[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FLORIDA EVERGLADES RESTORATION: WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES?
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, November 3, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-79
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-117 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Jeff Duncan, SC Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Steve Southerland, II, FL Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Bill Flores, TX Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Andy Harris, MD Vacancy
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Jon Runyan, NJ
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, November 3, 2011....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen W., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Dantzler, Rick, Co-Chairman, Northern Everglades Alliance.... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), U.S. Department of Defense......................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Draper, Eric, Executive Director, Audubon of Florida......... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Gutierrez, Jorge P., Jr., President, Everglades Coordinating
Council.................................................... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Horn, Hon. William P., Past Member, National Academy of
Sciences' Committee on Independent Scientific Review of
Everglades Restoration Progress............................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Jacobson, Hon. Rachel, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior.... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Wright, Bishop M., Jr., President, Florida Airboat
Association Inc............................................ 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Additional materials supplied:
Adams, Michael L., Letter submitted for the record........... 85
Billie, Colley, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 77
Gotshall, Richard, SCI Regional Representative 29, Safari
Club International, Letter submitted for the record........ 76
Hastings, Hon. Alcee L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, Statement submitted for the record... 81
The Kenneth Kirchman Foundation, Letter and map submitted for
the record................................................. 83
Lee County Department of Community Development, Robert
Stewart, Building Official, Lee County, Florida, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 82
The Nature Conservancy, Statement submitted for the record... 85
Terrell, Jack, Vice President, Florida Trail Riders,
Auburndale, Florida, Letter submitted for the record....... 79
Vergara, Carlos M., Managing Member, Venture Four, LLC,
Jupiter, Florida, Letter submitted for the record.......... 85
Wohl, James M., Rafter Ranch, Letter submitted for the record 82
OVERSIGHT HEARING TITLED ``FLORIDA EVERGLADES RESTORATION: WHAT ARE THE
PRIORITIES?''
----------
Thursday, November 3, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Wittman, Southerland,
Bordallo, and Hanabusa.
Also Present: Representatives Ross and Rivera.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will be
holding an oversight hearing on the Florida Everglades
restoration and the proposed Everglades Headwaters National
Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area at the request of several
Members of the Florida congressional delegation.
Since 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District have dedicated themselves to
the Comprehensive Everglades Management Plan. This project,
which is the largest in our history, is designed to restore the
Florida Everglades by improving water quality, removing
phosphorus and other contaminants and getting the water right.
Together, the Federal Government and the State of Florida have
pledged some $14 billion to complete 68 projects, the vast
majority of which are occurring south of Lake Okeechobee.
It is in this context that earlier this year the Secretary
of the Interior announced his intention to establish a 150,000
acre national wildlife refuge and conservation area north of
Lake Okeechobee. A fundamental purpose of this hearing is to
examine whether this refuge and conservation area will assist
in the restoration of the Everglades or is simply an
unnecessary side show and diversion of badly needed Federal
funds.
Let me say that I remain disappointed that the Service has
been unwilling to support the need for a congressional
authorization of new national wildlife refuges, something we
had a hearing just recently on. The proposed Everglades
Headwaters Refuge is a classic example of where an
authorization is badly needed and may in fact increase public
support for this proposal.
In fact, I now have a better understanding of why the
Service wants to act quickly. Despite the fact that this
project was not included in either their budget submission or
their land acquisition priority list, the Service quickly
recognized that falling land prices in Central Florida
presented an irresistible opportunity to acquire thousands of
new acres of private property in Florida at a fraction of what
it would have cost just three years ago.
In addition to the more than $700 million it will cost our
taxpayers to buy these Florida lands and easements, there are
additional consequences. For instance, the Service has freely
admitted that there are at least 60 major development projects
in the Everglades landscape that are either in initial stages
or have been approved. When the economy improves, those
projects are likely to proceed. What the Service fails to tell
the American people is how many thousands of new jobs will be
lost by locking up this land to no development in the future.
At the same time, it was distressing to hear that
representatives of the Service were telling Florida residents
that their lost county tax revenues would be offset through the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Program at almost the exact time the
Obama Administration was submitting a budget requesting no
appropriated funds for this program in Fiscal Year 2012. Let me
repeat that. This Administration requested zero dollars for the
promise of lost revenues to Florida. I hope the Florida
communities heard this.
We will also hear testimony today and I will submit letters
from various conservation organizations expressing their
concerns that legitimate recreational opportunities will be
denied once this refuge is established.
Let us look at the record. There are 28 national wildlife
refuges located entirely within the State of Florida, and only
seven refuges are open to hunting. This represents less than 30
percent of all refuge acreage in the state. More importantly,
the Service has made promises in the past to allow hunting in
certain new units like the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge, only to find the door slammed in the sportsmen's faces
when it was established. It is my hope that the Service will
provide us with assurances, if not a guarantee, that wildlife
dependent recreation will be permitted within the entire
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge if it is
created.
In the final analysis, I am looking forward to hearing the
Service's justification to this proposal, how they intend to
compensate locally affected counties, how they intend to treat
Florida sportsmen and how they intend to make this project
instrumental in the restoration of the Florida Everglades. It
really is a question of has the Service overreached and over
promised.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Congresswoman
Colleen Hanabusa, who is serving as the Ranking Minority Member
of the Subcommittee for today's hearing.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will be holding an oversight
hearing on the Florida Everglades Restoration and the proposed
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area at
the request of several members of the Florida Congressional Delegation.
Since 2001, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida
Water Management District have dedicated themselves to the
Comprehensive Everglades Management Plan. This project, which is the
largest in our history, is designed to restore the Florida Everglades
by improving water quality, removing phosphorus and other contaminants
and ``getting the water right''. Together, the federal government and
the State of Florida have pledged some $14 billion to complete 68
projects the vast majority of which are occurring south of Lake
Okeechobee.
It is in this context that earlier this year, the Secretary of the
Interior announced his intention to establish a 150,000 acre National
Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area north of Lake Okeechobee. A
fundamental purpose of this hearing is to examine whether this refuge
and conservation area will assist in the restoration of the Everglades
or is simply an unnecessary side-show and diversion of badly needed
federal funds.
Let me say that I remain disappointed that the Service has been
unwilling to support the need for a Congressional authorization of new
national wildlife refuges. The proposed Everglades Headwaters refuge is
an classic example of where an authorization is badly needed and may,
in fact, increase public support for this proposal.
In fact, I now have a better understanding of why the Service wants
to act quickly. Despite the fact that this project was not included in
either their budget submission or their Land Acquisition Priority List,
the Service quickly recognized that falling land prices in Central
Florida presented an irresistible opportunity to acquire thousands of
new acres of private property in Florida at a fraction of what it would
have cost them three years ago.
In addition to the more than $700 million it will cost our
taxpayers to buy these Florida lands and easements, there are
additional consequences. For instance, the Service has freely admitted
that there are at least sixty major development projects in the
Everglades Landscape that are either in initial stages or have been
approved. When the economy improves, those projects are likely to
proceed. What the Service fails to tell the American people is how many
thousands of new jobs will be lost by locking up this land to no
development in the future.
At the same time, it was distressing to hear that representatives
of the Service were telling Florida residents that their lost county
tax revenues would be offset through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program
at almost the exact time the Obama Administration was submitting a
budget requesting no appropriated funds for this program in FY'12. Let
me repeat that: This Administration requested zero dollars for the
promise of lost revenues to Florida. I hope the Florida communities
heard this.
We will also hear testimony today and I will submit letters from
various conservation organizations expressing their concerns that
legitimate recreational opportunities will be denied once this refuge
is established.
Let's look at the record. There are 28 national wildlife refuges
located entirely within the State of Florida and only seven refuges are
open to hunting. This represents less than 30 percent of all refuge
acreage in the State. More importantly, the Service has made promises
in the past to allow hunting in certain new units like the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge, only to find the door slammed in the
sportsmen's faces when it was established. It is my hope that the
Service will provide us with assurances, if not a guarantee, that
wildlife dependent recreation will be permitted within the entire
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge if it is created.
In the final analysis, I am looking forward to hearing the
Service's justification to this proposal; how they intend to compensate
locally affected counties; how they intend to treat Florida sportsmen;
and how they intend to make this project instrumental in the
restoration of the Florida Everglades. It really is a question of has
the Service overreached and over promised.
I now recognize the gentle lady from Hawaii, Congresswoman Colleen
Hanabusa, who is serving as the Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee for today's hearing.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Chairman Fleming. In my home of
Hawaii, the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen depend on
clean water. The same is true for Florida where the Everglades
ecosystem provides water for cities and farms.
The Everglades have been damaged by drainage and pollution.
Recognizing the need to restore this national treasure,
Congress committed to a plan in 2000 and have authorized
further projects in 2007 with strong bipartisan support. The
goal is to restore the ecosystem, which will also ensure that
people have clean water and flood protection.
The Everglades have degraded over decades, and as a result
it will take decades to restore. On October 27, the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force announced a fast
tracked central Everglades planning process. With congressional
authorization, this effort will provide more clean water to
people in Central and South Florida. A key piece of the puzzle
for restoration is the proposed Everglades Headwaters National
Wild Refuge. This refuge will improve water quality and
quantity in the upper Everglades watershed, and this will
benefit Central and South Floridians. We do not need to choose
between creating the refuge and restoring the Everglades. The
refuge is important to achieving restoration.
The refuge proposal has been developed in an open,
collaborative process with many local partners. Ranchers will
be able to make conservation easements protecting the land from
development and preserving their way of life. There will be
access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. The refuge
will ensure flexible training on Avon Park Air Force Range. For
the Florida panther and black bear, the refuge will connect
habitat and give them freedom to roam.
But pictures speak louder than words, so I wanted to show a
short video clip of stakeholder support for this proposed
refuge. Let the video run.
[Whereupon, a video was played.]
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record letters of support of the Everglades Headwaters proposal
from the Kenneth Kirchman Foundation, the Adams Ranch and Camp
Lonesome Ranch in Florida, the Nature Conservancy, and a
statement from our colleague, Congressman Alcee Hastings.
I thank the witnesses for testifying today and look forward
to learning more about the Everglades.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Thank you, Chairman Fleming.
In my home of Hawaii, the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen
depend on clean water. The same is true in Florida, where the
Everglades ecosystem provides water for cities and farms. The
Everglades have been damaged by drainage and pollution. Recognizing the
need to restore this national treasure, Congress committed to a plan in
2000, and authorized further projects in 2007 with strong bipartisan
support. The goal is to restore the ecosystem, which will also ensure
that people have clean water and flood protection.
The Everglades has degraded over decades, and as a result it will
take decades to restore. On October 27th, the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force announced a ``fast-tracked'' Central Everglades
planning process. With Congressional authorization, this effort will
provide more clean water to people in central and south Florida.
A key piece of the puzzle for restoration is the proposed
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge will
improve water quality and quantity in the upper Everglades watershed,
and this will benefit central and south Floridians. We do not need to
choose between creating the Refuge and restoring the Everglades. The
Refuge is important to achieving restoration.
The Refuge proposal has been developed in an open, collaborative
process with many local partners. Ranchers will be able to make
conservation easements, protecting the land from development and
preserving their way of life. There will be access for hunting,
fishing, and other recreation. The Refuge will ensure flexible training
on Avon Park Air Force Range. For the Florida panther and black bear,
the Refuge will connect habitat and give them freedom to roam.
But pictures speak louder than words, so I wanted to show a short
video clip of stakeholder support for this proposed Refuge.
[2-minute video]
This video demonstrates that we have a limited window to preserve
the Everglades Headwaters as a rural working landscape. It is essential
that we make legacy investments like this Refuge now to ensure that
these fish, wildlife, and habitats are protected for the enjoyment and
benefit of future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund,
which is generated by offshore oil and gas drilling revenues and not
taxpayers' dollars, provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with
resources to acquire lands and conservation easements from willing
sellers and land owners.
I would like to enter into the record letters in support of the
Everglades Headwaters proposal from the Kenneth Kirchman Foundation,
the Adams Ranch, and Camp Lonesome Ranch in Florida, The Nature
Conservancy, and a statement from our colleague, Congressman Alcee
Hastings.
I thank the witnesses for testifying today and look forward to
learning more about the Everglades.
______
Dr. Fleming. You are submitting letters for the record?
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. I ask unanimous consent. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The letters submitted for the record by Ms. Hanabusa can
be found starting on page 83.]
Dr. Fleming. We have also been joined by two of our friends
from Florida, Mr. Rivera and Mr. Ross, but as is our tradition
we welcome you to join us as this certainly applies to your
districts and ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to sit
with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Hearing
no objection, so ordered. Thank you.
We will now hear from our witnesses. Like all witnesses,
your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to five
minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under
Committee Rule 4[a]. Our microphones are not automatic, so
please press the button when you are ready to begin.
I also want to explain how our timing lights work. It is
very simple. You have five minutes. You are under green for
four minutes, then for the final minute you are under yellow,
and we would like for you to wrap up just before or certainly
just after the red light comes on. I would appreciate your
being as compliant as possible with that. However, if your
statement goes much longer than that you can submit it in
writing for the record.
I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. On Panel 1
we have The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works at the Department of Defense, and Ms.
Rachel Jacobson, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior, who is
accompanied by Mr. Mark Masaus, who is the Deputy Regional
Director of Region IV for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Secretary Darcy, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works. I want to thank you for the
opportunity today to testify on the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan or, as we call it in shorthand, CERP. We in
the Army have acronyms for everything, so it is CERP. It is
also being implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers and our
non-Federal partners in Florida.
Working in collaboration with partners and many
stakeholders at the local, state and Federal level, restoration
of the historic Everglades ecosystem is one of the largest and
most complex environmental restoration efforts in North
America. The overarching goal of CERP is to capture the
freshwater that now flows unused to the ocean and the Gulf and
redirect it to storage for delivery to natural areas when they
need it.
Returning a more historic flow of water to the river of
grass will not only revive the native habitat for 68 Federally
listed threatened and endangered species; it will also
naturally replenish the underground aquifers that supply
drinking water to the population of South Florida. Redirecting
the flows away from the Atlantic and the Gulf will also protect
coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems important to the
state's fishing, diving and tourism and other related
industries.
The CERP is based on getting the water right by improving
water quality, quantity, timing and distribution to the
Everglades while also maintaining other water-related levels of
service. There are other important projects that predate CERP
for Everglades restoration that work hand-in-hand to realize
the benefits of the CERP. These important companion projects
will restore the Kissimmee River and improve water flows into
Everglades National Park.
The state is also working to restore and protect the
Northern Everglades by creating water quality treatment marshes
for water flowing into Lake Okeechobee, coastal estuaries and
the Everglades. Major components of CERP include above ground
and underground water storage features, water preserve areas,
management of Lake Okeechobee as an ecological resource,
improved water deliveries to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
estuaries, treatment wetlands, improved water deliveries to the
Everglades, removal of barriers to the natural sheet flow of
water, reuse of wastewater and improved water conservation.
Sound environmental science is at the heart of this effort,
much of it new and pioneering work. Since 2000, much has been
learned through rigorous research and extensive monitoring. The
CERP planners recognize this natural progression in applied
science and included a commitment to adaptive management as an
integral part of CERP implementation to support improved
decision making and performance over time.
The Corps, in partnership with its partner, the South
Florida Water Management District, continues to develop an
integrated strategy for CERP implementation. In order for CERP
to be implemented successfully, the Corps is continuing to
coordinate with the Department of the Interior, tribal
governments and other Federal and state partners, all of which
have actively participated in the development and the progress
of this program.
From Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2011, just over
$750 million has been allocated, which includes funds received
through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, for
planning, design, and construction of CERP projects.
Construction is underway on three projects that were authorized
in the 2000 legislation. This is the Indian River Lagoon South,
the Picayune Strand Restoration and the Site 1 Impoundment.
The Committee on Independent Scientific Review of
Everglades Restoration Progress positively acknowledge the
value and contributions of the adaptive assessment and
monitoring program which has been regularly supported by the
Administration and the Congress.
Major construction efforts on authorized projects include
construction of the Merritt Pump Station, which is a feature of
the Picayune Strand, installing pilot projects for aquifer
storage and recovery with ongoing cycle testing and monitoring
at the Kissimmee River and Hillsborough Canal sites, completing
design to prepare Indian River Lagoon South for construction,
initiating construction on the Site 1 project and also
initiating construction for the annex facility to support the
Melaleuca Eradication Project.
Project implementation reports for three additional major
projects are nearly completed, and the fourth is under review.
In addition, the Army and the state recently initiated the
Central Everglades Study, which is a major step to pursue
restoration of habitat in the central portion of the
Everglades. This study is part of the Corps' larger nationwide
planning modernization program, which is designed to shave
years from our project delivery process.
This study will build on recent science with a target for
completion in less than two years rather than the five to seven
years of past studies. Certain projects are being implemented
by the state under their own authorities and using their own
resources. These projects or portions of projects are expected
to advance the delivery of benefits to the natural and human
environments in and around South Florida.
I see that my time is almost up, so I am just going to end
by saying I appreciate the opportunity. I also wanted to point
out that we have submitted our report to Congress. Under the
legislation that authorized the CERP we are required every five
years to give a progress report, and our 2010 progress report
was delivered to the Congress this week. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), U.S. Department of the
Army
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), approved by Congress in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) and being implemented by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and our non-federal partners in
Florida. My testimony focuses on the questions included in your letter
of October 24, 2011.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION STATUS UPDATE
Working in collaboration with partners and many stakeholders at the
local, state and federal level, restoration of the historic Everglades
ecosystem is one of the largest and most complex environmental
restoration efforts in North America. The overarching goal is to
capture the fresh water that now flows unused to the ocean and the Gulf
and redirect it to storage for delivery to natural areas when they need
it. Returning a more historic flow of water to the River of Grass will
not only revive the native habitat for 68 federally listed threatened
and endangered species, it will also naturally replenish the
underground aquifers that supply drinking water to the population of
south Florida. Redirecting flows away from the Atlantic and Gulf will
also protect coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems important to the
states' fisheries, diving, tourism and related industries.
Due to the continued decline in overall health of the ecosystem and
recognizing that a healthy ecosystem is fundamental to a healthy
economy, numerous initiatives and construction projects are now under
way to revitalize and protect the expansive south Florida ecosystem. A
major component of south Florida ecosystem restoration is
implementation of the CERP, the framework for large-scale restoration
of the Everglades. CERP is a series of modifications to the regional
water supply and flood control project (the ``Central and Southern
Florida Project'') that is carried out by the Corps and its non-Federal
sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District.
The CERP is based on ``getting the water right'' by improving water
quality, quantity, timing and distribution to the remnant Everglades
while also maintaining other water related levels of service. There are
other important projects that pre-date CERP (the ``Foundation
Projects'') for Everglades restoration that work hand-in-hand to
realize the benefits of the CERP. These important companion Foundation
Projects will restore the Kissimmee River and improve water flows into
Everglades National Park. The state of Florida is also working to
restore and protect the Northern Everglades by creating water quality
treatment marshes for water flowing into Lake Okeechobee, coastal
estuaries and the Everglades. Other federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), have provided conservation easements
to protect and conserve private lands in a manner that also benefits
improvements in regional water quality and storage.
Major components of CERP include above-ground and underground water
storage features, water preserve areas, management of Lake Okeechobee
as an ecological resource, improved water deliveries to the St. Lucie
and Caloosahatchee estuaries, treatment wetlands, improved water
deliveries to the Everglades, removal of barriers to the natural
sheetflow of water, reuse of wastewater, and improved water
conservation.
Sound environmental science is at the heart of this effort, much of
it new and pioneering work. Since 2000, much has been learned through
rigorous research, extensive monitoring and the development and
refinement of computer models. The CERP planners recognized this
natural progression in applied science and included a commitment to
adaptive management as an integral part of CERP implementation to
support improved decision-making and CERP performance over time. This
commitment was reinforced in the WRDA 2000 with specific requirements
to improve the plan over time. As restoration and scientific
investigations advance, the opportunities to incorporate CERP
improvements and changes to better achieve restoration goals and
objectives advance as well.
In accordance with WRDA 2000, the 2010 Report to Congress was
recently submitted by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and
the state of Florida. The Secretary of the Interior, the Administrator
of EPA and I each reviewed the progress to date and determined that
satisfactory progress is being made towards achieving the benefits for
the natural system and the human environment envisioned in the CERP.
The Corps, in partnership with its primary partner, the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), continues to develop an
integrated strategy for implementation of the Plan. In order for the
Plan to be implemented successfully it is imperative to maintain
coordination with the Department of the Interior, tribal governments
and other federal, and state partners, all of which have actively
participated in the development and progress of this program. In the
past five years, three projects were authorized for construction in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007: Indian River Lagoon South,
Picayune Strand Restoration and Site 1 Impoundment. Construction is
underway on all three of these projects and is providing needed
momentum toward the restoration of the Everglades. In addition, funding
provided through the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) allowed construction on both CERP and other south Florida
Restoration projects to proceed at a quicker pace while providing over
6000 jobs in south Florida.
CERP FUNDING
The allocation from Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 through FY 2011 for CERP
is $753,845,000, which includes funds received through ARRA, as well as
regular appropriations. The amount allocated includes funding for
Planning, Design and Construction of CERP projects.
The current cost estimate for the CERP is $13.5 billion at October
2009 price levels. Over two billion dollars in combined contributions
from the federal and state partners has been provided in support of
CERP and prospective CERP projects over the past five fiscal years
(2005-2009). During this time, the federal government expended almost
$259 million, while it is estimated that non-Federal sponsors spent
approximately $270 million on activities not related to land
acquisition, which is a major expense. As of December 31, 2010, the
state of Florida has spent an estimated $1.29 billion to purchase
approximately 233,000 acres which are anticipated to be made available
for CERP project features. Some of this land was acquired by the state
using federal grant funds amounting to over $327 million. Funding over
the past five years included resources made available under ARRA which
are outside the general FY 2009/FY 2010 budget process. ARRA funds
combined with the President's FY 2009 and FY 2010 budgets infused the
largest amount of Federal funding received since Congress approved CERP
in 2000. This resulted in a ``jump-start'' of important restoration
projects, speeding the recovery of the natural system, and providing
jobs and contracts during difficult economic times.
HOW MANY OF THE 68 CERP COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED?
Construction is underway on all three projects authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Indian River Lagoon South,
Picayune Strand Restoration and Site 1 Impoundment). In fact, I was
pleased to attend the groundbreaking for the Indian River Lagoon South
project last Friday, along with Congressman Rooney. The Committee on
Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress, which
is required by the WRDA 2000, positively acknowledged the value and
contributions of the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring program, which
has been regularly supported by the Administration and the Congress.
Additional work continues on the Melaleuca Eradication project as well
as Aquifer System and Recovery Pilot projects, small projects
authorized in CERP. The SFWMD has begun construction on two additional
CERP projects, the C-111 Spreader Canal and Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands projects.
Following is an outline of the work conducted on authorized CERP
projects, with a description of the status of projects that have nearly
completed the Project Implementation Report (PIR) process and a
description of the SFWMD's construction efforts to date on projects
that have not yet been authorized but have a PIR in process and for
which a Pre-Project Partnership Agreement has been signed.
Major construction efforts on authorized CERP Projects:
Initiated construction for the Merritt Pump Station
feature of Picayune Strand Restoration, building on the state's
work of filling and plugging seven miles of the Prairie Canal;
removal of 65 miles of roadways and installation of seventeen
culverts. Wading birds, black bears and the endangered Florida
panther have already been observed within the 13,000 acres of
restored habitat.
Installed pilot projects for aquifer storage and
recovery, with ongoing cycle testing and monitoring at the
Kissimmee River and Hillsboro Canal sites.
Completed designs to prepare Indian River Lagoon-
South for construction. Initiated construction on October 28,
2011.
Awarded the first construction contract for the Site
1 Impoundment, adjacent to the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge. Initiated construction on the Site 1
project.
Initiated construction for the Annex facility to
support the Melaleuca Eradication project.
PIR's for three additional major projects are nearly complete and a
fourth is significantly through the review process:
The Caloosahatchee (C-43) West Basin Storage
Reservoir project has a signed report of the Chief of
Engineers.
The C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project has
completed the Civil Works Review Board process as well as state
and agency review. The next step is a signed report of the
Chief of Engineers.
The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (Phase I) has been
sent to the Civil Works Review Board. Broward County Water
Preserve Areas has been approved by the Civil Works Review
Board, is currently being revised by the Jacksonville District
to update the document.
In addition, the Army and the state of Florida
recently initiated the Central Everglades study, a major step
to pursue restoration of habitat in the central ``river of
grass'' portion of the Everglades. This study is part of the
Corps' of Engineers larger nationwide planning modernization
program, designed to shave years from the project delivery
process. This study will build on recent science with the
target for completion in less than two years, rather than the
5-7 years of past studies.
Certain projects are being implemented by the state of Florida
under their own authorities and using their own resources. The Corps
coordinates closely with the SFMWD during the PIR process for projects
where the state wishes to undertake construction. These projects or
portions of projects are expected to advance the delivery of benefits
to the natural and human environments in and around the Everglades
ecosystem. The Corps has also worked closely with the state of Florida
to assist in its efforts to expedite these projects with regard to the
required federal permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The SFWMD has signed Pre-Project Partnership Agreements and is
currently implementing construction under its own resources for the C-
111 Spreader Canal and Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands projects,
including the following work:
Initiated construction of the Deering Estates Flow-
way, part of Phase 1 of the proposed CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands Project to restore more natural water flows to the Bay
and Biscayne National Park, thus helping to restore the
estuarine environment and associated plant and animal life.
Completed construction of L-31E Culverts, part of
Phase 1 of the proposed CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands
Project.
Initiated construction of the proposed CERP C-111
Spreader Canal Western Project to benefit Florida Bay by
restoring freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands and near-shore
habitat.
LAKE OKEECHOBEE
The state of Florida has the primary responsibility for meeting
existing water quality standards. Nonetheless, north of Lake Okeechobee
there have been two projects that have involved federal participation
by the Corps that have had an effect on water quality in this area. As
part of the Foundation Projects, the Corps of Engineers and SFWMD are
jointly implementing the Kissimmee River Restoration Project which, as
it is completed, will help improve the water quality flowing into Lake
Okeechobee. The Corps is also constructing the Taylor Creek/Nubbin
Slough project, authorized as part of the Critical Projects.
Since 2000, it is my understanding that approximately $315 million
of state funding and SFWMD contributions have been invested to
implement activities described in the Florida state law. SFWMD's
achievements to date include the use of Best Management Practices
(BMP), construction of a phosphorus reduction project, landowner
partnerships to provide water storage on private lands, and pilot
projects to test and demonstrate technological innovations. The
following specific accomplishments were reported to us by the SFWMD:
As of December 2010, landowners enrolled
approximately 1.3 million acres (76%) of agricultural lands in
the state-adopted Best Management Practices program and are
applying owner-implemented BMPs focused on reducing phosphorus
loads to Lake Okeechobee. Almost two-thirds of the agricultural
acreage with owner implemented BMPs (838,780 acres) have also
administered cost-share BMPs. Florida's Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services will continue to work
cooperatively with the coordinating agencies, stakeholders, and
landowners to identify alternative funding sources and other
opportunities to accelerate the rate of BMP enrollment and
implementation.
More than 30 phosphorus reduction projects have been
constructed with state of Florida funding, including isolated
wetland restoration projects, Dairy Best Available Technology
projects, former dairy remediation projects, and public-private
partnership projects. The potential average annual phosphorus
load reduction from these projects is estimated at 26 metric
tons.
Six Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology (HWTT)
projects have been implemented under a joint effort between the
SFWMD and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services in the St. Lucie and Lake Okeechobee watersheds.
Another HWTT site in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed is expected
to be built by March 2011. Collectively, these projects will
provide approximately four metric tons of phosphorus load
reduction per year.
Lakeside Ranch, Stormwater Treatment Area (STA)
construction is under way. This STA is expected to reduce the
average phosphorus load to the lake by approximately 24 metric
tons per year when it is fully operational.
With funding provided by the state of Florida and
South Florida Water Management District, crews removed or
sequestered approximately 1.9 million cubic yards of muck from
Lake Okeechobee, exposing thousands of acres of natural lake
bottom sand and promoting the return of native plant species.
In addition, the project removed 142 metric tons of phosphorus
from the lake. These efforts were completed during low Lake
Okeechobee water levels.
COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION
PROGRESS (CISRERP) REPORT
Much of the rationale for the conclusions reached by the CISRERP
relates to the presence of ``legacy phosphorus'' upstream of the
Everglades and the expected lag between the completion of individual
restoration construction projects and full ecosystem recovery. Despite
CISRERP's outlook that restoration will take several decades, there are
encouraging examples of multi-party, multi-pronged approaches to abate
water quality issues. Implementation of restoration measures in a
dynamic, living ecosystem has always been recognized as having a higher
degree of uncertainty than, for example, many of the Corps' more
traditional flood control projects. The CERP has always acknowledged
that completion of planned work does not mean instant success. Although
parts of the south Florida ecosystem have demonstrated remarkable
resilience in their recovery following completion of a particular
restoration project, the full ecosystem responses lag behind physical
completion of construction. More importantly, science is now telling us
that chemical changes in the makeup of the system after project
features are complete are likely to take significantly longer than
originally expected before the ecosystem will be restored.
In view of the complexity and uncertainties of the Everglades
ecosystem, we have known from the beginning that difficulties would
arise and adjustments to the Plan would be needed along the way. For
these reasons, Congress directed us to develop adaptive management
strategies. These strategies are embraced and incorporated into the
CERP and the Corps remains committed to the use of the best available
science and employment of proven adaptive management techniques. These
strategies are essential to our success.
