Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Everglades National Park

United States of America
Factors affecting the property in 2006*
  • Ground water pollution
  • Housing
  • Management activities
  • Storms
  • Surface water pollution
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Urban encroachment;
  • Agricultural fertiliser pollution;
  • Mercury contamination of fish and wildlife;
  • Lowered water levels due to flood control measures;
  • Damage from Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Urban encroachment;
  • Agricultural fertiliser pollution;
  • Mercury contamination of fish and wildlife;
  • Lowered water levels due to flood control measures;
  • Damage from Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

In Decision 28 COM 15A.11, the Committee invited the World Heritage Centre and IUCN in cooperation with the State Party to identify benchmarks in order to guide the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. A consultative process to identify benchmarks (such as Phosphorous reduction, Completion of Structural and Operational Plan for the Modified Water Deliveries Project etc.)for corrective measures is underway. A meeting between the State Party and IUCN to discuss these benchmarks was held from 25-27 April 2006.

Corrective Measures for the property

In Decision 28 COM 15A.11, the Committee invited the World Heritage Centre and IUCN in cooperation with the State Party to identify benchmarks in order to guide the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. A consultative process to identify benchmarks (such as Phosphorous reduction, Completion of Structural and Operational Plan for the Modified Water Deliveries Project etc.)for corrective measures is underway. A meeting between the State Party and IUCN to discuss these benchmarks was held from 25-27 April 2006.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2006
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2006**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2006

The State Party continues to implement the Modified Water Deliveries Project, the C-111 Project, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) adopted in 2000. CERP is the world’s largest environmental restoration project and aims to re-establish natural water flows to the greater Everglades ecosystem. It will take the next 30-40 years to implement and has a currently estimated cost of USD 10.5 billion. This number does not include a separate USD 1.1 billion cleanup of pollution in the Everglades.

On 3 February 2006, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN received from the State Party an updated report on the progress made in the restoration and conservation of the Everglades National Park, as well as a proposed set of steps and benchmarks. Key elements in the State Party report include:

Urban growth:

Urban encroachment on the eastern boundary of the Park has been confined within the current urban development boundary lines. But urban planners anticipate 30,000 new residents in south Miami-Dade County each year, reaching 0.6 million in 2025 and 1.2 million in 2050. The Park has continued to work with urban planners to ensure that the County’s urban development boundary is not be expanded until 1) the report of the South Miami-Dade Watershed Study is completed, and 2) more is known about the requirements of key ecosystem restoration projects.

Water quantity:

The State Party reports that federal appropriations have been increased significantly from 2005 to 2006, now totalling USD 221 million for key ecosystem restoration projects for the Everglades, including USD 60 million for the Modified Water Deliveries (Mod/Water) project. In 2005-2006, some minor components of the Mod/Water project have been completed, and they have improved water management for the conservation of Cape Sable seaside sparrow and increased water flows to the Park. However, major components of the project, such as the 8.5 Square Mile Area and Tamiami Trail projects, are yet to be implemented. All necessary land acquisitions have been identified and the planned land acquisitions are substantially complete and are expected to be fully completed by 31 December 2006. The C-111 project, addressing hydrological restoration needs along the eastern boundary of the Park, includes the construction of water retention areas (1,054 acres) within the Park. To achieve the goal of no net loss of territory to the Park, a land exchange with Miami-Dade County has been completed.

Water quality:

The State Party reports considerable efforts continue to lower the phosphorous limits in water that enters the Park from agricultural and urban areas. For the Taylor Slough/Coastal Basin areas, the long-term limit has been met for the past water year. For Shark River Slough, the interim limit has been met, but the long-term limits are yet to be met. It is hoped, however, that ongoing activities and construction and operation of additional facilities on the north end of the ecosystem will result in achieving the long-term limit by 30 September 2008.

Florida Bay:

The projects mentioned above are expected to be effective in restoring and maintaining the ecological balance of Florida Bay. Meanwhile, the Park’s current general management planning process is addressing concerns about numbers and impacts of boaters in Florida Bay. The Park has increased its educational, monitoring and law enforcement efforts concerning the boaters, which also appears to benefit the manatee population.

Key species:

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow population was estimated at 3,104 birds in the 2005 breeding season (3,584 in 2004; 3,216 in 2003, and 2,704 in 2002). Heavy rains in March and April are thought to be the reason for a 41% drop in wading bird nesting populations from 2004 to 2005. Of special concern was the wood stork population. The total manatee population in south Florida was estimated at 3,142 animals (2,520 in 2004), but these estimates might not be reliable indicators for real population dynamics.

