SOUTH FLORIDA

ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION

A Land Acquisition Plan

Is Needed to

Supplement the

Strategic Plan Being

Developed

Statement of Jim Wells, Director,

Energy, Resources, and Science Issues

Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m. E.D.T

Wednesday,

April 5, 2000

GAO/T-RCED-00-137
Page 1 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative is one of this country’s most significant

environmental endeavors. Restoring the ecosystem, which covers 18,000 square miles, or about

11.5 million acres, will take at least 20 years to complete. The South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration Task Force, first established in 1993 by a federal interagency agreement and later

expanded to include state, local, and tribal representatives, has been given the responsibility to

coordinate and facilitate this complex, long-term effort. We are here today to discuss the

Department of the Interior’s actions in response to previous GAO recommendations to improve

management of the initiative.1

We will also discuss our report,2being released today, on (1) what

the Task Force has done to identify and acquire lands needed to accomplish the goals of the

restoration initiative and (2) what the Department of the Interior did to help ensure that it

maximized the acreage purchased with $200 million set aside in the 1996 Farm Bill for the

initiative. Today’s report was requested by you and the Chairpersons of the Senate Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources; the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation,

and Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and the Subcommittee on

Interior and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, last April, we made two recommendations to improve the

management of the initiative. First, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, as the

Chairperson of the Task Force, in conjunction with the other members of the Task Force,

develop a strategic plan that would (1) outline how the restoration of the ecosystem would

occur, (2) identify the financial resources needed to achieve the goals of the restoration, (3)

assign accountability for accomplishing actions identified in the plan, and (4) link the initiative’s

strategic goals established by the Task Force to outcome-oriented annual goals. Second, we

recommended that the Task Force work with organizations and entities participating in the

restoration initiative to develop and agree on a decision-making process to resolve conflicts that

will inevitably occur as the restoration progresses. We can report to you today that the Task

Force is developing a strategic plan, which is scheduled to be completed in July 2000. Until the

1

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on

Track (GAO/RCED-99-121, Apr. 22, 1999).

2

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan Would Help Identify Lands That Need to Be Acquired (GAO/RCED00-84, Apr.5, 2000).
Page 2 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

Task Force completes the plan, however, we cannot determine whether it contains all the

components of a strategic plan that we recommended. In addition, although a conflict

resolution process is not yet in place, the Department of the Interior has developed

recommendations that it will propose to the Task Force in April 2000 for resolving “the most

difficult conflicts” among the federal, state, tribal, and local entities participating in the

initiative.

The report we are releasing today discusses land acquisition, a process integral to accomplishing

each of the initiative’s three goals—“getting the water right,” restoring and enhancing the natural

environment, and transforming the built environment. While critical to the initiative’s success,

we found that the Task Force has not yet developed a land acquisition plan that identifies all of

the lands needed to accomplish the goals of the restoration initiative. Our report recommends

that the Task Force develop such a plan. The report also highlights the importance of acquiring

as much land as possible, and quickly, because undeveloped land in South Florida is becoming

increasingly scarce and costly. To maximize the acreage acquired with the $200 million in Farm

Bill funds, the Department of the Interior developed a cost-sharing policy that required the state

of Florida to match the federal funds dollar for dollar. We found that the Department did not

consistently require the state to match the funds. Had it done so, an additional $77 million

would have been available to acquire lands for the restoration initiative.

Background

The South Florida ecosystem extends from the Chain of Lakes south of Orlando to the reefs

southwest of the Florida Keys. This vast region, which is home to more than 6 million

Americans, a huge tourism industry, and a large agricultural economy, also encompasses one of

the world’s unique environmental resources—the Everglades. For centuries, the Everglades

provided habitat for many species of wading birds and other native wildlife, including the

American alligator, which depended on the water flow patterns that existed before human

intervention. However, the engineering changes from the Central and Southern Florida Project,3

coupled with agricultural and industrial activities and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades

to about half its original size and have had a detrimental effect on wildlife habitats and water

3

First authorized by the Congress in 1948, the Central and Southern Florida Project is an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of

canals and levees and 16 major pump stations that prevents flooding and saltwater intrusion into the state’s aquifer while providing

drainage and water to the residents of South Florida.
Page 3 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

quality. The loss of habitats has caused sharp declines in native plant and animal populations,

placing many native species at risk.

In 1993, the administration made the restoration of the Everglades and the South Florida

ecosystem one of its highest environmental priorities. Through an interagency agreement,

federal agencies established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to facilitate

the development of consistent policies, strategies, priorities, and plans for addressing concerns

about the ecosystem. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 formalized the Task Force;

expanded its membership to include state, local, and tribal representatives; and designated the

Secretary of the Interior as the group’s chair.