CONCLUSION
The Army is committed to continue to work with all of its partners
to continue to work in this critical area. This concludes my testimony
and I look forward to any questions you or other Members of the
subcommittee may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Darcy, for being prompt
with the ending of your statement. Again, it will be submitted
in written form to the record.
Let us see. Ms. Jacobson, you are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL JACOBSON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ACCOMPANIED BY MARK MASAUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST REGION,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Jacobson. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Fleming
and members of the Subcommittee. I am Rachel Jacobson, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the
Department of the Interior. I am accompanied by Mark Masaus,
the Deputy Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast
Region.
As Acting Assistant Secretary, I oversee and coordinate
policy for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to testify about the proposal to establish the Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.
The Everglades Headwaters proposal reflects the vision of
more than a dozen partners, including ranchers, the State of
Florida, the Departments of Defense and Agriculture, the Nature
Conservancy, the National Wildlife Refuge Association and
others, all working together through the Greater Everglades
Partnership Initiative, to conserve one of eastern North
America's last grassland and long leaf pine savannah landscapes
while helping to preserve a working rural landscape of ranches
and farms, as was nicely demonstrated by the video.
The proposal is based on the best available science. It
builds on a long legacy of conservation in Central Florida and
will help connect state parks and wildlife management areas,
ranches and the Avon Park Air Force Range as a contiguous
wildlife corridor. Our proposal is shaped by public input. Last
January, the Service launched a three month public scoping
effort during which 1,700 citizens attended four public
meetings and another 38,500 provided written comments. The
Service also held an informal 30 additional meetings with
interested stakeholders. We received overwhelming public
support for this effort.
The draft land protection plan and environmental assessment
that has been put out for public comment reflects this input.
These documents were initially published in September, and now
at the request of the local hunting conservation organizations
the public comment period has been extended to November 25.
Florida's population is expected to double by 2060,
increasing the development pressure on the grasslands and
savannah of Central Florida. There is a need to act now to
conserve the wildlife of this region and its rural landscapes.
The Everglades Headwaters proposal takes a new approach to
conservation by mixing public lands with easements on private
lands. The proposed 150,000 acre refuge and conservation area
would protect up to 288 at-risk species found across the
valley.
Wildlife dependent recreational opportunities will be a
priority for the refuge. Under the proposal, the Service and
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would
jointly manage expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on
refuge lands. Two-thirds of the area, covering 100,000 acres,
would remain in private ownership with conservation easements
and stay on the local tax roles. Cattle ranchers in the valley
have been extraordinary stewards in the lands, and we want to
help them hold onto this way of life. The remaining 50,000
acres would be purchased by the Service from voluntary sellers
to create the refuge, which would open new wildlife dependent
recreational opportunities previously not available.
The Service understands the significant financial
commitment this proposal would entail. If the refuge is
established, property interests will be acquired from willing
sellers over many years through funds derived primarily from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, several
landowners have already expressed interest in donating land for
this project, which would reduce the overall cost. We will also
seek leveraging opportunities through private contributions and
other sources of funding.
We believe the proposal stands on its own as an important
addition to the Refuge System. However, it also complements the
overall goals of the Everglades restoration. It provides
significant opportunities to protect and restore native
prairies and freshwater wetlands that naturally store water,
the most critical component of the Everglades ecosystem.
It will ensure that the water quality at the top of the
Everglades system is maintained, which is important to the
long-term success of restoration efforts below the headwaters.
As one of the world's most ecologically diverse ecosystems, the
Everglades are one of America's last incredible wild places.
That is why the ongoing national effort to restore the area
known as the ``River of Grass'' is so important.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee to talk with you about this important project. I
will look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]
Statement of Rachel Jacobson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Rachel Jacobson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks at the Department of the Interior. As Acting Assistant Secretary,
I oversee and coordinate policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and the National Park Service. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to testify about the Service's proposal to
establish the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and
Conservation Area to advance the goals of the multi-stakeholder Greater
Everglades Partnership Initiative.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)
is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Encompassing more than 150 million acres of land and water, the Refuge
System is the world's premier network of public lands devoted to the
conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats.
National wildlife refuges are found in every state. In total, the
Refuge System now contains 555 refuges and 38 wetland management
districts. The management of each refuge gives priority consideration
to appropriate recreational uses of the refuge that are deemed
compatible with the primary conservation purposes of the refuge, and
the overall purpose of the Refuge System.
Genesis of the Everglades Headwaters Proposal
More than a dozen partners have been working together through the
Greater Everglades Partnership Initiative to conserve one of eastern
North America's last grassland and longleaf pine savanna landscapes,
located in Central Florida.
The proposal was aimed at protecting the headwaters of the
Everglades and designed to help protect a working rural landscape of
ranches and farms and the habitat of this unique ecosystem.
Our partners in the Everglades Headwaters proposal include
ranchers, the State of Florida, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Department of
Defense, The Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Refuge
Association, and others. The proposal builds on a long legacy of
conservation values established in Central Florida, connecting existing
conservation lands within the Kissimmee River Valley (Valley) including
state parks, wildlife management areas, and the Avon Park Air Force
Range. The Natural Resources Conservation Service recognized the
importance of this landscape when Secretary Tom Vilsack recently
committed $100 million in financial assistance to acquire permanent
easements from eligible landowners in four counties and assist with
wetland restoration on nearly 24,000 acres of agricultural land in the
Northern Everglades. This is among the largest commitments of funding
Florida has ever received for projects in the same watershed through
the UDSA's Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in a single year.
Our proposal to establish the 150,000 acre Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area is based on the best
available science including studies from many of our partners, most
notably the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and
The Nature Conservancy. Two-thirds of the proposed Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area, or up to
100,000 acres, would be protected through conservation easements
purchased from willing sellers. Private landowners would retain
ownership of their land, as well as the right to work the land to raise
cattle or crops. The easements would ensure the land could not be
developed.
The Service would also purchase up to 50,000 acres outright from
willing sellers to create the proposed national wildlife refuge where
visitors could hunt, fish, hike and view wildlife. The Service has
identified six areas where these refuge lands could potentially be
purchased. In some cases, the refuge acquisitions would augment
existing conservation lands, such as state parks and wildlife
management areas.
It is important to note that this is a voluntary program. The
Service will only purchase land or conservation easements from willing
sellers. Florida ranchers and other landowners understand that we all
have a stake in preserving the health of our land, water, and wildlife.
For example, David Durando, a rancher in the proposed project area
supports the creation of this refuge. Mr. Durando, who married into a
family that includes both a Florida governor and long-time state
senator, commented in support of the refuge as follows: ``Our
grandchildren are ninth generation Floridians. We would like to have
the opportunity to entrust our way of life, their heritage, to them and
future generations. I see the Everglades Headwaters National Refuge and
Conservation Area as an opportunity that would allow us to do this. We
would have the opportunity to help our state with its conservation plan
and maintain our heritage now and for future generations just as those
before us have done. My father-in-law, (State Senator) Doyle E.
Carlton, Jr., always said, 'Whatever I have I am not taking with me.
The earth is God's and the cattle belong to him.' Our family has a
desire to be good stewards, managing and preserving all God has
entrusted to us.''
Public Involvement
Last January, the Service launched a three-month public scoping
effort to seek broader input on shaping the Everglades Headwaters
proposal. The Service received comments from more than 1,700 citizens
who attended four public meetings. The Service also received more than
38,500 comments in writing during this scoping effort. The overwhelming
majority of the public comments supported the concept.
The Service heeded the input received from the public in drafting
the Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment for the proposed
refuge and conservation area. In the proposal, the Service removed from
consideration developed areas, areas where communal land ownership
reduces development opportunity and areas where landowners said they
were not interested in selling their properties. The proposal also
includes a provision under which the Service would work with the FWC to
manage hunting and fishing on refuge lands acquired. The state already
manages outdoor recreation on wildlife management areas in the Valley,
and we believe the refuge will provide ways to complement and expand
those recreational opportunities.
The proposal, released to the public on September 7, is now in an
extended public comment period that is scheduled to end on November 25.
The comment period was extended at the request of local hunting
conservation organizations. Since the four scoping meetings mentioned
above, the Service has since held additional public meetings with 122
citizens attending, and it has received nearly 2,000 comments in this
phase of the planning process. In addition, since the scoping process
began, the Service has held 30 informational meetings with citizens and
representatives from local governments and stakeholder organizations.
Restoring Habitat and Protecting Species
Our primary interest in creating a new national wildlife refuge and
conservation area in Central Florida is simple math. Florida's
population is expected to double to 36 million by 2060, increasing the
development pressure on the grasslands and savannas of Central Florida.
Some of the threats to globally significant species like the Florida
black bear, the Florida panther, the Florida grasshopper sparrow and
the Florida scrub jay, include fragmented habitats and reduced water
quality and water quantity.
The proposed 150,000-acre refuge and conservation area would
protect these threatened and endangered species by creating wildlife
corridors, restoring wetlands and conserving the landscape. It will
also protect up to 288 at-risk species found across the Valley. Through
this voluntary program, we will be able to increase hunting and fishing
opportunities, and provide ranchers a means of preserving their land in
its current agricultural state. In addition, if a refuge is
established, acquisitions would be made within the approved areas
gradually over time, not all at once.
As stated, two-thirds of the proposal--100,000 acres--would remain
in private ownership with conservation easements, but importantly,
these lands would stay on the local tax rolls. Cattle ranchers in the
Valley have been extraordinary stewards of these lands, and we want to
help them continue to hold on to this way of life even in difficult
economic times. We need them; Florida's cattle industry is one of the
oldest and among the 15 largest in the country. Ranching is compatible
with our mission to protect the globally unique habitats and species of
the Valley, while maintain the area as a working landscape.
The remaining 50,000 acres would be purchased outright by the Fish
and Wildlife Service to create a refuge, which would make possible
additional wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, and
birding. Unlike a traditional refuge, the Everglades Headwaters takes a
new approach to conservation, mixing refuge lands with private
ownership under conservation easements to fill in gaps across the
landscape. The goal is to connect existing conservation lands to create
wildlife corridors and healthy habitats; provide more opportunities to
hunt, fish, hike and learn about wildlife; and improve the water
quality and quantity in the upper Everglades watershed. The plan also
provides landowners with different options to protect their properties
rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all solution. In the proposal,
we identified six target areas totaling 130,000 acres from which we
would seek to purchase up to 50,000 acres for the refuge from willing
sellers. These lands are included in a larger area, approximately
816,000 acres, that has been identified to place up to 100,000 acres
under conservation easements from willing owners.
Quality of habitat and connectivity to existing conserved lands
will drive our acquisition priorities. We believe a more connected
landscape is needed, one that provides a wide range of quality habitats
to support Federal and state-listed species and native wildlife
diversity. We also want to improve water quality, quantity and storage
capacity in the Upper Everglades watershed and provide additional
opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. The draft
Environmental Assessment for the Land Protection Plan demonstrates that
these objectives could be met through the establishment of the proposed
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.
This proposal reflects broad support among private landowners, the
ranching community and other partners who share the goal of conserving
the region's mosaic of sandhill and scrub habitat, freshwater wetlands,
prairies, pine flatwoods and pastures.
For example, one of the land owners in the proposed project area is
Mike Adams, a third generation rancher. At the news conference in
September to announce the draft proposal, Mr. Adams described the
proposal as a, ``win-win for families, also a win for the community,
also a win for the wildlife. . .Our future generations will appreciate
what we do here today.''
Lt. Col. Charles ``Buck'' MacLaughlin agrees. As the commander of
the Avon Park Air Force Range, which is located in the middle of the
project area, Lt. Col. McLaughlin said the proposed refuge would help
buffer one of the nation's largest aerial and gunnery ranges against
encroachment, and at the same time, would serve the dual purpose of
protecting Florida's landscape and species that occur nowhere else on
the planet.
Funding for the Everglades Headwaters proposal
The public scoping process now underway will help identify ways to
develop the refuge to best meet all interests. The Service will begin
to work with willing sellers only if this proposal goes forward after
scoping and additional planning. Several landowners in the Valley have
expressed interest in donating lands for this project, which would
reduce the overall cost. Given the fluctuation in land values, it is
difficult to say at this time what the appraised values for land
acquisition and easements from willing sellers will be at the time we
enter into the transactions. Considering those unknowns, the Service
may seek annually funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) and, to a lesser extent, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to
acquire a combination of lands and conservation easements. We expect it
will take several years for the Fish and Wildlife Service and our
partners in the Greater Everglades Partnership Initiative to complete
this project
If the project proceeds as proposed, the Service projects it will
initially need up to $450,000 annually to operate and maintain the
refuge. These operational costs will cover salary for three FTEs,
habitat restoration, prescribed fire activities, facility maintenance,
inventory and monitoring of habitat and species, and invasive species
control. In several years' time, as the refuge becomes more fully
operational, this budget would likely increase as noted in the Draft
Land Protection Plan.
Assurances for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
As we noted earlier, we are working with the State of Florida to
provide public access on proposed Headwater refuge lands for hunting
and fishing opportunities. Indeed, as the project develops, the Service
and FWC will put in place a Memorandum of Understanding related to the
management of hunting and fishing activities on the proposed refuge.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Commissioner Ron
Bergeron stated that his agency is a ``willing partner that can provide
public hunting access on public lands acquired in fee-simple by the
Service, something we find as imperative''. . .. Mr. Bergeron went on
to say,'' We certainly see valuable conservation merits in targeting
critical lands that support a rich diversity of natural resources.''
In the case of privately owned lands subject to conservation
easements, wildlife-dependent recreation and public access would be
left to the discretion of individual landowners.
Anticipated Impact on Local Counties Tax Base
Through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, counties and local
governments may be compensated for lost revenues from the 50,000
proposed acres that maybe acquired in fee title by the Service. The
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s), as amended, allows us to
offset the tax losses by annually paying the county or other local unit
of government an amount that often equals or exceeds that which would
have been collected from approved compatible economic uses on refuges,
including taxes if in private ownership. The source of funds for refuge
revenue sharing payments are derived from the net receipts collected
from the sale of various products or privileges from all refuge lands
such as grazing leases or timber sales, plus additional appropriated
funds. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act provides a formula to share
economic use receipts to offset the loss of land within the counties or
local governments tax base. Specifically, the law requires that the
revenue sharing payments to counties or local government for our
purchased land will be based on the greatest of: (a) 3/4 of 1 percent
of the market value; (b) 25 percent of the net receipts; or (c) 75
cents per acre. Fair market value is based on appraisals that are to be
updated every 5 years. All lands administered by the solely or
primarily by the Service--not just refuges--qualify for revenue sharing
payments.
The revenue sharing appraisal is based upon current fair market
values of the various land types in the county or counties where each
refuge is located. This appraisal values the refuge land by comparing
it to the same, or similar, sales of land in the local area. As a
result, refuge land is valued at its highest economic potential based
on the surrounding real estate market. That means refuge land is valued
on a variety of potential uses, including commercial property,
beachfront development, timberland and farmland. The revenue sharing
appraisal compiles all the values found on each refuge to produce an
overall per acre value for that refuge.
By way of example, in south central Florida, Lake Wales Ridge
National Wildlife Refuge comprises both lakefront and non-lakefront
lots that have the potential for residential development and as such
are valued at a much higher price than nearby agricultural lands. The
refuge contains 1,689 and 172 acres respectively in Highlands and Polk
Counties--which are two of the same counties within the four County
Everglades Headwaters project area). The total revenue sharing payments
made to these counties in 2010 were $16,406 to Highlands County and
$1,605 to Polk County. This equates to an average Revenue Sharing
Payment of $9.52 per acre.\1\ By comparison, the privately owned
Hatchineha Ranch in Polk County generated less than $2 per acre in
property taxes in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This data is provided by the Service's Finance Center and
represents the actual payments made to the individual counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to potential gains from revenue sharing agreements,
refuges are economic boons for their neighboring communities,
generating roughly $4 for every $1 of federal investment, according to
a Service analysis entitled Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic
Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation.
That study found that refuge visitors generated $1.7 billion of annual
sales to local economies, of which 87% was spent by travelers from
outside the local area. The ripple effect from these visitors created
over 27,000 jobs and more than $543 million in employment income.
Supporting the Goal of Everglades Restoration
The proposal to establish the Everglades Headwaters NWR and
Conservation Area complements overall efforts to restore the Everglades
and directly supports two of the three Everglades restoration goals
established by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force,
comprised of state, federal, tribal and local representatives.
Establishment of the proposed conservation partnership area provides
significant opportunities to restore habitat and recover key species,
and will help to protect and restore native prairies and freshwater
wetlands that naturally store water--the most critical component of the
Everglades ecosystem. Additionally, wetlands serve an important
function of removing pollutants including nitrogen and phosphorus,
which both contribute to degraded Everglades water quality.
The Everglades make up one of America's and the world's most
incredible wild places. Everglades National Park was accepted as a
biosphere reserve in 1976, inscribed on the World Heritage List in
1979, and was designated a Ramsar site (Wetland of International
Significance) in 1987. The Everglades is one of the most ecologically
diverse ecosystems on the planet, which is why the ongoing national
effort to restore the area known as the ``River of Grass'' is so
important.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to
talk with you about this important project. I look forward to answering
questions you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Jacobson, and thank you for
your promptness. Thank you for your opening statements,
testimony.
At this point, we will begin Member questions for the
witnesses. To allow all Members to participate and to ensure we
can hear from all of our witnesses today, Members are limited
to five minutes for their questions. However, if Members have
additional questions we can have more than one round of
questioning. I now recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Jacobson, during public meetings in Florida on the
proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge did a
representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that
affected Florida counties would be compensated for lost tax
revenues through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
Ms. Jacobson. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if anyone
indicated that specifically. However, the environmental
assessment does discuss the issue of how counties would be
compensated for loss of revenues, and the environmental
assessment does mention the Revenue Sharing Act offsets as one
means of compensating counties for loss of revenues.
Dr. Fleming. Well, is it not true that a representative of
the Service advised at least at one public meeting in
Kissimmee, Florida, that up to 75 percent of the refuge revenue
sharing funds are traditionally provided to affected counties?
Ms. Jacobson. Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't know exactly
what was said at the public meeting. The Refuge Sharing Act
fund does provide compensation for lost revenues to counties,
and the fund itself derives its income through sales, timber
sales, oil and gas leasing, grazing and so forth.
Dr. Fleming. Well, is that 75 percent correct? Is that
accurate?
Ms. Jacobson. I can get back to you with that answer.
Dr. Fleming. We have from publication that covered one open
meeting Lakeside News, and I will read you the quote. It says,
``In response to taking private property off the tax rolls to
establish a refuge, Pelizza said, the Federal Government...''--
do you know who this individual is, Pelizza?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes, I do.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. ``'The Federal Government has a program
whereby it annually replaces lost tax revenue to counties and
that in some cases this revenue could exceed the tax base.'
However, he also said that Congress has never fully funded this
program, traditionally providing about 75 percent of the needed
funding.''
So that really sounds like a pretty strong commitment to
the community.
Ms. Jacobson. Sir, the----
Dr. Fleming. And let me follow up with that. How much did
the Obama Administration ask for in Fiscal Year 2012?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes. To answer your last question first, the
Obama Administration asked for no funding for the program in
Fiscal Year 2012 because in this very difficult budget time
there is a recognition that the funding can come from these
other sources, and that is sales of timber, oil and gas leasing
and grazing and other fee generating activities on refuge
lands.
In the past, the Refuge Act funds have in some cases, due
to the formula which is designed to give the greatest amount of
money possible to the counties in some cases, demonstrated
cases----
Dr. Fleming. Well, let me interrupt you there. I hear what
you are saying, that we have this amorphous group out there
that has it is really private funds, but I am told that that is
less than 5 percent of the total.
The point is that we have people representing the Obama
Administration promising as much as 75 percent, and yet the
President himself is asking for nothing for these people. And
so the question is based on that do you feel like that the
representative misled the public about the refuge revenue
sharing?
Ms. Jacobson. If I may, Mr. Masaus can help answer that
question.
Dr. Fleming. Okay.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you.
Mr. Masaus. Mr. Pelizza is the refuge manager at the Archie
Carr Refuge and is providing the assistance and oversight as we
look at trying to establish this new refuge. He was a key
Service representative at several of the public meetings.
I don't know exactly what he said, but I am assuming that
what he was trying to explain is that in lieu of the lands
coming off the tax base that there is a refuge revenue sharing
program that is available. The fund is from receipts that come
off of refuge lands, but it usually is never enough to meet the
requirement to pay the amount that goes to the counties, so
that is why we go to Congress to supplement that. I think what
Mr. Pelizza was saying is in the past Congress has funded up to
about 75 percent of the request.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Well, I hear what you are saying, but
again someone listening and certainly being encouraged by this
is hearing numbers that even the Administration for whom he
works is not even encouraging or accepting or promoting, so
there seems to be some duality there.
Hey, this is what typically happens. We would expect you to
get perhaps as much as 75 percent. Meanwhile, the
Administration is saying we are not even going to ask for
anything. We are not even going to participate in that level of
reimbursement.
So, let us recap. You propose to obligate nearly $700
million in land acquisition without seeking congressional
authority, and I believe did you say that was from the stimulus
bill, the $700 million?
Ms. Jacobson. No, sir. It may not be $700 million. We don't
know the number yet. And it would be from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund primarily.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. So you are proposing to spend that money
without congressional authority. We had a hearing on that the
other day about putting land in refuge without congressional
approval. This acquisition isn't even in your own land
acquisition priority list, the top 100.
Environmentalists all agree the real need for land
acquisition to aid Everglades restoration is to the south of
Lake Okeechobee and not to the north as you are proposing, and
the land you are taking off the Florida payroll has zero
funding by the Administration for compensation. Do I understand
that correctly?
Ms. Jacobson. I think there are many ways of interpreting
the proposal.
Dr. Fleming. Well, we are real straightforward people here.
Ms. Jacobson. Yes. I understand that.
Dr. Fleming. Is what I said correct? Is that accurate? Is
that an accurate statement?
Ms. Jacobson. We have the congressional authority to
administratively establish refuges. That is clearly
contemplated in the National Wildlife Refuge System and
Administration Act because Congress has mandated us to
continuously grow and improve and strategically add to the
Refuge System.
By doing so administratively, we have also the opportunity
to fulfill our mission of conserving habitat for wildlife when
that opportunity arises, and in this situation two-thirds of
the proposed area would be kept on the tax rolls because it
would be kept in private ownership, so we are really only
talking about one-third of the proposed acquisition that would
be in Federal ownership.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. We will revisit this. We will have a
second round. Thank you.
I yield to Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jacobson, before we move off of this, I just want to be
clear. So you are saying that you do have congressional
authority to basically establish these areas such as the
Everglades Headwater National Wildlife Refuge? That is correct,
right?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.
Now, as part of the ongoing public process to establish the
wildlife refuge, the Service has been working in close
coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission on a memorandum of understanding, as I understand
it, regarding public access in these areas. Will you provide us
with an update of how that is going, the MOU?
Ms. Jacobson. Certainly, ma'am. The MOU is progressing very
well. There have been many meetings and exchanges of the draft
of the MOU with the Florida Wildlife Commission. The plan is to
manage these refuge areas jointly with Florida Wildlife
Commission and many of them under the state's existing wildlife
management areas.
So we have close partnership with the state, that MOU is
progressing, and we hope to have it completed well in time to
start these co-management activities.
Ms. Hanabusa. Ms. Jacobson, borrowing from Hawaii, one of
the things we do have is we have something called the Legacy
Lands Fund, which is a percentage of our recorded Bureau of
Conveyances. We record land transactions. A percentage of that
fund goes into like a legacy land which then assists in the
purchasing of easements in fee simple, very similar to what you
are talking about here.
Is there such an equivalent fund in the State of Florida
that can be called upon in the purchasing of private lands when
they want to sell? You made it very clear that it is willing
buyers and sellers. Well, you are the willing buyer, but
sellers. And, for example, the easements. Is that also
available in Florida?
Ms. Jacobson. I can't speak to what sorts of funding is
available in Florida. However, we would fully expect that our
funding source, which would primarily be the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, that we would complement that with other
funding opportunities to protect contiguous land.
So, for example, if an area is protected already or is
contemplated for protection through a similar fund maybe that
Florida has similar to that of Hawaii, perhaps we would
purchase part of that acreage under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and then together meld a contiguous
conservation unit. So we fully expect to look for all
leveraging opportunities on this acreage.
Ms. Hanabusa. You also mentioned in your testimony that
there is a provision that permits for people to donate lands as
well.
Ms. Jacobson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. And then you have had people who are
interested in doing exactly that, donating land to the refuge?
Ms. Jacobson. It is my understanding that ranchers have
expressed some preliminary interest in exploring that idea.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, talking about ranchers and huntsmen and
people like that, how is the Service working with the sportsmen
community in Florida to ensure new hunting and fishing access
opportunities within the existing refuge units in the State of
Florida?
Ms. Jacobson. I am going to turn that over to Mr. Masaus,
but I will say just as a general matter that both the Refuge
Act itself and the proposals for this particular refuge
specifically contemplate hunting as a wildlife dependent
recreational use, and in all areas where hunting currently
exists on lands that are contemplated for this refuge and
conservation area that hunting will be allowed to continue.
I am going to let Mr. Masaus discuss further what
discussions we have had with the sportsmen community.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Mr. Masaus. First of all, I will just say that it was
mentioned I think there were 28 national wildlife refuges in
the state. Many of those refuges are small islands off the
coast or they are barrier islands that are either unsuitable
for hunting, they would not have huntable species on it, so
there are several of them in that category where hunting isn't
even a possibility.
We do have some other refuges, such as Lake Wales Ridge,
that are very small units. They were established to protect
very endangered plants, and it would be difficult to provide--
we don't have any public access in there, not just hunting.
But that said, we have had several meetings with the
hunters that have expressed concerns in the South Florida
community. We have met with them recently. The Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission hosted a meeting for us to
listen to suggestions they have on providing additional hunt
opportunities elsewhere, and we are exploring that as we speak.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Mr. Southerland,
the gentleman from Florida. You have five minutes, sir.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
follow up on since you were talking about the sportsmen. I
happen to be a sportsman from Florida, so this is an area that
I am a little familiar with.
I know that you just alluded to Lake Wales. You know, Lake
Wales. I just want to make sure that the public understands
that Lake Wales is over 2,000 acres, and currently there is no
activity for hunting, so certainly it is being preserved. It is
not being conserved.
And in the State of Florida we have almost a million acres
of wildlife refuges in the State of Florida, and currently only
28 percent of that million acres is open for hunting. So in
this particular plan would you be consistent in only allowing
28 percent with the 28 refuges we have in Florida now?
Mr. Masaus. No, sir. We would be looking at we have already
identified in the plan very clearly that we want to provide
wildlife dependent recreation. In particular, we want to
provide hunting opportunities.
Mr. Southerland. But let me say this. And I want to say
this about hunting opportunities. I mean, I am looking at some
of the other hunting opportunities that currently exist in
Florida, and basically having to be able to hunt with a
slingshot is hardly a hunting opportunity as obviously defined
by your Department.
And so if we are going to be consistent, okay, with the way
that currently the other refuges have opened up hunting, I want
you to know as a Florida sportsman and as a family who has been
in Florida that predates statehood--we have been there awhile--
I am telling you we are very aggravated with the public money,
our tax dollars, being used to buy property and then us not
have our rights to be able to hunt.
And so I just want to make sure you either are going to be
consistent and you are going to do what you have been doing, or
if you are going to do something different then that certainly
lays the way for you to go back and review the current status,
locking Florida citizens out of lands that we are paying for.
Mr. Masaus. Yes, sir. We understand that, and we fully
intend to provide hunting opportunities in this refuge.
Mr. Southerland. Very good. Let me ask you this. I know,
Ms. Jacobson, you commented about how your proposal here is
shaped by public input. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that it
is not shaped by the brutal reality that we are broke, and the
current Administration has not allotted any dollars towards
this project.
I am looking at the services that you provide, and I am
looking at the Department of the Interior and where these
properties would go. If we did not owe $15 trillion in debt--
let us just kind of have a wish list here. If we didn't have to
deal with the brutal reality that this debt is probably the
greatest risk and threat to America and we had the money, okay,
let us just assume a second. Why would this not go in the
Department of Ag and USDA?
Ms. Jacobson. Congressman, the USDA in fact has a
conservation program where they also acquire easements under
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and recently the
Department of Agriculture has committed some $100 million to
provide conservation easements in the area.
But that is a complementary authority obviously with that
of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which by congressional
mandate under our Refuge Act is to continuously grow
strategically our Refuge System for the conservation of
wildlife and recreational opportunities for future generations
of Americans. So even though we are in terrible financial
times, we must continue to strategically assess opportunities
for these conservation mandates.
Mr. Southerland. But clearly you understand that if we are
broke you don't have those opportunities?
Ms. Jacobson. The funding here will primarily come from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and that fund is derived from
revenues from offshore oil and gas leasing so it----
Mr. Southerland. It is all coming together.
Ms. Jacobson. It is all coming together, yes.
Mr. Southerland. Yes. I am sure.
Ms. Jacobson. Okay.
Mr. Southerland. I want to say this. Commissioner Putnam,
who served in this body for five terms, was in my office
yesterday and so I don't mind. I know we used him as a position
in our little video there.
