[Senate Hearing 110-477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-477
THE EVERGLADES: PROTECTING NATURAL TREASURES THROUGH INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-134 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Anderson, Gerald C., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
International Organization Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Mittal, Anu K., Director, Natural Resources and Environmental
Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator From Florida, opening statement.. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Willens, Todd, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Attachments submitted by Mr. Willens:
UNESCO June 24, 2007, Press Release.......................... 36
Everglades National Park 2007 Site Monitoring Report......... 36
Everglades Restoration Timetable--Annex to State Party Site
Monitoring Report.......................................... 40
World Heritage Committee Decision............................ 48
(iii)
THE EVERGLADES: PROTECTING NATURAL TREASURES THROUGH INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Operations
and
Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM
FLORIDA
Senator Bill Nelson. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming.
We are convening this Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee which has jurisdiction over the United
Nations.
And we're here to determine and evaluate the strong
implications of the removal of the Florida Everglades, which is
a critical habitat, a critical ecosystem on Planet Earth from
the list of endangered heritage, to which it was so designated
in 1993 by the World Heritage Committee. It was designated as
an exceptional World Heritage Site by the United Nations in
1979, and then again a Wetland of International Importance in
1987.
And, we're here to examine the question of how it was
delisted from the United Nations list of sites that are in
danger. It is in grave danger and it is suffering from years of
neglect and indeed over a half century of changing the way that
Mother Nature deals with the handling of this ecosystem. And
now the attempts are being made to correct how mankind has
intervened with Mother Nature.
And so we now come to the question of the administration
having removed the Florida Everglades National Park from the
World Heritage list of sites in danger. And now, the very first
of authorization projects to implement what was passed in the
year 2000, referred to as CERP, the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, and for the first time, the authorization of
projects to do that, and lo and behold, the President is
threatening to veto the Water Resources Development Act, which
contains two vital projects to the Everglades restoration and
its restoration plan.
And then we're in an era in which, lo and behold, a major
Presidential contender yesterday, in Florida, refused to rule
out drilling for oil in the Everglades.
Now, if all of this is taken into context, it seems to
suggest that there is no commitment to restoration. And we have
to be concerned about the matter that we're going to examine
today--Is this an administration which is faltering in its
commitment to restore the Everglades?
Now, first it removed the Everglades from the World
Heritage list of sites in danger. So, if--I want to hold up
these two reports. OK, this is a report that was done in May
2007, the eighth paragraph reads, ``It decides to retain
Everglades National Park, United States of America on the list
of the World Heritage endangered.'' Two months later, the bulk
of the report had not been changed, but one word had been
changed in the conclusion. No. 8, ``Decides to remove
Everglades National Park, United States of America from the
list of World Heritage endangered.'' It changed four letters in
the word, by changing ``retain'' to ``remove'' and thus
completely undercut those of us who are desperately trying to
restore this incredible ecosystem called the Everglades.
I am going to insert in the record an opening statement and
we will insert into the record the written testimony of each of
the three witnesses today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator From Florida
Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing. Today the committee
will examine the removal of the Florida Everglades from the U.N.'s list
of World Heritage Sites in Danger, and how we can better protect our
natural treasures through our membership in international
organizations.
We are joined today by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gerald
Anderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior Todd Willens, and the
Director of the Government Accountability Office's Natural Resources
and Environment Team, Ms. Anu Mittal.
I would like to begin by thanking all of our witnesses for taking
the time to come and speak with us today about this vitally important
issue.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to discuss one of the most unique
ecosystems in the world--a landscape so exceptional that it was
designated:
An International Biosphere Reserve in 1976;
A World Heritage Site by the United Nations in 1979;
A Wetland of International Importance in 1987.
Today, this ecosystem is endangered by actions that have so
disrupted the cycle of nature that according to our own National Park
Service, at least 15 species of fauna indigenous to it are endangered.
This ecosystem, the Florida Everglades, was designated a National
Park in 1947. According to the National Park Service, ``A 93-percent
drop in the population of wading birds nesting in the Everglades over
the last 60 years, toxic levels of mercury found in all levels of the
food chain, the die-off of sea grass in Florida Bay, and endangered
species such as the wood stork and Florida panther are all indicators
that something is seriously wrong in the ecosystem of South Florida.''
In 1993, following extensive damage from Hurricane Andrew, the
Everglades were added to the list of World Heritage in Danger. That
list is maintained by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO.
In 1996, in response to growing signs of ecosystem deterioration,
Congress formally established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force. The Task Force, which includes representatives from
relevant Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Native
American tribes, was charged with coordinating restoration activities
in the Everglades.
In 2000, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was enacted.
The plan has been described as the largest ecosystem restoration
project in the world. The international significance of the project
cannot be denied.
Yet today, while over 220 restoration projects have been
identified, only 43 have been fully implemented. And according to the
GAO, from which we will hear today, the most critical of these
projects, among those identified in the 2000 Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), are nowhere near being completed.
In fact, while the Federal Government pays lip service to restoring
the Everglades, it has dedicated very few of the resources it promised
to restore the Everglades.
According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report,
``Federal expenditures [on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan] from 2005 to 2009 are expected to be only 21 percent'' of a
multibillion dollar program the Federal Government committed to funding
half of. As of now, the Federal Government is over a billion dollars
short in its contributions.
For the first time in 7 years, Congress has an opportunity to pass
the Water Resources Development Act which provides $2 billion in
authorizations for the Everglades and moves forward the first two
restoration projects since 2000--the Indian River Lagoon and Picayune
Strand. Yet the President, who claims to support the restoration of the
Everglades has threatened to veto the bill.
Even more troubling, it appears that our Federal Government is
working to actively undermine the Everglades through its membership in
international organizations. This year, despite the lack of progress on
Everglades restoration, the failure to meet the Park Service's own
restoration benchmarks, and in spite of the opinion of numerous
scientific experts that the Everglades remain endangered, the Bush
administration sent a delegation to the May 2007 World Heritage
Committee meeting that recommended that the still endangered Everglades
be removed from the list of sites in danger.
As I wrote to Secretary Kempthorne this summer, there are some very
legitimate concerns raised by this decision and the events surrounding
it that I hope to explore here today.
First, how did this happen? How is it that an endangered World
Heritage site for which restoration projects have fallen far behind
schedule can be reasonably considered by the U.S. Government to be a
legitimate candidate for removal from this list?
Second, who is responsible for this decision? Was this the work of
an individual, or is this decision in line with official guidance from
the administration? Either way, how can we reverse this ill conceived
action?
Third, how do we ensure that sound, scientific judgment forms the
basis for any and all future such decisions?
And finally, how can the United States work within international
organizations to protect sites of significant world heritage such as
the Everglades by establishing procedures to ensure they are not
prematurely removed from such an important list.
Senator Nelson. So, what I am going to do, is get right
into the issue and examine it.
And, so Mr. Willens--and we are pleased to have here today
Mr. Todd Willens, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks. Keep those up--I want to refer to the
change of that word, to that word, from May to July. Mr.
Willens, I would like you to explain who in the U.S. delegation
was responsible for the change?
STATEMENT OF TODD WILLENS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Willens. Well, the change itself was the responsibility
of the World Heritage Committee. In May, there was a draft
decision, and as with all draft decisions, they are circulated
amongst the parties in preparation for the meeting that took
place in June in New Zealand. And the draft, at that time--as
it is reflected there in the May 2007 exhibit--was to retain.
As the Committee met, reviewed the status reports, and
consulted amongst themselves, and the United States, it was the
decision by the Committee to change the last word from
``retain'' to ``remove'' the Everglades, as a result that the
Committee was satisfied that the purposes of listing the site
on the in danger list had been met.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Willens, now you're talking about
the Committee. But on July 31, you told Craig Pitman of the St.
Petersburg Times, and I quote, ``I changed the last sentence of
our report and said we wanted to be taken off.''
Mr. Willens. We proposed it, and the Committee ratified it.
We can't do anything just by ourselves, the Committee itself
agreed unanimously to make that change.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Willens, is it not true, in order
to change any item on the list of in danger sites, that it
takes only the country that is the host country to that in
danger site to change that?
Mr. Willens. No; it requires a vote of the Committee, and
there are 21 members, and we are only one member of that
Committee, and it requires the--I don't know if it's two-thirds
of the majority of the Committee, but it requires the
Committee--and they like to do things, they prefer to do things
by consensus, as they did in this case.
Senator Bill Nelson. To the contrary, isn't it true that no
site will be delisted, taken off the list of in danger sites,
unless the host country takes the action to strike it off?
Mr. Willens. I believe as part of collegiality, the
Committee looks to give deference to the range country. And, I
believe that is a weighing factor. I'm not aware that that is
an absolute requirement, it is something that we evaluate, the
United States, as we review and we look at other issues, where
does the range State come in on an issue. And, in this case, I
do believe it was important for the Committee to hear from the
United States.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, I want the record to show that
clearly the United Nations Committee will not take an item off
the list, and as a matter of courtesy, for the host country,
unless that host country requests it. Is that what you did? You
request that it be taken off the in danger list?
Mr. Willens. We did.
Senator Bill Nelson. We.
Mr. Willens. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. You did?
Mr. Willens. The delegation as a whole, and the
administration requested this.
Senator Bill Nelson. Who was speaking for the
administration at the time?
Mr. Willens. I believe that I had the microphone at the
time, and made the statement.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK, and what was the reason that you
decided to make that change within a 2-month period, after this
report had been issued, with nothing having changed in the
report, except that conclusion?
Mr. Willens. We arrived in Christchurch for the meeting,
and we were approached by several other delegations who were on
the Committee. They were--as this issue was on the first day
and one of the first items of substance to come up, a number of
other countries had reviewed the information and the record
that led up to this, since this had been on the in danger list
since 1993, and felt that with our leadership on providing
benchmarks and being responsive to the request of the Committee
for numerous years, that they noted that for previous Committee
meetings, when Everglades had been presented and discussed as
how we're making progress, and how projects are progressing,
there had been numerous statements prior to this meeting that
members of the Committee felt that we were approaching--and
even in some cases, some believed that it should have been
removed at previous meetings of the Committee.
I think it was a culmination of those views and discussions
that took place again, and presented themselves to us when we
arrived. And that it was fairly clear that it was the sentiment
of the Committee, with an international perspective, that they
felt we had responded to the requirements, and jumped through
the hoops, so to speak, that they had wanted us to do. While
Everglades restoration was not completed, and that we still
have a great deal to go forward with, again it was the purpose
of listing in danger for a country to be responsive, set a plan
forward, completion is not a requirement of getting off the in
danger list. And the Committee, therefore, moved with this.
Senator Bill Nelson. How do you say that progress has been
made since CERP was set up, when in fact, not one project has
been authorized, which we're desperately trying to do with the
current Water Resources Development bill?
Mr. Willens. Well, as the GAO report states, that of the
220 separate Everglades restoration projects they looked at, 43
have been completed, 107 are underway, and 26 are in design.
Now, while there is still a large portion, and important
projects still that need to be done, that the commitment by the
United States, and that there has been work done, was
satisfying to the Committee.
Senator Bill Nelson. Forty-three have been done, but are
you aware that most of those 43 were done prior to, or given
the authorization for, prior to the comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan being enacted in 2000, and not one has been
authorized since?
Mr. Willens. One hundred and seven are underway. And the
43, while they were done prior to CERP, they still are
important to the ecological restoration of the Everglades.
Senator Bill Nelson. Let me show you why you're wrong. Hold
out the visual, OK. You'll hear a word called, a term called
``mod waters'' and that refers to this water that comes
naturally from the north into Lake Okeechobee, and then under
Mother Nature flows south, and then out into Florida Bay and
into the Gulf of Mexico.
That water is blocked because of what mankind has done,
draining the water off to tide, and then in the 1920s, erecting
a dike called Tamiami Trail, which serves as a dike. The
modification of the waters is an effort to get the water being
retained north of the dike, the Tamiami Trail, to the
Everglades National Park. The site on the in danger list is the
Everglades National Park. That is this site, and this is the
site that is starved for water, because the water is being held
back beyond this dike called Tamiami Trail.
Now, those are the projects--in order to accomplish that--
that have not been completed. This is an environmentally
endangered site that is in distress and for you and the
administration and--were you, in fact, ordered by any one of
your superiors to take this action?
Mr. Willens. No.
Senator Bill Nelson. Upon what authority did you feel like
that you could represent the United States?
Mr. Willens. As cohead of the delegation to the World
Heritage Committee. And, as part of that, we consulted with our
delegation, which comprised our experts from the National Park
Service and we had our reports that were submitted in February,
our scientific reports, and plenty of information available to
us at the meeting.
Senator Bill Nelson. Did the Secretary of the Interior or
the Deputy Secretary send instructions to you to take this off
the list?
Mr. Willens. No.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, you felt like it was your
authority to make this decision for the United States of
America?
Mr. Willens. Well, we believe that authority rested in the
previous work that the previous Committees had done. That there
was nothing secret nor was this not the ultimate goal of
listing it as in danger. As you look back in the history of the
previous reports and comments of the Committee, they had always
hoped--and the goal of putting as in danger was always removal.
And while we realized that earlier than we had expected, that
many had thought it would still be a couple of years going
forward that the Committee would think that we had met those
goals, it was apparent to us that it was unanimous, that the
Committee was satisfied with their evaluation, and therefore
took the action that they did.