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

• Getting the water right, which means restoring more natural hydrologic functions of the

ecosystem while providing adequate water supplies and flood control. The goal is to deliver

the right amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places at the right times.

• Restoring and enhancing the natural system, which means restoring lost and altered habitats

and changing current land uses, as well as halting the spread of invasive species and

recovering threatened and endangered species.

• Transforming the built environment, which means rebuilding and revitalizing urban cores to

curtail outward sprawl.

The Task Force Is Developing a Strategic Plan and a Conflict-Resolution Process

The Task Force is developing a strategic plan for the restoration initiative as we recommended

in our April 1999 report. According to the progress report recently submitted by the Department

of the Interior to this Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, the strategic plan

will (1) outline how the restoration will occur, over 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-year time frames; (2)

identify the financial resources needed to achieve full restoration; (3) identify the agencies and

entities responsible and accountable for accomplishing actions; and (4) link the restoration

projects to outcome-oriented goals. The Task Force also plans to list the federal and nonfederal

projects that are necessary for restoration and to develop outcome-oriented objectives and

performance indicators for two of the initiative’s three goals. According to the Task Force, the

third goal—transforming the built environment—is being rewritten to make the goal practical

and achievable. Also, according to the Task Force, benchmarks and measurable objectives will
Page 4 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

be developed for the revised third goal. Because the progress report does not contain details of

the plan and the plan is not yet complete, we cannot determine whether the plan will adequately

address our recommendation or whether it will be sufficient to successfully guide and manage

the initiative.

The Department has also developed recommendations that it will propose to the Task Force this

month for resolving the conflicts that will inevitably occur among the participating entities as

the initiative progresses.4

The proposed recommendations call for

• the agencies to examine all existing contractual agreements to ensure that all possible and

appropriate dispute resolution methods are utilized and time frames are incorporated to

resolve matters in dispute and

• the Task Force to adopt procedures that will further facilitate the resolution of interagency

conflicts.

The Department also reports that it is seeking advice on conflict resolution from organizations

with expertise in this area and plans to make recommendations to the Task Force on how to use

outside expertise in the resolution of intergovernmental conflicts.5

We are encouraged that the Department recognizes that resolving conflicts among agencies

involved in the restoration initiative is critical to its success. Although the Department is

recommending that the Task Force adopt procedures for resolving the most difficult conflicts,

the proposed recommendations did not provide details on what are regarded as “the most

difficult conflicts” or what those procedures will entail. Until the detailed conflict resolution

procedures are developed and adopted, we cannot determine whether the procedures would

establish a process, when a conflict would be elevated to the Task Force, whether there would

be restrictions on the types of conflicts elevated, or whether the Task Force would use outside

expertise in resolving conflicts.

4

As required by the Conference Report accompanying the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, the recommendations were previously submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on

Interior and Related Agencies on February 28, 2000. 5

The Department has sought advice on how to resolve conflicts among member agencies from The Morris K. Udall Foundation, U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The Foundation is located in Tucson, Arizona and assists parties in resolving

environmental conflicts that involve federal agencies and interests. The Department has also consulted with its own Office of

Hearings and Appeals and the similar office at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 5 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

The Task Force Has Not Developed a Land Acquisition Plan That Identifies All Lands

Needed for Restoration

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force cannot acquire lands on its own. Instead,

it must accomplish its objectives through the participating federal and state agencies. This puts

a premium on having a systematic acquisition plan and effective communication and

coordination among the members of the Task Force. Furthermore, the South Florida ecosystem

covers a vast area (about 11.5 million acres) and much of the undeveloped land is under

development pressure, increasing the importance of prioritizing the acquisitions that are

possible. However, the Task Force has not yet developed a land acquisition plan that identifies

all of the lands needed to accomplish the goals of the restoration initiative and would allow it to

effectively communicate the initiative’s needs and priorities to the agencies responsible for

acquiring lands.

Although it has not yet done so, the Task Force should be able to develop a framework for a land

acquisition plan by using land acquisition information and assessments already developed by the

federal and state agencies participating in the initiative. These agencies have already identified

some lands in the ecosystem that they plan to acquire to accomplish their specific missions.

Although the Task Force has not yet assessed those lands, it could do so to determine how and

to what extent they could be used to further the goals of the restoration. In addition, the federal

and state agencies have also completed studies and assessments that identify areas of potential

acquisition. The Task Force could use these studies and assessments to independently identify

and prioritize additional lands needed to achieve the restoration’s goals. The efforts of the

federal and state agencies to identify lands for acquisition could serve as a starting point for

developing a plan, and the Task Force should build on these efforts.