He is extremely concerned about this project, and he is of
the opinion from an ag family and serving as Florida's
Department of Agriculture Commissioner that this would in fact
be much better suited under the USDA because the ranchers that
you have so eloquently noted today already have working
relationships with USDA. They are participating in programs
through USDA. There is already a relationship there.
And I will say this. The USDA seems to have a much better
grasp on conservation, whereas the Department of the Interior
seems to embrace preservation. And so therefore that may
explain why 28 percent of our lands are able to be hunted on
because of a preservation mindset. I know I am over my time. I
yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Next we have the
gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to welcome the witnesses here this morning. In the
interest of time, I do have a few questions for you, Ms.
Jacobson, and if you would just answer yes or no to each of the
questions.
First, is it accurate to state that the Service extended
the period for public comment on the proposed refuge until
November 25 to allow more time for hunters to provide input?
Ms. Jacobson. It is accurate, yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Is it accurate to state that the refuge
supports military readiness for troops training at Avon Park
Air Force Range?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Is it accurate to state that the Federal
Government would make payments to local counties to offset lost
tax revenues that resulted from Federal ownership of refuge
land?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Is there any circumstance in which eminent
domain would be used to acquire property within the proposed
refuge?
Ms. Jacobson. None to my knowledge.
Ms. Bordallo. Will land within the proposed refuge boundary
only be acquired from willing sellers?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. Do land acquisition funding sources utilized
by the Service tap into taxpayers' dollars?
Ms. Jacobson. No, because the Land and Water Conservation
Fund is from offshore revenues primarily.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Will funding for land acquisition
within the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge come
mainly from the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. And I have a final question here for you, Ms.
Jacobson. What are the advantages of conservation easements
over fee simple acquisitions?
Have local landowners expressed interest in participating
in the proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge,
and how will the Service move forward with working with these
landowners in the future to respond to their interest in being
a part of this new conservation area?
Ms. Jacobson. Conservation easements here are the preferred
method because they will cover two-thirds of the refuge,
100,000 acres.
The conservation easements will allow landowners to
negotiate the very specific terms of how that land will be
preserved, so it allows for great flexibility, allows the land
to stay in private ownership, in this case allows the land to
maintain a working landscape ranching way of life that has been
culturally significant.
And obviously conservation easements can apply to this
refuge, as well as National Resource Conservation Service
easements. This is completely voluntary. We will work closely
with landowners to tailor those conservation easements to best
meet our mutual needs.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I have one last question
here for Assistant Secretary Darcy. How does the Corps work
with its partner agencies to set priorities for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and how will the
Corps work with the Service to set priorities within the larger
landscape to encompass the proposed Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, the Corps of Engineers has been
working with the Department of the Interior, as well as our
other state partners, throughout the whole development of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan beginning back in the
late 1990s. We continue to work with them.
We both serve--that is, myself and Ms. Jacobson--as well as
other heads of the Federal agencies who are involved in this
project are part of the Everglades Restoration Task Force. We
just recently had a meeting in Florida, and part of those
meetings are to have updates with the other agencies as to what
our plans are moving forward.
And that is when we, the Army Corps of Engineers,
announced, along with our partner, the South Florida Water
Management District, that we are going to go forward with a
planning process that is unprecedented not only in Florida, but
within the Army Corps of Engineers.
So we are really looking forward to making that happen, and
all of the Federal partners will be part of that planning
process.
Ms. Bordallo. So you are all working well together?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. Next, Mr. Wittman
from Virginia. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
our panelists for joining us today.
Ms. Darcy, I have a question of you. Your comments
concerning the Comprehensive Everglades Protection Plan or
Restoration Plan talk about the natural progression of applied
science and how restoration activities will take place within
that area and the commitment to the use of adaptive management.
I am very interested in that application. A bill that went
through this Committee recently, H.R. 258, would use adaptive
management in restoration activities within the Chesapeake Bay.
I want to get your perspective, first of all, about how do
you think adaptive management can be used in the Everglades
restoration project, and can you tell me what you have learned
or what the Corps has learned from the implementation of
adaptive management and how you would see that going forward in
the restoration plan for the Everglades and if you see an
enhanced opportunity for the use of that particular concept
there to improve restoration activities.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Congressman. We have been actually
using adaptive management throughout the planning process. One
thing that we are finding, the initial Everglades Restoration
Plan was authorized in 2000, and Congress told the Corps of
Engineers, as well as our Federal partners, that we should use
adaptive management because the science is always changing.
What we have discovered in one instance is that now what we
thought in the initial CERP authorization was that we would
need 1.3 billion cubic feet per second or gallons I think, but
what we have learned over the last 10 years is that we are
going to need more water. We are going to need more than two
billion as initially we thought, but we have learned that
through science.
And what we have also learned is that some of the storage
that we have developed, some is working better than others. I
mentioned in my statement that stormwater treatment areas are
being used in the Everglades, and that we are learning from
them. We are using those to treat water, and as we do that we
are learning that we can get many of the nutrients out of the
water by using what are called STAs, but they are like
constructed wetlands.
We are continuing to monitor those and adapting the plans
to recognize that because some of those work better than maybe
some of the reservoirs that we had initially thought would be
able to treat and store these maybe working better, so that is
what we are learning from the science. The adaptive management
I think can also be translated in places like the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Darcy. Ms. Jacobson, serving on
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission gives me a unique
perspective about addition of lands to the National Wildlife
Refuge System. Looking at that, I know that there is a land
acquisition priority system list for 2013, and I believe that
there are three sites in that priority list there in the State
of Florida.
Can you tell me with the proposed addition of the site in
question for the Everglades where that stands in the priority
list? Is that one of the priorities? And if it is not, then how
would it be integrated into that list in relation to those
other three properties?
Also, as you know, any addition to the System based on duck
stamps dollars purchasing that, a critical part of that is not
only consultation, but agreement with the states, the
participating states. As you know, I believe the governor of
Florida hasn't taken a position yet on this particular piece
coming into the Refuge System. Can you give us your perspective
about working with the state, both the state officials there
and the congressional delegation, as far as their buy-in to any
kind of additions to the Refuge System?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, and thank you
for your service on the Commission. It is very much
appreciated.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobson. And thank you for your support of Fort
Monroe.
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
Ms. Jacobson. On behalf of the Secretary and the entire
Department, thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobson. To answer your question, any proposed
projects that are now before the Commission through duck stamp
acquisitions that would still be subject to the Commission's
approval are not affected by this proposal.
We don't know exactly yet because we haven't even begun our
negotiations for any particular parcel of land that would be
subject to the headwaters refuge and conservation area, but
should any of it be the type of wetland that is compatible with
the Commission's goals, certainly we would come before the
Commission, as well as the state, to get prior approval before
acquisition of those lands.
Our intention here is to be as collaborative and
cooperative as possible with local officials, with Congress and
with all stakeholders, so we will make sure for every parcel we
acquire that all affected stakeholders are consulted and all
authorities are obtained.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Next, Mr. Ross also
from Florida. You have five minutes.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Members, thank you
for allowing me to be an ex-officio Member today.
As I look at the maps and hear the testimony, this is my
backyard. I am a native of Florida. I have hunted and fished in
those areas, and I have a strong sense of making sure that we
can serve those lands. You know, we have been known for our
citrus, our tomatoes, our strawberries. We are a strong
agricultural state, and I know over the last couple years we
have grown a lot of houses too, but it is important to me that
we continue to maintain the natural pristine beauty that
Florida has always offered and hopefully will continue to.
To that end, I agree with conservation easements. I think
they are a great way to promote the theory that I have that the
greatest stewards of the lands are those ones that make their
livelihood from it. That being said, we have 150,000 acres that
we are looking here at the upper Everglades restoration. Fifty
thousand of those I guess are going to be in fee simple. Is
that correct, Ms. Jacobson?
Ms. Jacobson. Correct. Thank you.
Mr. Ross. And only on the fee simple ones will we then have
the opportunity for recreational purposes? Is that correct
also? In other words, not with conservation easements.
Ms. Jacobson. That would be up to the particular landowner
and would be a term of the conservation easement, so it is
certainly possible that----
Mr. Ross. But just to make clear, are you aware of any
conservation easements wherein the landowner does offer a
public access for recreational purposes?
Ms. Jacobson. I would have to look at that and get back
with you. I am not personally aware. I assume there are certain
circumstances where those entities are allowed.
Mr. Ross. In the 50,000 acres that we are looking at or
that is being considered, in what size tracts are they being
considered? In other words, if I was a landowner with an eighth
of an acre could I participate, or are there minimum size
tracts that are being looked at for acquisition?
Ms. Jacobson. I am going to turn that over to Mr. Masaus,
but I can't imagine an eighth of an acre would be eligible. I
think we are talking about much larger tracts.
Mr. Ross. Okay.
Mr. Masaus. That is correct. We don't have necessarily a
minimum acreage amount, but we do need to have something that
would be worth the investment that we are looking at, something
that accomplishes the goals of protecting the resource,
providing the connectivity for the wildlife corridor.
Mr. Ross. You know, because this is in my backyard and I
was first approached about this by some of the recreational
users down there, a lot of the hunters, airboaters, fishermen
who were very concerned that when the Fish and Wildlife Service
came down there that they were going to take away their rights.
The question I have is looking at the 28 wildlife refuges
in the State of Florida where only seven are now available for
hunting, what guarantees or assurances can I give to my
constituency that if this 50,000 acres actually goes through
and is purchased for this particular purpose that recreational
use will be maintained and access allowed?
Ms. Jacobson. Congressman, starting from the Refuge Act and
then looking at the environmental assessment itself, one of the
stated goals and purposes of the establishment of this refuge
is to make sure we provide wildlife compatible recreational
access and opportunity, including hunting.
As a matter of fact, the 50,000 acres, because they will
come from private ownership into public ownership, we expect
that will increase hunting and other recreation opportunities.
Mr. Ross. And that is what I want to make sure about too
because the ratio doesn't look good right now when you have
seven of 28 open for hunting. There has to be a reason for
that, whether it is because of lack of resources to man them or
for whatever reason.
My concern is I go back home, and again I believe in the
conservation easements. I believe in restoration of the upper
Everglades. There is no question about that. But I also want to
make sure that we maintain the integrity of the land and allow
for those who have for generation upon generation used it for
recreational purposes are not foreclosed in that opportunity.
Ms. Jacobson. That is our intention as well.
Mr. Ross. So that is what I can go back and say is that it
is their intention to make sure we continue to use this?
Ms. Jacobson. Absolutely.
Mr. Ross. Because I know especially in the area of the
River Ranch area where those individual owners became very
alarmed. In fact, a panic set in because they saw people down
there in uniform and they thought my gosh, they are taking away
our rights. I am dealing with people that don't deal with
government every day that want to make sure that they are not
losing their rights. That is important to me in my
representation of my constituency.
That being said, also I want to make sure about the funding
of this. I know we have gone from $7.5 billion now to $13
billion. I don't know where it is going to end up. But just to
confirm, none of this comes from taxpayer dollars, does it?
Ms. Jacobson. No, it does not.
Mr. Ross. And what are the sources for funding of this?
Ms. Jacobson. Primarily the source would be the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, which is derived from primarily
offshore oil and gas revenue and other revenues that come to
the Federal Government from various extractive activities.
Mr. Ross. And one last question. Florida has fronted or at
least absorbed 79 percent of the $3.5 billion in the
restoration so far. I know they are having a problem. Their
budgets are tough to balance, but they have to balance the
revenues. What happens if they discontinue their partnership in
this?
Ms. Jacobson. In the refuge or the restoration?
Mr. Ross. In the restoration. I am sorry. Ms. Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. We are confident that both parties at the table,
the State of Florida and the Federal Government, are going to
be able to make their commitments of our 50/50 partnership.
We have recently met with the governor, and we have renewed
commitments on this important project. We are both in tight
budget situations, but we are both committed to this
restoration effort.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Next is Mr. Rivera,
the other gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much, Chairman Fleming, for
holding this important hearing. I want to preface my questions
with a statement regarding this issue because I am proud and
honored to represent the Everglades National Park, along with
Big Cypress National Preserve, both of which are in my
congressional district.
The Everglades of course goes beyond Everglades National
Park. The Everglades is the ecosystem of South Florida,
stretching from Shingle Creek south of Orlando to Florida Bay
just on the southern tip of the Florida mainland. It is where
we draw our drinking water, where we swim, where we fish, where
many of my constituents of course call home.
The Florida Everglades is one of our nation's greatest
natural treasures. The Everglades' combination of abundant
moisture and rich soils and subtropical temperatures support a
vast array of species. However, flood control and reclamation
efforts of the past have manipulated the Everglades' hydrology,
redirecting fresh water destined for the Everglades out to sea.
The ecosystem has changed because it now receives less water
during the dry season and more during the rainy season.
The projects under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Program will capture fresh water, the life blood of the
Everglades, destined for the sea and direct it back to the
ecosystem to revitalize it and protect threatened and
endangered plants and wildlife. In order to do this, however,
we must also take steps to ensure that water flowing into Lake
Okeechobee is as clean and free from pollutants as possible.
Therefore, as part of a larger vision for Everglades
restoration and clean water flows I generally support the
Everglades headwaters project.
Having said that, I have some concerns about the headwaters
refuge as proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One
is procedural, the other substantive. On the procedural
concern, I believe that only Congress may authorize a new
refuge, and notwithstanding prior comments I want to make sure
on the substantive front as well to ensure that state agencies
such as the South Florida Water Management District will have
access to the refuge for flood mitigation and pollutant control
if necessary.
I know there are several of my other colleagues that have
raised similar concerns. I believe that many of those concerns
stem from past experiences with the Department of the Interior.
Promises were made in the past related to access, hunting
rights and other issues, and either misunderstandings or just
promises not kept from one Administration to the next whatever
may have been the cause.
So in order to alleviate some of these concerns, I would
like to request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
participate in perhaps the drafting of legislation that can be
introduced in Congress either by myself or another Committee
member or perhaps one of my Florida colleagues so we can use it
as base to modify or codify or address the concerns that have
been raised by stakeholders. With an authorization process
then, any agreements entered into with hunters, ranchers,
airboat operators and others can be set in stone, so to speak.
So I would like to know if I can count on U.S. Fish and
Wildlife to work with me in this effort, Madam Secretary.
Ms. Jacobson. Mr. Congressman, thank you for your support
and your representation in a district that holds many of our
assets.
Currently the refuge is proposed to be established
administratively, but of course if this Congress wishes to
propose any specific legislation with respect to this refuge or
another specific refuge, because refuges have also been created
legislatively, we would certainly be willing to review that and
work with you so that we accomplish the goals of creating this
refuge.
Mr. Rivera. I appreciate that very much. And just in the
limited time I have left, specifically on the Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area, is
this being given a prioritization, a higher priority than any
of the 68 pending CERP projects?
Ms. Jacobson. I can tell you it is a different priority.
The CERP projects are obviously under the jurisdiction of the
Corps in partnership with the South Florida Water Management
District, and Ms. Darcy can address those.
It is also a stated goal of this refuge to complement and
where possible to aid the Florida Everglades restoration effort
by increasing substantially water storage, by allowing a more
natural hydrology, by creating close to 27,000 new acres of
wetlands, so the proposed management of the headwaters refuge
and conservation area is intended to complement and, where
possible, aid directly in the restoration of the Everglades
overall.
Mr. Rivera. Secretary Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. The establishment of the refuge is not in
competition with the existing 64 CERP projects that we have.
Mr. Rivera. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. The gentleman yields back. Panel, we
would like to have a second round. Are you up for it today?
Ms. Darcy. Sure.
Dr. Fleming. Okay.
Ms. Jacobson. Absolutely.
Dr. Fleming. Great. Thank you. Okay. I will recognize
myself for five minutes.
I want to take issue, and maybe this is a distinction
without a difference, Ms. Jacobson, with your statement that
this is not taxpayer money. It is not coming out of the
Treasury. It is not coming out of the General Fund. That is
true. But one way or another, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, people who are buying gasoline, people who are using
energy are paying a tax for this to happen.
But, more importantly, are you aware that we are down 500
million barrels a day production in offshore and so again we
have a situation where the Administration, without
congressional authorization, wants to move forward, jump ahead,
grab off for these purchases through fee simple, willing
buyers, willing sellers, for the purchase to preserve these
lands, but again not willing to backfill the tax revenues and
is working against us on the oil production.
We are off in the Gulf about 500 million barrels a day, and
that is going to be hitting this fund if it hasn't already. You
are going to see declining revenues. Again, we have tried to
work with the Administration numerous times. We have had
numerous hearings again with Mr. Bromwich, Mr. Salazar. They
insist on clogging up the permits for offshore drilling. We are
losing rigs to Brazil and the Congo and places like that.
So I would love to have your comment on what does this mean
for the future of these projects? Remember, this project is not
even in your top 100. Pretty soon, at the rate the
Administration is going by choking off the revenue you are
going to run out of money for this sort of thing.
Ms. Jacobson. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak specifically to
the numbers in terms of leases and offshore production going
forward, but what I can say is that the Administration and the
Department of the Interior, Secretary Salazar and Director
Bromwich have gone forward with additional leasing. We
recognize that the Gulf is a primary source of domestic energy
development, and we will go forward as such.
The acquisition in any given year of properties through
funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a
balancing, so we look at the revenues coming in and we look at
the needs, and what we are doing right now is simply
establishing administratively what boundaries would be eligible
for those acquisitions in the future should the funding be
available.
Dr. Fleming. Right. And I understand what you are saying,
and we have had these arguments and quibbled back and forth
about whether the permits are up to the old levels or not.
The one thing that is undisputable in terms of facts, and
that is that the production levels have dropped and they
continue down. So I would suggest to you that you are going to
find yourself more and more limited and maybe some of your top
priority things are not going to get funded at all as we go
forward.
My next question is since 2001, what is the level of
Federal investment--I am sorry. This is for Madam Secretary.
This question is for you. Since 2001, what is the level of
Federal investment in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, and do we know yet what is likely to be the total Federal
expenditures to complete the project?
Ms. Darcy. The initial cost estimates for the project, the
entire restoration project, is about $13.5 billion. That is a
50/50 cost share between the Federal Government and our local
sponsor, the State of Florida
To date, I believe we have spent $2 billion, again 50/50
cost shared, so part of that has been spent by the state and
some by the Federal Government. But the numbers I gave in my
testimony, I think it was between 2005 to now we have spent
$735 million.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. And after reviewing details of the
restoration plan, it appears that the vast majority of the work
done by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District has occurred south of Lake Okeechobee. Is
that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it is.
Dr. Fleming. Why?
Ms. Darcy. Well, that is where the hydrology needed the
most attention immediately. If you look at the lake, you have
Lake Okeechobee and what is south of the lake. I mean, the
water that comes from the lake traditionally since the 1950s
has been going out to tide. With the Caloosahatchee River on
one side and St. Lucie estuary on the other, so the water has
been going out to tide.
What we are trying to do now is to get the water to flow
south. Our initial projects have been mostly on the sides, if
you have the map up there. There, south you can see the water
conservation areas. That is where we can collect water, store
it. Through those stormwater treatment areas the water gets
treated and then it is released to flow south.
So that is where we have concentrated our initial efforts.
The planning process I alluded to in my testimony is where we
are looking next. If you look at this, one of our engineers
calls it the wishbone. We have been doing most of our work on
either side of the lake, and so what we are going to look at
now in this planning process is the middle, is the sheet flow
of the central part of the Everglades.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. And based on your math, you are going to
need an additional $6 billion in Federal money?
Ms. Darcy. Over the course of the project.
Dr. Fleming. Right. Okay. All right. I yield back, and I
recognize Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us
follow along that line, Secretary Darcy.
I think for anyone who is listening to us they may be
getting confused about what the Army Corps' role is in all of
this and what CERP, as you call it, which is the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, and how does that then fit into
what Ms. Jacobson is talking about, which is the Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge.
So can someone in a short sentence or so tell us how the
two fit together, whether they overlap and for anyone listening
in that they can get a better idea of what the Army Corps' role
is and what Fish and Wildlife's role is?
Ms. Darcy. Certainly. The Army Corps of Engineers builds
stuff, and so we are the engineers who try to get the water
right.
In talking about the refuge, which would be north of the
lake, that will help, as has been discussed, in helping to keep
the water north and also to help in the natural treatment of
the water. So it is all connected. It is a huge system. It is a
huge, complex system. And so what we are trying to do in order
to get the water right, both the quality, the quantity, the
distribution and the timing of it, is to be working with the
Department of the Interior because of the refuges and the
endangered species impacts of whatever we do.
So there is a balance between what we do in our
construction, whether it is around the lake or south or in
constructing a stormwater treatment area. The Corps of
Engineers has constructed one stormwater treatment area. The
State of Florida has constructed five other ones. Again, they
are all south of there, but they are all connected because the
water has to eventually go through Loxahatchee, the Big Cypress
and all of those wildlife refuges, as well as the preservation
areas as well.
Ms. Hanabusa. Ms. Jacobson, so how do you fit in?
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you. So if the Corps builds stuff, the
Fish and Wildlife Service conserves stuff. So with respect to
the ongoing CERP project and the establishment of the
Everglades Headwaters Refuge, the intent of the refuge area is
to stop a stem of development that would otherwise cause
perhaps a loss of hydrology, natural hydrology of this water
flow.
So by creating a refuge, we, as I said before, will restore
up to 26,000 acres of wetlands. Wetlands serve as an important
filter for nutrients and other pollutants and will allow a
natural hydrologic flow into the floodplain areas, will provide
for natural storage areas, which will be much cheaper than
constructed storage areas, and all of this is intended to
contribute to the overall health of the ecosystem to very much
complement and perhaps ultimately maybe in the long run reduce
partially the cost of the CERP effort.
Ms. Hanabusa. So you are like nature's way of doing what
the CERP project has to do because we haven't done the natural
way correctly. Would that be a right way of saying it?
Ms. Jacobson. That is our intention. Absolutely.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, both of you are speaking to the funding
source of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Am I hearing
you correctly?
Ms. Darcy. The Land and Water Conservation Fund will be
used for the establishment of the refuge. The funding for any
of the CERP projects comes from appropriations.
Ms. Hanabusa. So let us go back to the funding through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Though you have already
testified that the Administration hasn't specifically requested
funds for 2012, I guess the question is are there,
notwithstanding that, funds like carrying over or still
remaining available to meet the needs that you have for this
upcoming fiscal year?
Ms. Jacobson. We have obviously talked about a lot of
different funding pots and funding needs here. So the place
where we have not requested funding is the Revenue Sharing Act
offset. That is the piece of the funding provided by Congress,
as opposed to just derived from refuge revenues, to compensate
counties and other local authorities for loss of potential tax
revenue.
Separately, the acquisition funding for the fee
acquisitions, as well as the easements, we anticipate that
would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is
appropriated by Congress through royalties and similar receipts
to the general treasury.
Ms. Hanabusa. So when you are out there in the community
and you are meeting with landowners, ranchers, whoever they may
be, who might be considering either selling an easement or
selling in fee simple, you view that a process that will
eventually end up with funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, but I assume from what you are saying that
you don't believe that that is a necessary funding pot now? Is
that correct?
Ms. Jacobson. As soon as we receive the final authorities
through the environmental assessment and the planning documents
to establish administratively the boundaries of a refuge, we
will then begin the negotiations with willing sellers for the
acquisition of those properties.
And through a process that goes on every year, the
Department of the Interior will look at the pot of Land and
Water Conservation funds available and the various
acquisitions, both for parks, refuges and otherwise, plus the
Forest Service also taps into the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, and make funding decisions appropriately.
Ms. Hanabusa. So it is rather premature now because your EA
doesn't appear to even be completed at this point?
Ms. Jacobson. That is correct. The draft is still out for
public comment and of course we will have to go through the
final, so it would be a ways off.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back.
I want to thank the panel for your testimony and hard work,
Secretary Darcy and Ms. Jacobson, and we ask that should
Members have additional questions, they submit them to you in
writing and that you respond to these in writing as well. The
hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive these
responses. Thank you, and we are ready for Panel 2.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Dr. Fleming. I see that our second panel is seated and we
are ready to go. I want to thank you gentlemen for joining us
today. We are now ready to introduce the second panel.
It includes The Honorable William P. Horn, former Assistant
Secretary of the Interior and a past member of the National
Academy of Sciences' Commission on Independent Scientific
Review of Everglades Restoration Progress; The Honorable Rick
Dantzler, former member of the Florida Legislature and Co-
Chairman of the Northern Everglades Alliance; Mr. Eric Draper,
Executive Director, Audubon of Florida; Mr. Bishop Wright, Jr.,
President, Florida Airboat Association; and Mr. Jorge
Gutierrez, Jr., President, Everglades Coordinating Council.
Briefly, repeating my earlier instructions, your written
testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. I ask that
you keep your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in
the invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 4[a]. Our
microphones are not automatic, so you will need to push the
button. Make sure you are nice and close to the microphone as
well.
The timing light is very straightforward. You will be under
green light for four minutes, then yellow light for your final
minute of testimony, and then when it turns red, if you haven't
already, go ahead and wrap up.
Mr. Horn, you are now recognized for five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM P. HORN, PAST MEMBER, NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES' COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROGRESS
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Horn,
and I appear today on my own personal behalf and certainly
appreciate the opportunity to testify on Everglades restoration
priorities.
Based on my experience with these issues over many years,
first as Assistant Secretary of the Interior under President
Reagan and four recent years on the National Academy's
Everglades Restoration Review Committee, I am persuaded that
more commitment to water storage and water quality treatment
south of Lake Okeechobee and elimination of physical barriers
to natural water flows within the Everglades are much higher
restoration priorities than diversion of finite dollars to a
new Federal refuge north of the lake.
The fundamental objective of CERP, as explained by
Secretary Darcy, is to get the water right, to substantially
re-establish clean water flows between Okeechobee and Florida
Bay. And unless this is changed soon, the National Academy
Committee was deeply concerned that adverse ecological changes
occurring in the Glades may not be reversible.
Now, to get the water right CERP clearly recognized the
need to develop substantial water storage capacity outside of
Lake Okeechobee primarily in the form of stormwater treatment
areas, the STAs. Presently there are six of these STAs all
south of the lake covering about 45,000 acres. Construction and
operation of these treatment areas is very pricey.
Notwithstanding these costs, the 2010 committee report from
the Academy concluded ``increasing water storage and associated
water treatment is a major near term priority'' for the
restoration effort. The report also observed that presently
planned STA expansion would still not provide enough water for
full-fledged implementation of CERP projects.
The story is much the same for water quality. Water
delivered into the Everglades is to have no more than 10 parts
per billion of phosphorous as higher levels adversely change
the ecosystem. When CERP was authorized, there was general
belief that the water cleanup could occur within about a
decade, meaning about now. Unfortunately, reality is quite
different because of the persistence of legacy phosphorous in
Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades agricultural area south
of the lake, and the result is that the phosphorous problem
solution is still years in the future.
Because of the persistence of the phosphorous, the Academy
Committee concluded that, ``The current acreage of STAs as
managed is not sufficient to meet existing water flows and
phosphorous loads, and necessary additional STAs are likely to
cost well in excess of $1 billion.'' Given the critical nature
of the water quality and quantity issues, I am persuaded that
hundreds of millions of dollars of fungible taxpayer and
fungible Federal dollars are better off spent on these water
quality issues than they are on a refuge unit north of the
lake.
There are other higher restoration priorities. Congress
authorized Mod Waters in 1989 to help water flows in Everglades
Park fundamentally to breach the dam created by the Tamiami
Trail. The project was delayed for 20 years, only got started
two years ago when Congress had to enact a NEPA exemption, and
because of excessive cost the current scaled down project will
provide only a fraction of the benefits originally
contemplated.
The Corps and the Department are presently examining a
Phase 2 of Mod Waters with a price tag north of $300 million
that would provide the originally envisioned level of benefits.
I would personally strongly urge Congress to fund the second
phase of Mod Waters and realize the full benefits contemplated
from the 1989 authorization before it committed the same
fungible Federal revenues to a northern wildlife refuge.
Even though I can foresee some benefits arising from the
refuge, I am persuaded that the incremental benefits are not
worth the multi hundred million dollar price tag, especially
given the state's present conservation efforts north of the
lake and the more pressing needs south of the lake.
Let me just wrap up with I think there needs to be some
honesty about exactly what the Land and Water Conservation Fund
is and how it works. It is a line of credit. The dollars that
are ostensibly sent into it are not dedicated and solely
limited to land acquisition. Congress for 40 years has
routinely redirected the funding from the LWCF to spend it on
what Congress thinks it needs to be spent on so that a dollar
that goes into this fund, which is not a fund like the Highway
Trust Fund, is not dedicated to land acquisition.
The bottom line is a dollar spent on land acquisition in
the headwaters refuge is a dollar that is not available to be
spent on these more pressing projects south of the lake. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of William P. Horn
Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn and I am appearing today
on my own behalf; my comments are purely my own and I do not purport to
speak for or represent any organizations or committees. I appreciate
the invitation to testify on Everglades restoration, restoration
priorities, and proposals to create a new Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Based on long experience with
Everglades issues, I am persuaded that more commitment to water storage
and water quality treatment, south of Lake Okeechobee, and elimination
of physical barriers to natural water flows within the Everglades, are
much higher priorities for Everglades restoration than diversion of
finite resources, dollars and personnel, to a new refuge unit north of
the Lake. Moreover, the State of Florida has already enacted programs
directed at conservation, including water quality improvement, of the
Lake Okeechobee headwaters region. There is no indication that a
federally directed conservation effort (i.e., a new refuge) will be
superior to the State-directed conservation program. Lastly, as the
federal presence in the greater Everglades eco-system is concentrated
south of the Lake (i.e., Loxahatchee NWR; Florida Panther NWR, Ten
Thousand Islands NWR, Biscayne Bay National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, and Everglades National Park), it makes sense to maintain the
federal focus there and let the State take the lead role north of
Okeechobee.
