extent to
which these growers were involved in the negotiations leading up to
the statement of principles outlining the financial obligations of
the various parties.  According to officials from the cooperative,
key decisions were made when representatives of the cooperative were
not present.  According to Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, representatives of the smaller sugar growers
were included, not excluded, from virtually all negotiations. 

Similarly, the Miccosuke Tribe maintains that Interior violated the
terms of a memorandum of agreement that the two parties signed to
keep the tribe informed of activities connected with implementing the
settlement agreement.  The memorandum states, among other things,
that Interior will notify the tribe of long-range changes in water
policy or program goals related to implementing the agreement that
would materially affect lands in which the tribe has interests.  The
tribe maintains that Interior engaged in secret negotiations over the
Everglades with third parties outside the federal government, that
these negotiations excluded the tribe, and that Interior failed to
consult with or discuss these meetings with the tribe or advise the
tribe of Interior's positions.  Interior's Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks disagrees, stating that attorneys for the
tribe participated fully in developing the mediated technical plan
and were kept informed of the cost-sharing negotiations.  On January
24, 1995, the U.S.  District Court, Southern District of Florida,
took no position as to whether either party had violated the
memorandum but ordered the federal government to take certain steps
to keep the tribe informed of activities connected with implementing
the settlement agreement. 

According to Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, environmental groups that were parties to the sugar growers'
lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement were represented by
their attorneys--the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund--in the
negotiations that resulted in the statement of principles. 


   STAKEHOLDERS' RESPONSE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

The signing of the Everglades Forever Act concluded years of
litigation and began the implementation of a strategy for restoring
both the quality of the water entering the Everglades and the
quantity and timing of the water's flow.  According to Interior's
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the agreements
that formed the basis for the Everglades Forever Act produced the
most effective results the federal government could expect.  That is,
the cost-sharing provisions are better for the state and federal
governments and restoration will begin more quickly than if the legal
challenges filed by the sugar growers had been allowed to proceed. 

Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks told
us that the governor and his administration supported the Everglades
Forever Act as a means to resolve both the federal and the sugar
growers' lawsuits.  He said that the act was generally supported by
the federal government, some sugar growers, and some environmental
groups and that it enjoyed almost unanimous editorial support in the
Florida media as well as among the state's delegation to the
Congress. 

However, officials from or representatives of the Sugar Cane Growers
Cooperative of Florida, the Miccosuke Tribe, and several
environmental groups--Friends of the Everglades and the Everglades
Coalition (a national coalition of environmental groups)--told us
that they would have preferred the litigation to proceed, as
scheduled, to a hearing where all sides could have presented their
views and evidence before an impartial hearing officer.  For example,
the cooperative maintains that it has scientific evidence that casts
doubt on the Everglades Forever Act's basis for requiring reductions
in phosphorus levels.  Both the cooperative and Friends of the
Everglades have questioned the effectiveness of the stormwater
treatment areas in filtering phosphorus and believe that the
stormwater treatment areas could elevate mercury in fish and wading
birds to harmful levels.  These parties believe that the process that
resulted in the Everglades Forever Act did not afford full
consideration of their evidence, and each has filed legal challenges
and/or administrative appeals relating to the act. 

Interior officials characterize the legal challenges and
administrative appeals as attempts to derail restoration on the part
of a few disgruntled parties.  The Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of
Florida, the Friends of the Everglades, the Everglades Coalition, and
the Miccosuke Tribe have expressed their dissatisfaction with the
Everglades Forever Act.  Hence, their dissatisfaction with the
process for nonfederal involvement cannot be dissociated from their
dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process. 


COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR AND GAO'S RESPONSES
========================================================== Appendix VI

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
the Interior or his designee.  On August 2, 1995, we met with the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; the Assistant
Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget; the Associate Solicitor for
General Law; and other Interior officials to obtain their comments on
the report.  Before the meeting, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks provided us with his comments on the draft.  After
the meeting, the Associate Solicitor for General Law and officials
from the Everglades National Park also provided us with their
comments. 

Interior officials raised several concerns about the report's overall
findings and about the conclusions and recommendations that flowed
from them.  In addition, Interior officials commented on the sections
of the report and appendixes that address public participation in the
efforts to coordinate restoration activities in South Florida (see
app.  I) and to settle complex water quality litigation (see app. 
V).  Substantive comments by Interior officials are summarized below. 
In addition, Interior offered updated information and editorial
comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

Interior's Comment:  The report should be updated and the related
recommendation deleted on the basis of the actions taken since
legislation was enacted in March 1995 that provides exemptions from
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

The draft report stated that since the task force is acting under the
federal agencies' general authorities rather than under specific
programs, it was not clear what effect the March 1995 amendment would
have on coordination between federal and nonfederal governmental
agencies in South Florida or on similar efforts in other regions of
the country.  Moreover, Florida's Sunshine Act requires that all
meetings involving state employees be open to the public.  The draft
report contained a proposed recommendation that the task force inform
the General Services Administration's Committee Management
Secretariat, which is responsible for drafting guidelines to
implement the amendment, of the extent to which the amendment and
guidelines allow the task force to share information, coordinate
activities, and work routinely with state, local, and other
governmental agencies without violating the act.  Interior officials
confirmed that the working group's membership has been expanded to
include the state of Florida and the Seminole and Miccosuke tribes
and that they participated in the working group's April 5, 1995,
meeting. 