Mr. Chairman, because land acquisition is critical to accomplishing each of the initiative’s three

goals, today’s report recommends that the Secretary, as Chairperson of the Task Force, in

conjunction with the other members of the Task Force, develop a land acquisition plan. This

plan would supplement the strategic plan that we recommended in our 1999 report. It would

also enable the Task Force to help steer future acquisitions and provide the Congress and the

state with reasonable estimates of both the acreage needed and the costs of acquiring these

lands.
Page 6 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

As is our policy, we asked the Department and the state of Florida to comment on our draft

report. The Department also saw the benefit of and concurred with our recommendation that

the Task Force develop an overall land acquisition plan and stated that it will recommend that

the member agencies undertake an effort to integrate existing land acquisition programs into a

single overall plan.

The state disagreed with our recommendation that the Task Force create a land acquisition plan

because it believes our report implies that the Task Force should plan to acquire and manage all

the lands needed for the restoration initiative. We did not envision that the Task Force would be

the entity to acquire and manage all lands for the initiative or that the process of acquiring lands

would be federally driven. We believe—and clearly state in our report—that the federal and

state agencies participating in the initiative are responsible for the acquisition and management

of lands and that these agencies have developed a number of plans and studies that are a starting

point for the Task Force to use in developing a land acquisition plan.

Interior Did Not Consistently Apply Its Cost-Sharing Policy to Maximize Its Land

Acquisitions

The 1996 Farm Bill provided $200 million to the Secretary of the Interior for restoration

activities in the South Florida ecosystem. Although not required to do so by the Farm Bill,

Interior developed a cost-sharing policy as a means of leveraging the funds. Interior entered into

a framework agreement with the U.S. Department of the Army (Corps), the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District that required the

state of Florida to match the federal funds dollar for dollar. Under this policy, the Secretary of

the Interior retained the authority to waive the matching requirement. According to Interior

officials responsible for overseeing these funds, the land acquisition needs of the ecosystem

exceeded the $200 million provided by the Farm Bill. The matching requirement provided for

doubling the funding available to acquire lands and thus maximizing the acreage that could be

acquired.

With the Farm Bill funds, Interior approved four grants to buy land in four areas in the South

Florida ecosystem. These areas are referred to as the East Coast Buffer, the Carroll property,
Page 7 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

the Southern Golden Gate Estates, and the Talisman lands.6 Interior implemented its costsharing policy, requiring the state to provide a dollar-for-dollar match for one of the four grants

(the Carroll property). For the remaining three grants, Interior either waived the cost-sharing

requirement (Talisman) or accepted as a match lands that the state had already purchased

(Southern Golden Gate Estates) or that the state had begun purchasing (East Coast Buffer). If

Interior had required the state to match the Farm Bill funds dollar for dollar for each of the

properties acquired with these funds, we calculate that an additional $77 million could have been

available to acquire land in the ecosystem. According to Interior officials, the agency did not

always apply its cost-sharing policy because it wanted to give the state credit for lands that it

had already acquired or was acquiring.

Both the Department of the Interior and the state disagreed with our characterization of the

cost-sharing requirement associated with the Farm Bill grants. They expressed the view that we

are too narrow in our discussion of the Farm Bill grants and matching funds and that we do not

acknowledge the significance of the land acquired with Farm Bill and state funds. We recognize

that the lands acquired with Farm Bill funds are important to the restoration and do not take

issue with their acquisition. The focus of our review was to determine whether the Department

accomplished its intended purpose of maximizing the amount of land acquired with Farm Bill

funds—which the Department did not achieve. We believe that these grants are illustrations of

lost opportunities to acquire as much land as possible. In our view, lands acquired before the

grants were approved do not maximize the acreage acquired with Farm Bill funds and, therefore,

should not be counted as a part of the state’s match for the Farm Bill grants.

This concludes our statement. We will be happy to respond to any questions from you or other

Members of the Subcommittee.

6

More specifically, Interior approved three grants and one cooperative agreement. For this discussion, we refer to all of these as

grants. In addition to these grants, Interior entered into an interagency agreement with the Corps and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) for the construction of a quarantine research facility for melaleuca (a rapidly spreading exotic tree from

Australia). Interior provided a total of $6.2 million to the Corps to construct the facility. USDA will operate and maintain the

facility, which will facilitate ongoing research into the eradication of melaleuca through the use of biologic control agents. If left

unchecked, melaleuca displaces native plant and animal communities and threatens the stability of the Florida Everglades

ecosystem. Under the terms of the original framework agreement, the Corps is not required to match the funds.
Page 8 GAO/T-RCED-00-137

Contact and Acknowledgement

For further information on this testimony, please contact Jim Wells at (202) 512-3841.

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Alfredo Gómez, Susan Iott, Chet

Janik, and Sherry McDonald.

(141424)
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-mail message

with “info” in the body to

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

in Federal Programs

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: 1-800-424-5454