These conclusions and recommendations arise from long term
professional and personal interest in Everglades issues. As Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks in President
Reagan's second term, I was actively engaged in a number of south
Florida conservation matters. These included (a) negotiations involving
Everglades National Park (ENP), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Governor which led to Congressional
approval of the Modified Water Deliveries (Mod Waters) project in 1989
(designed to provide more natural water flows across the Tamiami Trail
highway into the Shark River Slough within ENP); (b) work with ENP,
SFWMD, and agricultural interests on water management in Canals L-31,
C-111 and the ``Frog Pond'' to provide better water flows into Taylor
Slough in ENP; (c) conception and negotiation of the Arizona-Everglades
land exchange, approved by Congress in 1988, in which 85,000 acres were
added to the Big Cypress National Preserve, 7500 acres added to
complete the Florida Panther NWR, and nearly 20,000 acres acquired to
create from scratch the Ten Thousand Islands NWR (without any land
acquisition expenditures); and (d) negotiation of the Aerojet-SFWMD
exchange, approved by Congress in 1987, which enabled SFWMD to acquire
lands along the C-111 Canal (now part of an Everglades restoration
project nearing completion) as well as additional federal land
acquisition for the Key Deer NWR in the lower Florida Keys. More
recently I served for four years (2007-2010), in a voluntary capacity,
on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on the Independent
Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) and
contributed to the Committee's Biennial Reports published in 2008 and
2010 (``NAS Reports,'' ``Biennial Report,'' ``Report''). Lastly,
regarding the National Wildlife Refuge System, I was Chairman of the
Congressionally-established National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial
Commission in 2002-2003 and played an active role in conception and
enactment of 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act. These experiences
inform this statement.
Everglades Background
Conservation of the Lake Okeechobee headwaters is a valuable and
worthy objective. The waters that flow into the Lake from the north
mostly flow out on the south to nourish and sustain the Everglades. The
`Glades stretched historically from the Lake south to Florida Bay. In
between was the River of Grass--a slow moving ``river'' that was miles
wide and often only inches deep creating a unique subtropical ecosystem
of sawgrass plains, tree islands, and sloughs supporting a profusion of
fish and wildlife. Where these waters emptied into Florida Bay via the
Shark River and Taylor Sloughs (now within Everglades National Park
(ENP)), a rich estuarine habitat was established supporting an
incredible fishery, more wading and fish eating birds, and species such
as the American crocodile.
Between the late 1800's and the 1960's, this water system was
damned, diked, diverted, drained and polluted. This effort--supported
and funded at all levels of government--helped create modern south
Florida but with predictable adverse environmental effects. To offset
these effects, and attempt to save and restore a dying ecosystem,
Congress in 2000 approved the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Program (CERP). Building on previously authorized restoration projects
such as Mod Waters, CERP is an enormous, costly effort to restore the
remaining Everglades to a reasonable measure of health. Befitting such
a massive program, it is based on a partnership with the State of
Florida and responsibilities, and costs, are shared.
``Get the Water Right''
The fundamental objective of CERP is to ``get the water right''--to
substantially reestablish natural water flows between Okeechobee and
Florida Bay. This entails providing sufficient water quantities,
sufficient water quality, and moving the water through the system at
the right time. The right quantities are needed so the Everglades are
not dried out or starved of needed water. It is plainly evident that
substantial reductions of historic water flows over the last 50 years
are precipitating ecological changes in the `Glades that may not be
reversible if corrective action does not occur soon. Similarly, sending
water of insufficient quality through the `Glades also causes adverse
changes, that if not reversed soon, may also be irreversible. A visit
to the Loxahatchee NWR or portions of the State's Water Conservation
Area (WCA) 2 reveals that poor quality water with excessive nutrients,
primarily phosphorus, changes the natural Everglades habitat into a
cattail monoculture.
Historically, over 1.7 million acre/feet of surface water each year
flowed into what is now ENP. Today less than 0.9 million acre/feet flow
into the Park. Decades of diminished flows have taken their toll on
bird populations and fisheries and caused damaging hypersaline
conditions in Florida Bay. CERP seeks to increase present flows to get
significantly closer to the historic 1.7 million acre/feet level.
Lake Okeechobee (along with rainfall) was the primary source of
water feeding the `Glades. The NAS 2008 Biennial CISRERP report
referred to the Lake as the ``heart'' of the Everglades because it
pumped the life giving water into the system. Today, however, the Lake
is beset with problems that prevent it from fulfilling its historic
role--it suffers from serious ``heart disease.'' Water can no longer be
held or stored in the Lake in sufficient quantities because of levee
safety issues, flooding of the littoral zones on the western side,
inundation of endangered species habitat, flood control requirements,
and the risks of excessive water discharges to the St. Lucie River to
the east and Caloosahatchee River to the west in the event that a
tropical storm or hurricane dumps torrential rains in Okeechobee when
it's already full.
To overcome these severe limitations, CERP recognized the need to
develop substantial water storage capacity outside of the Lake so that
enough water would be available to emulate historic flows into the
`Glades. Two forms of storage were envisioned--Stormwater Treatment
Areas (STA's) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR's). The former are
artificially constructed reservoirs in which water is stored and
treated to remove phosphorous; the latter remain untested and of
questionable utility. Presently there are six STA's covering 45,000
acres storing thousands of acre feet of treated water available to be
released to flow south. However, construction and operation of STA's is
expensive. Land must be bought, the reservoirs built, pumps installed,
and money available to pay for operations and maintenance.
Notwithstanding these costs the 2010 NAS report concluded ``increasing
water storage (and associated water treatment) is a major near-term
priority'' (emphasis added). 2010 Biennial Report at 10. The Report
went on to note that even though the agencies are planning another
35,000 acres of STA's, these will not provide enough ``water storage to
support planned [restoration] projects in the remnant Everglades eco-
system.'' Id. at 11; 174. The bottom line is that absent substantial
near term increases in out-of-Okeechobee water storage capacity, in the
form of new STA's, Everglades restoration cannot occur.
The story is much the same regarding water quality. Under the
federal Clean Water Act, related State law, and CERP, water delivered
into the Everglades is to have no more than 10 parts per billion (ppb)
of phosphorus (a nutrient). Water with higher phosphorus levels changes
the ecosystem with adverse environmental effects. Problematically, the
Lake Okeechobee system is laden with phosphorus--the results of decades
of agricultural activities around the Lake. On the north side, cattle
operations were the primary contributors. On the south, farming
(primarily sugar cane) in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) added
tons of phosphorus to the system. When CERP was authorized, it was
believed that a variety of actions could provide sufficient quantities
of clean water (i.e., < 10 ppb phosphorus) in a decade or less.
The reality is quite different: ``Due to legacy phosphorus storage
in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, the lake itself, and the Everglades
Agricultural Area, current phosphorus loadings into the system could
persist for decades.'' 2010 Report at 11. Because of the persistence of
legacy phosphorus, the NAS Committee came to two conclusions: (1)
``Attaining water quality goals throughout the system is likely to be
very costly and take several decades of continued commitment to a
systemwide, integrated planning and design effort that simultaneously
addresses source controls, storage, and treatment over a range of
timescales'', Id. at 11-12; and (2) ``the current acreage of stormwater
treatment areas (STA's), as managed, is not sufficient to treat
existing water flows and phosphorus loads into the Everglades
Protection Area [south of Lake Okeechobee].'' Id. at 12. The costs of
necessary additional STA's--covering over 54,000 acres--was estimated
at $1.1 billion to construct, $27 million to operate each year, and
another $1.1 billion to refurbish every 20 to 25 years. Id.
Until there is additional storage and water treatment capability
south of the Lake, Everglades resource managers--Federal and State--
face extremely difficult choices: (i) withhold water that does not
satisfy the 10 ppb standard and continue to dry up the Everglades with
potential irreversible impacts or (ii) send water south with higher
phosphorus content risking other irreversible ecological changes. Given
the immensity and critical nature of the water quantity and water
quality problems, I am persuaded that hundreds of millions of dollars
that would be spent buying land for an Everglades Headwaters NWR are
better off being redirected to addressing immediately the crying,
pressing need for more STA's. Only with more STA's on line can managers
begin to ``get the water right'' in the Everglades before irreversible
damage is done.
Mod Waters
STA's are not the only Everglades restoration projects of higher
priority than a new refuge. Congress authorized the Mod Waters project
in 1989 to help restore water flows in the Shark River Slough within
ENP. Fundamentally the project is to breach, in part, the ``dam''
created by the Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41 (built across the `Glades before
WW II) to facilitate greater water flows into portions of ENP that have
been water-starved for decades. For a variety of reasons that project
was stalled for over 20 years and construction began in 2009 only after
Congress exempted the project from the National Environmental Policy
Act and related litigation. During the intervening years the costs
escalated and the project now under construction (a one mile bridge on
the Tamiami Trail under which water can flow unimpeded) is a shadow of
what was originally contemplated. As the NAS 2010 Committee report
observed ``the benefits of the 1-mile bridge represent only a fraction
of those envisioned in earlier Mod Waters plans'' (emphasis added). Id.
at 7. The National Park Service is presently examining a second phase
for Mod Waters that would facilitate passage of more water so that the
originally envisioned level of restoration benefits can be realized. I
would urge Congress to expand the already authorized (and under
construction) Mod Waters project, consistent with the original 1989
vision, before it authorized a new refuge north of Okeechobee or
appropriated funding for land acquisition there.
Florida Conservation Programs
Turning attention directly to the Okeechobee headwaters, the
Subcommittee should be aware of comprehensive conservation efforts
there by the State of Florida. After the 10 ppb phosphorus standard was
agreed to, Florida enacted to the Everglades Forever Act in 1994 to
implement that standard including actions north of Okeechobee to
improve water quality. In 2000, recognizing the special problems
afflicting the Lake, the State enacted the Lake Okeechobee Protection
Act. It is specifically designed to restrict phosphorus inflows into
the Lake from its northern headwaters. A TMDL (total maximum daily
load) for phosphorus was set, approved by the federal EPA, and a
variety of other actions initiated to deal with the legacy phosphorus
problem. In 2007, the State acted again to establish the Northern
Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program to deal further with
conservation issues north of the Lake including water quality.
The proposed Headwaters refuge overlays the very areas covered by
these State programs. That raises issues worthy of scrutiny: what
additional benefits, if any, are provided by the establishment of new
federal refuge unit in this area already the focus of State
conservation programs? Are the incremental benefits that might arise
from the refuge worth the expenditure of hundreds of millions of
dollars for federal land acquisition? And as spelled out earlier in
this statement, are those hundreds of millions better spent on STA's,
expanded Mod Waters, or other CERP projects, or on a new refuge?
Conclusion
Even though I can see benefits arising from a Headwaters NWR, I am
not persuaded those incremental benefits are worth the multi-hundred
million dollar price tag given the present State role and programs
north of the Lake and the more pressing Everglades restoration needs to
the south. In a world of unlimited budgets, I could be a supporter of a
Headwaters unit (if it contained hard statutory guarantees for
traditional uses such as fishing and hunting) but that is not the world
we live in today.
Thank you.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you for that every interesting
testimony, Mr. Horn.
Let us see. Next, Mr. Dantzler. You are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK DANTZLER,
CO-CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN EVERGLADES ALLIANCE
Mr. Dantzler. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be
here today on behalf of Northern Everglades Alliance, a
recently formed and, frankly, loosely organized group of
conservationists and landowners and hunters and fishers and
those who are trying to do whatever we can to preserve the
rural landscapes along the Kissimmee River Basin and really
much of the Southwest Florida area that is not yet developed.
With me is LeeAnn Adams. She is from one of the families
that is involved in this effort, a ranching family of several
generations in Florida, so I appreciate her being here.
But we are committed to trying to preserve some kind of
semblance of old Florida. We are trying to prevent this part of
Florida from going the way that much of Florida has gone, this
ever expanding area of concrete and asphalt. And we believe
that this new proposed refuge is absolutely critical to our
efforts, and the reason is it provides a toe-hold around which
everything else will pivot.
Just like development begets development, conservation
begets conservation. And if we can establish this 150,000 acres
right in the middle of this part of Florida that we are trying
to preserve as some semblance of old Florida where there are
rural working ranching landscapes on the horizon, we will go a
long way towards achieving our goal.
Now, I have listened carefully this morning, and, frankly,
I have a sense of what some of the testimony is going to be
that you hear. There are some user groups that are upset with
Fish and Wildlife; I understand that. But frankly, I can't for
the life of me understand why we are on the different side of
this issue because I am one of you. I hunt; I fish. We do all
those things together. It breaks my heart when I see these
parts of Florida developed.
This wildlife refuge at the very least is going to create
50,000 brand new acres available for hunting, and the 100,000
acres that is going to be encumbered with a conservation
easement, perhaps those property owners would allow special
opportunity hunts, maybe youth hunts. There are going to be
some other opportunities for hunting activities on these
100,000 acres I predict, so at the very least we are going to
increase the available hunting by 50,000 acres.
And to oppose the creation of new wildlife refuges because
we are upset with Fish and Wildlife, that would be like being
upset with the contractor who botched the construction of a
sewage treatment facility. You don't oppose the creation of new
sewage treatment facilities. You get the contractor to do it
correctly. And that is what I think we need to do here. If this
refuge satisfies a strategic interest then I think we should do
it and make the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission do it
correctly.
There has been some concern that perhaps this refuge north
of the lake is going to take funding away from the south part
of the lake. I understand that. If there are projects that have
already started south of the lake then I think those should be
completed before we move on.
But the fact of the matter is that if you wait until you
have done everything you would like to do south of the lake
before you do what needs to be done on the north side of the
lake, you are never going to do anything on the north side of
the lake because there is always going to be something to do on
the south side of the lake.
We have an opportunity now to start to stop urban sprawl
and to keep this part of Florida from going the way of many of
the other parts of our state. I served in the Legislature for
nearly 16 years. I chaired the Natural Resources Committee for
many years in the Senate. I actually wrote the Everglades
Forever Act, and I have represented property owners in my
private life who have had to deal with Everglades restoration,
so I understand this from many different perspectives. And
having watched public policy in this area for decades now, I
can tell you that you will never regret tying up land, but if
you don't tie up the land you may very well regret that.
I used to ask myself what three or four things could we
have either done or not done 50 or 100 years ago that would
have saved us a tremendous amount of money and unbelievable
environmental damage, and then I would say what three or four
things are we doing now that we could either do or not do and
save ourselves money and environmental damage?
Frankly, I think we are at one of those moments. I think
that if we take this opportunity to tie up this 150,000 acres
that conservation ethos, that conservation ethic, is going to
spread like wildlife and you are going to see much of the
undeveloped area in Southwest Florida preserve its semblance of
the way of life that we have enjoyed for decades.
Thank you very much for this chance to be with you today. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dantzler follows:]
Statement of Rick Dantzler, Co-Chairman, Northern Everglades Alliance
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Rick Dantzler. I have been invited to testify today on
behalf of the Northern Everglades Alliance, a newly-formed alliance of
concerned citizens committed to protecting the ranching and outdoor
heritage of the Northern Everglades. We are property owners, ranchers,
anglers, hunters, conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts and
businesspeople working together to protect the ranching and
agricultural landscapes of this important area. I co-chair the Northern
Everglades Alliance with Mike Adams, a rancher from St. Lucie County.
The Alliance fully endorses the vision and goals of the proposed
Northern Everglades National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.
I was elected to the Florida House of Representatives when I was
26. I served there for eight years and was then elected to the Florida
Senate. I served in the Senate for nearly eight years but resigned to
run for the office of governor of Florida in 1998, ultimately becoming
the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor and joining the ticket
of Buddy MacKay. I was involuntarily retired from elected public
service after that election and went into private law practice full-
time. That's a euphemistic way of saying we lost.
While in the Senate I chaired the Committee on Natural Resources
and Conservation for several years and sponsored the Everglades Forever
Act, a law that focused primarily on water quality. At the time, the
Everglades Forever Act represented the largest restoration effort of
its kind in history. It was not an easy bill to pass and it wasn't
universally loved, but nearly everyone has grown to embrace it and sees
it as a huge step forward in the effort to restore the Everglades.
In my private practice I've represented property owners in the C-
139 Basin, a 169,000-acre watershed west and south of Lake Okeechobee.
Water leaving the Basin enters the Everglades so I've had to deal with
permitting and regulation and taxation aimed at restoring the
Everglades on behalf of clients. I've seen restoration of the
Everglades from the standpoint of the regulated, and frankly the
regulation has seemed a bit overwhelming at times and my clients have
grown frustrated. For the most part, though, it has been collaborative
with the permitting authorities and we have survived.
I mention this because I want you to know that I've seen the issue
of Everglades restoration from the standpoint of an elected official
wanting the do the right thing for the resource, completely aware of
the limits of public resources and responsibility not to over-tax or
over-regulate. I've also seen what it's like for property owners to
deal with these good intentions, and how difficult it can be. I had a
ranching client who, partly because he had become so concerned about
how difficult compliance with Everglades regulation was going to be,
sold his 22,000-acre ranch to the state. The point is I have experience
in these matters from all relevant viewpoints and don't take positions
on restoration lightly or in a vacuum.
You are asking fair questions about spending priorities and
Everglades restoration. My opinion, perhaps it is shared by members of
this committee, is that government at every level has over-promised,
and we are at a point where some of these promises are going to have to
be balanced with other needs and scaled back in many situations. That
isn't just politics; I believe the American people understand it and
are ready for it.
So how should policy makers proceed in the face of this new
paradigm, and what does it mean for us today? I have two thoughts, one
based on logic and the other based on a personal opinion that gets to
the question of what government is supposed to do and who or what
should it first help.
Logically, it makes the most sense to spend on those projects that
have already received funding but are not finished, and for which the
initial investment would be lost if funding is not continued. Don't
lose the benefit of a project by not finishing it. However, I also
believe we must look at the entire Everglades system and determine what
offers the best hope of fixing it and not just treat the symptoms of
the problem. If a blockage in one's heart was causing poor circulation
in the extremities, the doctor wouldn't treat the problem by massaging
the toes and hands but by removing the blockage.
It's the same way with the Everglades, a system that begins in
Orlando and ends all the way in Florida Bay. It's important that we get
far enough upstream that we aren't just treating the symptoms of an ill
system. Frankly, this isn't exactly how we've done it with Everglades
restoration although I'm not sure we could have done it any
differently, as I'll explain below.
Responding to federal litigation, the state passed the Everglades
Forever Act in 1994, the first of several significant state and federal
legislative efforts in the 1990s to undo some of the damage that was
nearly a century in the making. Had it not been for the litigation, a
good argument could be made that it would have been better to start
farther north in the Everglades system, acknowledging, of course, that
Kissimmee River restoration began decades ago. Perhaps it would have
been better to start in Orlando and work our way down instead of first
focusing on removing phosphorous from contributors closest to the
Everglades proper, as the Everglades Forever Act did.
To fully understand this reasoning it is important to recognize how
severely and intentionally the Everglades system has been altered by
Man.
Beginning in 1905, Governor Napoleon Bonaparte began building what
he called the ``Empire of the Everglades,'' a canal building program in
the Everglades to drain the land, creating dry areas for housing and
agriculture. After several hurricanes in the 1920s put much of South
Florida underwater, the digging began in earnest, and when the federal
government jumped in, so much of the Everglades was drained that nearly
five million Floridians now live on what used to be the Everglades and
700,000 acres of agriculture lie between Lake Okeechobee and what
remains of the Glades.
Why is this relevant? Because water quantity is just as big of an
issue as water quality, and anything Congress can do to return altered
landscapes to a more natural state and help protect areas not yet
altered will assist in satisfying Florida's water supply needs. For
generations we've been of the opinion that standing water is bad, yet
we now know that the draining of standing water is probably the single
most damaging thing ever done to Florida's environment. The northern
portion of the Everglades system along the Kissimmee River Basin and
the agricultural areas north of Lake Okeechobee provide important water
storage areas for the larger Everglades system. Especially in South
Florida where the competition for water between people, agriculture and
the environment is keen, storing water upstream will increase the water
pie and help avoid ``water wars.''
I wish to address specifically the question of what government
should do and who it should first help in the face of diminishing
revenues, as posed earlier. These are my viewpoints, not the views of
the Northern Everglades Alliance, but they come from decades of being
engaged in public policy.
I first look at whom and what can help itself. Government's
responsibility is to create equal opportunity, not equal outcome, for
everyone. The environment and the flora and fauna within it can't help
themselves in the face of Man, and the history of Florida is Man trying
to pound the natural systems into submission. Occasionally Nature
strikes back in the form of a hurricane or flood, but for the most part
the natural systems of Florida have been the losers in this battle.
A redeeming feature of Mankind, though, is our ability to learn and
evolve in our thinking. I don't think the same way I did when I was
younger, and I'm sure you don't either. In Florida, we know that an
economy built on ever-expanding asphalt and concrete is long-term
death. Paving over our best farmland and altering our ecosystems to the
point where they quit working is folly, yet it continues because that's
the way we've always done it.
We need your help in doing it differently in the Northern
Everglades.
We need your help in preserving working, agricultural landscapes of
sufficient scale that agriculture maintains a critical mass that allows
commercial agriculture to be viable. Otherwise farmers and ranchers
become hobbyists, and that costs jobs and a way of life.
We need your help in keeping select parcels from being impacted at
all. Some areas are so special and critical to the public that the
public should own them.
And it is all of these things that the Everglades Headwaters Refuge
and Conservation Area project is intended to do. Properly balanced with
the ongoing work in the southern portion of the system, the
conservation of the Northern Everglades will ensure long-term benefits
for the entire Everglades System at a fraction of the cost.
As indicated earlier, the Northern Everglades Alliance endorses the
vision and goals as articulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the Draft Land Protection Plan/Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife
Refuge and Conservation Area. Let me be clear however. The Northern
Everglades Alliance is endorsing only the vision and goals of the Draft
LPP/Draft EA, and not every word or concept in it. Through public
meetings and comments submitted during the public comment period, we
are working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to further refine
the document. However, we are convinced that it offers the best and
perhaps last hope of saving what remains of ``Old Florida'' in this
part of our state. In our view, we have no choice but to support it if
we wish to protect and preserve a way of life that has sustained our
part of Florida for generations.
We have seen other parts of Florida grow and develop in ways that
are not sustainable, and in the process lose the specialness of their
landscapes. We do not want that to happen in the Kissimmee River
Valley. We wish to preserve the heritage of our region, and in the
process protect the jobs that go along with commercial agriculture and
outdoor pursuits.
We understand that for agriculture to be viable it must have
critical mass. We understand that for there to be fish to catch and
animals to hunt there must be sufficient water and land to support
sustainable populations. We understand that for those engaged in nature
study there must be enough undeveloped land for ecosystems to function.
And most important, we understand that for our state to flourish there
must be water of sufficient quality and quantity. The Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area would go a
long way towards achieving these necessities.
We are particularly pleased with the emphasis on the purchase of
conservation easements. As part of the effort to preserve and protect
our heritage, certainly there are parcels that belong in public
ownership in fee simple, but conservation easements allow continued
farming and ranching, soften the blow to local governments over the
loss of ad valorem tax revenue, free the government of land management
responsibilities, and protect ecosystems from development.
We also appreciate that only willing property owners may
participate in this program, and that no funds will be used to condemn
property. This is good because we are also supporters of private
property rights.
Finally, we see wisdom in establishing the partnership between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. Surely by co-designating the area as a
National Wildlife Refuge and a state Wildlife Management Area it will
lead to additional hunting and fishing opportunities for the public.
For these and other reasons, we support the proposal in concept,
and look forward to working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
flesh out the details. For many of us, our families have been here for
generations, and we wish to have a Florida that our descendants may
enjoy in similar fashion. Frankly, if this effort is successful we
would hope that it would be replicated in other parts of our state
because it is just a matter of time before we experience growth
pressures again. The economic downturn, with all of its heartaches, has
given us a chance to catch our breath and develop a plan to protect our
heritage.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Dantzler.
Mr. Draper, you are up for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC DRAPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON OF
FLORIDA
Mr. Draper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Hanabusa and members of the Subcommittee. I am Eric Draper. I
am the Executive Director of Audubon of Florida, which is a
state affiliate of the National Audubon Society. We are glad to
be here today.
I am particularly honored to be sitting next to Mr.
Dantzler on this panel. As he mentioned, he was the author of
the Everglades Forever Act and has been a long-time bridge
between the conservation community and between the land owning
community in Florida. Such is the fact that just two weeks ago
those two constituencies got together for a dialogue on public
lands, and there is no light really between the land owning
community in the northern part of the Everglades and the
conservation community and particularly on this particular
issue.
Audubon has a long history in Florida working on the
Everglades. We are not just an advocacy organization. We are
actually a landowner in the Northern Everglades. We own the
15,000 acre Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which has close to
100,000 visitors a year. That is part of the economy. We run a
million dollar business down there. We also lease 30,000 acres
of sanctuary of Lake Okeechobee and have partnered with the
State of Florida in other conservation projects.
I just want to tell you thank you so much for paying
attention to the Everglades, particularly the Northern
Everglades. Florida is a special place, and Congress has been
especially helpful in funding and authorizing projects to help
us protect many, many different parts of Florida that are so
special.
The reason we are having a debate about wildlife refuges
today is because we have done such a good job of establishing
wildlife refuges in the State of Florida, and the odd thing
about those refuges is many of them are in fact postage stamp
properties that are protecting very, very unique biological
resources of which we have an abundance in Florida.
Florida's Federal lands and especially the refuges and the
national parks bring millions of people to Florida. Bring
millions of people to Florida. I was in Everglades National
Park last year and I heard many other languages other than
English, and that is an indication. The English we heard was
often times British inflected English. That is an indication
that many people are traveling to South Florida to visit these
properties. They spend a lot of money.
Of course, there is also a lot of money that comes into
Florida from the hunting and fishing community. I will note
that many of these refuges are destinations for fishers, and
fishing brings much more money to Florida. People come to
Florida to fish. They don't come to Florida to hunt. People
leave Florida to hunt for the most part.
Florida has a strong commitment to land conservation.
Congressmen Ross and Rivera have voted for state budgets up to
$300 million a year for Florida Forever and up to $200 million
for Everglades restoration. This is an indication of the
commitment that the State of Florida has.
There has been a partnership, a history of cooperation
between the State of Florida and the Federal Government, and
that was only renewed recently, as you heard from Secretary
Darcy and from Assistant Secretary Jacobson, renewed in the
last couple of weeks where as a result of Governor Scott, our
governor, reaching out to the Federal partners. They have come
together on refocusing on the Central Everglades and on working
together to resolve Florida's longstanding problems with water
quality. We are very, very encouraged by that.
The Everglades has a problem largely because, as I have to
say Congressman Rivera eloquently described what the problems
are with the Everglades, which is a drainage problem, and that
drainage problem is not limited to the south part of the
system. It exists through the entire part of the system. He
talked about what needs to be done to fix it. Frankly, the
Federal Government dug those ditches, they dug the canals, and
we believe the Federal Government has an obligation to come
back in and help to fix the problem.
Now, the link between the north and the south is very, very
important. Here is the problem with the southern part of the
system. There simply is not enough fresh, clean water moving
down into the Everglades. Where does a lot of that water come
from? It comes from the Northern Everglades. It flows into Lake
Okeechobee. It comes into Lake Okeechobee fairly damaged,
fairly polluted with phosphorous, and it has to get cleaned up
before it gets moving south. This is a pretty significant
technological problem.
By the way, I disagree with my co-panelist, Mr. Horn, that
the Federal Government should focus on water quality. That is a
state responsibility, not a Federal Government responsibility,
in terms of cleaning up Florida's water quality problems, but
you can in fact help by securing part of the Northern
Everglades landscape, which this wildlife refuge proposal helps
to do.
We have made great progress in Florida over the last couple
years in creating dispersed water storage projects. We can
store water more cheaply and clean it up more cheaply in
partnership with landowners on their land rather than
building--well, not rather than building projects, but in
addition to building storage treatment projects.
So our recommendation to you is move forward with this.
Allow this Refuge System to move forward because it is a
partnership with the landowners down there. It will provide
additional benefits, particularly the water storage, the fresh
water we need to move south into the restored part of the
Everglades. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Draper follows:]
Statement of Eric Draper, Executive Director, Audubon of Florida
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Hanabusa and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the priorities
for Everglades restoration. I am Eric Draper, Executive Director of
Audubon of Florida, the State office of the National Audubon Society.
With more than 450 chapters across the country including 44 in Florida,
and more than one million members, volunteers and supporters, Audubon
has a long history of involvement in protecting and restoring the
Everglades.
Audubon is supportive of the Everglades Headwaters National
Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (Everglades Headwaters NWR and
CA) proposal because it advances Audubon's goals for restoration and
its mission to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on
birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity
and the earth's biological diversity. Protecting the Everglades
Headwaters can provide important protection for threatened and
endangered species, and in order to more successfully fix the lower end
of an aquatic ecosystem, problems that originate in its headwaters must
be addressed. The desire of most of the major landowners in the
Everglades Headwaters to participate in the refuge and conservation
area responds to concerns about the future of the source of water that
is the wellspring of the Everglades.
