Everglades National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2002*
- Crop production
- Industrial areas
- Management systems/ management plan
- Surface water pollution
- Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Agricultural, industrial and urban developments altering the natural systems;
- Pollution of the water (nutrients and mercury);
- Hurricane in August 1992 (issue resolved);
- Need to elaborate a monitoring plan with benchmarks and indicators
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2002
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2002**
May 1999: World Heritage Centre visit to the site
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2002
IUCN notes that Everglades National Park appeared in the Department of Interior’s inaugural “Top 12 Projects to Restore America’s Parks”. The Department plans to spend US$4.1 million to improve the Flamingo wastewater system, which treats 135,000 gallons (510,975 litres) per day. The project will upgrade the collection and disposal system to bring it into compliance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. IUCN has received reports that the Army Corps of Engineers had issued permits allowing mining in 5,409 acres in the Everglades region for the next 10 years, more than doubling the amount of limestone quarries in the protected wetlands in a tract between Everglades National Park and the city of Miami. This area, known as the Lake Belt due to the large number of manmade lakes created by limestone mining since the 1950s, has long been legislated for mining by the Florida authorities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interior have objected to the permits on the grounds of possible damage to the wildlife habitat, the contamination threat to underground drinking water supplies, and to the amount of water the pits may divert through increased seepage from the Everglades. All permits are north and east of the Park. The Park is studying the possibility of increased water seepage.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2002
26 COM 21A.7
Everglades National Park (United States of America)The World Heritage Committee,
1. Notes with satisfaction that concerns raised by IUCN regarding the recent issue of mining permits relate to limestone quarries outside the World Heritage area and commends the State Party's decision to allocate US$4.1 million on wastewater management improvements within the Everglades region;
2. Invites the State Party to co-operate with IUCN and the Centre to prepare a report for submission to its 27th session in June/July 2003, containing the steps it intends to take to develop action plans and define parameters and conditions to monitor progress in the restoration of the integrity of the site, with a view to facilitating the Committee's future considerations for removing the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger;3. Decides to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Committee may wish to adopt the following:
“The Committee requests the State Party to provide information on mining permits, and potential and anticipated impacts on the World Heritage site. The Committee commends the State Party for the decision to spend US$ 4.1 million on wastewater management improvements at the site and for its wide-ranging efforts to improve its state of conservation. Furthermore, the Committee invites the State Party to report on the development of action plans and the definition of parameters and conditions to monitor progress in the restoration of the integrity of the site with a view to facilitating the Committee’s future considerations for removing the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requests the State Party to cooperate with the Centre and IUCN to provide the information and reports concerning the above-mentioned items for presentation at the 27th session of the Committee in June 2003. The Committee decides to retain the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger".
Documents examined by the Committee26COM (2002)
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.