Following initial consultations and the April mission with IUCN, the State Party proposes the following benchmarks, linked to four steps described in detail in the State Party report, to improve the quantity, quality, distribution, and timing of water entering the Everglades National Park:

Benchmark 1: Modified Water Deliveries Project

1.1) All East Everglades Land Acquisition complete (approximately 44,000 hectares)

1.2) Complete Water Control Plan (CSOP Final EIS) and complete 8.5 Square Mile Area Construction

1.3) Construction projects for the L-67A and C and L-29 water conveyance structures, Tamiami Trail Bridges, and road modifications are all underway

Benchmark 2: C-111 Project

2.1) Complete C-111 land exchange between the South Florida Water Management District and the US Government

2.2) Complete the Water Control Plan (CSOP Final EIS)

2.3) Complete the construction of the C-111 Detention Area features from the 8.5 Square Mile Area to Frog Pond

Benchmark 3: Agriculture and urban runoff phosphorous limits

3.1) Meet or exceed the interim and long-term phosphorous reduction limits for water flowing into Shark River Slough and the long-term phosphorous reduction limits for water flowing into the Taylor Slough/Coastal Basin areas in Everglades National Park.

Benchmark 4: Protection and management of Florida Bay

4.1) Complete the construction of the C-111 Detention Area features from the 8.5 Square Mile Area to Frog Pond and implement CSOP operations

4.2) Complete the C-111N Spreader Canal and revised operations

IUCN notes that these benchmarks are ecologically based and are elaborated in a detailed report (May 2006) from the State Party. IUCN believes these benchmarks will allow the Committee to clearly assess improvements in the ecological status and trends of recovery of the World Heritage property.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that the State Party report shows continued, considerable efforts and investments in restoring and conserving the World Heritage property.

Various sources have emphasised that restoration is progressing very slowly. Since the adoption of CERP in 2000, most time has been spent with developing rather than implementing projects, as may be expected with a 30-40 year plan. However, completion of the Modified Water Deliveries Project will provide infrastructure that will facilitate the implementation of the longer term CERP.

From 26 to 29 January 2006, the Everglades Coalition, an alliance of 45 conservation and environmental NGOs, reviewed restoration progress at its 21st annual conference. The Coalition commended the State Party for a number of steps taken, but stressed the critical importance of securing the land needed for restoration, which is threatened by urban development. Therefore, the Coalition called upon local and state governments to protect the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County and to resist urban growth pressures in Southwest Florida. The Coalition also called upon Congress to maintain restoration momentum by authorizing in 2006 two priority restoration projects in the greater Everglades ecosystem: Indian River Lagoon-South and Picayune Strand, which will restore over 150,000 acres of wetlands.

Further recommendations of the Coalition for Everglades National Park correspond to the set of steps and benchmarks proposed by the State Party. Finally, the Coalition stresses that the long-anticipated Modified Water Deliveries and Kissimmee River projects will be completed by 2010, but only if fully funded over the next three years.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN remain concerned about 1) the quantity and quality of water entering the Park from the north and 2) the continued urban growth on the eastern boundary of the Park and a potential expansion of the urban development boundary. While the former issue is being addressed with great effort, and improvements are anticipated over time, both issues remain a serious challenge.

The State Party is strongly encouraged the to continue its considerable commitment to the full implementation of CERP and other important activities, to ensure that urban encroachment does not adversely impact the restoration of the Everglades Ecosystem or degrade Park resources, and to continue to provide the required financial resources for the restoration and conservation of Everglades National Park. Continued monitoring and reporting will help to link the increased efforts and provision of financial resources to anticipated ecological improvements.

IUCN met with the State Party at the property for 25-27 April 2006. As a result of that meeting and viewing the projects accomplished, underway and being planned, IUCN concurs with the State Party that the identified Benchmarks represent milestones in the overall restoration planning and approval process. They will result in significant on-the-ground improvements to the ecological and hydrological health of the Everglades. IUCN agrees that the achievement of these Benchmarks will not represent restoration of the ecosystem. However, the achievement of these Benchmarks does signal significant action and commitment on the part of the State Party and this achievement should be used as key indicators by the Committee in order to facilitate the removal of the Everglades from the List of World Heritage in Danger.  