Senator Bill Nelson. Are you aware that so many of the
goals that had a deadline that would already have been achieved
have mostly either been considerably delayed in this project,
or it is yet to be determined when these goals would be
reached?
Mr. Willens. We--the Committee and the United States is
aware that we are behind on some of the timelines that related
to the projects, but that the commitment remains, as
represented in the President's budget, and represented in our
support for the language, specific to Everglades in the WRDA.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Willens, why don't--for the
record--in your position as Deputy Assistant Secretary, why
don't you outline your responsibilities briefly, in this
position?
Mr. Willens. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks is delegated authority by the Secretary
to oversee the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service from policy and management. The Office of the Assistant
Secretary coordinates and consults with the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director of the National
Park Service on all issues, regarding policy, budget and
management, and that we report to the Secretary the progress
and oversight of those Departments, and work with those
agencies to further the policies of the administration in
compliance with Federal law.
And, my job, as Deputy Assistant Secretary, is to aid the
Assistant Secretary in that job. And my portfolio is
international issues--whether it's Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Park Service, and outside of that, my focus is
Fish and Wildlife Service management related to nonendangered
species issues.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, when you said that the other
Member Nations concurred, is it not true that had the United
States stated that it needed more time to evaluate the progress
on the benchmarks, that no country at that meeting would have
disagreed?
Mr. Willens. It's probable. We did not--that did not
happen, so I can't answer that, you know, affirm that.
Senator Bill Nelson. That has been the history of that
list.
Mr. Willens. Historically, yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. That's correct. That is the standard
operating procedure of that Committee.
Would you describe your work experience as a congressional
member of staff as well as your position as a lobbyist?
Mr. Willens. What details would you like on that?
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, for whom did you work in the
Congress?
Mr. Willens. I've had several jobs in the House of
Representatives. I was the senior policy director for the then-
House Resources Committee. Before that, I was the legislative
director and legislative assistant and other positions for
Congressman Richard Pombo, and prior to that, I was a
legislative aide for Congressman Jerry Lewis.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, Congressman Pombo, was he the
chairman of that committee?
Mr. Willens. At the time, yes. When I was senior policy
director.
Senator Bill Nelson. And then, since leaving there, can you
outline your position as a lobbyist?
Mr. Willens. I have not been a lobbyist since leaving my
job with House Resources Committee. I was a lobbyist before
that time; I was a lobbyist for Feld Entertainment, Inc., and
represented them on various issues--Federal, State,
international and local levels.
Senator Bill Nelson. In your time working for
Representative Pombo, were you involved in proposals that came
out of his office to sell various National Parks?
Mr. Willens. I was on the committee when the internal
review of how we better manage our National Parks was
conducted, and yes, I am aware that that was a draft of a staff
recommendation that had been circulated, and had gotten leaked
out. But that's all that was, and I was in the policy shop at
the time that that had happened.
Senator Bill Nelson. Do you have any formal training in
park management or the environmental sciences, wildlife
management, forestry, and other sciences?
Mr. Willens. Beyond policy? No.
Senator Bill Nelson. Do you have any part of your formal
education that would qualify you as a scientific expert?
Mr. Willens. No, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. And how long have you held your
current position at Interior?
Mr. Willens. October 8 will be 1 year.
Senator Bill Nelson. What is your relationship between you
and Ambassador Oliver, in protocol terms? Were you cochairs?
Mr. Willens. Yes; coheads of the delegation.
Senator Bill Nelson. And prior to the trip to New Zealand,
had you been a--ever been a part of an official U.S. delegation
to the World Heritage Committee?
Mr. Willens. No.
Senator Bill Nelson. Have you ever led or co-led any
official international delegation to a multilateral body, such
as UNESCO, prior to this?
Mr. Willens. Yes; I had actually--earlier in the month of
June, I had head the United States delegation to CITES COP 14
in The Hague, which is the 14th Conference of the Parties to
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora.
Senator Bill Nelson. Can you explain for the committee's
record, how the Interior Department is involved ahead of time,
in determining what positions the U.S. delegation might take at
a WHC meeting?
Mr. Willens. In cooperation with State Department and other
interested entities, dependent on the sites that are coming up,
we look at the agenda items that are coming forward, we meet
and collaborate via e-mail, phone and personal meetings to
coordinate positions, and we do the same thing when we are at
the meeting itself, as issues do tend to pop up while you're
there, as we had in the case of the Everglades.
Senator Bill Nelson. Was the decision to recommend that the
Everglades be removed from the list made ahead of time?
Mr. Willens. No.
Senator Bill Nelson. When was it made?
Mr. Willens. It was made while we were at the meeting, when
the issue was presented to us.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, that decision, as you stated to
that newspaper, was made by you?
Mr. Willens. No; the decision was made by the delegation.
Ambassador Oliver and I had made the decision together, after
consulting our delegation, comprised of National Park Service
and others.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, you were sent to New Zealand with
instructions to remove the Everglades from the danger list?
Mr. Willens. No, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. What guidance does one normally get in
coleading a delegation such as that, before recommending that a
site be removed from the list?
Mr. Willens. I don't think I understand the question, as to
``what one gets?''
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, for example, do you reach out to
the National Park Service?
Mr. Willens. Yes; and specific to removal of this--can you
repeat the question again? I don't think I understood it.
Senator Bill Nelson. Did you--prior to making this decision
to remove the Florida Everglades from the in danger list--reach
out to any other parts of the Government to get their opinion?
Mr. Willens. No; we had our Park Service Professional Staff
with us, on the delegation, in State Department, and we
consulted amongst ourselves. There was a challenge of a
significant time change. We were 14 or 17 hours ahead, and we
believed we had the information that we needed in front of us,
because the issue has a long history, and we were able to make
the right decision, that we ended up making, with the
information that we had with us in New Zealand.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, what you're telling us is, there
was a representative of the U.S. Park Service that was a part
of your delegation that concurred in the decision to delist the
Everglades from the endangered list?
Mr. Willens. There were two, yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. What were their names?
Mr. Willens. One is Stephen Morris and the other is
Jonathan Putnam.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what are their positions?
Mr. Willens. They are in the international office,
International Affairs Office of the National Park Service, and
are responsible for management of the World Heritage Program.
Senator Bill Nelson. And they concurred in your decision?
Mr. Willens. That's my understanding, yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. Did they tell you that they had
instructions from the Director--the National Director of Parks?
Senator Bill Nelson. To delist the Everglades National
Park?
Mr. Willens. No; no one did, sir. It was an issue that
presented itself once we had arrived.
Senator Bill Nelson. And they did not call back to the head
of the National Park Service?
Mr. Willens. Prior to the decision? I'm not aware that they
did.
Senator Bill Nelson. And for the record, would you state
again what were their positions in the National Park Service?
Mr. Willens. They were--I don't have the exact titles in
front of me, I work closely with them, and I'm afraid I don't
know their exact titles, which--but substancewise, they are the
chief advisors when it comes to World Heritage Committee and
World Heritage programs, and our 20 World Heritage sites that
we have listed.
Senator Bill Nelson. And how about, did you have any
recommendations from the scientific, technical community? The
IUCN?
Mr. Willens. Yes; IUCN is actually the ones that did the
draft of the decision, as they do with most of the decisions.
IUCN at the Committee presented, opened the discussion on
Everglades, as it does with any in danger site, presents its
current status, and scientific information and dialogue that's
gone on since the last year. And IUCN gave its presentation,
and I believe--IUCN's recommendation from the table was
consistent with the draft that you had up, the May exhibit, was
they believe that the site should be retained.
Senator Bill Nelson. Were there any other people whose
opinion you sought? Outside of the Park Service?
Mr. Willens. The other countries that were part of the
World Heritage Committee.
Senator Bill Nelson. But we've already stated, and you
admitted, that had the United States not requested this, that
there would not have been any concurrence by the other members
of the Committee. So, I'm talking about, were there any other
people involved in the preparation of that document on which
the last word on the conclusion page changed, completely
reversed. Was there anybody else whose opinion you sought?
Mr. Willens. Not that I'm aware of. There were numerous
conversations at the World Heritage Committee, when the issue
presented itself, as I stated, with other delegations and our
Park Service delegation, and the World Heritage Committee
itself, or people that we had spoken to on these issues.
Senator Bill Nelson. It's my understanding that it was
traditional standard procedure for the Park Service to provide
a recommendation to retain the Everglades on the list. What
changed?
Mr. Willens. We had supported the status quo of it
remaining on the in danger list, and that was our position. We
didn't believe we needed to reevaluate the position of the
status quo going in, therefore we did not reevaluate the status
quo of it being on the in danger list. The Park Service, nor
the Department or myself took a position of retaining that, or
taking anything else in advance. So, the status quo was the
case, but it wasn't an issue that we had specifically
identified for reevaluation or debate, prior to going to the
World Heritage meeting.
So, the Park Service's position, as the United States was,
status quo, which was retaining, and with the information we
had, it wasn't until we arrived in New Zealand, had met with
the other bodies, and they had related their concerns and
support for the United States, and compliments for the work and
efforts that had been underway at Everglades that we had to
reconsider and evaluate the status of the site.
Senator Bill Nelson. When I asked you the question about
your lobbying activities, prior to being on--and I don't know
if there were any after--being on the congressional committee,
and an assistant to Congressman Pombo, I had asked you what you
represented. And you named something that did not seem to have
a name connected with any environmental subject matter. Would
you tell us about that?
Mr. Willens. Well, Feld Entertainment is a company, I was
the vice president, an officer in the company, in charge of
Government relations. And Feld Entertainment held a number of
family entertainment properties, such as Ringling Brothers and
Barnum & Bailey Circus, they have an Elephant Conservation
Center in your home State, outside of the Tampa area, and they
also had productions that traveled the world on ice shows, as
well as the production of Siegfried & Roy in Vegas.
I had the conservation work portfolio, the conservation
work on behalf of them was really species-oriented, since they
had a number of species within their possession.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, your lobbying activities were in
the entertainment field, as opposed to in the environmental
field?
Mr. Willens. No; it was environmental and agriculture, it
was an interesting mix that at the time their priorities were
habitat conservation and species protection, as well as animal
welfare, and those were issues that they had asked me to
represent them on, as their vice president.
Senator Bill Nelson. It has been reported in several
newspapers that while you were a congressional staffer, that
you had a relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Can you
tell the committee about that relationship?
Mr. Willens. I've never met the man.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, you have never had any kind, and
those are incorrect statements that have been in the public
sphere?
Mr. Willens. Yes. I've seen those statements, they give the
false perception that as a staffer--I believe it was his firm,
or possibly something affiliated with him that I was connected
to the case. The actual record states, which is on file with
the Ethics Office and Travel Reporting Office at the House of
Representatives, which I did and complied with, that I was
invited by the Governor of the CNMI, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas Islands, to visit the island and look at
issues that were pertinent at the time, in 1997, before the
House Resources Committee, and I did, I joined that STAFFDEL,
that was hosted by the Commonwealth. And I believe at that
time, Jack Abramoff had them as a client, and that's how that
gets misinterpreted, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. I see. And when you were interviewing
to go into the Department of Interior, did the Department of
Interior representative ask you about your relationship with
Mr. Abramoff before you began to work there?
Mr. Willens. I don't believe there was ever a need to, I
don't think it ever came up.
Senator Bill Nelson. I see. So, they didn't ask you that
question, even though it had been in the public sphere, so that
you could clear it up, as you have now?
Mr. Willens. I don't remember that being a question, or as
pertinent to my employment.
Senator Bill Nelson. Are you familiar with the specific
projects that make up this collective effort to restore the
Everglades?
Mr. Willens. Yes. I'm familiar with it. I think it's a
great endeavor, I think the partnership that has been put in
force is a great partnership. And, with any partnership,
there's differences of opinions, and there's challenges, and
there's struggles and fits and starts as the Everglades has.
And, the administration fully supports the Everglades
Restoration Project. We look forward to continuing working with
you and the other members of the delegation in Congress,
especially as we have budget requests sitting before Congress,
and we have concerns that the appropriations levels, currently,
as have come out of the House, are not to that level. And that
we also have a $35 million shortfall coming out the Senate, I
believe, Energy and Water Subcommittee, that's $35 million
short of what we need for Everglades restoration, that the
President requested. So, we look forward to working with you to
close these gaps, and get this job done, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. The Committee was informed by the U.S.
Ambassador to UNESCO that only the United States could have
made this decision on the Everglades, because the WHC, by
tradition, reserves these recommendations only for the State in
whose boundaries the site in question is located. Now, after
what all you've said, do you agree that that is the case?
Mr. Willens. I would have to look at her comment and talk
to her, because I believe she's correct in what she's saying,
however, I have not looked at the history of the World Heritage
Committee to say with absolute, that a country has to be there
and make a motion or support it one way or the other, because I
believe there are cases where countries don't have the
resources to represent themselves or let their positions known
to the World Heritage Committee, so I don't want to say with
absolute, and we can get back to you in response to that, in
writing, after we can do some review, to make sure that that's
the case.
Senator Bill Nelson. You participated in one of these
meetings?
Mr. Willens. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK, well, given the fact that you
have, do you understand that that is the standard procedure?