Audubon has worked for over a century to protect and restore
America's Everglades. Famous for its abundance of bird life, the
Everglades has faced many challenges. From the time of the murder of
Audubon Warden Guy Bradley by plume hunters as he fought to protect
some of the Everglades' wading birds, to the nearly devastating changes
from the 20th century attempts to ditch, dike, and drain the watershed
for development and agriculture, Audubon and our supporters have led an
unprecedented ecological intervention. However, we are not just
advocates. Audubon is a major landowner in Florida. Our Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary attracts more than 100,000 paying visitors each year and is
considered the premium Everglades experience. Nearly 30,000 acres of
Lake Okeechobee marshes are leased to Audubon and we own thousands of
acres in Rookery Bay, a federally designated estuary.
In addition to the importance of the Everglades for the wildlife
which made it famous, this unique ecological treasure also provides the
water supply for one of America's largest urban areas. Without a
healthy Everglades, one in three Floridians would have to look
elsewhere for their drinking water. Florida will be unable to
accommodate its projected population and commercial growth without
protecting this resource.
Clean and sufficient freshwater also forms a critical component of
Florida's tourism economy. The economic losses of business in Florida
due to the mere perception of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill demonstrate the inextricable connection between a healthy
environment and economy in Florida. Results of a study conducted in
2010 by Mather Economics on behalf of the Everglades Foundation,
Measuring the Economic Benefits of Everglades Restoration, i
demonstrates the potential economic benefits from Everglades
restoration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Mather Economics. 2010. Measuring the Economic Benefits of
Everglades Restoration:
An Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem Services Affiliated with the
World's Largest Ecosystem Restoration Project. Mather Economics, 43
Woodstock Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Our analysis strongly suggests that restoration of the
Everglades as described and planned in CERP will have large
economic benefits. Our best estimate is that restoration will
generate an increase in economic welfare of approximately $46.5
billion in net present value terms that could range up to
$123.9 billion. The return on investment, as measured by the
benefit-cost ratio, assuming a cost of restoration of $11.5
billion, is also high and significant, 4.04, which means for
every one dollar invested in Everglades restoration $4.04
dollars are generated. Everglades restoration will also have an
incremental impact on employment of about 442,000 additional
workers over 50 years. In addition, the Corps of Engineers
estimates there will be 22,000 jobs created as a result of the
actual restoration projects. Throughout our analysis, we have
taken a very conservative approach to estimation. Accordingly
our best estimates almost surely understate the return on
investment of Everglades restoration.''
Audubon uses bird populations as the measure of health of the
Everglades and success of restoration efforts. Information about
threatened or endangered birds provided by Audubon's field science
helps to form the basis of understanding how the natural system works
and its water quantity and timing needs. Recently, we have drawn
specific focus toward the Northern Everglades as an essential part of
the preservation and restoration of the Everglades.
Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA Provides Benefits for Water, Wildlife
and Florida's Cattle Ranching Economy:
Ranching
According to the University of Florida's Institute for Food and
Agricultural Services Florida has a rich history of cattle ranching and
is one of the leading states in cattle production. Florida is a cow-
calf state, producing quality calves that are shipped to other states.
Florida's annual beef cattle sales and sales of breeding stock easily
push annual farm gate sales over a half-billion dollars. Cattle ranches
contain much of Florida's remaining native habitat, particularly in
central and South Florida. Consequently, cattle ranches have an
important role in the future of Florida's wildlife. Nonetheless, both
the number of ranches and the amount of land in cattle ranches decrease
every year. Many ranchers, especially in the Lake Okeechobee watershed
or Northern Everglades area are very good stewards of land. Ranchers
manage for wildlife habitat in part because hunting leases are part of
many ranches' financial base. According to the Florida Cattlemen's
Association real estate developers are quickly buying up what is left
of Florida's pristine ranch land. In an industry with historically low
profit margins, it is hard for a rancher to give up cash bonanza for
selling their land. Florida once was a farm rich state, but with
continued population growth and development, it is becoming a more
urbanized region each year. The Florida Cattlemen's Association works
to create a greater understanding among Florida citizens of the
problems faced by cattle ranchers.
Many ranchers, such as Bud Adams, Cary Lightsy and Charlie Lykes
are proud of the way they have managed their land for water and
wildlife benefits. This is why Audubon, The Nature Conservancy and
other conservation groups have worked over the past decade with
Florida's ranchers to develop programs that will keep this important
land use part of Florida's landscape. At a recent Dialogue on
Conservation Lands there was little difference in viewpoint between
ranchers and conservationists.
Wildlife Benefits:
Audubon comes to its support of the Everglades Headwaters NWR and
CA through a half-century of collaborative efforts with Kissimmee
Valley cattle ranchers. Beginning in 1961, Audubon worked to establish
cooperative Eagle Sanctuaries on ranchlands north of Lake Okeechobee.
By October 1962, 59 ranch properties encompassing 600,000 acres were
enrolled in the Audubon voluntary sanctuary network, protecting what at
the time was the last bastion of viable Bald Eagle breeding populations
in the lower 48 states. By working with ranchers to protect America's
great symbol, we learned about their excellent land ethic and
stewardship.
National Audubon Society has had full-time staff working in the
Kissimmee Valley since 1936. The first staff were game wardens, paid by
National Audubon Society and deputized by state and federal
governments. They patrolled Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee Prairie
region, where Audubon's interest was tied to five endemic (found only
in Florida) subspecies of prairie birds: Audubon's Crested Caracara
(Caracara cheriway audubonii), Florida Burrowing Owl (Althene
cunicularia floridana), Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis
pratensis), Florida's Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula fulvigula) and one
of the most endangered birds in the nation, the Florida Grasshopper
Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus). Wardens also protected
wading bird nesting colonies in the region and were instrumental in
securing protection of Audubon's 7,300 acre Ordway-Whittell Kissimmee
Prairie Sanctuary. This original dry prairie private protection
strategy facilitated state protection of the adjacent Kissimmee Prairie
Preserve State Park. The Audubon Sanctuary was folded into the state
preserve, which is now part of and a focal area for the proposed
Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA. Florida's dry prairie ecosystem is
acre-for-acre, one of the most diverse plant communities in North
America. ii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Orzell, S. L. and E. L. Bridges. 2006. Floristic composition
of the South-Central Florida dry prairie landscape. Pages 64-99 in Land
of Fire and Water: the Florida dry prairie ecosystem. Proceedings of
the Florida Dry Prairie Conference. R. F. Noss, ed. E. O Painter
Printing Co., DeLeon Springs, FL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the lands targeted for the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA,
along with the Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park, make up the
remnants of Florida's endemic Dry Prairie ecosystem. The endangered
Florida Grasshopper Sparrow exists only in three distinct populations,
one of which is centered on land offered as part of the proposal.
Similarly, the Florida population of Audubon's Crested Caracara is
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is isolated
from the remainder of the subspecies in the southwestern U.S. and
Central America. The Caracara's reliance on the prairie area of the
south-central region of Florida makes conservation in this area
critical for its survival.
Because Everglades waters flow downstream from the Kissimmee River
through Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Headwaters refuge will deliver
major benefits for the habitat of the endangered Everglade Snail Kite
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus. There are only 700 individual Kites
left in Florida, and Audubon has made its survival a top priority. The
featured article in the November/December 2011 issue of Audubon
Magazine is ``The Everglades: A Watershed Moment,'' focused on the
plight of the Everglade Snail Kite and how decisions about water
management in Lake Okeechobee and its watershed impact the Kite's
chance of survival.
Lake Okeechobee and Everglades Hydrology: The Refuge and Conservation
Area Could Help Substantially Reduce Harmful Impacts of Over-
Drainage:
In the summer of 2004, Florida had four tropical systems cross the
Kissimmee Valley (Charley, Francis, Jeanne, Ivan), dumping unexpected
amounts of rain. Due to the very efficient drainage system created by
the Central and Southern Florida water management system, this water
was very quickly shunted down to Lake Okeechobee, causing it rise to 18
feet deep. At this depth, about 75 square miles of plant communities
were drowned out and concerns arose for the integrity of the Hoover
Dike that encircles the lake and protects communities downstream. In
response to this rapid rise in water levels, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) released massive amounts of water to the St. Lucie
and Caloosahatchee Estuaries to rapidly lower the lake. These releases
killed seagrasses, oysters, and other bottom-dwelling organisms. The
lake as well as the downstream St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Rivers and
estuaries took years to recover with a tremendous negative impact on
commercial and recreational fisheries.
In 2005, when Hurricane Wilma hit Florida, the lake again rose
above 17 feet, and the Hoover Dike was reported in a Corps report as
``within hours of failing'' due to the hurricane surge. Massive amounts
of water were again discharged to tide throughout the spring of 2006.
By 2007, South Florida was in a drought, and by the spring of 2007,
water supply for farms and cities was severely rationed (45% reduction
in water use). These alternating years of drought and storms are a good
description of the problems facing the Everglades ecosystem and
potential benefits of adding lands to a refuge and conservation area.
Florida discharged to tide the equivalent of 6 years of water supply in
two years, and then came close to running out of water the year that
followed.
This unnatural drainage contributes to excessively high levels
during wet periods and excessively low levels during drought. In its
natural condition, the Kissimmee Valley would take six to eight months
to discharge its wet season loads into Lake Okeechobee. Now this same
water drainage takes place within one month, making the lake rise at an
unnaturally rapid pace. Conversely, when droughts begin, the six to
eight months of base flow that the Kissimmee Valley used to contribute
to the lake throughout the dry season no longer replenishes the Lake,
allowing the lake drop more rapidly than in the past. Adding to the
rapid lowering of the Lake are water supply withdrawals, which can
withdraw 20% of the 730 square mile Lake's water in just one season.
The solution is more water storage capacity upstream and downstream
of the lake. If by reversing unnecessary drainage and allowing water to
pool during wet periods, less water will flash downstream to the Lake.
Then as rainfall decreases and the annual winter drought begins, there
will be water upstream that can slowly seep into the Lake to help
prevent extreme low levels.
Audubon issued a report in 2007 iii that predicted
substantially more storage would be needed upstream of the Lake than
CERP and other plans anticipated. The agencies in turn, revisited their
calculations and concurred, raising the total storage capacity goals
from 300,000 acre-feet to a range of 900,000-1.3 million acre-feet.
iv The ensuing question was, ``how to store that much
water?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Audubon of Florida. Lake Okeechobee restoration: watershed,
weather, and strategies toward achieving goals. P. N. Gray, C. J
Farrell, T. Romine, eds. Audubon of Florida. Miami. http://
www.audubonofflorida.org/pubs_OkeechobeeReport.html
\iv\ South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. 2008. Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction
Project: Phase II Technical Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A partial answer is termed ``Dispersed Water Management'' (DWM). It
works cooperatively with private landowners to store excess water on
private lands. World Wildlife Fund conducted a pilot project with eight
ranches in the Lake Okeechobee watershed to test what benefits to
hydrology, nutrient movement, and other factors could be gained through
this type of process. v Attractive benefits of this
arrangement include relatively low cost, keeping land on the tax roles
and producing food and fiber, preserving a cultural way of life, and
being administratively agile--projects can be rapidly implemented in
almost any location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Lynch, S. and L. Shabman. 2011. Designing a payment for
environmental services program for the Northern Everglades. National
Wetlands Newsletter 33:12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pilot projects proved successful and Florida is scaling DWM up
with a 450,000 acre-foot capacity goal. vi There are many
types of DWM possible. One approach allows Payment for Environmental
Services, where ranchers are compensated for providing water storage--
mostly by simply preventing excess drainage. Other tools are wetland
conservation easements and wetland restoration on public lands.
Considering that the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA could be
implemented across a total of 150,000 acres of land, these acres could
contribute considerable capacity to complement the state's program and
meet the water storage goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. 2011. Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Update.
SFWMD, West Palm Beach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality Goals:
For decades, Lake Okeechobee and its tributaries have experienced
excessive phosphorus and nitrogen loads. In response to these problems,
in 1987, the Florida legislature enacted the Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Act, which required the state's water management
districts to develop restoration plans for priority water bodies. In
1989, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) developed a
SWIM Plan to control phosphorus loading to Lake Okeechobee. Despite the
plan, no substantial phosphorus reductions were achieved during the
1990s. To further act to restore and protect Lake Okeechobee, the
Florida legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (LOPA)
(Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes [F.S.]) in 2000 to establish the
Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP). In 2007, after continuing
problems, the legislature amended the LOPA in Chapter 373.4595, F.S.,
and enacted the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program
(Northern Everglades EPP). The Northern Everglades EPP expanded Lake
Okeechobee restoration efforts to include the Caloosahatchee and St.
Lucie River watersheds and substantially increased water storage and
treatment goals upstream of the Lake.
NEEPP mandates that a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of 140 metric
tons (mt) of total phosphorus (TP) per year flowing to the lake be met
by January 1, 2015. This TMDL was adopted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) in 2001 and was established in
accordance with Section 403.067, F.S. Northern Everglades EPP promotes
a comprehensive and interconnected watershed approach to protection of
the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River, and St. Lucie River
watersheds. State agencies, including the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, work cooperatively to address these
interconnected issues to rehabilitate the lake and enhance the
ecosystem services that it provides while maintaining its contributions
to the regional water supply and flood control.
Audubon holds that continued phosphorus loading and the rapid
movement of surface water toward Lake Okeechobee is an extremely urgent
issue for South Florida. The phosphorus already accumulated within lake
sediments is enough to keep the lake phosphorus enriched for decades
vii without further additions. Similarly, the phosphorus
previously applied by humans to the watershed, termed ``legacy load,''
appears enough to continue annual loads in the 500 mt range for 20-50
years without further additions. viii Unfortunately, annual
additions continue, meaning that without change, in 50 years the legacy
load could be twice as great as present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ BBL (Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc.) 2002. Draft Evaluation of
alternatives, Lake Okeechobee sediment management feasibility study.
For SFWMD. Boca Raton, FL.
\viii\ Reddy, K. R., M. Clark, J. Mitchell, E. Dunne, A. Cheesman,
and Y. Wang. 2010. Phosphorus management in the Okeechobee basin:
Legacy phosphorus--implications to restoration and management.
Presentation to Northern Everglades Interagency Committee, June 2,
2010, Okeechobee, FL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both agriculture and urban areas contribute significantly to the
on-going imports. Most notably, the largest land use category listed in
the LOPP update (improved pasture at 676,991 acres) showed a 15%
increase in phosphorus loading, apparently due to dumping human sludge.
Urban land uses, while only 12 percent of the watershed, account for 29
percent of the total net phosphorus import. ix Therefore,
both Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA goals of reducing additional
urban development in the Northern Everglades and returning some acreage
of improved pasture to natural conditions will help with the water
quality challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ix\ Id. At iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storing water north of the lake is also the first step in slowing
flows toward the lake to allow for increased water quality treatment.
Conservation easements also provide an opportunity to reduce fertilizer
use or sludge dumping. The National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciencies' Committee on Independent Scientific Review of
Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) noted in its 2010 biennial
report that ``an aggressive combination of agricultural and urban BMPs,
payment to landowners for ecosystem services beyond basic agricultural
BMPs, regional and subregional treatment systems, and intensive
chemical treatment of surface-water flows to the lake will be required
to improve the water quality enough to meet the established TMDL.'' The
Everglades Headwater NWR and CA can play a critical role in this multi-
faceted effort.
Working Together with Willing Sellers:
Audubon's support for the Everglades Headwaters proposal also stems
from the knowledge that this is a willing seller only program with
100,000 acres targeted for conservation easements, and 50,000 acres
targeted for full acquisition. We have worked closely with and listened
carefully to the needs and concerns of ranchers in the region. There
are tenuous economic prospects for many of these large properties.
Ranchers who have worked their land for generations recognize that the
opportunity to sell permanent conservation easements through programs
such as the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA can allow their way of
life to continue, and those who wish to sell their properties for
conservation recognize that this is vital to preventing ranches from
ending up on the auction block and becoming the sites for future
subdivisions.
The Everglades Headwaters proposal got its start in cooperative
discussions with ranchers who were genuinely concerned that the
marginal economics of ranching would soon put many ranches on the
auction block. Enlisting ranchers as partners and compensating them for
important environmental services keeps them in business, retains land
on the tax rolls, and achieves restoration benefits at far less cost
than traditional public works projects. Audubon also took note of the
support from the nearby Avon Park Air Force Range, who recognized the
importance of maintaining these lands in natural conditions to provide
a buffer for their activities. The easements and selective land
purchases that will result from the Everglades Headwaters proposal will
be key building blocks in reaching those goals.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has represented that access to
the lands enrolled in the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA will be
through partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and that designation as a state Wildlife Management Area
will be sought to allow additional hunting and fishing opportunities
for the public. Audubon encourages this approach. As a landowner, we
recognize the importance of allowing compatible public access to
natural areas for enjoyment and education. For example, on our
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary property in Naples, we provide a boardwalk
for wildlife viewing and swamp buggy rides for visitors. Recently,
although we did not agree with all of the specific details of the
National Park Service's decisions regarding access in the Big Cypress
National Preserve and Addition Lands management plans, we supported the
compromise reached to balance access with protecting the resource while
allowing traditional uses to continue. In that example, the Big Cypress
National Preserve would not have been established without the
cooperation of the proponents for recreational use of the property.
All of the facts outlined above demonstrate that the Everglades
Headwaters NWR and CA provides a true win-win-win solution to economic,
wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity challenges in a public
private partnership framework.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP):
As part of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)--the most ambitious
ecosystem restoration project undertaken in the World--was passed by a
bipartisan vote with only one dissenting vote, and signed into law.
Funding for this plan was set up to share the costs 50/50 between the
State of Florida and federal government and was expected to take 30-50
years to complete.
One of the hallmarks of CERP was that it would be a science-driven
plan. Therefore, adaptive management was used in restoration to allow
new scientific information and learning to be incorporated into
decisions, in order to improve restoration success. Section 2039 of
WRDA 2007 codified this requirement that adaptive management be used
when implementing large scale ecosystem restoration projects.
In addition to the updated Northern Everglades storage needs
outline above, one such piece of new information involves the amount of
water that flowed through the entire historic Everglades in its natural
condition. While CERP originally planned for 1.7 million acre/feet of
water per year, new scientific consensus demonstrates the need for 2.1
million acre/feet of water per year. The proposed Everglades Headwaters
NWR and CA can help store some of this additional water that is needed
in an efficient way, working with willing sellers and ranchers looking
to maintain their traditional ways of life. Another lesson learned
through adaptive management is that taking advantage of natural, low-
tech opportunities to store and clean water is often a much more cost-
effective way to proceed with Everglades Restoration.
Everglades Restoration Progress:
Unprecedented progress has been made toward implementing CERP in
recent years and we are at the critical point where all projects
authorized by Congress are under construction.
In early 2010, construction began on the Picayune
Strand restoration project, which will restore 55,000 acres--
removing roads and filling in canals built to facilitate a
failed subdivision to restore the natural hydrology on these
lands without impacting neighboring landowners. Two of four
phases of this project are under construction. The first phase
will be complete in 2012 with all phases slated for completion
in 2016.
In October 2010, construction on the Site 1
Impoundment project began which will improve water quality and
provide storage needed to mitigate for Florida's cycle of
drought and flooding risks.
In October 2011, the Indian River Lagoon project
broke ground. In the past several years, after multiple large
rain events, sizeable quantities of freshwater from Lake
Okeechobee have been released into the Indian River Lagoon and
St. Lucie Estuary. These water releases have altered salinity
levels and introduced contaminants into both the Lagoon and
Estuary. This project will provide storage and water quality
treatment to protect these natural resources that are a
critical economic engine for Florida's treasure coast.
Additional natural storage north of Lake Okeechobee that will
be achieved with the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA will also
provide benefits for this region, which is home to more than
4,300 plant and wildlife species that have suffered from water
pollution and changes in the delicate balance of fresh and salt
water that is necessary for their survival.
Although CERP provided for a 50/50 cost share, the State of Florida
advanced construction funds to achieve additional restoration progress
while awaiting Congressional authorization and funding. This is in
addition to the billions spent by the State of Florida on water quality
improvements.
The State began construction on the C-111 Spreader
Canal Part 1 CERP project in 2010 and this project is scheduled
for completion before the end of the calendar year. The C-111
SC project will restore flows to Taylor Slough in Florida Bay.
The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Deering Estate CERP
project is also under construction using funds advanced by the
State of Florida and will be completed in early 2012.
In addition to the CERP projects above, great advances have
occurred in other Everglades restoration projects.
Originally authorized in 1989, the Tamiami Trail
bridge component of the Modified Water Deliveries Project is
under construction and set to be completed in 2013. The
construction is a visible indicator to the citizens of South
Florida that restoration is underway and creating badly needed
construction jobs in South Florida.
Critical projects authorized in 1996 are under
construction.
Kissimmee River Restoration, authorized in 1992, is
nearing its final construction phase and continues to be one of
the World's best examples of successful ecosystem restoration.
In addition to this unprecedented progress in ecosystem
restoration, this past week the Army Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District announced the start of the Central
Everglades planning process, which will incorporate updated science and
maximize use of publicly owned lands to focus the next phase of
Everglades Restoration on the Central and Southern Everglades, all
while advancing the timeline for restoration planning to 18 months.
This program will allow ecological benefits to be realized faster.
After a steady stream of project groundbreakings during the past two
years, the next two years are set to provide a flow of project ribbon
cuttings and projects being operated to benefit Florida's environment
and economy.
Conclusion--The Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA Complements CERP and
Makes Restoration More Successful:
The investments already made in Everglades restoration will be
enhanced by the Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA.
The first effort to focus on the Northern Everglades was Kissimmee
River Restoration, authorized by Congress almost 20 years ago in 1992.
The Everglades Headwaters NWR and CA proposal helps the Kissimmee River
Restoration project succeed by assuring that land surrounding the
restored river will be maintained in conservation and provide water
storage and cleansing opportunities rather than being sold for
development.
Since the understanding of the storage needs North of Lake
Okeechobee has increased since CERP was first planned, new solutions
have been sought for this storage. Lands made part of the Everglades
Headwaters NWR and CA will provide some of this storage by remaining in
their natural conditions rather than being drained for development or
agricultural production. Holding water in this natural way will also
reduce the phosphorus pollution entering Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades. Improving water quality north of Lake Okeechobee as well as
south of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades Agricultural Area is
necessary to prevent ecosystem degradation. Since it is clear that
existing programs alone will be unable to meet water quality goals, the
proposal will provide needed water quality improvements while providing
concurrent habitat and recreational benefits and preserving a
traditional way of life and economic base of ranching.
Because of the multiple benefits the Everglades Headwater NWR and
CA can provide, we support the proposal and look forward to working
with the interested landowners, recreational users and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to achieve our common goals that can benefit all
Floridians
Florida is an extraordinary place. A land full of unique and
special places. The Everglades is a region, really 1/5 of our landscape
that is--to use the words of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas--unlike any
other. The impact of the dredge and plow on this wonderful system
cannot be completely undone. The federal government spent the funds to
drain, ditch and dike the system. As much as is possible must be done
to repair the damage. Our water, wildlife and way of life depend on it.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Draper.
Next, Mr. Wright?
STATEMENT OF BISHOP WRIGHT, JR., PRESIDENT,
FLORIDA AIRBOAT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Wright. Chairman Fleming and the Committee, thank you.
It is an honor to be here today and represent 26,000 registered
airboaters in the State of Florida. As you can see, there are
more airboaters in the State of Florida than the rest of the
nation.
With that said, I have lived in West Palm Beach for my
entire 46 years, going on 47 years, and today I am going to
talk about an area in my backyard that my father and his
founding friends enjoyed and recreated in, and I am going to
give a comparison to two areas next to it that we did the same.
I want to say that airboaters are unique individuals. For
one, we don't really appreciate land being locked up. Maybe
some people feel here in the community that we are selfish and
there is a reason why we don't want to buy this land. Well, the
real truth is out of all the refuges we have they use airboats
as a main source or tool to get around in those refuges, but
nowhere in those refuges do they allow airboats for public use.
That may be acceptable in states like Louisiana, but it is not
acceptable in Florida. We won't tolerate it, for one. We fight
every day for that. It is unAmerican is how we look at it.
Now I want to get in the history of the conservation areas.
There are three of them down there, Conservation Area 1, 3 and
4. With that said, it is 815,705 acres total, and 143,000 acres
of it is Conservation Area 1. That is where Arthur Marshall and
the Federal Government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, has taken
in that land and they locked it up, stopped all recreational
opportunity to speak of. They do allow a little bit, minor in
some parts of it.
With that--I am losing my thought here, and I am sorry. All
right. Conservation Area 1 is an area that basically has
stopped all recreational opportunity with no access in
Loxahatchee. Basically it was leased from the South Florida
Water Management District to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife with a
50 year contract. There is a lot of the community that didn't
really want to see that renewed, that 50 year lease, because of
what they did.
In Conservation Area 2 and 3, the sportsmen basically have
been in there. We are the eyes and ears. We will look over this
piece of property. We watch over it. We make sure that it
doesn't have exotics in it. We make sure that it is managed. We
watch over the high waters. We fight for control of the
structures and keep the high water from coming out of this
land. So we are the eyes and ears, and we kept that area exotic
free.
We watched for years in Conservation Area 1. We watched for
years that it growed and growed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife did
not put the money in to getting rid of the exotics. When it
come time in 2001 that their 50 year lease was to be renewed by
the South Florida Water Management District, we went to the
South Florida Water Management District and we asked them not
to renew that lease because it was over 70 percent exotic. It
was taken over.
They didn't put the money in it because there was nobody in
there screaming and hollering. There was nobody in the
interior. For 17 years, Burkett Neeley, the refuge manager,
kept pretty much everybody out. He made sure that that area was
not to be visited. He did a lot of things. He made sure that
the boat ramps were almost impossible to use. He run the
airboaters out of there. He basically made them go down and get
a permit, and if you could airboat in other areas back then you
would give up that thought, so you didn't really go into that
area.
He ran the bass fishermen out of there. He didn't allow
them to have tournaments. He just continued to run everybody
out. With that said, he just basically kept us out of there,
and that is the reason. I am losing time here, so I am going to
go off into some other areas. That is just the backyard.
Some people said that why do people leave Florida to go
hunting? Because most of the land in Florida is owned by the
Federal Government in the South. That is the reason why the
hunters are up in arms that they are going to buy Central
Florida, the only place we got left to recreate and do what we
like, traditional users basically getting to use the land. That
is why we are upset.
Sportsmen are the people who went out and eradicated the
trees and the areas they do. They are the eyes and ears, and
they have more to lose than any other group. That is the reason
why we are so upset that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife is coming
in here. That is the reason why we oppose this plan because of
the practice that the Fish and Wildlife Commission has.
And I want to say that our founding fathers are upset with
the way this happened. That is the reason why they preserved a
lot of this land that we have today that is hunted in the State
of Florida through Everglades Florida, the coral program. It
was hunters who invented all that system to buy land in
Florida. You asked earlier, and that is the reason why we
cherish the lands we got because we see how they can be
managed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Statement of Bishop M. Wright, Jr., President,
Florida Airboat Association Inc.
Members of the House Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans
and Insular Affairs House Committee on Natural Resources thank you for
inviting me to present testimony on behalf of 26,000 registered
Airboaters in the state of Florida to you today. My name is Bishop
Wright Jr. and I live in West Palm Beach, Florida.
I am here representing the Florida Airboat Association as its
President. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to tell you about
the impacts facing my family, and the Sportsmen's community as a result
of federal actions. Also, I want to suggest some common sense federal
actions that can positively address the deplorable situation. First of
all Airboaters are not the type of people who condone ``A lock the
gate'' land management philosophy that doesn't allow Florida citizens
to enjoy their public lands and waterways.
The following are examples of why we will never support this type
of harmful, unfair and un-American so-called land stewardship.
#1. The history of federal permitting of ``recreational
activities'' on national wildlife refuge in Florida:
Water Conservation Area One, also known as Arthur R. Marshall. The
South Florida Water Management District leases Loxahatchee Wildlife
Refuge, to the US Fish and Wildlife Services. It is managed entirely
differently than Conservation Areas two and three located in the same
area. For the last 20 years airboat recreation has been prohibited
under the wildlife refuge philosophy of protecting the resources. On
conversation area 1, the ``lock-em-out'' federal land management
philosophy of USFWS has resulted in an invasive exotic vegetation
infestation of over 70% of the refuge. Yet in the other two
Conservation Areas, managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission, which embraces recreational airboating, hunting and
fishing, exotic vegetation has been virtually eradicated. The
difference between the USFWS refuge and the commission-managed lands is
simple; airboaters and sportsmen serve as the eyes and ears and the
whistleblowers for the land. When citizens are allowed to access the
land and enjoy an area, they develop a close connection with the land,
and become actively involved in its management. They don't and won't
allow the land to be degraded and become infested with exotic species,
which choke out the native species. With No Access areas such as
Loxahatchee Arthur R. Marshall Conservation Area the result is: There
are no eyes and ears on the land or water, which means no
whistleblowers; so the wildlife and its habitat will always suffer when
this happens. Despite all of its treasures, the refuge is in serious
danger of quickly becoming an exclusive haven for invasive plants, Like
the Melaleuca tree; Old World climbing fern (Lygodium Vine), and the
Brazilian Pepper also known as Florida Holly. These are all rapidly
growing non-native species, which are quickly overgrowing the native
flora and are not compatible with the native wildlife. In 1951, a
license agreement between the South Florida Water Management District
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, enabled the establishment of the 143,874-acre
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Hunting and public access to
federal land was the mitigation for drainage and development of land in
the Everglades. To the south and southwest of the refuge lay Water
Conservation Areas 2 and 3, and Everglades National Park the only
remaining portions of the Everglades fresh water marsh. Water
Conservation Areas 2 and 3 (WCA 2 & 3) are signature Everglades
Sawgrass marsh, interspersed with tree islands. Ownership is mixed,
with State, South Florida Water Management District and private
ownership. The State leases portions of its land to the Micosukee
Indian Tribe. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
manages the land to allow traditionally used vehicles like swamp buggy
or boats to access to the area; the interior marshes are accessed by
airboat, and the levees are also used for bicycle and hiking. With all
of its multi-users, there is fishing, foraging and hunts for alligator,
waterfowl, deer and small game. There is little to no exotic vegetation
on its 671,831 Acres of land. This land is managed for sportsmen to be
able to preserve the wildlife and habitat.