GAO's Response:  We revised the report to recognize that the working
group had expanded its membership to include state and tribal
officials.  We also modified the recommendation to focus on
constraints to formal participation by nongovernmental interests in
federal restoration efforts. 

Interior's Comment:  The recommendation that the Interagency Task
Force on the South Florida Ecosystem develop a strategy to improve
collaboration with nonfederal stakeholders should be deleted. 

The draft report recommended that the Secretary of the Interior
direct the task force to develop a strategy to improve collaboration
with nonfederal stakeholders in coordinating environmental
restoration activities in South Florida.  It further recommended
that, in developing such a strategy, the task force consider as
examples the processes used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive management plan for
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and by the U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers to consider modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project.  Interior officials commented that the task
force had already developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal
stakeholders that has worked well and represents a model for such
partnerships around the country.  Moreover, these officials believe
that the process used by NOAA to develop a comprehensive management
plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is not
appropriate for the task force, since the task force is an operative
and action-oriented body, not a "master planning body."

GAO's Response:  While we agree that the task force has developed a
strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders, this strategy
does not include formal participation in the working group and its
subgroups by either local officials or representatives of the diverse
nongovernmental interests across South Florida.  Moreover, we believe
that the effort to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
is similar to the task force's effort to coordinate environmental
restoration activities in South Florida in that both have developed a
plan of action and are moving toward implementation.  In addition,
precedent exists for establishing a citizens' group to formally
participate in the task force's effort and to promote public
involvement and outreach (see app.  I).  Therefore, we have modified
the recommendation to state that the task force should develop a
strategy to extend formal participation in its working group and
subgroups to local officials and representatives of South Florida's
nongovernmental interests, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen,
commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. 
One alternative would be to charter a citizens' advisory group under
FACA to formally participate in the task force's effort and to
promote public involvement and outreach. 

Interior's Comment:  The restoration efforts should not be compared
to one another. 

In identifying the extent of nonfederal stakeholders' involvement,
the draft report treated the five federal efforts to address
environmental and economic concerns in South Florida separately and
noted that the extent to which each effort involved nonfederal
stakeholders varied significantly.  The draft report cautioned,
however, that differences among the five efforts--in the
contentiousness of the issues and other influential factors--suggest
that no one process to involve nonfederal stakeholders would be
appropriate for all efforts.  Interior officials believed that the
draft report's organization of the five efforts on a spectrum of
public participation damages the records of some efforts by elevating
others and fails to note the many differences that exist among the
various efforts. 

GAO's Response:  We agree with Interior that differences among the
five efforts preclude comparisons.  For example, efforts to
coordinate activities, develop plans, or implement solutions to
specific problems or issues should not be compared either explicitly
or implicitly.  Similarly, an effort that has already reached a
difficult public policy decision--to acquire private lands, for
example--should not be compared to one that has only begun to
identify and evaluate options for solving a problem or issue. 
Finally, an effort to settle years of litigation that ultimately
resulted in a public policy initiative (the Everglades Forever Act)
should not be compared to other efforts to implement public policy
initiatives that were required by law or begun at the urging of the
Secretary of the Interior.  Therefore, the report has been recast to
better emphasize the differences among the efforts that preclude
comparisons. 

Interior's Comment:  The environmental restoration efforts are
interrelated. 

Interior officials stated that, in treating the restoration efforts
separately, the draft report leaves the mistaken impression that each
is separate unto itself.  Hence, the draft report largely misses the
point that the efforts are all part of an integrated ecosystem
management approach to restore the environment of South Florida. 

GAO's Response:  We agree that the efforts are all part of an
integrated ecosystem management approach to restore the environment
of South Florida and have identified linkages among them.  However,
the various efforts began at different times, under different
authorities, and have progressed to different stages, ranging from
planning to implementing solutions to specific concerns.  Therefore,
we believe that it is appropriate to address the efforts separately. 

Interior's Comment:  The effort to settle litigation concerning the
runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural
Area should not be covered in the report. 

Interior officials stated that the effort to settle the litigation
should not be included in the report because the phase of the
negotiations in which federal officials were involved that eventually
failed to reach an agreement cannot be compared to any other public
process. 