Mr. Willens. I believe that that is extremely important to
the committee members, and I saw that that's consistent with
the actions that range States, and the countries have a great
influence on what countries do and don't do, depending on how
they feel, and what they feel they can get done. And it is a
great benefit to the World Heritage Committee members to know
the feelings of those Committee members. And, the actions that
were taken are consistent with that premise.
Senator Bill Nelson. Were you aware that back in 2006, at a
meeting of the WHC, that the International Conservation
Committee adopted benchmarks which, once achieved, were to
serve as the basis for the United States supporting removal of
the Everglades from the list?
Mr. Willens. I am familiar with that, and the benchmarks,
sir, yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. Were these benchmarks achieved by
2007?
Mr. Willens. All of the benchmarks have not been achieved.
Senator Bill Nelson. They were not?
Mr. Willens. No.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, that happens to be correct. The
National Park Service said so, in 2007, that those benchmarks
had not been met. The GAO report about which we will hear in
awhile also says that only 2 of the 9 benchmarks have been met.
Were those benchmarks willfully ignored by you in making the
decision to take the Everglades off the list?
Mr. Willens. No; not at all. I'd say there was a healthy
discussion at the World Heritage Committee about the benchmarks
and the importance, because we really are the first ones to
establish benchmarks for World Heritage in danger sites, and
the World Heritage Center under--with our leadership and our
expense--is really grateful for us establishing the benchmarks.
While we recognize--as with the overall restoration of the
Everglades is not completed, and won't be completed for some
time, the same goes with the benchmarks, which reflect the work
that is supposed to be, and being carried out, on the sites, in
the Everglades and in Florida itself.
But the Committee's views are not scientific. While they
take in the recommendations of IUCN advisors, who have
scientific background and experts, that the Committee itself is
much more of a policy committee than it is a scientific
committee, and there's a challenge to that.
But, the Committee felt that for a long time the United
States has trail blazed a path for other countries to follow,
and really set the bar high when it comes to managing our
natural resources. And this is not different. While we have not
realized full restoration to the levels that we need to have,
and that we would all be satisfied with, they look at it a bit
differently, and see that progress is being made, that money is
being spent, $7.1 billion to date. And these are numbers and
figures, sir, that they can't comprehend and therefore, yes,
that does impress them.
And we, in no way, hid the fact, or gave the perception
that everything is done. But, we definitely speak to the fact
that, yes, progress is being made, it may not be as fast as we
want it to be, and we may have fits and starts on some of the
projects, but the commitment and the political resolve is there
to do that, and we believe that that is accurate.
And, off of that information--and they have the full record
of what IUCN wanted to do, they still wanted, unanimously, to
say, ``Hey, we want to take this off the in danger list. You're
still a World Heritage site, but we're going to take you off in
danger.''
Senator Bill Nelson. And, indeed, you just said that IUCN--
which is a scientific advisory body to the World Heritage
Committee--one of three advisory bodies to the Committee,
recommended to the Committee during that New Zealand meeting,
that the Everglades should be maintained on that endangered
list, pending that IUCN assessment mission. So, you all decided
that, rather than rely on the expert scientific recommendation,
you were going to ignore it, and go ahead and cut it off the
list?
Mr. Willens. No; I wouldn't say that that's the case, I
would say that IUCN presented its recommendation as an advisory
body, which they get paid to do, by the body, and they
presented it. But, as is the case with a third of the decisions
that are made, the Committee makes decisions that are different
than what IUCN or the other ICOMOS, or ICROM recommend, which
are the three advisory bodies.
But, this is not unusual, this happens, in our
calculations, has happened a third of the time in
recommendations.
Senator Bill Nelson. And it was the National Park Service
that gave the scientific data upon which that IUCN
recommendation was made that it ought to stay on the list.
Well, I think it's clear, the point of view that you have
expressed, and what we wanted to find out is what happened down
there in New Zealand that is making it difficult for us who
have the responsibility of continuing to see that the
Everglades is restored.
Mr. Willens, it started out as a 20-year, $8 billion
project. It was going to be funded $4 billion from the Federal
Government, and $4 billion from the State. Because of the
delays, because of the Federal Government not coming up with
its share, because of the escalating cost of construction, the
project is now expanded out way beyond into the high teens and
20 years, and is projecting to be costing $20 billion in total.
For you to make a decision, unilaterally--or with your
colleagues on this committee--without reaching out to the other
parts of the United States Government, you are unilaterally
making it a lot more difficult for other people to keep this
fight going to restore the Florida Everglades. Do you agree
that removing the Everglades from the list encourages the
perception that the Everglades are no longer endangered?
Mr. Willens. We've come to realize that that's the
perception in Florida, but when you step back and you look at
the international perception, which is the case we're dealing
with here, with the World Heritage Committee, they see it
differently. And in the context and the debate that they see of
the work being one, and when they equate it and they compare it
to sites such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
other areas, they think Everglades is--while there are
challenges--that the healthy debate, at least there's debate
and there's discussion, and engagement to address the issues,
when in other countries, they can't even get a phone call back
to recognize there's even a problem.
It was never our intent, in any way, to make things more
difficult for you, and the Floridians on this issue. I would
say that it was definitely seen as a compliment, and hopefully
was seen as a shot in the arm to get going, and get moving, the
positive, and move forward on this.
But it was not seen, and not intended to be negative. And
from the Committee's perspective, I believe that if they felt
that the negative was, that if they left it on the site, it
would have negative implications to other sites throughout the
world who compete for limited resources under World Heritage in
danger listed site. While we do not take any international
funding, it definitely is an attention-grabber, and they
recognize that, and they were trying to grapple with that.
And, I believe that we can still go forward without the in
danger listing, because it has no policy or weight of any
changing in the laws and commitment here, in the United States.
It really is a label. While--we recognize that it was an
important label in 1993, we believe it's served its purpose, it
no longer needed to be listed as in danger, because the facts
before us--while we dispute how fast, and how much money we're
spending, again, we're spending money, and measuring how fast.
And that was what the goal of listing this in 1993 as in
danger. We've met that goal.
Senator Bill Nelson. Have you ever been to the Everglades
National Park?
Mr. Willens. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. Have you talked to the Park Director?
Mr. Willens. I talk to the current Park Director quite a
bit.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, does he tell you that the
Everglades Park is not endangered?
Mr. Willens. No; he tells me--and he told me a couple of
hours ago that it is endangered. That it has significant
environmental challenges, and it's very frustrating. And, I
commend him and all of the Park Service for sticking it out and
trying to work through these issues. And that, as far as an
endangered EN, not related to the World Heritage Committee
site, it's clear that the scientists and those in the field
that matter, believe it is endangered, I don't dispute that.
Senator Bill Nelson. We'll turn to some of the other
witnesses and the asking of questions, so that we can get a
comprehensive view of this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Willens, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on the
action taken by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to remove
Everglades National Park from its List of World Heritage in Danger and
on the Department of the Interior's (Department's) role in that action.
The Department manages more than 3.1 million acres of conservation
lands in South Florida, which is also home to more than 7 million
people and a growing economy. Areas managed by the Department include
Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, Big Cypress National Preserve
and 16 national wildlife refuges, all of which protect habitat found
nowhere else.
The UNESCO Committee, by removing the Everglades National Park from
the List, has strongly affirmed the commitment and progress of the
United States in conserving the Everglades ecosystem. Since 2002, the
State of Florida has spent more than $1.2 billion in conservation
projects, and the United States has spent more than $1 billion. Florida
has also spent more than $1.3 billion in land acquisition for future
Everglades restoration projects. The size of this commitment by the
United States and Florida is necessary context as we review today the
significance of the Park's designation by foreign nations. I hope
today's discussion will inspire the Congress to embrace President
Bush's budget for the Everglades in fiscal year 2008. I would
appreciate having my testimony entered into the record. I am also
submitting certain documents for the record, which are valuable in
clarifying this issue.
The World Heritage Convention is one of the world's most important
international agreements in the field of natural and cultural heritage
preservation. Created largely through U.S. leadership and significantly
inspired by the U.S. National Park concept, the Convention has become
one of the most widely accepted conservation agreement in the world
with more than 180 participating countries. The United States has 20
World Heritage Sites, 8 of which are cultural and 12 natural. There are
more natural sites listed in the United States than from any other
single country except Australia.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks of the Department of the Interior has been delegated
responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate, in cooperation with the State Department, United States
participation in the World Heritage Convention. This administration
takes that responsibility very seriously.
The unanimous decision of the 21-member World Heritage Committee,
the governing body of the Convention, to remove Everglades National
Park from the Danger List of World Heritage Sites is the international
community's way of recognizing the progress that has been made in
addressing key issues that led to the listing of the Park in 1993. The
decision recognizes and applauds the unprecedented efforts and
continuing commitment of South Florida's community, the State of
Florida and the Federal Government to restore this world-class
ecosystem. The text of the World Heritage Committee's decision and a
copy of the UNESCO press release announcing it are attached for your
information.
At the recent convention of the parties, we received supportive
comments on the proposal to remove the Everglades from the list from
India, Kenya, Lithuania, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, Madagascar,
Chile, Benin, and Spain during consideration of our petition. This
reinforced the unanimous sentiment that other nations had spoken in
private and that the committee later expressed in a unanimous vote.
Some have misinterpreted the criteria used by UNESCO's World
Heritage Committee and the administration's concurrence in removing the
Park from the List. The Committee's decision does not in any way signal
a lessening of our commitment or an end to the Everglades restoration
efforts.
It has also been alleged in the press that I ``changed a National
Park Service (NPS) report on the matter.'' This is simply not the case.
(The subject report is being presented to you; it was submitted months
earlier for the World Heritage Center's staff to use in preparing its
report to the Committee on sites on the List in Danger. I could not
change a report that had already been submitted with my concurrence
months before the meeting.)
This administration wholeheartedly supports the ongoing national
initiative to comprehensively restore and preserve the River of Grass
and its vital ecosystem. To date, the United States and State of
Florida have spent about $7.1 billion for projects designed to improve
water quality, increase water supplies, recover threatened and
endangered species, and restore natural habitat.
The Government Accountability Office reports that of the 222
separate Everglades restoration projects that it estimates will cost at
least $19.7 billion over the next decades, 43 have been completed, 107
are underway, and 26 are in design or planning phases. The remaining 46
projects, to be launched in coming years, will complete the current
restoration plan.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), enacted by
Congress in 2000, is the blueprint for this historic effort, considered
by many to be the largest and most expensive environmental restoration
program in the world. The CERP is a $10.5 billion program of large-
scale modifications to the water management infrastructure of South
Florida, with a targeted completion date of 2038. CERP consists of over
60 individual project modifications to the regional water supply and
flood control project to increase water supplies for the environment
and other users. In addition, the Modified Water Deliveries Project to
Everglades National Park is underway to restore more natural flows of
water to Everglades National Park. To date, $303 million has been
appropriated for this project.
The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, representing
Federal, State, tribal, and local stakeholders, coordinates projects
and investments across all levels of government through its strategic
plan and serves as a focal point for the ongoing collaboration that is
necessary to undertake the largest watershed restoration program in the
world. With its partners, the Department is improving water quality and
restoring more natural flows of water to the Everglades, restoring
habitat, and recovering endangered species, such as key deer, American
crocodiles, and others.
This aggressive restoration strategy, record of accomplishment, and
demonstration of continuing collaboration and commitment impressed the
World Heritage Committee and persuaded its members to remove Everglades
National Park from the Danger List of World Heritage sites. The
committee had asked U.S. representatives on several previous occasions
to develop benchmarks for this purpose. In 2006, the committee adopted
evaluation standards that were crafted in cooperation with the NPS and
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and that would
facilitate consideration of removal of Everglades National Park from
the List.
Everglades National Park had been on the Danger List since 1993, at
the request of the United States, following the devastation wrought by
Hurricane Andrew and the accumulation of previous threats that
developed over many years. The designation calls attention to specific
and imminent threats facing a site and seeks to generate action by the
responsible government and world community. When the Committee is
persuaded that actions to address the threats are being taken, it
customarily removes the site from the List, while fully recognizing
that additional measures to protect the site must still be taken. The
Committee acted in a similar manner with respect to the Rio Platano
Biosphere Reserve in Honduras which was also removed from the List
though it too continues to face many problems including illegal logging
within the boundaries of the site.
It is also useful to consider the Committee's action from a global
perspective as that is the context in which the World Heritage
Convention works. The vast majority of the other World Heritage sites
included on the List are in the developing world, many in countries
without effective government management systems, or where resources to
address the problems facing the sites are nonexistent and the
Committee's resources to assist these sites are quite limited. As I
stated, the principal purpose of the List is to call attention to such
problems and mobilize international assistance for these sites. In view
of that, while acknowledging the serious and long-term threats facing
the Everglades, the Committee, nonetheless expressed its confidence in
the ability of the United States to address these issues. There was no
dissent from Committee members on this action.
By supporting the Committee's decision to remove the Park from the
List, this administration was in no way suggesting that the Everglades
is a fully recovered ecosystem. The challenges facing the Park and the
River of Grass took decades to create. They will take decades to
overcome. We will continue to work with the State of Florida and the
many stakeholders in South Florida to save this irreplaceable natural
wonder.