The sportsman took the initiative to get certified to apply
herbicide we also worked with the State employees to kill or remove
these exotic invasive plants. As we hunted and explored the area we
have access to we reported to the land managers of the area where these
plants were located which allowed them to send their employees to
eradicate these plants. Today without the ability to access nearly 80%
of the BICY these plants will now go unchecked, unreported and become
even an bigger problem for the habitat and Federal Government.
Conservation areas two and three are perfect samples of how
conservation area one should be managed because they are perfect
examples of why human recreational access does not harm the land. Many
conservationists are glad that the US Fish and Wildlife Service was
only granted a 50 year lease because it was not until they dealt with
the lack of land management by USFWS that they saw a situation they
could not ignore. If any state agency was managing land this way their
lease would've been taken back. But because it was federal manage
lands, their lease was renewed. However, it was renewed with a lot
shorter time frame because of the terrible way the USFWS managed the
land during its first 50 years of management. At the hearings, when it
became time to renew the lease, there were thousands of people asking
the South Florida Water Management District not to renew the lease back
to the USFWS because of their mis-management practices. What was
everybody so up in arms about other than the fact that the area was
being taken over by exotic vegetation? Burkett Neely was the USFWS Land
manager. We believe his actions show his apparent goal during the 17
years he was in charge was to keep people out by making things as
uninviting as possible. He ignored complaints about the refuge.
Thankfully, he retired in 1998. All of the things he took away in a
decade and a half have still have not been replaced. The boat ramps at
the Hillsboro Recreation Area at the south end of the refuge at Lox
Road have been in disrepair for more than a decade; (1990); there are
underwater obstructions that can destroy an outboard motor which are
unmarked; and the canals are often choked with weeds. USFWS stopped the
Bass clubs from holding tournaments, took away the special use permit
that allow airboats to operate by permit only on designated trails
within the refuge. The only hunting opportunity available was waterfowl
and it was less than half of the area. This area holds a lot more
opportunity for hunting than the 10% of available opportunity we are
getting. Alligator, Deer and small game hunting opportunities should be
available here like the other conservation Areas. USFWS took total
ownership of half the levy on the south end, which separates
conservation area one from conservation two, with the promises they
were going to build a nicer boat ramp in conservation two for
Airboaters, provide paved parking and make other changes, we
reluctantly said ``yes'' to this change. After USFWS received ownership
of the land the Airboat community got less than a third of what they
were promised along with our new boat ramp. 15 years later, we're still
waiting for paved parking that was promised in return for the ownership
of over 12 miles of levy. At the end of the process, yes USFWS were
granted another lease but not for 50 more years. They only got the
lease because it was the federal government and no one wanted to step
on big brothers toes. And, yes some improvements have been made but the
sportsman's community feels there's more room for more improvement to
be made which we were promised.
#2. What assurances would the FAA need from USFWS to be convinced
that access will be granted on these areas in the future?
So why am I here so unthankful that you want to spend the
$700,000,000 to protect the resource and habitat? FAA's belief is that
until substantial changes to the Endangered Species Act are
accomplished, the Headwaters Refuge will only provide a gateway for
extremist environmental organizations to further abuse the original
intent of the law (Provide examples like Panther Refuge which provides
no hunting opportunity USFWS lands). FAA contends it is doubtful USFWS
will ever have necessary funding in order to do the multiple NEPA
planning requirements to open the land to the public. (Provide examples
like Lake Wales Ridge of un-opened USFWS lands). It is evident that
Congress has kept the purse strings tight regarding USFWS and will
continue to do so. FAA knows from decades of experience that few if any
promises being made to our delegates by Federal officials will ever be
realized. That is because of the gateways provided in Federal law to
organizations dedicated to preventing most if not all enjoyment of
Federal lands by traditional users/sportsmen. FAA members are for the
most part all traditional users of these type lands. This is why we
request that any fee simple lands acquired or purchased be managed by
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This is our only hope to see
traditional use continue and to provide the eyes and ears necessary to
provide the early warning if an area is becoming threatened.. USFWS
held four hearings on the attempt to create a 100,000-acre conservation
area where they want to pay landowners to keep their land as it is.
Most of it is cattle country. They also want to buy the fee simple
lands from the landowners and create a 50,000-acre refuge out of it.
Hundreds of people showed up at each meeting where three of the four
meetings or standing room only. The majority of speakers in the room
collectively opposed this project. These were Florida citizens speaking
at the podium. As of right now we have 28 refuges in the state and only
7 allow hunting. Out of those 28 refuges, there is no valid reason at
all that we can find for them not to allow hunting on at least 5 more
refuges immediately, so this new refuge they are proposing we can only
believe will be off limits also. No matter what they promise, Floridian
hunters and sportsmen cannot allow the Federal government to lock up
any more land.
Where were all of these people after the plan was proposed at the
following two meetings? USFWS's intentional scheduling of Hearings to
conflict with major fund raising events of opposition organizations
(The FAA) caused sportsmen not to be able to attend one of the
meetings. The other meeting was held on national hunting and fishing
weekend, which was created many years ago for the fourth weekend of
September every year. This was the meeting I spoke at. Unfortunately
that morning at the boat ramps there were more hunters launching their
vessels to go hunting than the total number of people attending the
meeting. I joined the majority of speakers in the room collectively
opposed this land grab.
What would FAA need from USFWS to be convinced that access will be
granted on these areas in the future? We cannot change history or the
past. However, the future must go in a different direction if there is
ever going to be a future between the Recreational users and USFWS! #3.
Establishing a new Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area on benefits to
restore the Everglades.
Because of the ranching practices today how clean are the
headwaters and what purpose will conservation easements serve to clean
the Headwaters of the Everglades? Because of the Orlando Waters going
south into the Kissimmee chain of lakes there is a big risk downstream
prior to entering the Everglades that these already degraded waters
will be harmful to the Everglades. FAA has tested the waters on the
Kissimmee chain of lake where landowners already have conservation
easement and even Those landowners would not let their grandchildren
swim in the Waters surrounding their properties because of the
pollution they have created.
FAA understands the only places you find serious efforts to improve
the environment are those with strong economies. If you kill off the
sources of private sector of income and wealth you end the chance to
improve the environment. So, why is the USFWS clueless?
Sportsmen support more jobs in Florida than Disney
World (85,000 jobs vs. 61,000). With less impact to the
environment.
Annual spending by Florida sportsmen is more than
twice the revenues of Miami based Burger King ($4.8 billion vs.
$2.05 billion). With less impact to the environment.
Annual spending by Florida anglers is three times
greater than the cash receipts from the state's orange crop
($4.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). With less impact to the
environment
Florida sportsmen spend $1.1 billion annually on
outboard boats and engines to get them onto the water and
around the marshes for fishing and hunting.
More Florida resident's fish and hunt each year than
attend Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Jacksonville
Jaguars games (2 million vs. 1.6 million).
FAA believes the only benefit from this plan is to stop urban
sprawl; and, create better water quality; more land will hold more
water for the future.
FAA believes that if the huge purchase of land was closed to public
use, there will not be a watchdog to see all of USFWS abuse or
degradation to the land that is going to occur behind the locked gates.
By the way if you're coming to Florida to visit the Everglades. The
only way to see it is by Airboat. This way you will be in the middle of
it, the heart of it. But to do so means you won't be visiting any
federal land.
An updated version of an old Japanese saying is appropriate here:
``If there's no eye to behold the beauty, what is the good''.
______
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
And next and last is Mr. Gutierrez.
STATEMENT OF JORGE P. GUTIERREZ, JR., PRESIDENT, EVERGLADES
COORDINATING COUNCIL
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, members of the
Subcommittee. I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today, testifying today as the president of the
Everglades Coordinating Council, a consortium of South Florida
sportsmen and conservation organizations involved in a plethora
of issues from the headwaters all the way down to the Florida
Keys.
I am a native of South Florida, where I recreated for the
past 36 years. I work and live in the area, and this is my
playground. Without question, the Everglades Headwaters Refuge
will have a huge effect on the current and traditional cultural
activities and recreation in this extensive area, which is the
heartland of Florida.
The ECC, which is first and foremost a conservation
organization, due to the history of the Fish and Wildlife
Service it is clear that this refuge would hinder access,
create more obstacles to recreational opportunities while
creating unnecessary burdens both locally on Floridians, as
well as nationally on Americans. Given the rural nature of this
area, ECC believes that development is not a short-term
possibility. Rather, this is many decades down the road and is
not a viable reason at this time to spend $700 million for
Phase 1.
When you look at the LPP, the environmental assessment, a
cursory review gives you some facts and figures that make you
cringe. $875 per mile for the posting of boundary signs. $1.4
million per mile of boardwalk. Those numbers in today's economy
are just not reasonable, and they should not be supported.
This kind of money can be better used to fund and operate
current areas, clear the $3.4 million [sic] Federal operations
and maintenance backlog on Federal properties or give it to the
state. The State of Florida and its Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission is in a much better position to use it
locally without bureaucratic red tape, years of analysis,
planning, meetings and so forth.
ECC has always been disheartened when local decisions are
left to folks thousands of miles away. You wouldn't come to
Florida and ask for advice on recreation in Alaska in the
winter, and we would ask that you go to the locals to get the
best advice on what is good for South Florida. A few days'
fact-finding trip into the Everglades doesn't make you an
expert on the Everglades, and the locals are your best resource
to see what is best for the resource and those who recreate
within it.
In Florida, there have already been ample opportunities to
evaluate access for sportsmen and recreationalists within
national wildlife refuges. Here in Florida, fish and wildlife
is very restricted. I am not going to get into the six of the
28 or seven. Some may say it is a little bit more. The websites
may say less. That is pretty well established that when you
compare the state wildlife management areas and the state
agencies to the feds, it is much more access and much more
recreation at the state.
Basically the best example to give is Lake Wales Ridge
National Wildlife Refuge, which is in the heart of this refuge.
Basically I can't even go and have a picnic there, even though
it is 2,000 acres. You can say well, it is small, but you can
recreate. You can hunt. You can do it in smaller areas. I
harvested my first Osceola turkey on public land in a 2,500
square foot wildlife management area less than 20 minutes away
from there, so you can't say it is too small or anything like
that. It is a situation that these areas need to be open. They
need to be open for recreationalists.
Again, we know from history, and we go back to history
because it is the best indicator of what is going to happen in
the future. When the Federal Government took over the Picayune
Strand, millions of dollars were put into that pot for the
purchase of that property. Cultural and traditional activities
were taken out of there. The Ten Thousand Islands was
established. Traditional uses were eliminated within months of
that area being implemented. All of these fall under the
Department of the Interior.
In sum, there are no assurances whatsoever that once a
refuge is established that recreation will continue. If they
get the funding for this refuge, until they go back and they
can get funding for operations and so forth that lock will stay
on the gate, which it has been in Lake Wales Ridge. Based upon
the documents of Fish and Wildlife Service, they have three
people managing it in the plan. You can't have a recreational
program with just three people operating it.
So, Mr. Chairman, you can have this refuge and you can
purchase it if they were able to get the property, but it is
quite possible that they are not going to have the funds to
operate it and it is going to remain closed. And that is the
problem based upon history. By their own admissions, they would
have to choose between the enormous maintenance backlogs that
are already in existence or spend a lot more money on this.
To address Mr. Draper and the issues of sportsmen, we don't
necessarily disagree. We just think there is a better way that
is less expensive with more access. I am a conservationist
first and foremost, but this is not the best way to protect
that land. Department of Agriculture has a great program, which
protects the ranchers and the people who recreate there, but
from a sportsmen or a recreationist perspective there is a
better way and this is not the best way to please everybody.
I thank you for your time. And with that I just want to
offer to help in any way possible, and I thank you again for
your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]
Statement of Jorge P. Gutierrez, Jr., President,
Everglades Coordinating Council
Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, I sincerely thank you for the
opportunity to present written as well as live testimony at your
oversight hearing.
I am testifying today as the President of the Everglades
Coordinating Council (``ECC''), a consortium of South Florida sportsmen
& conservation organizations involved in a plethora of issues related
to the Everglades ecosystem, from its headwaters in the Northern
Kissimmee Valley of Florida where a new national wildlife refuge has
being proposed, all the way south to the reefs in the Florida Keys.
ECC is a non-profit NGO whose sportsmen delegates have for over
four decades worked with state, federal, and county governments and
other NGOs, to address crucial issues, including: ecosystem restoration
(or lack thereof), natural resource policy, commonsense land and water
bodies management, non-motorized & motorized access to and enjoyment of
federal and state public lands, off-road vehicle access and use,
hunting and game management, protected & imperiled species management,
transportation planning, exotic species eradication, land acquisition
as well as sovereign land issues. We were working on Everglades issues
before it was popular and a growth industry for Florida.
I am a native of South Florida where I have lived over the past 36
years. As a civil trial attorney with the law firm of Freedland Russo,
P.L. in Weston, Florida, I currently reside and work within a short
drive from the Everglades where I recreate year round.
I. Views of the ECC on the Establishment of a Proposed Everglades
Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area
Without question, the proposed Everglades Headwaters Refuge will
have a huge effect on the current and future traditional cultural
activities and recreation in this extensive area that comprises the
heartland of Florida.
While the ECC is first and foremost a conservation organization,
due to the history of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (``FWS'') in
Florida, it's clear to ECC that a Refuge would hinder current access
and create more obstacles to recreational opportunities while creating
unnecessary burdens both locally on Floridians and nationally on all
Americans. Moreover, given the rural nature of this area, ECC believes
that development is not a short term possibility and the threat of
development many decades down the road is not a viable reason at this
time to make a drastic $700,000,000 sacrifice for phase one of a four
phase project given the current economics of our country.
In viewing the Draft Land Protection Plan and Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (``LPP''), it is clear
that a cursory review makes the conservationist in me wonder about a
number of things. First and foremost is the grandiosity of the
$700,000,000 project and the costs with just getting this project off
the ground. As reflected on page 33 of the LPP, the estimated one-time
operating costs are jaw dropping including the posting of boundary
signs at $875 per mile and the construction of boardwalks at $1.4
Million per mile. Those numbers in and of itself make even the non-
sportsman & average taxpaying citizen who will never use the area
cringe. That kind of money can be better used to fund and operate
current areas, clear the 3.4 billion dollar federal operations and
maintenance backlog on existing federal properties and create more
access in places where there is none or even better yet, provide
monetary resources to the State of Florida which is in a much better
position to use it locally without bureaucratic red tape and years of
analysis, planning and meetings to figure out how to best use Florida
rural land.
ECC has always been disheartened when local decisions are left to
folks thousands of miles away with little to no real knowledge of
traditional uses and recreation. You would not take advice on Alaskan
winter recreation from a native Floridian who has never been in the
snow, so the same logic should apply to the Everglades. The local
sportsmen and state agencies are in a much better position to evaluate
uses, access, recreation and protection of the resource. A few days
long fact-finding trip into the Glades does not give someone the
necessary and adequate experience to dictate policy and use for decades
down the road.
II. History of Permitting Wildlife Dependent Recreation in National
Wildlife Refuges in Florida
In Florida, there have already been ample opportunities of all
kinds to evaluate access for sportsmen on national wildlife refuges.
Without question, here in Florida the FWS has been extremely
restrictive when compared to the more access-friendly Florida Fish &
Wildlife Conservation Commission.
As an example, at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, there
are limitations on access in several different ways: 1) time and day
restrictions (no afternoon hunting, certain days of the week etc.); 2)
elimination of and/or limitations on the use of mechanical conveyances
within the refuge (no airboats or certain motors); and 3) only small
sections the refuge open to hunting. This example is repeated at all
the Florida refuges where duck hunting is allowed including the Arthur
Marshall Loxahatchee NWR and Ten Thousand Islands NWR. A great majority
do not permit hunting at all.
The problems are not limited to just duck hunting, but other types
of hunting and users in general including such things as hiking or
picnicking as well. In fact FWS has refused to allow real access on the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge just north of Alligator Alley
in Collier County although allowed by law. FWS has removed off-road
vehicles for hunting in the Picayune Strand State Forest restoration
project. In the Everglades, as this committee is fully aware, we have
exotic pythons running rampant with a 16-foot snake just this past week
being found with a 75-pound deer inside. This too is the result of
having no access to large areas of federal land.
History is indeed a greatest indicator of future FWS actions on the
Headwaters refuge. Currently only 6 of the 28 national wildlife refuges
in Florida provide for any type of hunting (as reflected on the FWS'
current websites for their Florida Refuges). One thing is certain. .
.of the few that do, access and recreation is heavily limited in the
ways you can access it (i.e. limited areas open within the refuge,
limited mechanical conveyances, restrictions on days and times of use
as well as onerous regulations and restrictions on use which make it
difficult if not impossible to really recreate on the area). Access to
a small portion of a refuge is not real access.
When looked at as a group, it is startling how restrictive FWS is
when compared to state wildlife lands. The following is a list of all
Florida National Wildlife Refuges under the control direction or
authority of FWS:
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Arthur Marshall/Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Key West National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
National Key Deer Refuge (No Hunting)
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge (No Hunting)
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
Te n Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Limited/Restricted
Opportunities)
These numbers don't lie and basically establish a rate of openness
for sportsmen recreation at just over 20%. The fact remains that these
are real and current historical figures for Florida where this latest
refuge (the 29th) is being proposed. While ECC has been told that this
ratio is not the case in other parts of the country, given the fact
that this refuge will be in Florida, history is just not on their side.
Moreover, as we know local staffs at these refuges are transitory which
means that even if flexible and workable access was ever arrived at,
the threat of litigation by extreme environmental groups or the
installation/appointment of less sportsman-friendly local leadership
can take away any gains in access arrived at during their tenure. A
long list of gentlemen agreements in Florida (i.e. Picayune Strand etc)
where access was initially agreed to which was later taken away through
federal intervention or decisions made elsewhere only leaves the ECC
with no other option than to support the position of minimal or no
federal involvement with very few exceptions. We have been harmed too
many times in the past to trust federal agencies again with such a
large piece of land in the heart of Florida. Given that history, there
should not be a 29th National Wildlife Refuge in Florida until a
drastic change occurs here in Florida. Until FWS decides to show
goodwill and change its method of operating refuges in Florida, the ECC
is against adding yet another refuge to this long list of areas which
continue to deprive Floridians with access for traditional recreation.
III. There are few, if any, real assurances from FWS to convince the
ECC that Hunting and Public Access will be ensured within the
Proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge &
Conservation Area in the future.
Under the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, existing compatible wildlife
dependent recreational uses (i.e. hunting etc) shall continue on an
interim basis pending the completion of the comprehensive conservation
plan for a new refuge. Thus any lands which become part of the refuge
would continue be recreated or used in the same manner upon creation,
however it would not ensure that it would stay open since that
determination gets made in the CCP, subject to NEPA and is also subject
to funding limitations. Things such as how the land is used, what
practices are used and such simple issues as hunting leases which
generate revenue, could be limited, eliminated or affected by such
things as NEPA, the Endangered Species Act and other regulation.
As it pertains to this Refuge, its absolutely possible and even
more probable that while these lands remain open initially, after a
conservation plan is created these areas will be off limits to many
individuals not only because of ecological concerns but more likely due
to funding. It is well documented that even if the money was found to
establish the refuge, monies to operate it would be needed and if no
such monies were allocated, a great portion of the property would be
closed and locked to everyone. Not even a picnic could occur as such is
the case with Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.
Again looking at history, we Floridians know that when FWS took
over the Picayune Strand millions of dollars were put into the pot of
money use to purchase the property. As a result FWS later forced the
Florida Department of Forestry to force the traditional buggies from
the area thus eliminating traditional and cultural activities that had
taken place there for generations. When the Ten Thousand Islands NWR
was established, Federal officials vowed to have traditional uses
continue as is, yet within months refuge staff eliminated the most
traditional of activities in the area, commercial fishing.
Loxahatchee NWR was yet another property where assurances were made
that access would be maintained and opportunities would flourish.
Unfortunately, the opposite took place and exotic plants took over 1/2
of the 160,000 acres which later had to be removed using contractors at
a high cost to the taxpayer. As was the case with other refuges,
traditional uses such as airboating were immediately eliminated with
the stroke of a pen, yet they recently placed a ``virtual'' airboat
ride in the visitor center. Certain areas were closed to any access
whatsoever and more restrictions were put in place, i.e. outboard
motors only. Just within the past 18 months, myself working with other
sportsmen groups have attempted to work with the local administration
to improve access and have been vehemently shot down by staff year
after year. It is this take it or leave it type of behavior that causes
such an opposition to yet another refuge when the local staff has such
control to prevent any reasonable accommodation or change. This goes
completely against the open and sportsman friendly attitude of the
state wildlife agency, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission,
which is more hands-on and open to hearing from stakeholders when
making its decisions. It is not unusual for federal agency decisions to
be made outside of the area being affected. Federal staff in Denver,
Atlanta, D.C. or elsewhere should not be making decisions on Florida-
based areas. The locals always know best.
FWS is a sister agency of the National Park Service and also falls
under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior. Assurances only
go so far. No better example of that is the Big Cypress National
Preserve where I was appointed last year to serve on its ORV advisory
committee. We are now in the 4th decade of the Preserve's existence and
the addition lands are nowhere closer to being open. Recent litigation
by environmental groups only further strengthens the ECC's position
that Federal involvement only prolongs the opening of these areas as a
result of increasing federal control and oversight and the properties
falling under the auspices of NEPA etc. These lands can be enjoyed more
quickly and with less governmental red tape when in private hands or in
the hands of the state agency which is receptive and more adaptable to
changing times or environmental conditions etc without the burdensome
federal regulations and associated processes.
In sum, there are no assurances whatsoever that hunting and public
access will continue once a refuge is established. The shining example
of this is the Lake Wales Ridge NWR in Highlands County, Florida on
Highway 98. This refuge right in the middle of this proposed larger and
grandiose refuge serves as the best example of what can surely occur if
this Headwaters refuge gets any further along...land that was once open
is now closed. As the Lake Wales Refuge's very own website \1\
indicates, it is closed to public use. If fact the website states
``There is no public access''. No hiking, camping, or bird watching
etc. A casual drive by the area will show you plenty of FWS signage,
high fences and a locked gate. This is a small refuge of a few thousand
acres which when compared to the 150,000 acres of proposed refuge is a
nullity but yet if the FWS can't even open this small parcel and/or
obtain funding for staff at this location, how can the people of
Florida reasonably believe that the FWS will be able to adequately
manage and operate a bigger and more costly project and have better
access than what they have now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=41577
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By their own admission, even if the properties were acquired by the
FWS, there would have to be additional funding sources for staff and
maintenance. In essence, the property could be acquired and placed
under Federal Control, but left locked and closed due to lack of
funding for staff, equipment and other necessary items. Moreover, we
already know there is already an enormous maintenance backlog for
existing federal properties nationwide and as a result this would fall
at the end of the long list of priorities.
IV. Establishing a National Wildlife Refuge will not further the goal
of restoring the Everglades.
The short and succinct answer to this question is that it will not.
Currently there are a number of properties being used efficiently to
restore the Everglades. The Stormwater Treatment Areas are one of the
best examples of combining the restoration of the Everglades while
allowing access to user groups for bird watching, hunting and
recreation. Other areas such as the District's enormous reservoirs
along US 27 in Western Palm Beach County lie dormant due to a
combination of reasons, one of which being finances. The South Florida
Water Management District is one of the largest entities working on
restoration while under great financial constraints due to state of the
current economy. There are in fact other federal agencies already
involved in conservation easements such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Why not improve the mechanisms in place rather than just
trying something new that is more costly and may not help matters much.
Based on the FWS' own environmental assessment as reflected on page
261, Headwaters and its $700,000.00 cost will only provide ``small
water quality benefits by the protection of 50,000 acres of land, and
the 100,000-acre conservation easements''.
V. Local Communities and the Services provided to Citizens will be hurt
by the Proposed Refuge
Without question, the local counties affected by this proposed
refuge will lose tax revenue. Congress will ultimately decide how and
if they will be reimbursed. In fact the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forests and Public Lands recently looked
at this very issue on October 14, 2011 during an oversight hearing
entitled Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
With the land falling into federal control, there is an absolute
loss of tax revenue for these Florida counties and municipalities
within the refuge area. This is not speculation or conjecture but
rather fact. Vital program such as road construction, schools and law
enforcement are affected. When the Picayune Strand and Ten Thousand
Islands in South Florida (Adjacent to Big Cypress National Preserve)
were taken over by the Federal government, Collier County lost valuable
tax revenue. To date, the federal government has not fulfilled its
promise to reimburse the county for lost revenue. This was many years
ago and is only a small example of what will occur with this much
larger endeavor. While this may have fallen by the wayside in earlier
years due to the real estate boom and high property tax collections, in
today's economic climate this loss hurts and will continue to hurt for
years to come.
VI. Florida is a Better Partner
The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (``FWC'') is a
much better steward of these lands as they are local and know the
areas. In fact, while FWS has gone as far as suggesting to leave the
land management and recreation components of the refuge to the state
wildlife agency, Federal law as currently written creates too many
obstacles and constraints for a workable partnership to take place.
Changes to the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act would be
necessary in order for this to work otherwise federal rules and
oversight would counteract any real progress and access created through
the work of the state agency and its staff.
FWC already does a great job on more than 34 million acres of
Florida public and private land including 5.8 million acres of wildlife
management areas. As the agency responsible for one of the largest
public-hunting systems in the country, it provides better access,
facilities and more recreational opportunities than the FWS could ever
dream of or hope to provide, even under the best of circumstances.
Sportsmen and Gladesmen (a traditional culture recognized by a
study commissioned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in
association with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP))
in South Florida have been partners with FWC for years. It is
disheartening that to date FWS has totally disregarded the Gladesmen
culture and not even mentioned this community in any of its documents
to date.
VII. Sportsmen Should Be Part of the Solution
First and foremost, sportsmen are conservationists and stewards of
the land. You cannot lock a gate and prevent access in the name of
conservation or preservation. Without access, exotics flourish and
problems go unnoticed for decades such as melaleuca did in Loxahatchee
NWR before millions of dollars were spent to control/eradicate it and
why exotic snakes like Burmese and African Rock Pythons are all over
the Everglades.
This committee needs to take strong stance once and for all to
eliminate the dysfunction and stop the decades-long management plans,
the disregard for congressional mandates and timelines, and the
inclusion of Wilderness sustainability assessments in projects whose
purpose is clearly stated including uses that would be prohibited under
Wilderness. Sportsmen are ready, willing and able to help in this
regard and will help craft whatever fixes are needed so things move
quickly and areas are opened up for recreational users sooner than
later.
Without a doubt, sportsmen as well as other recreational users know
and love these areas and are the best individuals to tackle
conservation issues head on, but in a responsible way that allows for
conservation, access and use by all stakeholders to be symbiotic.
VIII. Conclusion
I thank you again for the invitation to travel to Washington once
again to address this committee. The sportsmen of South Florida are the
original conservationists who worked to establish Big Cypress National
Preserve decades ago. Years later we are still fighting for reasonable
access to this national treasure. The proposed refuge at this time is
just an extra and possibly unnecessary piece of this large puzzle and
the goals of Everglades restoration can be completed without this
costly $700,000,000 endeavor. The resources of the Federal Government
would be better served by concentrating on opening more of the federal
lands we already have here in Florida and improving them across the
board rather than putting even more lands under Federal control and
continuing to limit access. ECC is encouraged by the work of this
committee and looks forward to helping each of you in the years to
come.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, we thank you all for your testimony. Now
we are ready for questions for the witnesses, and I will now
recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Gutierrez, you made a lot of references to the $3.4
billion in operations and maintenance backlog within the Refuge
System. I think your comment was something along the lines of
we buy the land, we meaning the government, but we have to
padlock it because we have no money to manage it. We don't have
money for personnel or upkeep.
What you may not know is according to the Cooperative
Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, there are 184 mission critical
projects in Florida that would cost more than $221 million to
complete. Is there any logic to completing these mission
critical projects in Florida that would cost more than $221
million to complete?
Mr. Gutierrez. Well, I think there are two ways to answer
that. First and foremost, it is less expensive, but, more
importantly, you are going to get the work done sooner because
this refuge is so far down the road you are not going to see
the effects for decades.
Whereas you are already dealing with the issues and you
need to finish what you started before you start something
else, and it is important to look at it that way, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Would this be, in your opinion, like not
having a lawnmower to mow your lawn and then going and buying
your neighbor's lawn as well?
Mr. Gutierrez. That or deciding you want to take a bus trip
somewhere and then just get off and let us go walk down the
block.
Dr. Fleming. Right. And not have a return ticket?
Mr. Gutierrez. Exactly. You know, my grandparents always
said finish what you started. Well, let us go ahead and finish
what you started before we go and spend another $700 million on
something else.
Dr. Fleming. Is there any logic to completing these mission
critical projects before making a new $700 million investment?