GAO's Response:  While we agree with Interior that differences among
the efforts preclude comparisons, we believe that the effort to
settle the litigation should be included in the report because it is
clearly under the task force's umbrella and is linked to other
environmental restoration efforts.  We note that the administration's
fiscal year 1996 budget request for Interior identifies the
settlement as a major success of the task force. 

Interior's Comment:  Consensus on solutions to problems or issues may
not be attainable. 

Interior pointed out that although consensus among federal and
nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are, by
their very nature, highly contentious.  Moreover, consensus begins to
evaporate as a restoration effort moves from the conceptual and
planning stages to the implementation of solutions that directly
affect various interests.  Interior officials believe that the most
an agency can hope to achieve is an open airing and full
consideration of all views. 

GAO's Response:  In the draft report we stated that, as the efforts
in South Florida have shown, increased collaboration can help federal
and nonfederal stakeholders build consensus on difficult public
policy issues and decide on actions that are necessary to maintain or
restore desired ecological conditions.  However, decisions that
change land-use patterns and affect property ownership, such as the
state's decision to acquire privately owned agricultural lands
adjacent to the Everglades National Park, may not be acceptable to
all stakeholders.  We have expanded this lesson to incorporate
Interior's observations on the contentiousness of restoration efforts
and on the instability of consensus in the face of direct threats to
vested interests. 

Interior's Comment:  Litigation limited public participation. 

The draft report stated that Interior had excluded all but a few
stakeholders in reaching agreement over a strategy for improving the
quality of the water entering the Everglades by turning to
closed-door negotiations when mediation involving all stakeholders
could not resolve key issues.  In their comments, Interior officials
pointed out that (1) there is no legal or policy rationale for
letting a person who is not a party to a lawsuit participate in the
negotiations to settle the lawsuit, (2) mediation to develop a
technical plan provided an opportunity for parties to the lawsuit to
voice their concerns, and (3) negotiations to reach agreement on
sharing the cost of implementing the plan should be limited primarily
to the parties who are going to incur the cost. 

GAO's Response:  We revised the report to recognize Interior's
reasons for limiting public participation in the effort to reach
agreement over a strategy for improving the quality of the water
entering the Everglades. 

Interior's Comment:  Public participation occurred during the state's
legislative process. 

The draft report stated that the agreements resulting from the
closed-door negotiations involving federal officials formed the basis
of the state's Everglades Forever Act, which the governor signed in
May 1994.  The draft report did not point out that the public
participated in the state's legislative process leading up to the
act's enactment.  Interior believed that the report should identify
this process. 

GAO's Response:  We revised the report to recognize the public's
participation in the state's legislative process. 

Interior's Comment:  Small sugar growers, Indian tribes, and
environmental groups were represented in the negotiations. 

The draft report stated that small sugar growers, Indian tribes, and
environmental groups were excluded from the negotiations that
resulted in a strategy for improving the quality of the water
entering the Everglades.  Interior officials took exception to this
statement, saying that (1) representatives of small sugar growers
were included, not excluded, from virtually all negotiations, (2)
attorneys for the Miccosuke Tribe participated fully in developing
the mediated technical plan and were kept informed of the
cost-sharing negotiations, and (3) environmental groups that were
parties to the sugar growers' lawsuits challenging the settlement
agreement were represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in
the negotiations that resulted in the statement of principles. 

GAO's Response:  We revised the report to recognize (1) the
disagreement between Interior and the small sugar growers concerning
the extent to which these growers were involved in the negotiations,
(2) the disagreement between Interior and the tribe, as well as the
court order addressing this issue, and (3) the representation of
some, but not all, environmental groups in the negotiations. 

Interior's Comment:  Only a few stakeholders are dissatisfied with
the Everglades Forever Act. 

According to the draft report, the enactment of the Everglades
Forever Act did not end years of litigation as Interior had hoped,
but instead provoked a new series of legal challenges and
administrative appeals.  Interior, in its comments, pointed out that
the signing of the act concluded years of litigation and began the
implementation of a strategy for restoring both the quality of the
water entering the Everglades and the quantity and timing of the
water's flow.  Interior characterized the legal challenges and
administrative appeals filed after the act was signed as attempts by
a few disgruntled parties to derail restoration. 

GAO's Response:  We revised the report to recognize both Interior's
position and the difficulty inherent in distinguishing between a
group's dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement
and its dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process.  However,
the report continues to note that these groups would have preferred
an open airing of their views before an impartial hearing officer and
strongly believe that the process resulting in the act did not afford
full consideration of their evidence. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
========================================================== Appendix VI


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix VIII

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
ISSUES

Amy Mathews-Amos
Charles S.  Cotton
Elizabeth R.  Eisenstadt

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Alan R.  Kasdan