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2006
30 COM 11B
Follow-up to the Periodic Report for North America / Adoption of Statements of Significance

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/11B,

2. RecallingDecisions 29 COM 11 A.4 and 29 COM 11 A.5 adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),

3. Noting proposals for changes to the nomination dossiers for some World Heritage properties in North America,

4. Approves the Statements of significance for the World Heritage properties in North America as included in Annex I of Document WHC-06/30.COM/11B;

5. Notes the changes to the names as indicated in Document WHC-06/30.COM/8B, and further notes the adjustments to natural heritage criteria concerning geological values, as indicated in Document WHC-06/30.COM/8D and decides to also change the name of Redwood National Park to Redwood National and State Parks;

6. Encourages the State Party of Canada to put forward extensions to Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks and Wood Buffalo National Park, pursuant to Canada's Tentative List for World Heritage Sites (2004);

7. Encourages Canada and the United States of America to submit any outstanding documentation related to World Heritage properties, as soon as possible;

8. Recommends that Canada and the United States of America continue, in cooperation with other Committee members, States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to explore, as appropriate, the potential for developing guidelines for management plans and principles for evaluating visual impacts for activities in and adjacent to World Heritage properties;

9. Encourages Canada and the United States of America to continue their strong collaboration and to consider how to enhance collaboration with the State Party of Mexico in matters of shared interest for natural and cultural heritage.

30 COM 7A.14
Everglades National Park (United States of America) (N 76)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decisions 28 COM 15A.11 and 29 COM 7A.10, adopted at its 28th (Suzhou, 2004) and 29th (Durban, 2005) sessions respectively,

3. Commends the State Party for the considerable efforts and huge investments made in the restoration and conservation of the Everglades National Park and for submitting an updated progress report;

4. Notes that the State Party is addressing with great effort the concern of the Committee about the quantity and quality of water entering the Park from the north and that improvements are anticipated over time;

5. Reiterates its concern about the quantity and quality of water entering the property from the north, continued urban growth on the eastern boundary of the Park and a potential expansion of the urban development;

6. Encourages the State Party to continue its considerable commitment to the restoration and conservation of the property by ensuring full implementation of the Modified Water Deliveries Project, the C-111 Project, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and other important activities and by controlling urban development;

7. Decides that the Benchmarks identified by the State Party in consultation with IUCN will serve as a guide for the Committee and facilitate the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Progress towards this should be assessed on a regular basis;

8. Further requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with an updated report by 1 February 2007 on the progress made in the restoration and conservation of the property including the progress towards achieving the Benchmarks for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007;

9. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

30 COM 8C.2
Update of the World Heritage List in Danger (Retained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-06/30.COM/7A and WHC-06/30.COM/7A.Add.Rev),

2. Maintains the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

   • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 30 COM 7A.22)

   • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley, (Decision 30 COM 7A.23)

   • Azerbaijan, Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Decision 30 COM 7A.29

   • Benin, Royal Palaces of Abomey (Decision 30 COM 7A.16)

   • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.1)

   • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 30 COM 7A.31)

   • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.2)

   • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.3)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.8)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.6)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Virunga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.7)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Garamba National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.4)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Salonga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.5)

   • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 30 COM 7A.19)

   • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.9)

   • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.15)

   • India, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (Decision 30 COM 7A.13)

   • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 30 COM 7A.25)

   • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 30 COM 7A.20)

   • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 30 COM 7A.34)

   • Nepal, Kathmandu Valley (Decision 30 COM 7A.26)

   • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 30 COM 7A.10)

   • Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 30 COM 7A.27)

   • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 30 COM 7A.32)

   • Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 30 COM 7A.28)

   • United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 28 COM 7A.17)

   • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.14)

   • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 30 COM 7A.33)

   • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 30 COM 7A.21)

Draft Decision: 30 COM 7A.14

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decisions 28 COM 15A.11 and 29 COM 7A.10, adopted at its 28th (Suzhou, 2004) and 29th (Durban, 2005) sessions respectively,

3. Commends the State Party for the considerable efforts and investments made in the restoration and conservation of the Everglades National Park and for submitting an updated progress report;

4. Notes that the State party is addressing with great effort the concern of the Committee about the quantity and quality of water entering the Park from the north and the improvements are anticipated over time;

5. Reiterates its concern about the quantity and quality of water entering the property from the north , continued urban growth on the eastern boundary of the Park and a potential expansion of the urban development;

6. Encourages the State Party to continue its considerable commitment to the restoration and conservation of the property by ensuring full implementation of the Modified Water Deliveries Project, the C-111 Project, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and other important activities and by controlling urban development;

7. Decides that the Benchmarks identified by the State Party in consultation with IUCN will serve as a guide for the Committee and facilitate the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Progress towards this should be assessed on a regular basis;

8. Further requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with an updated report by 1 February 2007 on the progress made in the restoration and conservation of the property including the progress towards achieving the Benchmarks for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007;

9. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2006
United States of America
Date of Inscription: 1979
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1993-2007, 2010-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 30COM (2006)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top