While Everglades National Park has been removed from the List, it
remains a World Heritage Site, which it has been since 1979, in company
with other extraordinary places, such as the pyramids of Egypt, the
wilds of East Africa's Serengeti, and the Great Barrier Reef of
Australia. The United States will continue to provide annual
conservation reports to the World Heritage Committee on our progress in
restoring the Everglades. More specifically, the Committee directed the
United States to report on progress with respect to the established
benchmarks. The Committee will continue to evaluate progress in
achieving these benchmarks; if progress is not being made or if the
United States does not continue to focus on the long-term effort to
restore the Everglades, consideration would then be given by the
Committee to placing Everglades National Park back on the Danger List
of World Heritage sites.
The administration has a proud record of accomplishment regarding
both UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention. Under the President's
leadership, the United States has, after more than 20 years, once again
become a full member of UNESCO. In 2005, the United States sought, and
was elected to, a 6-year term on the World Heritage Committee, a
significant accomplishment for the United States in any U.N. body. (By
gentlemen's agreement, Member States relinquish their Committee seats
after 4 years so that participation is shared.) Over the last 2 years,
we have been developing a new list of candidate sites in the United
States which will be considered for future nomination to the World
Heritage List. The new list, based on applications submitted by
interested owners, replaces an outdated list originally developed 25
years ago. We anticipate beginning the nomination process by announcing
our U.S. Tentative List in 2008. This announcement represents a
significant reengagement with an important aspect of the World Heritage
program and would be the first new U.S. nomination submitted since
1994.
Supporting the Committee's decision regarding Everglades is
entirely consistent with the administration's overarching support for
the World Heritage Program and for the restoration and preservation of
the Everglades.
[Editor's note.--Attachments to Mr. Willen's testimony and
prepared statement can be found in the section ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' at the end of this
hearing.]
Senator Bill Nelson. So, Mr. Anderson--Mr. Anderson is the
Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Bureau of International
Organization Affairs, in the Department of State. Your written
testimony will be made a part of the record. Thank you for
coming.
Mr. Anderson, could you describe the purpose of the World
Heritage Committee, and the importance of the list of World
Heritage sites in danger?
STATEMENT OF GERALD C. ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Anderson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to be here today.
The list of World Heritage sites is a list that--whose
primary purpose is to draw attention to sites, either cultural
or natural, that have universal value--that's the official term
that UNESCO uses for this process. And the purpose of the list
of sites in danger, is to call attention to the need for
remedial action to deal with situations that might threaten
that universal value. That is the reason for putting a site on
the list.
The meaning of being on the list is for countries that have
need of outside assistance to fund the remedial action that's
needed, is that they're eligible to go through the UNESCO World
Heritage Fund to receive that assistance.
And the countries who are members of the World Heritage
Committee look at the list, with that purpose in mind, as they
add and remove sites from the list at their meetings.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, would you describe how the
members of the U.S. delegation to UNESCO's Annual World
Heritage Committee's meetings are chosen?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. The members of the delegation are
chosen, first of all, based on our representation in UNESCO, so
therefore, our permanent representative, Ambassador Louise
Oliver is the titular head of the delegation. Although the
nature of the Committee is as a technical committee, in
practice, these delegations function with the Ambassador and
the Interior Department chief representatives serving as
cochairs. And, the division of labor between them is consistent
with the mission of the State Department and the mission of the
Interior Department. With the mission of the State Department
being to deal with the foreign affairs and international
aspects of the decisions before the Committee, the relations
among the various countries represented there, and the Interior
Department being responsible for substantive decisions about
sites that are located in the United States and other expert
opinions.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, what role does your office play
in determining the positions that the U.S. delegation to the
WHC will take on specific sites being considered for addition
or deletion to the list?
Mr. Anderson. We review the agenda that is prepared by the
World Heritage Center, and circulated to all members of the
Committee in advance of each meeting, and we lead an
interagency consultation process with the other agencies who
are interested in this process. And we, as the State
Department, take the lead on any issue that has a political or
foreign policy nature.
For example, the site in Jerusalem at the Temple Mount, or
the site on the border of Cambodia and Thailand, which was a
subject of some controversy at the meeting in Christchurch, or
the Bahai holy places, which were a subject for discussion--all
of those are examples of sites that have some political and
foreign policy implications. And, at the end of that
interagency consultation process, we prepare a guidance cable
that we send to our mission in Paris that lists specific
guidance for decisions that are listed on the agenda.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, did you or others in your office
have any consultations with this U.S. delegation to the World
Heritage Committee in New Zealand?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; we did.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, did you have discussions with
regard to the positions that the delegation would take at the
meeting?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; we did.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what are those?
Mr. Anderson. We discussed the cases that I mentioned----
Senator Bill Nelson. Did you have any discussions about the
Florida Everglades?
Mr. Anderson. No; we did not.
Senator Bill Nelson. And why was that?
Mr. Anderson. The reason for that was that in the agenda,
there was no proposal before us to change the status of the
Everglades with regard to the list in danger.
Senator Bill Nelson. Would you or members of your office
have had access to that draft report?
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. And you would have seen the conclusion
of the draft conclusions, which said that the Everglades should
not be removed?
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. Were you surprised when it was?
Mr. Anderson. Frankly speaking, literally, yes. Because I
heard about it only after the World Heritage Committee made the
decision.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what conversations, discussions,
et cetera, did you have upon learning of that information?
Mr. Anderson. I learned about it from Ambassador Oliver,
our Ambassador who was heading the delegation. And, the
conversation consisted of Ambassador Oliver telling me that
there was unanimous support in the Committee for removing the
Everglades from the list, and her impression that this was a
tribute to the efforts that the United States had made toward
restoration of the Everglades, and responding to the concerns
that had been identified in previous reports of the World
Heritage Committee about the site.
Senator Bill Nelson. And, do you understand what Mr.
Willens has explained to the committee that the final
determination was made that it should be removed from the list,
as he has stated; is that your understanding?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; it is.
Senator Bill Nelson. From your understanding, were the
normal procedures followed in making that decision?
Mr. Anderson. The normal procedure for making decisions is
the State Department and the Interior Department consult, the
State Department weighs in on any issue with international
policy implications, the Interior Department addresses domestic
issues, and in that respect the procedure was followed.
However, in retrospect, after reviewing the process in this
case, we have decided that any issue that was not on the agenda
that we reviewed before developing our guidance should occasion
our Ambassador reporting back to Washington before making any
such new decision.
Senator Bill Nelson. Is that procedure going to be
corrected in the future?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. And who's going to require that, the
Secretary of State?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; that authority is delegated to the
Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, if there were another meeting, if
this new policy had been in effect, as--you tell me if I'm
restating correctly what you just said--if the new policy had
been in effect before the New Zealand meeting, there would have
been--had to have been--consultations before that draft report
would have had that one word changed, reversing its entire
meaning?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; what would have happened is Ambassador
Oliver would have probably called me, or Assistant Secretary
Silverberg, or one of my staff to alert us that there was an
issue that was not covered in our guidance, and would have
asked us to provide guidance.
Senator Bill Nelson. And why have you all decided to
institute this new procedure?
Mr. Anderson. We've assessed the reaction to this decision,
and we've seen that there are some concerns that, we think
should be addressed, and that we should be fully aware of any
decision. Even if, you know, had we had consultations with the
Department of Interior, we believe we probably would have
arrived at the same result, the same guidance.
Nevertheless, in order to fully exercise our responsibility
for providing guidance to the delegations, we have decided to
adopt this new policy.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what is the reaction?
Mr. Anderson. We received a letter from you, Mr. Chairman,
and we've also had a number of consultations with your staff
and other members of the committee's staff, that have made that
point to us.
Senator Bill Nelson. Is Ambassador Oliver on board with
these new procedural changes?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; she is. We've thoroughly discussed them.
Senator Bill Nelson. And did she say why she did not
consult with you all in such a major change from the draft that
had just been done in May 2007?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; she did.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what did she say?
Mr. Anderson. She reviewed our standard operating
procedures which, as I stated earlier, provide that on an issue
of substance relating to a site in the United States, we in the
State Department defer to the Interior Department side of our
delegation for a decision, and the State Department part of the
delegation's responsibility is to meet with other countries to
ascertain whether that decision--whether that proposal would
meet with their approval or not, and then to make a judgment as
to whether it's feasible to achieve the decision that we're
seeking.
Senator Bill Nelson. The same Ambassador, Ambassador
Oliver, had explained to our staff that, by tradition, the
recommendations on the inclusion or deletion of sites on the in
danger list are always put forth by the country in whose
territory a site is located. She said to our staff, it would be
``impossible'' for other countries to make such a
recommendation. Did the U.S. delegation offer the
recommendation to remove the Everglades to the WHC?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. The U.S. delegation did offer that
recommendation.
Senator Bill Nelson. And you're aware, in May 2007, that
the WHC scientific advisors recommended to the Committee that
the Everglades should stay on the list?
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson. What do you think changed between May
and June?
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I would make one observation
that might be helpful to understand the context, and that is,
at the Committee meeting at Christchurch, there were four sites
that were removed from the list in danger. And of those four,
two--in two of the cases--the experts recommended that they be
retained, and nevertheless, the Committee decided to remove
them. One of them was the Everglades, and the other one was the
Rio Platineau site in Honduras. And also, of the four sites
that were removed, in only two cases were the countries where
those sites were located actually members of the Committee--the
United States and Benin. The site in Benin was the Abomey Royal
Palace.
And the other two sites, one in Nepal, and the other in
Honduras--those two countries were not members of the
Committee, and therefore were not in a position to formally
make a recommendation themselves. And in those two cases, the
World Heritage Center conveyed the recommendation of the IUCN,
with regard to those two sites.
And that's a slight expansion of the explanation that
Ambassador Oliver gave you, about who has the ability,
traditionally, to make those recommendations. Obviously, if
you're not a member of the Committee, you can't formally do it.
So, there are--every year, many cases of sites where the
country is not a member, and the World Heritage Center conveys
the recommendation to the Committee. But in all of those cases,
nevertheless, the government of that country is consulted, and
the--that government's views are still respected, by
traditional practice.
Senator Bill Nelson. And so, in this case, by your
statement there was a recognition that the technical people had
said that they did not want the Everglades taken off the list?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; that's correct.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. Are you aware that the National
Park Service had reported that the important benchmarks had not
been met?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; I read their report.
Senator Bill Nelson. And you're aware that the IUCN
reiterated its support for keeping----
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Bill Nelson [continuing]. The Everglades on the
list, as well? In your statement, in your written testimony to
the committee, you note that, ``The international community
began suggesting upgrading the status of the Park 4 years
ago.'' Are you referring to the Everglades, taking it off the
list? Is that what you mean by upgrade?
Mr. Anderson. That's a reference to suggestions from other
countries who are members of the World Heritage Committee,
suggesting to our delegation that the time had come to remove
the Everglades from the list in danger.
Senator Bill Nelson. Are suggestions by the international
community the usual basis for determining these recommendations
on removing the sites?
Mr. Anderson. The basis for determining is a decision by
the Committee. And therefore, the views of the countries that
are members of the Committee are relevant in making that
decision.
Senator Bill Nelson. But, the determination--according to
Ambassador Oliver--is a determination made by the host country?
Mr. Anderson. Ambassador Oliver stated that it would be
impossible for the Committee to make that determination without
the consent of the country.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, one has to come before the other?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; that's correct.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. Now, you've made clear in your
statement, which has been a part of the record, that you refer
to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as, ``arguably
the world's most ambitious conservation project.'' Given this
and the U.S. leadership in establishing the World Heritage
List, do you feel that the opinions of the scientific community
should have been taken into consideration in removing the
Everglades from the list?
Mr. Anderson. Yes; certainly. And they were taken into
consideration.
Senator Bill Nelson. But they weren't followed.
Mr. Anderson. Yes; that's correct.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, does that say anything to you
about the long-term commitment to protecting World Heritage
sites?
Mr. Anderson. I think the context of these decisions, and
as I mentioned, this year, in half of the cases, the Committee
made a decision contrary to the experts' recommendations--and
over time the rate is somewhat less than that, but it's quite
frequent that the recommendations are not followed. And the
basis on which the Committee makes the decision whether to
remove or not, is their assessment of the commitment of the
State, of the country where the site is located, to take the
remedial action that has been identified as necessary to
protect the site. And, the decision that was made in
Christchurch reflects the view of the Committee that the United
States has made the necessary commitment. And they make that
determination in the context of the other sites that are on the
list, and in practice, based on their own rough ranking of the
efforts to remediate that site, as opposed to the other sites
that are on the list in danger.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Anderson, do you have an opinion
that the Everglades are no longer in danger?
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I'm not a scientist, and making
judgments about the environmental status of National Parks is
not part of my responsibility. So, any opinion that I might
have would be a personal one that would be based on examining
opinions of experts.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, do you want to offer a personal
opinion?
Mr. Anderson. I think that I--it would be hazardous to
offer a personal opinion in this context, but I can tell you
that I have reviewed the documents that are before us,
including the report that you had before us from the IUCN and
the GAO study that we'll be hearing about later, and I think
it's safe to say that the action that's needed--much of the
action that's needed has not yet been taken. But, it's
certainly been identified, it's an issue that the President and
the Congress have to decide together, how many resources to
commit to make--put this plan into action.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, let me see if you have an
opinion on this. Do you think that removing the Everglades from
the danger list creates the perception that the Everglades are
no longer in danger?