Mr. Gutierrez. I think I have answered that in that we need
to finish what we started. We need to take care of the critical
issues before we talk about something that based upon their own
LPP may not improve water quality.
I think it is page 261 that they say there is going to be
very little benefit to water quality, as opposed to spending
that money south of Lake Okeechobee with the stormwater
treatment areas and the agricultural areas that have more
immediate impact.
Dr. Fleming. Like the rest of the Federal Government, the
Fish and Wildlife Service feels there is no maximum limit on
the Federal credit card, and now is the time to buy this
Florida land before the prices go up.
What do you think about this? This seems like an
opportunistic thing. Prices are down. You know, real estate in
general is down because of the poor economy, and all of a
sudden we are borrowing money from China in essence to go out
and buy more land. What is your thoughts on that?
Mr. Gutierrez. I live in South Florida, but I recreate
around Lake Okeechobee on the north side with a group of
friends. We have a hunting camp close to Lake Okeechobee. I
know the area very well.
I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman. I think the threat of
development in that area--you know, everybody comes to Florida.
They want all the jobs are on the coast and in the south and on
the north. People want to be close to WalMarts. They want to be
close to Home Depot. This area is not going to get developed,
at least not in my lifetime. It is just not going to happen.
Dr. Fleming. So you don't see a big rush for people to
build houses right in the middle of swamps with mosquitos and
that sort of thing?
Mr. Gutierrez. There are not many jobs that would go well
with that sort of lifestyle, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Great. Let us see. Mr. Horn, do you
agree with the statement that it has taken more than 60 years
for the ecosystem to degrade to its current state, and it will
likely take a similar timeframe or longer to restore? I think
you made some comments in reference to that.
Mr. Horn. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think that it was pretty
evident that it took a long time to get into the problems that
afflict the Everglades today. It is going to take a long time
to get out of them. It is that sense of what are our priorities
that drive my concerns.
Everglades Restoration is the first of its kind. We are now
11-plus years into it. We know that the price tag is going to
be very far north of the $12, $13 billion originally
anticipated, and my simple fear is that because of the delays
and the continuing cost escalation, coupled with our nation's
debt and funding issues, that the level of national support for
Everglades restoration is going to inevitably erode.
People who are from and around Florida are all committed to
it, but Congress is a lot of folks outside the Florida
delegation. There are 98 Senators who aren't Senators from the
fair State of Florida. I am just fundamentally concerned that
cost escalation, delays, lack of visible progress like the Mod
Waters project, at some point I am just afraid that we are
going to start losing the funding to sustain this Everglades
Restoration Program.
So I think the priority is let us get with the things that
are going to turn it around in the near term, which is to begin
to treat that water and store the water outside of Okeechobee,
so that we can get that natural sheet flow going back to the
heart of the system. And I think unless we do that pretty damn
soon, my fear is that if this thing is going to run off the
tracks it is going to evaporate and we are not going to be left
with very much. Finish what we started.
Dr. Fleming. All right. So you feel that it makes no sense
to ignore all the problems we have and the need for restoration
south of the lake and a backlog of $3.8 billion overall that we
have and then to jump below the top 100 projects to begin with
to go out and suddenly buy land just because it seems to be
cheap right now and there is no real pressure to develop this
land to begin with. Chances are it is going to be there for
many decades.
Mr. Horn. I would add, Mr. Chairman, I think there is one
other factor that I don't think any of us have addressed at
this point. But the state, after passing the Everglades Forever
Act, has enacted two separate programs focused on Lake
Okeechobee and the northern area. Seventy-five percent of the
agricultural lands up there are now subject to best management
practices put in place by the state to deal with the legacy
phosphorous up there in the Kissimmee drainage.
The state has got a pretty aggressive program. If you look
at the map, you will see a wide variety of state parks and
state wildlife management areas in that zone. Again, given the
funding constraints at the Federal level, where the pressing
needs are, I am looking around saying why not let the state
take the lead role on the north side of the lake and keep the
feds with the lead role, if you will, or this partnership role
on the south side of the lake?
I mean, after all, if you look at the south side we have
Everglades Park, Biscayne Park, Big Cypress Preserve,
Loxahatchee, Florida Panther, Ten Thousand Islands all in the
Southern Everglades, if you will, and it makes sense to me to
let the feds continue their focus on that part of the system.
Let the state deal with the north part as they are doing right
now and doing fairly well.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. I now recognize Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Horn, in your testimony you said that you served within
the Department of the Interior as an Undersecretary or
something for President Reagan. Was that correct? Did I hear
correctly?
Mr. Horn. Yes. I was Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife
and Parks.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, Mr. Horn, this tension that we sort of
hear between the hunters and the sportsmen with conservation
types of policies and how that affects the access. That must be
nothing new to you. You must have had those questions back then
as well. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Horn. Absolutely. And I would just add that the issue
in Florida is of particular personal importance. In the mid
1980s, I negotiated the land trade approved by Congress in 1988
that expanded Big Cypress by 85,000 acres, added and completed
or started from scratch the Ten Thousand Islands National
Wildlife Refuge and added 7,500 acres to complete the Florida
Panther Refuge. As I said, Congress approved that in 1988.
I can assure you that when we were doing those
negotiations, I made lots of promises to folks that we were
going to try to maintain traditional access and secure hunting;
and, unfortunately, those good-faith promises I made have not
been kept.
I share some of those concerns. These issues have been
around for quite some time, and I would strongly suggest that
if there is a decision that a refuge be established in the
northern headwaters I think it is contingent upon Congress to
pass some statutory guarantees, strong guarantees to protect
these traditional rights, because the good faith promises made
by characters like me have not been kept in the intervening 20
years.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, Mr. Horn, you said 7,500 acres for the
Florida Panthers, for example. Were there promises made about
the access for hunting within that area as well?
Mr. Horn. My recollection was yes. We said that we were
trying to complete that refuge, and we recognized back in this
was the 1986-1987 timeframe that there was a history of
traditional rights because it abuts the Big Cypress Preserve,
that we would do our best to try to maintain those traditional
types of activities, much the same in Big Cypress.
Unfortunately, the ability to deliver on those promises, it
hasn't occurred.
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Horn, you said something very
interesting. We do our best. And that seems to be government
always says that, right? We will do our best. But that is not
necessarily a promise that it will actually be there.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me put it this way. There were a
variety of promises made associated with those land expansions
that Congress approved in 1988. I think over the years there
has been good faith attempts by some folks to comply with those
promises. I think then there was insufficient understanding of
the opposition from certain activists to maintenance of these
traditional activities, and there wasn't the type of strong
statutory guarantees.
Part of the problem, for example, in 1997 when this
Committee and Congress produced the Wildlife Refuge Improvement
Act it added the specific language about hunting and fishing
being priority public uses and making findings that these were
legitimate activities. That was one of the first steps taken to
try to codify in law the type of promises that had previously
been made and not been sufficient, given the legal status of
issues.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Mr. Dantzler, you represent a new organization called the
Northern Everglades Alliance, and part of your testimony is
that you do have hunters and sportsmen and sports activity
related people within your organization, and yet you actually
are here supporting the preservation area.
So can you tell us how your interests or those that you
represent and what Mr. Horn said, how are you going to
represent both interests?
Mr. Dantzler. Well, I don't believe they are mutually
exclusive. One needs the other, and I would take issue with the
other panelists who say there is no growth pressure in this
area. There is development pressure.
If you look at the boundaries of this refuge, you will see
gated subdivisions across the street from some of those public
properties that we have already acquired. When I was growing
up, I was part of a hunting camp called Johnson Island. It is
now the gated golf community of Solivita. I was part of a
hunting camp called the Huckleberry. It is now Poinciana.
During the decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, 1,000
people a day moved to Florida. That is 365,000 people a year.
Every single year we lost 200,000 acres of ag land to
development. Now, I assure you that many of those people that
came here located in this area. They weren't just in that 20
mile strip around the coast. They were in the middle part of
the state.
And once we emerge from this Great Recession, and I use
that capital G and capital R. Once we emerge from this Great
Recession, as long as the sun still keeps shining and the sand
is still white we are going to have those kinds of explosive
population growth rates, and this part of Florida is going to
be in the crosshairs. I assure you of that.
Now, there has been a concern that this refuge is not going
to directly benefit Everglades restoration. I respectfully
disagree. I will concede that the water quality benefits are
marginal, but they do exist. If you are going to have 150,000
acres of land where water can flow over those acres the way it
used to be over time, that is going to benefit water quality to
some extent, but it is marginal.
And reasonable people can disagree, but as it relates to
water quantity there is a tremendous potential for assistance.
I mean, just look at what you have to do to build an STA down
in the Everglades. You have to buy the land. You then have to
hire engineers. You then have to install pumps in many cases to
pump water uphill so you can run it through the STAs. The cost
is exponentially higher than if you use land that is the way
God made it to be your storage area.
So, yes, we have a tremendous need for additional water
storage capacity in the Everglades system to do the Everglades
restoration effort that we would like, but we can use these
properties on the north side to help with water quantity. And I
can assure you the most ugly wars that Florida is ever going to
have are going to be over water.
And unless we grow the water pie and unless we find a way
for there to be more water for the environment, more water for
agriculture and more water for people we are going to have some
of the ugliest wars you have ever seen, and the environment is
going to lose in that regard. People are going to get it first,
agriculture is probably going to get it next, and the
environment is going to get it third. So, yes, this project can
help with Everglades restoration.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Dantzler. I know I am out of
time, but I just want to tell you that I understand your
statement why you try to preserve old Florida. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Dantzler. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. We will have a
second round, and hopefully we can let you go for lunch here
very soon.
I am curious, Mr. Dantzler and Mr. Draper. We hear, and you
have heard it today, over and over again we don't have access
within these refuges. Why is that happening?
Mr. Dantzler. I don't know. It may very well be that Fish
and Wildlife needs 39 lashes with a cat o'nine tails. Maybe
they have not done what they should have done in some areas.
But we have heard a lot about the Lake Wales Refuge, and
let me respond to that. I understand these are fair questions,
but you need to understand that the Lake Wales Ridge was the
only part of Florida that wasn't underwater. Thousands and
thousands of years ago, that was the only part of Florida that
wasn't underwater. And so as a result you have plant species
that grow there that grow nowhere else in the world, and if
you----
Dr. Fleming. I understand that, but I am talking about
across the country and even now we are talking about ocean
zoning and lack of access there and lack of activity. So it is
not just specific to the Everglades. There just seems to be a
massive problem that we are hearing over and over again.
And this really comes back to the original question, which
we had hearings on before, is refuge designation as opposed to
many other things we do does not require congressional
approval. If we put that back into congressional approval we
could make it statutory where access would be required.
And also again just to transition to another point, and I
will ask this question, is one of the reasons I think that
there are access problems is, again, lack of maintenance money.
Now, we are talking about 150,000 acres.
I am a physician, and I come from a small business
background as well. Everything I do with my patients is to get
the best care at the lowest cost possible. As a business owner
nonrelated to the medical business, I try to get the best
product and provide the best product and service for the lowest
cost.
Now, we are talking about 150,000 acres here, 50,000 of
which is going to cost $7,000 per acre for a total of $350
million for fee simple purchase, and then we have another
100,000 acres that would be purchased for easement again for
another $350 million. That $700 million would take a big piece
out of $3.4 billion in the backlog.
Now, first of all I will ask. This is a two part question,
and I would love to hear from anybody on the panel on this.
First of all, why not do the entire 150,000 acres as an
easement? Why do we have to buy a third of that?
And number two, for instance, we have a letter here from
Michael Adams of Adams Ranch that says I am writing you to
express our support for the Northern Everglades National
Wildlife Refuge. I am hearing more and more about families who
have had multigenerational ownership who perhaps upon death or
for whatever reason just simply grant the easement for free.
So now we are really paying people in many cases for things
that they would do for free without any cost. So the question
is why can't we divert these kind of funds towards a
restoration and access rather than running out there and
stuffing money in people's pockets, which seems to me to be
significantly unnecessary?
Mr. Horn makes a point that I absolutely agree with, and
that is a government that governs closest governs best. That
is, the state and certainly the local governments in the
Everglades region can make much better decisions than we can up
here in Washington.
Mr. Gutierrez? I will give everybody an opportunity.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, that is a very interesting
point that the state--in this case, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission has one of the largest public hunting
systems in the state. They are close. They are on the ground.
They are extremely sportsmen friendly as far as recreational
opportunities.
One of the ideas was for instead of FWC to take over and
then use FWC and sort of partner up with Federal regulations
conflicting with state management plans and MOUs, it creates a
morass in that if you were to do something with the state it
creates a problem of timing where the state has two years to
set up a management plan and then you give it to the state and
they create a plan, and then it has to come back and then 10
years down the road you have to redo the plan based on the
Refuge Improvement Act.
It is just simpler to give it to the state. I mean, they
know. It is theirs. They have 35 million acres of public and
private lands that they oversee and enforce, 5.8 million. I
mean, it just makes sense for the state.
As far as the issue of the conservation easements, ECC
doesn't take the position of telling people what they should do
with their land. I mean, if you were to take one or the other,
we would prefer the easement because of the expense and because
of the loss of access. I mean, the recreational opportunities
when you compare FWC access to Fish and Wildlife, they are on
polar opposites as far as access.
I mean, one day of recreation on a wildlife refuge per week
is not access. I mean, access is a season of 60 days. We are
reasonable individuals. This is not a situation we want 24/7,
365 days a year. Sportsmen in Florida are very, very reasonable
individuals, but when you give very, very little that is not
being reasonable and that is not access, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. And we will just go across the panel.
Mr. Wright, your response?
Mr. Wright. From what we have seen up in the Kissimmee
chain with the conservation easements and the lands around
there, for instance, one of our affiliates, the Kissimmee River
Valley Sportsmen's Association, tested the waters in Lake
Kissimmee, which I personally have a camp on, and the fecal
matter in that water, it can't be counted it is so high. The
mercury level is sky high in there.
We have gone to some of the ranchers around there that have
conservation easements and had a discussion with them about
this. You know, it is not necessarily just the cattle practice.
Well, it is not necessarily the cattle droppings that are
creating this problem. What it is is a practice to put human
sludge on those properties as a cheap fertilizer. Well, that
sludge runs downhill to the water and the lakes that we airboat
in and we recreate in.
So I don't know if we feel that we are getting the bang for
the buck on conservation easements. You know, there has to be
some better guidelines of what we are going to buy, what lands
are we really purchasing for a conservation easement.
Dr. Fleming. But if we are going to do it anyway for two-
thirds, why not do it for the entire?
Mr. Wright. And then we can control everything that
happens. And we feel that we get a better bang for the buck for
STAs that are really created to do their job and get the
phosphorous levels out of there.
And again, we don't get to airboat in those, but we do get
recreational opportunity and that is what works, and that is
what cleans our water in the Everglades.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Mr. Draper?
Mr. Draper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to speak to
both the ownership issue and the access issue, as well as
easements.
You mentioned the letter from Mike Adams, who is a friend.
Mike is the son of Bud Adams, and Bud is one of the legendary
ranchers in Florida and developed some of the unique breeds
that are used in Florida to withstand our temperatures.
I didn't get a chance to say before that Florida is one of
the largest cattle producing states in the country, and that
particular economic activity is so important. It is over half a
billion dollars a year in economic activity, so we in the
conservation community ironically very much want to keep these
cattle producing activities going on for no other reason except
they are an excellent way to manage the land.
These ranchers, particularly Bud Adams, have done a
tremendous job. The reason that that land, his land, is being
nominated for this refuge is because he has done such a good
job, and Mike continues that, and Bud's granddaughter, LeeAnn,
is right here.
Dr. Fleming. Well, but does he anticipate selling?
Mr. Draper. He does face a problem, and I don't want to
speak for him, but we know that because of family generational
issues that their ranch is at risk of being broken up because
families end up having to divide their land. So when Bud dies,
and he is very close----
Dr. Fleming. We should repeal the estate tax, shouldn't we?
Mr. Draper. That would have one effect on their problem,
sir, but that would not be the only solution to the fact that
often times families grow and they grow in numbers that exceed
the ability to manage the accession of their land. I don't want
to speak for Bud----
Dr. Fleming. Well, I would just make the point again to
reiterate, and I am running out of time rapidly here, that good
folks like the Adams family in many cases out of generosity are
quite willing to do it for free.
Mr. Dantzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of why not
do all 150,000 acres with a conservation easement, I don't know
the answer to that for sure, but my guess is that by buying
50,000 acres in fee simple you at least guarantee access for
50,000 acres.
If you put a conservation easement over all 150,000 acres,
you would be spending a pile of tax money without a guarantee
of access. So my guess is internally----
Dr. Fleming. It doesn't appear that there is very good
access. That is the whole problem. It would be different if
people were coming in and saying it is wonderful that you are
buying this because we know when you buy it we get access, but
that is the whole problem. People complain they don't get
access.
Mr. Dantzler. Well, that is right, and that seems fixable
to me. It seems to me as though if you could get the right
people in the room you could work that out, and if you couldn't
then you are going to have the memorandum of understanding with
the state wildlife agency that in all likelihood is going to be
the managing entity.
The other point I would make is it relates to the
procedural question of whether you allow the agency to do this
unilaterally or whether you go through Congress. It would suit
the heck out of me for you to do it legislatively. That doesn't
give me any heartburn.
When I was in the Senate, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection used to be able to do something
similar by creating an outstanding Florida order unilaterally,
and that would have an impact on property values and that sort
of thing, so I understand where you are coming from, but I
would use a scalpel--I wouldn't use a meat-ax with that--
because you want an agency to be able to move quickly. You want
it to be able to be nimble to respond to an opportunity. But
generally speaking, if you wanted to create this refuge
legislatively I think that would be fine.
Dr. Fleming. And I am running out of time, but as we
transition to Mr. Horn, a refuge in my own district by my
predecessor, Mr. McCrary, was done soup to nuts in six months.
So it doesn't have to be a slow process just because it is
legislative.
Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. Yes. I guess I will just reiterate sort of my
theme, which is priorities which is the northern Okeechobee
drainage, the whole Kissimmee system, is presently subject to
two comprehensive state conservation programs arising from the
Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan enacted in 2000 and then the
Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program enacted in
2007, which is both pretty comprehensive conservation
initiatives up there.
And I am just wondering when you are dealing with finite
dollars why not let the state continue to take the lead role up
north and rededicate your Federal dollars to the primary
restoration goals to the south?
Mr. Southerland. [Presiding] Okay. Thank you. Just one
moment.
[Pause.]
Mr. Southerland. I will yield over to Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Mr. Dantzler or Mr. Draper, one of
you can answer this.
I am hearing conflicting things here. I am hearing about
150,000 acres, if we put it into complete easements whether you
will have access or whether we should buy 50,000 of it in fee
simple to ensure to have access. Now, let me just tell you what
I understand.
The 150,000 acres now you don't have access, so the 50,000,
if you purchase, it really would be determined by probably what
50,000 you purchased that would then determine what kind of
access you could have. As to the remaining 100,000, that would
be by way of easements because the title is technically still
held with the private landowner.
Whatever you are able to negotiate in terms of that
easement will then determine the quality or the type of access
you will then have. They could give, for example, hunters
access, airboaters access if they want, or they could say no if
that is part of the easement negotiations and if the Federal
Government or the state, whoever may buy that easement, then
agrees to that. Am I understanding this discussion correctly?
Mr. Dantzler. That is correct. The 50,000 acres that would
be acquired in fee simple, we have heard all the panelists
before us say there would be access for that. Now, what that
access would be, what the activities would be, I can't speak
for the agency, but I have been all over those woods and I know
what is there, and I think a wide variety of hunting
opportunities is going to be made available.
The 100,000 acres that would be where the government would
buy a conservation easement, the activities that are allowed on
that 100,000 acres is a negotiation between the property owner
and the government, and I have seen a pretty wide variety of
things go into conservation easements. In all candor, I doubt
there would be--in fact I know there would not be--wholesale
access allowed on that 100,000 acres. Property owners are just
not going to allow that.
But I think that under the right set of controlled
circumstances they would. Maybe a youth hunt, maybe a special
opportunity hunt, some way that they could limit where those
hunters would be, make sure they are going to close gates
behind them, all those kind of things that property owners are
concerned about. But at least you would have the chance to have
hunting on that 100,000 acres, and you would have it on the
50,000 acres, and that is 50,000 more acres than you have now.
So to me it seems like notwithstanding this friction that
exists between user groups and Fish and Wildlife, it would seem
that the sporting community would be for the refuge because it
is going to create at a minimum 50,000 acres for hunting.
Ms. Hanabusa. You know, we can't ignore what former
Secretary Horn said, which is that the government has a habit
also of saying we will make our best efforts to ensure that
things would become available, but then it may not necessarily
be available, so I understand their hesitancy. But the main
focus here is that if nothing is done and the 150,000 acres
remains as it is there is no access.
Mr. Dantzler. The main point here, Congresswoman, is that
if we don't do this we fear that this part of Florida is going
to go the way that many other parts of Florida have gone, and
there is going to be this ever-expanding territory of asphalt
and concrete.
Ms. Hanabusa. I understand that point. I am focusing on the
statement and the concern regarding access.
Mr. Dantzler. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. If nothing is done then there is no guarantee
of any access, but I do understand your point on basically the
old Florida and preserving it.
Mr. Dantzler. Right. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, Mr. Draper, you are part of the effort,
I assume, that was Florida Forever. So how does Florida
Forever, and you made a very interesting statement to me which
was about the agriculture and how important that is, and then
that is also part of this conservation preservation effort.
Now, can you educate me a little bit more about that?
Mr. Draper. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
This refuge proposal actually is preceded by an effort in
Florida called the Florida Forever, part of which was the Rural
and Family Lands Protection Program, which is run through the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in
cooperation with other agencies. That program uses Florida
Forever funds to purchase a type of an easement on ranch and
timberlands and has been used very successfully so far.
In that case, the easement--Mr. Dantzler talked about
easements being written in different ways. This easement is
written in order to promote the continued operation of the land
for either timber or cattle production, and that way it takes
the development pressure off the land.
It takes the financial pressure in some cases off the
landowner to be able to continue to manage that land, and in
many cases these easements are targeted towards lands that have
specifically, and this is in the state statute--I helped write
that statute, so I know it very well. The statute says where
there are attributes that are helpful to both water and
wildlife.
I want to add a point, if I can, to this. All of that
150,000 acres that would be purchased, most of that land is
being hunted right now. It is just being hunted currently
through lease arrangements, and it is an income producing
activity for many of the landowners.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you. I yield to myself for just a
few moments. Just a few questions.
I noticed that, Mr. Draper, you were alluding in earlier
comments to the acreage in the Adams family, and I personally
do not know them, but I have heard they have made wonderful
contributions to that area.
Of the property that involves this particular family, and I
am only using this particular family. There may be other
purchases and easements involved. But just their property. Do
we know how much of that property will be accessible to the
Florida sportsmen? That seems to be the topic today that we
have really focused in on.
And maybe this was discussed earlier when I was gone. If
so, I apologize. But do we know now, because you also alluded
to the fact that these are negotiated arrangements between the
government, as well as the recipient of the easement. Do we
know of their property, the total, what will be accessible?
Mr. Draper. My understanding, Congressman, is that the
Adams have two different ranches. The ranch that they have that
would probably be in the refuge there, which is almost 30,000
acres, the amount that would be taken into the refuge in fee
simple would be in fact open to recreational hunting
opportunities and probably all of that.
We do know that the Adamses, and again driven by this
economic imperative, are interested in the fee simple sale of
their land as part of this program, and so therefore that land
would in fact become part of what would become available to
hunting. It is not available to public hunting right now. It is
hunted, but it is not to public hunting, so therefore it would
become a net hunted area.
Mr. Southerland. Well, but that was probably the same
argument that this body heard in the acquisition or easements
of the 28 other refuges that we have around the state, and only
28 percent of those are accessible, so you can understand my
concern.
I am sure that was also the argument that we are going to
give the opportunity to the Florida sportsmen, and I look at
those 28 percent. I look at the refuges that we are allowed to
hunt in the State of Florida, and, as I alluded to earlier,
they are limited hunts. They are limited areas.
So when you say these opportunities, again they are
limited. So to say that we have total access to 28 percent to
be able to hunt in the manner in which we wish that is in
compliance with allowable hunting methods is really not a true
statement.
Mr. Draper. If I can answer? In fact, in St. Marks National
Wildlife Refuge in your district, as well as St. Vincent, those
are areas that do have a limited type of hunting, and I think
that the management plans for those are designed in part for
what that particular habitat produces, such as waterfowl
hunting at the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
There are a number of them. Florida has 25 national
wildlife refuges currently, and some of those, such as the
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, simply would not be
appropriate places to hunt. I would say that that would be the
case with a number of things--the Great White Heron or the Key
Deer National Wildlife Refuge or the Crocodile. Those are
places that were protected for attributes that are different
than what you would consider the traditional hunting activity
in Florida of deer and turkey and quail.
I don't know how to answer the question any other way. I
think it is an excellent question, though.
Mr. Southerland. And so you can clearly by your own
admission understand our hesitancy in not guaranteeing that we
have access, okay, to the citizens there.
I wanted to also make reference earlier as far as--and I
apologize. Mr. Horn, you had made reference earlier about the
property north of Okeechobee and also some of the property
south. It is my understanding there are 150,000 acres of sugar,
U.S. sugar acreage.
And if you said this before in my absence I apologize, but
wouldn't it make sense that if we were going to purchase
150,000 acres either fee simple or through easements, wouldn't
that be a bigger lick for actually establishing a foot forward
in restoration?
Mr. Horn. You know, I think I have made it clear that there
is absolutely a compelling need to expand stormwater treatment
capacity south of Lake Okeechobee, and I know that when
Governor Crist and the state began to look at the U.S. sugar
acquisition one of the prospective uses of that land was for
basically water storage, water treatment capabilities.
I know that project has gone through lots of iterations
given the financial circumstances, but yes. There again, just
as a function of priorities I think you are going to get more
bang for your dollars in terms of near term Everglades
restoration benefits sinking money into something like making
use of the U.S. sugar land and putting it into an STA type
capacity than you will by spending dollars north of the lake
right now.
Mr. Southerland. Let me ask also, and this will be my last
comment. I just wanted to add a quick thought. In conversations
I have had with our Agriculture Commissioner about his belief
that USDA and all the programs that already the ranchers are
working in harmony with the government or through USDA for
various programs that they are a part of, and I am sure the
Adams family are well plugged in, familiarity. They understand
and they seem to have a wonderful relationship with many of the
landowners.
Why would this not be better suited if we can just ignore
the fact that right now we have a $15 trillion debt? Why would
this not be better suited under USDA? Mr. Horn, why don't you
start, and then we will go this way. I am interested in all of
your thoughts on that.
Mr. Horn. I think some combination of the USDA, CERP type
programs----
Mr. Southerland. Right.
Mr. Horn.--wetland reserve programs all are extraordinarily
successful. You know, you link those up with what the state is
presently doing up there. I think that demonstrates that you
can conserve the Northern Everglades and that the incremental
benefits of a refuge designation just aren't that substantial.
Mr. Dantzler. Mr. Chairman, a couple of closing comments.
First, Mike Adams, he is a fraternity brother of mine from the
University of Florida, married Rachel. We all had to learn that
as pledges. They had five children. I said Mike, have you
figured out what is causing that? And he said yes, but there is
a train that wakes us up about 5:00 every morning, and it is
too early to get out of bed, but too late to go back to sleep.
So anyway, I can't believe I just said that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dantzler. He didn't really say that. I just kind of
made that up. But he did marry Rachel, and they do have five
kids.
Anyway, I think the goal needs to be to find the right
balance between projects south of the lake and this refuge
north of the lake. As I said earlier I think in your absence,
Congressman, if you wait until you do everything south of the
lake that you would like to do before you turn your attention
to the north part of the lake you are never going to do
anything on the north part of the lake.
And the state is involved north of the lake. There is no
question about that. But their focus is mostly water quality,
not water quantity, and water quantity I think is where this
refuge can really help the Everglades and help preserve a slice
of old Florida and help preserve these working ranching
landscapes that we all would like.
I am not familiar enough with the Federal programs to have
an opinion, but I can tell you that landowners generally are
comfortable with their Commissioner of Agriculture or the
Department of Agriculture. There is a little bit of
apprehension about Fish and Wildlife nationally certainly. We
have heard about that today.
But if you have the right kind of memorandum of
understanding in place with the State of Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, landowners are comfortable
with that agency. So whether it is the Department of
Agriculture or the Florida state Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, I think you are going to satisfy
landowner concerns regardless of how you do it.
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Draper?
Mr. Draper. I just want to say that environmental leaders
are also very comfortable with our Commissioner of Agriculture
and the very good programs that he is running to balance
environmental and agricultural productivity in the State of
Florida.
I think he makes an excellent point about the ability of
managing a program like this through Agriculture because in
fact his own agency is running a similar program, as I noted
earlier. They also run our Division of Forestry program now
called Forest Service in Florida, and they are considered
excellent land managers of those lands that are actually in
their ownership.
Again, I am not familiar enough with the alternatives
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say whether or not
this program would in fact work there or not, but I can say
that the goals of this particular refuge are very much in
alignment with the things that Commissioner Putnam has already
been implementing and managing in the State of Florida.
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. Well, I think there is something that is
overlooked here. We bought all the way over to the Honeydeer
floodplain, all the way around the Kissimmee Basin. I am not
100 percent sure, but we got at least 90 percent, if not all of
that purchased. So we have protected that area as far as buying
up the water storage area. We spent a lot of money on restoring
the Kissimmee River and getting it back where it will filter
some water as it comes downstream.