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, it certainly does not create
that perception among the members of the World Heritage
Committee, the group that actually made that decision. And, if
you look at the other decisions that were made for removal of
sites from the list, you'll find that the reports on those
sites--for example, the site in Honduras, which the experts
recommended be retained, and which the Committee decided to
remove--there are a number of very serious concerns that the
report says the government itself has not even addressed. And
yet, the Committee decided to remove that site from the list in
danger.
Senator Bill Nelson. I wonder if the people in Honduras
have to pass, for the first time in 7 years, a Water Resources
Development Act. And I wonder if the people in Honduras have to
acquire $20 billion of funding for restoration projects for
their endangered list, over a 20-to-30-year period in the
future?
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald Anderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to you and
the subcommittee today. I am proud to report on the recent decision by
the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to release Everglades National Park
from the list of the List of World Heritage in Danger. The delegates
reached this decision unanimously and affirmed their confidence in the
actions underway by the United States, the State of Florida, and many
partners to ensure the future of the Park. As I will describe, the
international community began suggesting upgrading the status of the
Park 4 years ago and we stand by the decision to do so this year.
The United States was the first country to sign and ratify the 1972
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. The United States has strongly supported the World Heritage
program ever since that time, including the 19 years we were absent
from UNESCO, from 1985 to 2003. During those years, when the Department
of State played an observer role in UNESCO, on World Heritage issues,
the National Park Service represented U.S. interests.
After the United States rejoined UNESCO, and the United States
accredited an ambassador as Permanent Representative to UNESCO, the
Department of State resumed its normal role in cooperating with the
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service in leading U.S.
delegations to World Heritage Committee meetings. Since 2005, when the
United States became a member of the World Heritage Committee, the
Departments of State and the Interior have assumed the role of coheads
of delegation to that Committee. The Department of the Interior and the
National Park Service provide leadership as required under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Department of State provides
overall guidance to our delegations, and has the lead on issues
relating to UNESCO budget and management, negotiations with foreign
delegations within the World Heritage Committee, and on foreign policy
aspects of the World Heritage Committee's work. The World Heritage
Committee is a technical body, and so we look to the Department of the
Interior to take the lead on issues involving inscription and
conservation of World Heritage sites.
The United States serves as one of the 21 members of the World
Heritage Committee, which is the governing body of UNESCO's Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
The United States was elected to a 6-year term in 2005, but as has
become customary we agreed to serve only 4 years of the 6-year term.
The principal purpose of the Committee is to identify and help conserve
the world's most valuable heritage sites.
The World Heritage Committee meets annually to consider reports on
the status of existing World Heritage sites and to consider
recommendations for inscribing new sites on the World Heritage List.
Properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List must
demonstrate ``outstanding universal value'' by satisfying at least 1 of
10 formal evaluation criteria. In addition, the Committee maintains a
list of World Heritage sites threatened by natural disasters or
political crises. The List of World Heritage in Danger is the first
step toward loss of World Heritage status. States with World Heritage
sites on the List in Danger are eligible for emergency relief through
UNESCO's World Heritage Fund. The United States has never sought
international assistance for conservation of any of its World Heritage
sites. It is the position of the United States that a site can be added
to, or removed from, the list only with the consent of the Member State
where a site is located.
The Committee receives independent evaluations from two advisory
bodies. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) reviews natural sites.
Evaluations of cultural sites are prepared by the International Council
on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The World Heritage Committee is not
bound by the recommendations of the advisory bodies. Not infrequently,
the Committee's decisions are based on its own understanding of the
facts, or other considerations. And expert opinion is not always
unanimous, of course. At its most recent meeting--in Christchurch, New
Zealand, June 22-July 2, 2007--the Committee's decision to defer
inscription of a site nominated by Cambodia, the temple of Preah
Vihear, was contrary to the recommendation of the advisory group. And
in the case of Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras), the World
Conservation Union recommended that the site be maintained on the List
in Danger, but the Committee determined that there had been enough
recent progress to justify its removal.
The Department of State, in advance of each meeting of the World
Heritage Committee, conducts interagency consultations with the
Department of the Interior and other stakeholders based on the agenda
for the upcoming meeting prepared by UNESCO's World Heritage Center.
This agenda lists sites which Member States have recommended for
inclusion in the World Heritage List, and includes the expert opinions
of the advisory bodies and the Center's recommendations for action. The
Department of State prepares a guidance document tracking with this
agenda and providing the U.S. position on each listed item. However,
Member States are free to introduce new items to the World Heritage
Committee at the meeting itself, and frequently do so.
At its recent meeting in Christchurch, the Committee inscribed 22
new World Heritage sites and also delisted one site. These actions
bring the total number of World Heritage sites to 851, sponsored by 141
states parties.
The Committee revised the List of World Heritage in Danger by
adding three sites: The Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), Niokolo-Koba
National Park (Senegal), and Ancient Samarra (Iraq). Four sites were
removed from the List in Danger: Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve
(Honduras), Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin), Kathmandu Valley (Nepal),
and, as you know, Everglades National Park in Florida (U.S.A.).
Everglades National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List
in 1979 and added to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1993. In
1993, the National Park Service, representing the United States,
requested that the Everglades be so listed. In the past three annual
sessions of the World Heritage Committee, foreign delegations have,
with increasing frequency, urged the U.S. delegations in informal
consultations to seek removal of the Everglades from the List of World
Heritage Sites in Danger. These delegations have cited the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan enacted by Congress in 2000,
arguably the world's most ambitious conservation project, as the basis
for such sentiments.
At the meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Christchurch,
many foreign delegations again urged the United States to request
delisting of the Everglades. Our U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO determined
that support for such an action was sufficient to ensure success, and
so advised the Department of the Interior members of the delegation.
The delegation then decided to proceed with a formal request for
delisting. The advisory group, the World Conservation Union (IUCN),
noted achievements in preservation and restoration of the Everglades,
but recommended that the Everglades remain on the List in Danger
pending further study of the conservation measures underway. However,
every Committee member who spoke on the issue (India, Kenya, Lithuania,
New Zealand, Israel, Canada, Madagascar, Chile, Benin, and Spain)
favored removal of the Everglades from the List in Danger. Several
Committee members hailed the U.S. effort as a model for other nations.
A unanimous decision was then taken to remove the Everglades from the
list. The major practical consequence of the Everglades' removal from
the List in Danger is that Everglades National Park will be required to
submit annual reports, gauging progress against certain benchmarks
established in 2006. The Committee also requested that the United
States, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the IUCN,
develop a statement of the ``desired state of conservation'' for the
site. The next U.S. report is due in February 2008.
Senator Bill Nelson. I would like to call up Ms. Mittal,
Director of the Natural Resources and Environmental Team of the
GAO.
Thank you, and your written statement, as well, will be put
in the written record of the committee.
And Ms. Mittal, am I pronouncing that correctly?
STATEMENT OF ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Mittal. Yes; you are, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. In an op-ed in the South Florida
Sun Sentinel, Mr. Willens cites the GAO's report on the South
Florida ecosystem in support of his decision to remove the
Everglades from the World Heritage list of sites in danger. And
of the nine projects that were set for removing the Everglades
from the danger list, only one of those projects has been
completed--at most, two. Is that correct?
Ms. Mittal. Yes; only one has been completed.
Senator Bill Nelson. What is the status of the other
projects?
Ms. Mittal. Four of them are currently being implemented,
and four are still being designed and planned.
Senator Bill Nelson. And what is the earliest that those
projects could be completed?
Ms. Mittal. The ones that are currently being implemented
have various completion dates that range between the next 2 to
5 years. For the ones that are currently being designed and
planned, they are several decades out. The earliest ones will
be completed in 2015, the later ones closer to 2035.
Senator Bill Nelson. You found that the most critical of
the 222 projects that make up the restoration effort, are
woefully behind schedule, and in many cases, only in the
planning stages?
Ms. Mittal. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, would a reasonable person
conclude that the Everglades at this point is no longer in
danger?
Ms. Mittal. I think it depends on how you measure progress.
If you measure progress based purely on effort, then some
people could reach the conclusion that, yes, we're making a lot
of effort, and that sounds like what happened at the World
Heritage Committee meeting.
But, if you look at results, which is what our report
defines as progress, in terms of what are we getting for the
effort that we've made, then you would come to a totally
different conclusion, that we don't know whether the Everglades
are going to be protected.
Senator Bill Nelson. I must say, that for the fish and the
birds, and the alligators and, unfortunately now, the pythons--
which are not indigenous to the Everglades, but which have
become a real problem--they want results. That's the area
that's starved of water. Because the water--first of all,
you've got to get it, and you've got to get it fairly cleaned,
coming south out of the lake. And then you've got to work on
restoring as much of Mother Nature's sheet flow that brings it
in this direction, into Florida Bay, and into the Gulf of
Mexico. And, therein lies a major problem. So, when you look at
results, I'll use your word--you would certainly conclude that
the Everglades are in danger.
Ms. Mittal. I believe that we are not yet in a position to
say that we have restored the Everglades, and that the
restoration will not happen for at least 20, 30, maybe 40 years
at the rate that we're going.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK; thank you.
You also identified that the costs of this restoration
project are escalating?
Ms. Mittal. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Would it be reasonable to conclude
that the cost to taxpayers--not only in Florida, but all over
the country--are going to increase if we do not resolve the
issues responsible for delaying the progress on restoring the
Everglades?
Ms. Mittal. Well, the delays have already resulted in a 28-
percent cost increase. As you mentioned earlier, the cost of
construction has gone up, the cost of acquiring land to
complete the projects has gone up, and project scope changes
have caused the cost to increase.
But, more importantly, all of the costs are not yet
included in this $20 billion number that you have mentioned,
because there are a lot of various factors that constitute the
Everglades Restoration Project that we still don't have numbers
for. And so, when you start adding those costs as we stated in
our report, the total costs are going to increase
significantly, beyond the $20 billion.
Senator Bill Nelson. And that's what you concluded in this
report?
Ms. Mittal. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Do you have an opinion, having done
the work on this report, what should be done to ensure that we
preserve this natural and national treasure for future
generations?
Ms. Mittal. Well, the conclusions of our report are, that
we have to fulfill the commitments that we've made, in terms of
completing the projects on time--many of the projects are
delayed, as you have mentioned already. We have to make sure
that the Federal share of the contribution to the Everglades is
made up, because right now there's a shortfall, and that's
primarily on the Federal side, and we have to continue to get
these projects implemented so that further delays don't result
in increased costs for the overall project.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and
Environmental Team, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to be
here today to participate in your hearing on protecting the Everglades.
As you know, restoring the South Florida ecosystem is a complex, long-
term effort. This vast region, which is home to a rapidly growing
population of more than 6 million people and supports a large
agriculture-, tourism-, and recreation-based economy, also encompasses
one of the world's unique environmental resources--the Everglades.
Recognizing the importance of the Everglades, in 1979, the World
Heritage Committee (WHC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) included Everglades National Park
(Park) on its list of world cultural and natural heritage sites of
importance. However, over the past 100 years, engineering projects
designed to control floods and supply water to the residents of South
Florida have diverted water from the Everglades. This alteration of
water flow, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities and
urbanization, has jeopardized the ecosystem's health and reduced the
Everglades to about half of its original size. In light of the
Everglades deteriorating condition, in 1993 the WHC added the Park to
its List of World Heritage in Danger sites. These sites are determined
to be facing serious and specific threats and require major
conservation efforts.
In 1996, through the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the
Congress formalized the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force,
an effort established by Federal agencies in 1993 to stem the
deterioration of the ecosystem and restore the Everglades to a more
natural state. The Task Force was expanded to include State, local, and
tribal representatives and was charged with coordinating and
facilitating efforts to restore the ecosystem. The restoration effort
currently consists of 222 projects, which include 60 key projects that
comprise the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), 28
projects that lay the foundation for the CERP projects (that we refer
to as CERP-related projects); and 134 projects that are not directly
related to CERP (that we refer to as non-CERP projects). According to
WHC and Park documents, 9 of the 222 projects are key to achieving a
set of benchmarks adopted by the WHC in 2006 that, when met, would lead
to the removal of the Park from its list of sites in danger.
Our testimony today focuses on the (1) status of restoration
projects and their expected benefits, (2) status of projects that are
key to restoring the health of Everglades National Park, (3) factors
that influence the sequencing of project implementation, and (4) amount
of funding provided to the restoration effort since 1999 and the extent
to which costs have increased. Our testimony is based primarily on our
May 2007 report \1\ on the status of the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative. In addition, at the request of the
subcommittee, we reviewed publicly available WHC decision documents
regarding Everglades National Park's inclusion on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Restoration is Moving
Forward, but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges,
and Rising Costs,'' GAO-07-520 (Washington, DC: May 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we found the following:
Forty-three of the two hundred and twenty-two projects that
constitute the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort have
been completed, while the remaining projects are currently
being implemented or are in design, being planned, or have not
yet started. Many of the completed projects are intended
primarily to improve water quality in natural areas or to
acquire or improve tracts of land in order to preserve wildlife
habitat. The projects now being implemented also emphasize the
restoration of wildlife habitat by acquiring or improving land,
as well as the construction of key CERP-related projects that
will improve water flow to natural areas. The projects not yet
implemented are largely CERP projects that are crucial to
realizing the restoration's overall goals, but these projects
are progressing slowly. Despite the slow progress, agency
officials report a number of achievements, such as finalizing
key CERP agreements and restoring a more natural water flow to
the Kissimmee River which is the headwater of the ecosystem. In
addition, because of the continuing delays in implementing
critical CERP projects, the state has begun expediting the
design and construction of some of these projects with its own
resources. The state hopes that its efforts will provide some
immediate environmental, flood control and water supply
benefits and will help provide some impetus to the larger CERP
effort.
Most of the nine projects that were identified by the WHC as
being critical to removing Everglades National Park from the
list of world heritage sites in danger have not yet been
completed. Specifically, only one project has been completed,
four are currently being implemented, and four are currently in
the planning and design phase. Moreover, the benefits from
these projects may not be apparent for many more years. For
example, five of the projects have scheduled completion dates
from 2012 to 2035.
There are no overarching criteria to ensure that the 222
projects that make up the restoration effort are implemented in
a sequence that would ensure the achievement of environmental
benefits as early as possible and in the most cost effective
manner. Instead, implementation decisions for the 162 CERP-
related and non-CERP projects are largely driven by available
funding. The 60 CERP projects--which are critical to
successfully achieving the restoration--have sequencing
criteria, however, when the agencies developed their sequencing
plan for CERP projects in 2005, they did not have key data and
other information to fully apply these criteria. Recently, the
agencies began revising the CERP project schedules and
sequencing plan, but they still do not have the key information
needed to fully apply the established criteria. As a result,
there is little assurance that the revised sequencing plan,
when it is final, will lead to a CERP project implementation
plan that will provide restoration benefits as early as
possible and in the most cost-effective manner. We recommended
that the agencies obtain the information needed to fully apply
the required criteria and then comprehensively reassess its
sequencing decisions to ensure that the CERP projects have been
appropriately sequenced.
Participating Federal and State agencies provided a total of
$7.1 billion for the restoration effort from fiscal years 1999
through 2006. During this period, the Federal Government
contributed about $2.3 billion to the restoration effort and
Florida contributed about $4.8 billion. However, the Federal
contribution to the effort has been about $1.4 billion less
than agencies expected during this period. Because the State
has contributed more than its share the overall shortfall for
the restoration effort has been about $1.2 billion. At the same
time, the total projected cost of the restoration effort has
increased by 28 percent--from $15.4 billion in 2000 to $19.7
billion in 2006. According to agency officials, the overall
cost increases are due to project scope changes, increased
construction costs, and higher land costs. Moreover, these cost
estimates do not reflect the true cost of the restoration
effort, which could be significantly higher because most CERP
projects are still in the conceptual phase and their full cost
is not yet known.
Background
The South Florida ecosystem covers about 18,000 square miles in 16
counties. It extends from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south of Orlando
to Lake Okeechobee, and continues south past the Florida Bay to the
reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. The ecosystem is in jeopardy today
because of past efforts that diverted water from the Everglades to
control flooding and to supply water for urban and agricultural
development. The central and southern Florida project, a large-scale
water control project begun in the late 1940s, constructed more than
1,700 miles of canals and levees and over 200 water control structures
that drain an average of 1.7 billion gallons of water per day into the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. This construction resulted in
insufficient water for the natural system and for the growing
population, along with degraded water quality. Today, the Everglades
has been reduced to half its original size and the ecosystem continues
to deteriorate because of the alteration of the water flow, impacts of
agricultural and industrial activities, and increasing urbanization.
In response to growing signs of ecosystem deterioration, Federal
agencies established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
in 1993 to coordinate ongoing Federal restoration activities. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 formalized the Task Force and
expanded its membership to include State, local, and tribal
representatives, and charged it with coordinating and facilitating
efforts to restore the ecosystem. The Task Force, which is chaired by
the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, consists of 14 members
representing 7 Federal agencies, 2 American Indian tribes, and 5 State
or local governments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Representatives from the State's major industries,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders provide comments to the
Task Force through public meetings and forums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accomplish the restoration, the Task Force established the
following three goals:
Get the water right. The purpose of this goal is to deliver
the right amount of water, of the right quality, to the right
places, at the right times. However, restoring a more natural
water flow to the ecosystem while providing adequate water
supplies and controlling floods will require efforts to expand
the ecosystem's freshwater supply and improve the delivery of
water to natural areas. Natural areas of the ecosystem are made
up of Federal and State lands, and coastal waters, estuaries,
bays, and islands.
Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species.
To restore lost and altered habitats and recover the endangered
or threatened species native to these habitats, the Federal and
State governments will have to acquire lands and reconnect
natural habitats that have become disconnected through growth
and development, and halt the spread of invasive species.
Foster compatibility of the built and natural systems. To
achieve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, the
restoration effort has the goal of maintaining the quality of
life in urban areas while ensuring that (1) development
practices limit habitat fragmentation and support conservation
and (2) traditional industries, such as agriculture, fishing,
and manufacturing continue to be supported and do not damage
the ecosystem.
The centerpiece for achieving the goal to get the water right is
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), approved by the
Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000).
CERP is one of the most ambitious restoration efforts the Federal
Government has ever undertaken. It currently encompasses 60 individual
projects that will be designed and implemented over approximately 40
years.\3\ These projects are intended to increase the water available
for the natural areas by capturing much of the water that is currently
being diverted, storing the water in many different reservoirs and
storage wells, and releasing it when it is needed. The cost of
implementing CERP will be shared equally between the Federal Government
and the State of Florida and will be carried out primarily by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD), which is the state authority that manages
water resources for South Florida.\4\ After the Corps and SFWMD
complete the initial planning and design for individual CERP projects,
they must submit the proposed projects to the Congress to obtain
authorization and funding for construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The original number of individual projects in CERP was 68. In
addition to these 68, CERP included 6 pilot projects and 3 proposed
feasibility studies. Since CERP's approval in 2000, the Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District have reorganized the projects
to group those that are logically connected into broader projects. For
example, several projects around Lake Okeechobee have been combined
into one project. At the time of our report, CERP consisted of 60
projects, but the total number of projects that make up CERP may
continue to change as implementation progresses and projects are added,
combined, divided into multiple parts or phases, or deleted.
\4\ Although SFWMD is CERP's primary non-Federal sponsor, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection as well as three county
governments and two American Indian tribes also serve as non-Federal
sponsors for portions of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the CERP projects, another 162 projects are also
part of the overall restoration effort. Twenty-eight of these projects,
when completed, will serve as the foundation for many of the CERP
projects and are intended to restore a more natural water flow to
Everglades National Park and improve water quality in the ecosystem.
Nearly all of these ``CERP-related'' projects were already being
designed or implemented by Federal and State agencies, such as the
Department of the Interior and SFWMD, in 2000 when the Congress
approved CERP. The remaining 134 projects include a variety of efforts
that will, among other things, expand wildlife refuges, eradicate
invasive species, and restore wildlife habitat, and are being
implemented by a number of Federal, State, and tribal agencies, such as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Because these projects were not authorized as part of CERP and do not
serve as CERP's foundation, we refer to them as ``non-CERP'' projects.
Success in completing the restoration effort and achieving the
expected benefits for the ecosystem as quickly as possible and in the
most cost-effective manner depends on the order, or sequencing, in
which many of the 222 projects will be designed and completed.
Appropriate sequencing is also important to ensure that
interdependencies among restoration projects are not ignored. For
example, projects that will construct water storage facilities and
stormwater treatment areas need to be completed before undertaking
projects that remove levees and restore a more natural water flow to
the ecosystem.
Recognizing the threats that Everglades National Park was facing,
in 1993, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee (WHC) included the Park on
its List of World Heritage in Danger. This list includes cultural or
natural properties that are facing serious and specific threats such as
those caused by large-scale public or private projects or rapid
urbanization; the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict;
calamities and cataclysms; and changes in water levels, floods, and
tidal waves. The Park's inclusion on the list resulted from five
specific threats: (1) Urban encroachment; (2) agricultural fertilizer
pollution; (3) mercury contamination of fish and wildlife; (4) lowered
water levels due to flood control measures; and (5) damage from
Hurricane Andrew, which struck the South Florida peninsula in 1992 with
winds exceeding 164 miles per hour. In 2006, WHC adopted a set of
benchmarks that, when met, would lead to the Park's removal from the
List. According to Park and WHC documents, nine projects that are part
of the overall restoration effort will contribute to the achievement of
these benchmarks.
Although Many Restoration Projects Have Been Completed or Are Ongoing,
Key Restoration Benefits Are Expected To Come From Projects Not
Yet Implemented
Forty-three of the 222 projects that constitute the South Florida
ecosystem restoration effort have been completed, while the remaining
projects are currently being implemented or are either in design, being
planned, or have not yet started. Table 1 shows the status of the 222
restoration projects.
TABLE 1.--STATUS OF THE 222 RESTORATION PROJECTS BY PROJECT GROUP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet implemented
In ----------------------
Completed implementation Planning/ Not yet Total
design started
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERP..................................... 0 7 21 32 60
CERP-related............................. 15 10 3 0 28
Non-CERP................................. 28 90 2 14 134
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 43 107 26 46 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of documents provided by Task Force and participating agencies.
Completed Restoration Projects.--Although 43 of the 222 projects
have been completed since the beginning of the restoration effort, this
total is far short of the 91 projects that the agencies reported would
be completed by 2006.\5\ Nine projects were completed before 2000 when
the strategy to restore the ecosystem was set. These projects are
expected to provide benefits primarily in the area of habitat
acquisition and improvement. Thirty-four projects were completed
between 2000 and 2006. The primary purposes of these projects range
from the construction of stormwater treatment areas, to the acquisition
or improvement of land for habitat, to the drafting of water supply
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, ``Coordinating
Success Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem, Volume
2'' (Miami, FL: July 31, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing Restoration Projects.--Of the 107 projects currently being
implemented,\6\ 7 are CERP projects, 10 are CERP-related projects, and
90 are non-CERP projects. Five of the seven CERP projects are being
built by the State in advance of the Corps' completion of the necessary
project implementation reports and submission of them to the Congress
for authorization and appropriations. Nonetheless, some of the CERP
projects currently in implementation are significantly behind schedule.
For example, four of the seven CERP projects in implementation were
originally scheduled for completion between November 2002 and September
2006, but instead will be completed up to 6 years behind their original
schedule because it has taken the corps longer than originally
anticipated to design and obtain approval for these projects. Overall,
19 of the 107 projects currently being implemented have expected
completion dates by 2010. Most of the remaining 88 projects are non-
CERP habitat acquisition and improvement projects that have no firm end
date because the land will be acquired from willing sellers as it
becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Some projects have multiple components, and while the entire
project cannot be counted as completed, important components of it may
be finished. Unless all components of the project were complete, we
counted these projects as being implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Not Yet Implemented.--Of the 72 restoration projects not
yet implemented--in design, in planning, or not yet started--53 are
CERP projects that are expected to be completed over the next 30 years
and will provide important benefits such as improved water flow,
additional water for restoration as well as other water-related needs.
In contrast, the other 19 projects include 3 CERP-related and 16 non-
CERP projects, which are expected to be completed by or before 2013.
Consequently, the full environmental benefits for the South Florida
ecosystem restoration that the CERP projects were intended to provide
will not be realized for several decades. Several of the CERP projects
in design, in planning, or not yet begun, were originally planned for
completion between December 2001 and December 2005, but instead will be
completed from 2 to 6 years behind their original schedule. According
to agency officials CERP project delays have occurred for the following
reasons:
It took longer than expected to develop the appropriate
policy, guidance, and regulations that WRDA 2000 requires for
the CERP effort.
Some delays were caused by the need to modify the conceptual
design of some projects to comply with the requirements of WRDA
2000's savings clause. According to this clause, CERP projects
cannot transfer or eliminate existing sources of water unless
an alternate source of comparable quantity and quality is
provided, and they cannot reduce existing levels of flood
protection.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The sources of water and levels of flood protection that must
be protected are those that were in existence on the date of WRDA
2000's enactment--December 11, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress was limited by the availability of less Federal
funding than expected and a lack of congressional authorization
for some of the projects.
The extensive modeling that accompanies the design and
implementation of each project in addition to the
``cumbersome'' project review process may have also contributed
to delays, as well as stakeholder comment, dispute resolution,
and consensus-building that occurs at each stage of a project.
Delays have occurred in completing the CERP-related Modified
Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters)
project, which is a major building block for CERP. These
delays, in turn, have delayed CERP implementation.
Given the continuing delays in implementing critical CERP projects,
the State has begun expediting the design and construction of some of
these projects with its own resources. The State's effort, known as
Acceler8, includes most of the CERP projects that were among WRDA
2000's 10 initially authorized projects, whose costs were to be shared
by the Federal Government and the State. According to Florida
officials, by advancing the design and construction of these projects
with its own funds, the State hopes to more quickly realize restoration
benefits for both the natural and human environments and to jump-start
the overall CERP effort once the Congress begins to authorize
individual projects. The Acceler8 projects include seven that are
affiliated with CERP and an eighth that expands existing stormwater
treatment areas. The state expects to spend more than $1.5 billion to
design and construct these projects by 2011.
Restoration Projects That Would Help Achieve the World Heritage
Committee's Benchmarks Will Not Be Completed for Many Years
Most of the restoration projects that would help Everglades
National Park achieve the WHC's benchmarks for removing the Park from
its list of world heritage sites in danger have not been completed.
According to Park and WHC documents, nine restoration projects were key
to meeting these benchmarks. Table 2 lists the nine projects, the type
of project, implementation status, and expected completion date.
TABLE 2.--STATUS OF NINE RESTORATION PROJECTS KEY TO ACHIEVING THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S BENCHMARKS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion
Project Type Purpose Stage date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm Water Treatment Areas 3/4.. CERP-related....... Water quality...... Completed.......... 2005
East Everglades Addition to Non-CERP........... Habitat acquisition Ongoing............ TBD
Everglades National Park. and improvement.
Everglades Agriculture Area Storm CERP-related....... Water quality...... Ongoing............ 2010
Water Treatment Areas Expansion.
Modified Water Deliveries........ CERP-related....... Water storage and Ongoing............ 2011
flow.
C-111 (South Dade)............... CERP-related....... Water storage and Ongoing............ 2012
flow.
C-111 Spreader Canal............. CERP............... Water quality...... Not yet implemented 2015*
Everglades National Park Seepage CERP............... Water storage and Not yet implemented 2015
Management. flow.
Water Conservation Area 3--DECOMP CERP............... Water storage and Not yet implemented 2020
flow.
Central Lake Belt Storage........ CERP............... Water storage and Not yet implemented 2035
flow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of agency provided data.
* SFWMD is expediting the design and construction of this project with its own funds in advance of congressional
authorization, which may result in earlier completion.
As table 2 shows, only one of the nine projects has been completed;
four projects are ongoing and will not be completed until at least
2012; and four projects are still in planning and design and are not
expected to be completed until some time between 2015 and 2035.
In February 2007, the United States prepared a status report for
the WHC on the progress made in achieving the benchmarks that the
committee had established for the Park in 2006. Based on its review of
this progress report, at a benchmarks meeting on April 2-3, 2007, the
WHC's draft decision was to retain Everglades National Park on the list
of world heritage sites in danger; to recommend that the United States
continue its commitment to the restoration and conservation of the Park
and provide the required financial resources for the full
implementation of the activities associated with CERP. WHC's draft
decision also requested that the United States provide an updated
report by February 1, 2008, on the progress made toward implementation
of the corrective measures. However, at the WHC session held between
June 23 and July 2, 2007, the WHC decided to remove the Park from the
list of world heritage sites in danger and commended the United States
for the progress made in implementing corrective measures. In its final
decision, the WHC encouraged the United States to continue its
commitment to the restoration and provide the required financial
resources for the full implementation of the activities associated with
CERP. It is unclear from the WHC final decision document whether any
additional or new information was provided to the committee that led to
its final decision.
The Overall Restoration Effort Has No Sequencing Criteria and Criteria
Established for CERP Projects Have Not Been Fully Applied
No overall sequencing criteria guide the implementation of the 222
projects that comprise the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.
For the 60 CERP projects there are clearly defined criteria to be
considered in determining the scheduling and sequencing of projects.
However, the corps has not fully applied these criteria when making
CERP project sequencing decisions, because it lacked key data such as
updated environmental benefits data and interim goals. As a result the
corps primarily relied on technical interdependencies and availability
of funding as the criteria for making sequencing decisions.\8\ The
corps has recently started to revisit priorities for CERP projects and
alter project schedules that were established in 2005 (this process is
referred to as CERP-reset). However, because the corps continues to
lack certain key data for making sequencing decisions, the revised
plan, when completed, will also not fully adhere to the criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ An agreement establishing interim goals was signed by the
Departments of the Army and the Interior and the State of Florida in
late April/early May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although CERP-related projects provide the foundation for many CERP
projects, there are no established criteria for determining their
implementation schedule and their estimated start and completion dates
largely depend upon when and if the implementing agency will have
sufficient funding to implement the project. For example, the
construction of the Mod Waters project has been delayed several times
since 1997 because, among other things, Interior did not receive enough
funding to complete the construction of this project. This project is
expected to restore natural hydrologic conditions across 190,000 acres
of habitat in Everglades National Park and assist in the recovery of
threatened and endangered plants and wildlife. The completion date for
the Mod Waters Project has slipped again and it is now not expected to
be completed until 2011. Because completion of this project is critical
to the implementation of other CERP projects such as the Water
Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement
(Decomp) project--a project that many agency officials consider key to
restoring the natural system--these delays will have a ripple effect on
the completion date of this project as well.
Similarly, for non-CERP projects, agencies reported that they do
not have any sequencing criteria; instead, they decide on the
scheduling and timing of these projects primarily if and when funding
becomes available. For example, Florida has a land acquisition program
to acquire lands for conservation and habitat preservation throughout
the state, including for some non-CERP projects that are part of the
South Florida ecosystem restoration effort. State officials have
identified lands and added them to a list of priority projects proposed
for acquisition throughout the State. However, whether or not these
lands will be acquired for non-CERP projects depends on whether there
is available funding in the annual budget, there are willing sellers,
and the land is affordable based on the available funding.
Because of the correct sequencing of CERP projects is essential to
the overall success of the restoration effort, we recommended that the
corps obtain the data that it needs to ensure that all required
sequencing criteria are considered and then comprehensively reassess
its sequencing decisions to ensure that CERP projects have been
appropriately sequenced to maximize the achievement of restoration
goals. The agency agreed with our recommendation.
Federal Agencies and Florida Have Provided More Than $7 Billion for
Restoration Activities Since 1999, But Estimated Costs Have
Increased and Are Likely to Rise
From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2006, Federal and State
agencies participating in the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem provided $7.1 billion for the effort. Of this total, Federal
agencies provided $2.3 billion and Florida provided $4.8 billion. Two
agencies the Corps and Interior--provided over 80 percent of the
Federal contribution. As figure 1 shows, Federal and State agencies
allocated the largest portion of the $7.1 billion to non-CERP projects
for fiscal years 1999 through 2006.
While Federal agencies and Florida provided about $2.3 billion
during fiscal years 1999 through 2006 for CERP projects, this amount
was about $1.2 billion less than they had estimated needing for these
projects over this period. This was because the Federal contribution
was $1.4 billion less than expected. This shortfall occurred primarily
because CERP projects did not receive the congressional authorization
and appropriations that the agencies had expected. In contrast, Florida
provided a total of $2 billion over the period, exceeding its expected
contribution to CERP by $250 million, and therefore making up some of
the Federal funding shortfall.
Additionally, between July 31, 2000, and June 30, 2006, the total
estimated cost for the South Florida ecosystem restoration grew from
$15.4 billion to $19.7 billion, or by 28 percent. A significant part of
this increase can be attributed to CERP projects; for these projects
costs increased from $8.8 billion to $10.1 billion. This increase
represents nearly 31 percent of the increase in the total estimated
cost for the restoration. Agency officials reported that costs have
increased for the restoration effort primarily because of inflation,
increased land and construction costs, and changes in the scope of
work. Furthermore, the costs of restoring the South Florida ecosystem
are likely to continue to increase for the following reasons:
Estimated costs for some of the projects are not known or
fully known because they are still in the design and planning
stage. For example, the total costs for one project that we
examined--the Site 1 Impoundment project--grew by almost $36
million; from about $46 million to about $81 million after the
design phase was completed. If other CERP projects, for which
initial planning and design have not yet been completed, also
experience similar increases in project costs, then the
estimated total costs of not only CERP but the overall
restoration effort will grow significantly.
The full cost of acquiring land for the restoration effort
is not known. Land costs for 56 non-CERP land projects,
expected to total 862,796 acres, have not yet been reported.
According to State officials, Florida land prices are
escalating rapidly, owing primarily to development pressures.
Consequently, future project costs are likely to rise with
higher land costs. Similarly, while land acquisition costs for
CERP projects are included as part of the total estimated
project costs, thus far, the State has acquired only 54 percent
of the land needed for CERP projects, at a cost of $1.4
billion. An additional 178,000 acres have yet to be acquired;
the cost of these purchases is not yet known and is therefore
not fully reflected in the cost of CERP and overall restoration
costs.
The cost of using new technologies for the restoration
effort is unknown. The Congress authorized pilot projects in
1999 and 2000 to determine the feasibility of applying certain
new technologies for storing water, managing seepage, and
reusing treated wastewater. While the pilot projects have been
authorized, the cost to construct or implement projects based
on the results of the pilot projects is not yet known.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our review of the South Florida
Ecosystem restoration effort shows that the some progress has been made
in moving the restoration forward. However, the achievement of the
overall goals of the restoration and ultimately improvements in the
ecological condition of Everglades National Park depends on the
effective implementation of key projects that have not progressed as
quickly as was expected. Moreover, the shortfall in Federal funding has
contributed to some of these delays and at the same time the costs of
the restoration continues to increase and we believe could rise
significantly higher than the current estimate of almost $20 billion.
In light of these concerns, we believe that restoring the South Florida
Ecosystem and Everglades National Park, will continue to be a
significant challenge for the foreseeable future.
Senator Bill Nelson. Time, cost, delay of time,
implementation of the plan.
Mr. Willens, do you understand why people such as the
people of Florida are so upset at you unilaterally taking the
Florida Everglades National Park off the list of in danger
sites?
Mr. Willens. I understand the concerns and the challenges
that the Everglades have. And the conclusion that GAO has come
to are completion, they're evaluating completion of the
projects. The World Heritage Committee is not evaluating
completion. They're evaluating what they put it on for as an in
danger site. And, I know it is a very difficult, and not easy
for the general public to understand what the World Heritage
Committee's purpose is, and what their goal was with in danger,
which is, you know, it works in an obscure thing that's not
everyday front page, and really not in the history books, but
their purpose is different than what GAO's study was. And GAO
worked at what, and came to evaluations on projects and
completions. And the World Heritage Committee was, ``What
progress has begun? And what discussions are going forward?''
And their evaluation was a different metric.
Senator Bill Nelson. But, you heard Ms. Mittal representing
a very prestigious and accurate GAO, say that only one of nine
benchmarks has been achieved. And you don't think that is
worthwhile to take this into consideration when deciding
whether or not something should be on the endangered list?
Mr. Willens. Well, the Committee was aware that it--again,
they felt their decision, that progress has been made. And
obviously, they felt, and viewed that what's being done, was--
satisfied the criteria for removing it from in danger.
Otherwise, they would not have done it. And, I note, they did
it unanimously.
It's not the first time that we have had a site removed
from in danger. Yellowstone was removed several years ago. And,
so we're aware that the Committee spends a lot of time and
serious debate, and doesn't take these issues lightly, as that
was the case here. Yellowstone had its own controversy at the
time it was brought up. So, we don't take this action lightly,
and I don't think the Committee took it lightly, but they did
take it unanimously.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, it sounds like--to this
Senator--that the Committee is Todd Willens, making the
recommendation to take it off.
Ms. Mittal, what's your opinion about a statement that
removing the Everglades from the list encourages the perception
that the Everglades are no longer in danger?
Ms. Mittal. I believe that, unless people understand the
full context of how sites get on the World Heritage Committee
list, and how they get off the list, that statement could cause
a perception that somehow the Everglades are not in danger
anymore.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Willens, the staff has reminded me
that when you met with the staff that you told them that if you
had not made the motion to remove the Everglades from the list
that another country would have. Do you want to clarify that
statement to the staff?
Mr. Willens. Well, we were approached before the meeting,
or before the issue came up at the meeting, and I mean, the
idea did not originate from us, I have to say, it was after
negotiations and discussions with the other countries. And
there were a number of countries at the time that said they
were willing to make the motion. And--that as long as the
United States didn't object. And, at that point, that's when we
took responsibility and said, if, you know, after--we could
have taken the easy way out and let some other country do it
for us. But that's not responsible leadership, and so we did
it, believing that it was the right action to be taken, we did
it ourselves.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, isn't that interesting, because
Ambassador Louise Oliver said the opposite. She explained in a
meeting with our staff that the recommendations on inclusion or
deletion are put forth by the country in whose territory the
site is located. So, there seems to be a conflict there, does
there not?
Mr. Willens. Well, that's actually not the case. Because in
the case of Yellowstone, which history shows, if you go back on
the record, we weren't on the Committee, we were an observer.
And we relied on another country to make a motion to remove
Yellowstone from in danger. While we were recognized to speak
later, we didn't have the authority as a member of the
Committee to take the motion forward. So, I would say that for
purposes of clarification, then the case of Yellowstone, it's
extremely evident and related back to the United States, that
from previous history that that's not the case, and I think
Louise--something may have been lost in the long-distance
conversation there over the phone, but I would say that we--and
I think she wouldn't disagree--that if we had a conversation,
and we talked about Yellowstone, that shows you right then and
there, that our previous experience with removal from in danger
was, we weren't on the Committee, we didn't make the motion,
but it still was removed from in danger.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, there's definitely a conflict
between the two of you, because she said, and I'm using her
words----
Mr. Willens. Sure.
Senator Bill Nelson [continuing]. That it was impossible
for other countries to make such a recommendation.
Mr. Willens. I would have to talk to Louise, and we can get
back to you and clarify that and get that straight for you, for
the record.
Senator Bill Nelson. We will ask her directly.
Mr. Willens. OK.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you all for your participation.
I think it is clear that the Florida delegation has an
obligation to keep this process going forward, on restoring the
Everglades, we are committed to that. And whenever there is an
outside threat, as we have seen, we need to get to the bottom
of it. And then try not to let it deter us from what Ms. Mittal
has described as a very long, and a very expensive process of
restoration of one of the world's greatest natural treasures.
Thank you, and the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Attachments Submitted by Deputy Assistant Secretary Todd Willens
[UNESCO Press Release, June 24, 2007]
Florida Everglades and Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve Removed From
Danger List
the 31st session of the world heritage committee, christchurch, new
zealand (2007)
The World Heritage Committee has decided that improvements in the
preservation of the Everglades National Park (Florida, USA) and Rio
Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) were sufficient to remove both
UNESCO World Heritage sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Committee commended the United States of America for its
investment of scientific and financial resources to rehabilitate the
site which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979 and on the
Danger List in 1993. Described as a river of grass flowing
imperceptibly from the hinterland into the sea, the Everglades'
exceptional variety of water habitats has made it a sanctuary for a
large number of birds and reptiles, including threatened species such
as the manatee. It had been threatened by urban growth and pollution,
as well as by the damage caused to Florida Bay in 1992 by Hurricane
Andrew.
The Committee also welcomed the corrective measures taken by the
Honduran authorities to preserve the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve,
that was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982 and on the Danger
List in 1996. These corrective measures, recommended by the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) 11 years ago, were destined to relieve the
site--one of the few remaining tropical rainforests in Central America,
home to an abundant and varied plant and wildlife--of encroachment by
agriculture, timber trade and hunting.
The World Heritage Committee, meeting for its 31st session in
Christchurch, made this decision on Sunday as it started reviewing the
state of conservation of sites inscribed on UNESCO's World Heritage
List, which totals 830 sites, 31 of which were on the List of World
Heritage in Danger before the start of this session. Inclusion on the
Danger List is intended to mobilize support for sites whose outstanding
universal value is under threat.
______
Everglades National Park 2007 Site Monitoring Report With Steps and
Benchmarks--February 1, 2007
This report provides an update on specific accomplishments in
efforts to address previously identified threats to the outstanding
universal values of Everglades National Park (Park). This Report also
provides clear Benchmarks, developed in cooperation with IUCN and
approved by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 30 COM 7A.14 taken
at the 30th Session (Lithuania), which when met, would facilitate the
removal of Everglades National Park from the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Threat 1. Alterations of the Everglades National Park hydrological
regimes (quantity, timing, and distribution of Shark Slough
inflows)
Status: The requested Federal appropriations for the current fiscal
year (FY 2007) include approximately $253 million for a comprehensive
array of South Florida ecosystem restoration projects. Of the $253
million, just over $48 million has been requested to continue
construction of the Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod/Waters) and
another $11 million of the $253 million have been requested by the
National Park Service (NPS) to support other ecosystem restoration
objectives.
The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
authorized the addition of 109,600 acres of the critical Northeast
Shark Slough basin to the Park. The Act also directed the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to improve water deliveries to Everglades
National Park and, to the extent practicable, take steps to restore the
natural hydrologic conditions in the Park. The Corps is continuing its
efforts to increase water flows into the Park's largest drainage basin,
Shark Slough.
The most significant near-term efforts to restore water flows into
the Park are tied to the completion of the Mod/Waters Project, which
consists of three general components: (1) The 8.5 Square Mile Area
Flood Mitigation project, which will control seepage losses from
Northeast Shark Slough and mitigate for any increased water flows on
adjacent developed lands; this component is scheduled for completion in
May, 2008; (2) Construction of water conveyance features to promote
sheetflow of water through the upstream Water Conservation Areas and
into Northeast Shark Slough; this component is scheduled for completion
by November, 2010; and (3) the reconstruction of the Tamiami Trail
(U.S. 41) which will raise the road bed and bridge 3 miles of the
Northeast Shark Slough basin to improve flow distributions into the
eastern portion of the Park; this component is scheduled for completion
by November 2011.
Cost estimates to complete the remaining Mod/Waters project
features have increased by approximately $196 million since the 2006
status report due principally to significantly higher construction
costs. In 2005, the Federal Government made a determination that all
remaining Mod/Waters costs will be split equally between the Corps and
NPS. Currently projected appropriations are considered to be adequate
to complete all three of the project components by November 2011.
The Corps recently initiated an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the development of the Combined Structural and Operational
Plan (CSOP), which will provide a water control plan for operation of
the Mod/Waters and C-111 Project features. This plan will replace the
current Interim Operating Plan (IOP) that was specifically designed to
address the recovery of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. The
Corps expects to complete this CSOP water control plan by January 2008.
The EIS for the Combined Structural and Operational Plan will also
describe the final design for the Mod/Waters conveyance features to
move additional water through the upstream Water Conservation Areas and
into Northeast Shark Slough.
Benchmark 1A: All East Everglades Land Acquisition complete
(approximately 44,000 hectares). Land Acquisition is approximately 98
percent complete. The key remaining lands occur along Tamiami Trail,
and are expected to be acquired during 2007 as part of the roadway
construction project.
Benchmark 1B: Complete Water Control Plan (CSOP Final EIS) and
completion of 8.5 Square Mile Area Construction. The CSOP EIS and water
control plan are scheduled for completion in January 2008, while the
remaining 8.5 SMA features are scheduled for completion in May 2008.
Benchmark 1C: Construction projects for the L-67A & L-67C and L-29
water conveyance structures, Tamiami Trail Bridges, and road
modifications are all underway. Construction of the Tamiami Trail
roadway improvements is scheduled to begin in March 2008. Construction
of the conveyance features along L-67A & L-67C is scheduled to begin in
December 2008, while construction of the L-29 conveyance improvements
will begin in January 2009.
Threat 2: Adjacent urban and agricultural growth (flood protection and
water supply requirements that affect ENP resources by lowering
water levels)
Status: In the 1989 ENP Protection and Expansion Act, Congress
authorized a re-evaluation of the C-111 project features to address the
need for hydrologic restoration in the Taylor Slough and Eastern
Panhandle watersheds, as a result of lowered water levels in the L-31N
and C-111 canals, located along the Park's eastern boundary. In 1994,
the Army Corps completed a C-111 General Reevaluation Report (GRR)
recommending a series of modifications that would limit groundwater
losses from the Park and restore a more natural water flow regime
through Taylor Slough and into Northeastern Florida Bay.
The Corps 2002 revised C-111 plan recommended a series of three
pump stations (S-332B, S-332C, and S-332D) and associated water
detention areas that would maintain the currently authorized levels of
flood protection for adjacent agricultural areas, while limiting
groundwater losses from ENP wetlands. By 2006, the majority of the C-
111 project features were completed, while construction of the central
detention area (adjacent to the S-332C pump station) was delayed by a
required land exchange between the NPS and the South Florida Water
Management District. This land exchange was completed in 2006, and all
remaining C-111 project features are scheduled for completion by
November 2011.
The Park occupies portions of three adjacent counties, with the
majority of its land areas in Miami-Dade (M-D) County. The County has a
total of 1,965 square miles, of which 373 are urbanized and 393 are
agricultural and other open space. The remainder is within the Park. M-
D County planners have estimated an annual population growth rate of
more than 3 percent within southern Miami-Dade, with a projected need
to construct over 204,000 new dwelling units on the private lands
between Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. M-D planners anticipate
30,000 new residents in the area each year, reaching 600,000 additional
people by 2025 and 1.2 million by 2050.
To date, intensive residential development has largely been
confined within an Urban Development Boundary (UDB) that was
established by M-D County in 1975. The NPS has continued to work
closely with M-D County and regional land and water management agencies
as part of a South Miami-Dade Watershed Study, which is scheduled for
completion in early 2007. The current preferred plan for the Watershed
Study would place all of the projected new dwelling units needed
through 2025 (102,000 units) inside the UDB, and 60 percent of the new
dwelling units within the UDB after 2026, in order to preserve the
County's remaining wetlands, farmlands, and open space. If this
approach is approved by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners,
most of the farmland and open space adjacent to Everglades National
Park would remain in place, greatly reducing the pressure to further
lower canal water levels, thereby protecting the wetlands and natural
habitats within the Park.
Benchmark 2A: Complete C-111 land exchange between the South
Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Government. Congress
approved the land exchange in a 2006 appropriations bill, and all lands
needed to complete the C-111 detention areas are now in place.
Benchmark 2B: Complete Water Control Plan (CSOP Final EIS). The
CSOP EIS and water control plan are scheduled for completion in January
2008.
Benchmark 2C: Complete the construction of the C-111 detention area
features from the 8.5 Square Mile Area to the Frog Pond. All of the
detention areas included in the Mod/Waters and C-111 projects are
scheduled for completion by November 2011.
Threat 3. Increased nutrient pollution from agricultural activities
Status: In 1991, the U.S. Government and the State of Florida
entered into a Consent Decree to resolve longstanding water quality
concerns related to Everglades phosphorus enrichment as a result of
stormwater runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area. Interim and
long-term phosphorus limits have been established for water flowing
into Shark River Slough and the Taylor Slough/Coastal Basins of
Everglades National Park, with long-term compliance required by
December 31, 2006. Regular monitoring activities and reporting continue
to document a general trend of reductions in phosphorous levels for
waters discharged into the Everglades.
Despite extensive efforts to lower phosphorus levels in the waters
that enter the Park, recent data published by the South Florida Water
Management District indicate that inflows to Everglades National Park
in Shark River Slough meet the interim phosphorus limits but are
extremely close to or exceed the long-term phosphorus limits.
Phosphorus levels are expected to decline with full operation of
Stormwater Treatment Area 3/4, the largest of the upstream constructed
filtering marshes north of Everglades National Park. Phosphorus levels
are expected to be further reduced as a result of the State of
Florida's ``Acceler8'' initiatives that will create additional filter
marshes that serve as stormwater treatment and impoundment areas.
Benchmark 3A: Meet or exceed the interim and long-term phosphorus
reduction limits for water flowing into Shark River Slough and the
long-term phosphorus reduction limits for water flowing into the Taylor
Slough/Coastal Basins in Everglades National Park. For the Water Year
beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 2006, the 12-month,
flow-weighted average total phosphorus discharge concentration for
Shark River Slough was 8.7 parts per billion. The interim total
phosphorus limit for that period was 10.3 ppb, and the long-term limit
(in effect after December 31, 2006) was 8.8 ppb. Although compliance
with the limit is determined once per year at the end of the Water
Year, the 12-month, flow-weighted average discharge concentrations are
compared to the limit monthly. In this past Water Year, the monthly
averages for Shark Slough were above the long-term limit for 10 of the
12 months, with only the August and September monthly values falling
below the long-term limit. Although the long-term limits were not in
effect, these monthly values above the limit illustrate the need for
continued progress to improve the quality of waters entering Everglades
National Park's Shark River Slough.
For the Water Year beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September
30, 2006, the 12-month, flow-weighted mean total phosphorus discharge
concentration from Taylor Slough and the Coastal Basins was 5.7 parts
per billion. There is no interim limit for these inflows, and the long-
term limit effective on December 31, 2006, is 11.0 ppb. This value
shows that water quality presently entering Taylor Slough and the
Coastal Basins is well below the long-term limit, which has been the
case for many years.
Threat 4: Protection and management of Florida Bay
Status: Expanding development along the lower east coast of Florida
has led to massive diversions of stormwater into the Atlantic Ocean,
and away from the southern Everglades. These diversions reduced fresh
water inflows to Florida Bay resulting in increased salinity,
especially in the nearshore embayments of central Florida Bay.
Hypersalinity and associated diseases in the early 1990's led to the
die-off of sea grasses, elevated nutrients and algae blooms, and
reduced estuarine productivity needed for successful reproduction of
both Everglades's wading birds and marine shorebird communities. Plans
to increase water deliveries to Florida Bay and improving the quality,
timing, and distribution of flows into the Bay are focused on water
management improvements to Taylor Slough. By diverting water back
toward the marshes of Taylor Slough, and filling the lower end of the
C-111 Canal, more freshwater will flow into central Florida Bay,
reducing salinities and restoring estuarine productivities.
The first phase of this restoration effort is the completion of the
ongoing C-111 Project, and the S-332 pump stations and detention areas
needed to reduce groundwater losses and store and treat canal waters
prior to their entering Everglades National Park. The next phase is the
construction of the C-111 Spreader Canal project that will fill in
portions of the lower C-111 canal eliminating direct discharges to
Barnes Sound, and restoring a more natural sheet flow through the
marshes in the Park's Eastern Panhandle. The construction of the C-111
Spreader Canal will allow flood waters to be distributed over a broader
area of wetlands upstream of Florida Bay instead of directly shunting
flood waters into the estuaries of Barnes Sound.
Benchmark 4A: Complete the construction of the C-111 Detention Area
features from the 8.5 Square Mile Area to the Frog Pond and implement
CSOP operations. This construction is scheduled for completion by
November 2011.
Benchmark 4B: Complete the C-111N Spreader Canal and revised
operations. The first phase of this project (Acceler8 component) is
scheduled for completion by December 2008. The second phase, part of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is scheduled for
completion by June 2012.
______