And the other thing we have overlooked is the sportsmen's
community for years have through CARL and other programs bought
a lot of wildlife management areas up there. We have a lot of
land already preserved up there. Now, I think everybody wants
to preserve more land. Nobody wants to preserve it more than
the sportsmen, but I think we are concerned with these leases
because we have a lot more money to spend down south to
preserve and protect all of the Everglades, which is what this
is really supposedly all about.
And, for instance, with the agriculture thing I think some
of the areas like this gentleman that sent you the letter,
Carlos, on the Venture 4. That gentleman there, he is not
eligible, from what I understand. Rumor is. Rumor, but I am
sure he could be notified. But his is supposedly not eligible
for the ag because his land is too pristine. It hasn't been
touched as far as farming and some of that.
So I think that is the reason why these ag lands are being
bought and purchased for that reason because they are working
cattle ranches and they are just basically a farm they are
trying to preserve and keep in that culture, in that tradition.
And a lot of landowners have already given up their
conservation areas. There are a lot of conservation easements
already around there whether they paid money for them or not,
but that has already been preserved.
Mr. Gutierrez. Congressman, first and foremost, the easiest
way is to get the money to the state. You know, Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission I think is the entity that
sportsmen and recreationalists would prefer manage this land if
you can't do it that way through Congress or some way.
When you first brought up the issue of the ag easements my
ears perked up because what is important is Fish and Wildlife
Service have had 28 opportunities to do it right on these 28
refuges. That I am aware of, ECC or otherwise, we don't have
any real interaction with Agriculture, so if we were to do it
that way we would have the ability to start from scratch with a
clean slate and get off on the right foot and be intimately
involved in this process so that access, public access, is
preserved.
Because there is a difference in having a hunt lease with
12 guys who pay money to do that, which some people do and are
supported, or the opportunity to recreate publicly. And I think
the Agriculture is something that needs to be explored either
in the state, because it is a better way, like I talked about
earlier.
More importantly, when we talked about the STAs versus the
northern side of Lake Okeechobee, I recreate on the stormwater
treatment areas. It is the best of both worlds because you are
helping the Everglades, there is restoration taking place, and
you have an incredible recreation plan and recreational
opportunities. Not only bird watching through Audubon on one
day; you have duck hunts on the following day. You have
alligator hunting, the harvesting of alligators. You have all
types of recreational opportunity that go hand in hand with
Everglades restoration.
You can't do that on a refuge because of the Federal
constraints and the regulations, and if you are going to put
money towards something you need to get the most access and
recreation. I think if you need to choose, you need to choose
south of the lake and you need to choose with something like a
stormwater treatment area.
Mr. Southerland. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate all the
witnesses today. Thank you for traveling. It means a lot that
you would come up to testify before us.
I want the record to show we have a couple letters that we
will certainly add to the record. We have a letter from the
Safari Club International, and then we have a letter from
Florida Trail Riders, as well as the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida. So those will be added to the record.
[The letters submitted for the record by Mr. Southerland
follow:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Richard Gotshall, SC1
Regional Representative 29, Safari Club International,
follows:]
To: Members of the House Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans
and Insular Affairs House Committee on Natural Resources.
After rigorous research and discussion about the proposed
Everglades Headwaters NWR that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) wants to create in central Florida at this time, all of the
Florida Chapters of Safari Club International (``SCI'') Chapters do not
support this project. The following are the names of the chapters:
South Florida Chapter, Miami Chapter, Central Florida Chapter, North
Florida Chapter, Tampa Bay Chapter, Tallahassee Chapter, Naples-Ft
Myers Chapter and the Palm Beach Chapter. We further encourage all of
the other chapters as well as SCI to take the same position and to
contact their U.S. Congressional members to ask them not to support
funding for the Headwaters NWR.
Once the following issues are resolved in a manner that is
favorable to sportsmen, consistent with enabling acts and promises made
to sportsman/conservationist then the Florida Chapters of SCI will
gladly reconsider their current position.
1. The DOI/NPS/BICY (Department of Interior/National Park
Service/Big Cypress National Preserve) are able to opening
hunting, fishing, camping and traditional activities on the Big
Cypress National Preserve Addition lands.
2. All current environmental litigations are resolved in favor
of the sportsman and their allies on the BICY.
3. The Service allows hunting, fishing, camping and public
access to the Florida Panther NWR.
4. The Service returns hunting of deer and ducks to all of the
Lox NWR.
5. The Service stops using the reduction of hunting, public
access and use of all public lands as mitigation for nearby
development by private developers and agencies.
6. The Service is able to assure all taxing entities that they
can pay their in-lue of tax money to these governmental
agencies.
7. The Service develops a state wide MOU or MOA with the
Florida Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Commission (FWC) as has
been done between the FWC and US Forestry Department for
National Forest lands.
8. The Service changes the purpose statement in the current
Everglades Headwaters NWR Environmental Assessment (EA) to
state that one of the purposes is to provide increased
opportunities for public hunting, fishing, camping and other
outdoor recreational activities.
9. The Service develops and present a more realistic and
truthful propose future budget to manage the headwaters NWR.
We look forward to working with those who are currently supporting
the headwaters; including but not limited to state and federal agencies
and members of Congress on this very important project.
Sincerely,
Richard Gotshall
SC1 Regional Representative 29
Safari Club International
954-410-5622
______
Statement of The Honorable Colley Billie, Chairman,
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee Members, on behalf of
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, thank you for affording me
the opportunity to share the views and concerns of the Miccosukee Tribe
of Indians of Florida on our homeland, the Everglades. When I was sworn
in as Chairman of the Tribe in January 2010, I made several commitments
to the Miccosukee People. I committed to good governance, protecting
and enhancing our sovereignty, economic development, and environmental
stewardship. We need your support to protect and preserve our homeland,
the Florida Everglades.
As this Committee knows well, in the past, the Everglades
restoration has been tumultuous; and our people have been, literally,
stuck in the middle of it all. Billions of dollars have been invested
in this project. We've had Presidents, Administration officials, and
many Members of Congress visit the Everglades and promise to make
things better. And, while some areas have improved, water quality and
storage remain a central problem that require resolution. Without first
fixing the water quality and storage issues, the projects in the
Everglades will be a waste of time and federal money.
The Miccosukee people have always supported a holistic multispecies
approach to environmental restoration. We have always supported water
quality that protects the entire Everglades (whole water body) with 10
ppb without mixing zones or variances that protect the entire
Everglades. We need water quality which provides protection to the
entire Everglades, including Tribal lands, the tribally leased lands,
water conservation areas and the National Park. This will prevent the
Tribe's water conservation areas from being used as de facto storm
water treatment areas (STAs).
There needs to be STA expansion and improved treatment
technologies. Bypassing untreated water is not a viable water
management strategy. It is harmful to the Everglades and allows
untreated water with high phosphorus concentrations to enter the
Everglades Protection Area which directly impacts Tribal lands. What is
needed are STAs with improved treatment technologies capable of
providing low phosphorus water.
Impacts on the Tribe's Water Quality Standards Must Be Assessed
The Miccosukee Tribe, which is treated as a State by the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') under the Clean Water Act,
established its own water quality standards for its Federal Reservation
in December of 1997. Those standards include a numeric criterion of 10
ppb total phosphorus, which was approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') in May 1999, as ``protective'' of the
Everglades and ``scientifically defensible.'' It was not until the
Tribe adopted, and the EPA approved, a numeric criterion for
phosphorous that the State began its rulemaking process for a numeric
criterion.
When the EPA approved of the Tribe's criterion for phosphorous in
1999, it noted that there were over 400 published scientific peer
reviewed journals which were specific to the issue of nutrients in the
Everglades. In fact, the EPA determined that this was the most studied
wetland in the world. The State was ultimately forced to adopt a 10 ppb
numeric criterion, due to the precedent set by the Tribe-which was
approved by the EPA in 2004. However, many still claim that the 10 ppb
criterion is an unachievable goal.
It appears that the State is attempting to force the U.S. Army
Corps to stop the PSTA Project in an attempt to block any scientific
proof that 10 ppb TP is achievable. As we have stated to federal
regulators many times in the past, decommissioning the PSTA Project
could jeopardize the ability of all STAs to achieve 10 ppb, including
those that discharge onto tribal lands which are protected by the
Miccosukee Tribe's Water Quality Standards. Thus, the Corps should
analyze the impact that its decision to decommission this vital
research project will have on the ability of permit holders to meet the
phosphorous criterion of 10 ppb established in the Tribe's Water
Quality Standards,
Water Storage Capacity Needs Improvement
A concerted effort needs to be made to improve water storage in
order to mitigate the high flows of Florida's rainy season, which runs
annually from May through September. Better water storage is needed to
hold water and provide clean water during times of drought. Improved
water storage will provide water managers with the flexibility they
need for a whole Everglades multispecies approach to management. The
ability to store, capture, and prevent the damaging high phosphorus
water flows from Lake Okeechobee from entering the water conservation
areas untreated water is critical.
Water Quality for a Western Basin Solution
While STAs and management actions have provided some water quality
improvements to the eastern parts of the Everglades, the western basins
have remained a strong source of pollution which directly impacts the
Federal Reservation. The western basins contribute large amounts of
phosphorus directly onto the Miccosukee Reservation via the L-28
interceptor canal. Phosphorus in this canal can exceed 100 ppb and it
freely flows untreated into the Everglades and into the Federal
Reservation.
Impacts on Everglades Restoration Projects Must Be Analyzed
The Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades
Restoration (``CISRERP'') of the National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'')
is so concerned about the water quality challenges facing the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (``CERP'') that it held a
full day meeting on the issue on May 17, 2011.
At that meeting, the former U.S. Army Corp. Commander for the
Jacksonville District, Colonel Terry Rice, explained how not meeting
water quality (10 ppb) could stop Everglades Restoration from moving
forward and also informed the Committee that the PSTA Project was being
stopped. A CISRERP panel member asked why the PSTA Project was being
decommissioned when it was showing such promising results. Even the
Corps itself stated that the PSTA Project ``may be a critical component
of the Everglades restoration program'' on its CERP web site.
In light of the significant water quality issues that face the
implementation of CERP and other restoration projects (i.e. Mod
Waters), the Army Corps is shortsighted to discontinue a research
project on the only green technology that has shown promise to meet the
required 10 ppb phosphorus criterion on a sustainable basis. The Corps
should analyze the impact of decommissioning the PSTA Project on CERP
and Mod Waters. Especially since Stuart Applebaum of the Corps told the
CISRERP that the Corps may not be able to get authorization for the
CERP Decompartmentalization Project, because water quality could
prevent the Chiefs Report from going to Congress in 2015.
The PSTA project is the only hope for meeting the phosphorus
criterion in a consistent manner. Thus, the Corps' NEPA process must
assess the impacts that decommissioning the PSTA Project will have on
the future of CERP, and the other pre-CERP restoration projects (e.g.
Mod Waters).
Everglades Bridging, an Environmental Disaster in the Making
The Miccosukee Tribe and the Miccosukee People have always sought
to honor and protect our sacred, religious and traditional stewardship
of the land. Our commitment to Everglades Conservation is un-wavering.
We do this by supporting sound projects that are designed to protect
and save our ancestral home. ``We must honor the earth, from where we
are made'' is not a slogan but a central tenet of the Miccosukee
People. When the Everglades hurt, we hurt.
In 2008, the Interior Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
decided to build a one mile-long bridge at the eastern end of the
Tamiami Trial (U.S. Highway 41), which runs east to west through the
Florida Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe, connecting Miami-Dade
County and Collier County. The price tag at the time was $81 million.
The Miccosukee Tribe immediately realized that this project was
fiscally and scientifically unsound. We filed for a declaratory and
injunctive action in Federal District Court. The Judge agreed with our
arguments, labeling the project an ``environmental bridge to nowhere.''
On November 13, 2008, the judge issued a temporary injunction against
the project and temporarily stopped further construction until all
federal laws, rules and procedures, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act, were complied with. Unfortunately, Congress was misinformed
and mistakenly led to intervene the following year.
On March 11, 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act
of 2009. In this Appropriations Act, language was inserted that
authorized the expenditures of funds already allocated for this project
and to continue construction, ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law.'' By inserting this provision, Congress deliberately overruled the
federal injunction and divested the federal courts of subject matter
jurisdiction over this important matter. This legislative maneuver was
done without any input from the Miccosukee Tribe, its representatives
or other advisors in Florida and Washington, D.C. We believe that the
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' language used to start
this bridge work violates our Constitutional rights and goes against
several existing federal laws including the National Environmental
Policy Act (``NEPA''); Native American Graves Protection and Reparation
Act (``NAGPRA''); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act
(``AIRFA''); and the National Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA''),
among others.
The Miccosukee Tribe can find no better example in recent
Everglades restoration history of the dangers of misguided federal
largesse and counter-productive environmental legislation than this One
Mile Bridge. It symbolizes all that is wrong with an arbitrary
appropriation maneuver conducted without consultation with the
government and people that the legislation will affect. It is
emblematic of the what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said
in 2007 about the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP):
there is ``little assurance'' that the CERP will be effective because
the agencies and officials are not using any overarching sequencing
criteria for the work, but rather focus on availability of funds. See
South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing
Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs (GAO-
07-520, May 31, 2007).
In this One Mile Bridge project, the National Park Service and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, as on previous occasions, have,
instead of working with the Miccosukee as true partners to save the
Everglades, largely ignored our ideas and our historically based
warnings. The concerns of the Miccosukee People were ignored. Less
expensive, safer and scientifically available alternatives supported by
the Miccosukee Tribe and the former Commandant of the US. Army Corp of
Engineers for the region were also ignored. In January 2010, the
University of Miami released a study that supports our position that a
Culvert Approach will be just as effective as bridging.
Under the Culvert Approach, the focus will be on clearing existing
culverts, which are small tunnels or bridges under the Tamiami Trail.
Also, adding additional culverts, where necessary, and clearing the
large swale areas south of each culvert. This should be accomplished
following the Time Sequence Plan detailed in CERP. The Culvert Approach
will save millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and will deliver the
same amount of water to the Everglades National Park as the current
proposal. In contrast to the elevated skyway bridge approach
represented by the One Mile Bridge, or the future planned bridges, the
cost of the Culverts Approach will be significantly less and will
potentially save the Federal Government close to $400 million dollars.
We strongly recommend using the Culverts Approach first while
simultaneously performing all the normally necessary studies and
safeguards. We also believe projects to improve water quality and
increase water storage, as called for in the CERP schedule, should be
completed first with the priority on saving the Everglades. Clean the
water first instead of wasting money constructing bridges over an
existing highway.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share the thoughts of
the Miccosukee People with you. There is much good work to be done. The
Miccosukee People and I look forward to working with you.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Jack Terrell, Vice
President, Florida Trail Riders, follows:]
November 1, 2011
The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Natural Resources Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Subject: November 3rd Oversight Hearing on Florida Everglades
Restoration
Dear Chairman Fleming:
Since I will be unable to be in Washington, DC on November 3rd I
would like to submit written comments to be considered by you and your
subcommittee members as you conduct your oversight hearing on Florida
Everglades Restoration plans.
I submit these comments on behalf of the 2000 member Florida Trail
Riders, and also as a long-time resident of Florida, having moved here
in 1958.
The Florida Trail riders are opposed to the proposal to expend $700
million of our taxes to acquire 150,000 acres of land in central
Florida, designated as the Everglades Headwaters, as an addition to the
National Refuge System. This latest proposal is just one more example
of pouring money we cannot afford into a bottomless pit under the
banner of ``Everglades Restoration.'' It seems that despite the fact
that the involved federal agencies have a two-decade track record of
over 60 uncompleted projects, they have an insatiable appetite to
acquire more land, and to restrict recreational access to the public.
It seems that whenever a land acquisition or closure action cannot
be justified under previous set of rules and regulations, a new ``cause
of action'' must be created, whether that is wildlife corridors, or as
is the case with the Headwaters proposal, ``landscape management''.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
This latest proposal will remove private land from the tax rolls,
impose unreasonable use restrictions on private landowners through
easement requirements, and restrict public recreational access to land
in four counties.
Our experience with the US Fish & Wildlife Service here in South
Florida has demonstrated their bias against recreational use of lands
even where those lands are owned by state and local governments. If you
have followed the press coverage of the public hearings held in regard
to the Headwaters proposal, you cannot ignore the overwhelming public
opinion that this agency cannot be trusted to manage this land, and
should not be allowed to acquire it.
At a time when this country is amassing an unmanageable debt, and a
Super Committee of this Congress is tasked with a deadline later this
month to come up with a solution to this debt problem, how can we
justify expending $700 million on this project?
I hope that this information will assist your subcommittee, the
Natural Resources Committee, and the US House of Representatives to
deny any appropriations for the Everglades Headwaters Project.
Sincerely,
Jack Terrell
Vice President
Florida Trail Riders
180 Sunrise Hill Lane
Auburndale, FL 33823
______
Mr. Southerland. Are there any additional questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Southerland. No? All right. If not, I would like to
thank all of our witnesses again for their valuable testimony
and reiterate that this is really a question of priorities and
not losing sight of the fundamental goal of restoring the
Florida Everglades.
Shortly after becoming Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Services, Mr. Dan Ashe commented that: ``The Service must work
to restore its credibility. A partner may disagree with us in
the end, but they trust that we have made the best decision
that we can make, given the resources and the information
available to us, and they trust that we listen to their
views.''
Mr. Draper, here is your opportunity to restore that
credibility about treating affected counties, Florida sportsmen
and the beleaguered taxpayer in a fair way.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we may ask you to respond to those in
writing, just to let you know. The hearing record will be open
for 10 days to receive these responses.
Again, I want to thank all the Members and the staff for
their contributions to this hearing. If there is no further
business, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for holding this
hearing. The Everglades make up a large portion of my Congressional
district and is also crucial to the health and prosperity of South
Florida. I welcome this opportunity to offer my statement concerning
this national treasure.
The Everglades used to cover all of South and Central Florida. This
marshy foundation on which our communities today are built means that
our homes are still subject to the same vulnerabilities and problems as
the parts of the Everglades that remain wild. We are so dependent upon
their waters, in fact, that the Everglades are the source of clean
drinking water for much of the region. Everglades restoration is about
keeping our communities healthy and having enough safe water to drink,
not to mention the added benefit of creating thousands of badly needed
jobs in the process. Restoration is a win-win for everyone.
The Everglades are essentially one massive, slow moving river. The
water flows from the top of Lake Okeechobee all the way down and out to
the ocean. The water within the boundaries of this proposed wildlife
refuge and conservation district is the same water that flows down
across the entirety of the Everglades system.
It is wrong to compare the funding for one aspect of Everglades
restoration to another. You cannot store and move water if the water is
not clean. Pitting one project against the other draws a line that
doesn't exist in reality. Despite different names, these projects are
all crucial to restoration efforts and an integral part of the same
central project. The Headwaters Refuge is a part of that same overall
restoration plan. This refuge and conservation area will go a long way
toward helping ensure that we have clean water today, tomorrow, and for
future generations of Floridians.
Restoration is also necessary because it will have economic
benefits on top of those that I have already discussed. It will create
thousands of jobs that are desperately needed in the region. Everglades
restoration returns fourfold on every dollar invested. Wildlife refuges
are likewise economic engines that are well worth the investment. The
only way to lose money on this project is to not do it,
Unfortunately, these restoration projects do not address all the
problems facing the Everglades. Invasive species pose a real danger to
native plants and animals. Just last week, a 15 foot Burmese python was
discovered to have eaten a 76 pound deer. This is yet another clear
'example of why we need to invest in the restoration of the Everglades.
This River of Grass is not just our home, it is our legacy. It is
the water we drink, the home for wildlife that exists only in the
Everglades, and a place like nowhere else in the world. Furthermore, it
is home to many endangered species like the Snail Kite and Roseate
Spoonbill, the only habitat in the world where crocodiles and
alligators coexist, and the only home on Earth for many other species
of animals and plants, To let this special, unique place be destroyed
would be a tragedy to our environment and the State of Florida.
Restoration efforts have made great progress recently and it is
important we build upon that success. For example, construction has
already begun on the Tamiami Trail, the Picayune Strand, Site 1
Impoundment, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands and the
C-l 1 I Spreader Canal projects. We have done a lot to secure clean
water for the future, but there is still a long way to go.
Restoration efforts will take quite some time and there is no
justification on any level to call these efforts into question. After
all, the state the Everglades today is the result of decades of damage.
It should come as no surprise that there is no quick-fix. We should not
be discouraged by the hard work ahead of us. We must be willing to put
in the commitment and sacrifice to get this right. Tampering with the
natural flow of the Everglades has put our communities at risk for
flood and drought, while simultaneously threatening the habitats of
endangered and unique species. To simply call it quits because the task
may be too daunting is not an option.
Mr. Chairman, there is a reason that the Everglades project is as
big as it is, and yet continually receives widespread bi-partisan
support. In short, the Everglades is a national treasure that South
Florida cannot survive without. Once again, I thank the Committee for
this time and urge it to continue supporting Everglades restoration
efforts.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Lee County Department
of Community Development follows:]
LEE COUNTY
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 1, 2011
Hon. John Fleming, Chairman
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Statement for the Record on CBRS Correction Measure H.R. 2154
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of Lee County, Florida, we have reviewed the existing
boundary of Coastal Barriers Resources System (CBRS) unit FL 70P and
determined that it is not coincident with the boundary of the
Gasparilla Island Park as intended. Rather the CBRS boundary is drawn
to the east of the State Park boundary and erroneously includes
approximately 5.2 acres of private land with 23 homes. As unit FL 70P
is an Otherwise Protected Area (OPA), these developed private lands are
not eligible for inclusion in a CBRS OPA. H.R. 2154, sponsored by
Congressman Connie Mack IV, corrects this error and establishes a new
FL 70P boundary that follows the State Park line and excludes the
ineligible private, developed lands.
We have determined that this change in the CBRS OPA boundary would
not adversely affect Lee County or its protected resources. In a letter
to the United States fish and Wildlife Service dated December 10, 2010,
Lee County supported the revision to Map FL 70P. Lee County, by this
letter to your committee, again supports such revision to Map FL 70P.
Lee County therefore does not object to the boundary of the CBRS
OPA being corrected to exclude the private property.
Please include this letter in the hearing record on H.R. 2154.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Robert Stewart
Building Official
______
[A letter submitted for the record by James M. Wohl, Rafter
Ranch, follows:]
RAFTER RANCH
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
United States House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and members of the
Subcommittee:
The Northern Everglades National Wildlife Refuge has great
potential to protect and enhance the quality of Florida's environmental
resources, the most significant of which is water.
The perpetual preservation of contiguous working cattle ranches
will protect natural vegetative communities, wildlife corridors, and
provide natural retention and detention of storm water runoff.
The public benefits from these working landscapes under private
sector management and will be provided at a fraction of the costs that
would otherwise be incurred.
I would be happy to expound in more detail anytime you so desire.
Please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
JAMES M. WOHL
______
[The letters submitted for the record by Ms. Hanabusa
follow:]
[A letter submitted for the record by The Kenneth Kirchman
Foundation follows:]
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
United States House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and Members of the
Subcommittee:
As a landowner in a Conservation Focal Area in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and
Conservation Area, the Kenneth Kirchman Foundation would like to
express its strong support for this crucial program. The Kenneth
Kirchman Foundation is a charitable organization that owns, manages,
preserves, and operates the ``Lake X Property'' which is comprised of
10,440 acres, almost 1,400 of which are taken up by Lake Conlin in
Osceola County, Florida. (For your reference, the Lake X Property is
circled on the attached Proposal Map). From the time Kenneth Kirchman
purchased the property in 1983, he set a goal atypical of most
landowners: to keep Lake X the same as it was 100 years ago, to
preserve the beauty and history of this pristine location.
Over the past several years, the area surrounding this property has
seen tremendous growth and subsequent development. Neighboring
development pressures combined with limited financial resources have
caused the Foundation to seek alternative options. The Foundation sees
the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area as a way to not only protect the Foundation's mission, but more
importantly, as a crucial way to protect and improve water quality,
water quantity and wildlife north of Lake Okeechobee.
We understand that the economic climate is extremely tough, but we
feel strongly that this project can truly make a difference in forever
protecting and preserving the natural resources in the Kissimmee River
Basin.
Sincerely,
The Kenneth Kirchman Foundation
Attachment
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1117.001
[A letter submitted for the record by Michael L. Adams
follows:]
November 1, 2011
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
United States House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and members of the
Subcommittee:
I am writing you to express our support for the Northern Everglades
National Wildlife Refuge.
Adams Ranch is a fourth generation cattle ranch with locations in
St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Osceola counties. Our Osceola County ranch
falls within the refuge boundaries. We support the Department of
Interior's effort to protect and preserve the large working landscapes
through conservation easements.
Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Adams
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Carlos M. Vergara,
Managing Member, Venture Four, LLC, follows:]
VENTURE FOUR, LLC
7128 S.E. Rivers Edge Rd.
Jupiter, Florida 33458
November 2, 2011
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and members of the
Subcommittee:
I am writing this letter in support of the Northern Everglades
National Wildlife Refuge.
Camp Lonesome Ranch is a working Cattle Ranch in Osceola County.
The Ranch has within its borders the Headwaters of Lonesome Camp Swamp
and the Headwaters of Bull Creek. With Florida's growing population,
water will become a scarcer resource. Preserving the proposed acreage
will provide water resources that would not be there if the land was to
be developed.
We fully support the Department of the Interior's proposed plan to
protect and preserve through Conservation Easements this large
landscape of Working Ranches.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Carlos M. Vergara
Managing Member
______
Statement submitted for the record by The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy wishes to thank the House Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs for the opportunity to
submit this testimony for today's hearing record. The Conservancy
strongly supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) proposed
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge & Conservation Area
(EHNWR&CA) and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and full
House Natural Resources Committee on this proposal to conserve working
landscapes within the Northern Everglades region and to advance the
health and vitality of the entire Florida Everglades System.
The Northern Everglades is one of the last frontiers for large-
scale land conservation in peninsular Florida. Through the EHNWR&CA
proposal, we now have an unprecedented opportunity to protect and
restore large portions of this important landscape and natural system.
Extending some 170 miles from the outskirts of the Orlando
metropolitan area, south through the Kissimmee River valley to Lake
Okeechobee and southwest to the Big Cypress Preserve, is a vast region
of intact habitat and working ranchlands-the Northern Everglades
(Figure 1). The region comprises the headwaters of the Greater
Everglades and is one of the great grassland and savanna landscapes of
eastern North America, Still largely rural, the Northern Everglades
watershed is a four million-acre mosaic of seasonally wet grasslands,
longleaf pine savannas and working cattle ranches that sustains one of
the most important assemblages of imperiled vertebrate wildlife in the
southeastern United States and a large portion of the natural habitat
remaining in peninsular Florida, including globally rare habitats.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1117.002
The region's vast cattle ranches hold great potential for
protecting and connecting high quality habitat as well as providing
ecosystem services that are critical to the hydrologic and ecological
success of Everglades restoration. A well-managed ranch permanently
protected under a conservation easement can provide most, if not all,
of the same ecological functions as publically protected areas, and
many ranches connect otherwise isolated tracts of public land for the
Florida panther and black bear. In addition, the restorable seasonal
wetland habitat in the Northern Everglades contributes to the
functioning of the larger Everglades ecosystem, yet this type of
habitat is largely absent from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP). As a result, the Conservancy believes the EHNWR&CA
complements the ongoing work of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department
of Interior and the State of Florida in implementing the 20-year
objectives of the CERP as authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000.
Northern Everglades--Wetlands Restoration and Dispersed Storage
The Conservancy estimates that nearly one million acres of
restorable wetlands occur on public and private lands in the Northern
Everglades, representing tremendous potential for wetlands restoration
and the services they provide. Restoring wetlands at scale provides not
only habitat, but also other important ecological services that benefit
the larger ecosystem and nearly eight million people who live in the
Everglades watershed, Chief among those ecological services is the
ability to store and slowly release large amounts of fresh water, thus
allowing for a more natural hydrologic regime in the Everglades. Such
dispersed storage options are increasingly seen as viable alternatives
or complements to expensive engineered options, such as reservoirs and
aquifer storage and recovery, and can contribute to storage required
for CERP targets and help reduce nutrient concentrations. Wetlands
restoration methods, pioneered at places like the Conservancy's Disney
Wilderness Preserve, are straightforward, low-tech and relatively
inexpensive, typically involving construction or modification of small
water control structures, degrading small berms, or filling of ditches.
The health of the Northern Everglades has a profound impact on the
overall Everglades ecosystem and on water supply and flood control for
the 4.5 million people in South Florida. Originally, vast amounts of
water were stored in the lakes and wetlands north of Lake Okeechobee
mitigating flooding and holding water in times of drought. But in more
recent times, 400,000 acres of wetlands in the Northern Everglades have
been ditched and drained for agriculture, and the Kissimmee River has
been straightened and excavated to operate as a canal to convey flood
waters. There has also been extensive development in the northern end
of the system increasing short term runoff in the rainy season. The
result is not only loss of valuable wetlands habitat, but disruption of
hydrology and declining water quality in the entire basin.
The Nature Conservancy has been working in the Northern Everglades
for more than 20 years. The current Northern Everglades conservation
project is a cooperative effort among the USFWS, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS), the South Florida Water Management
District, the Department of Defense/Avon Park Air Force Range, the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the National Wildlife Refuge
Association and The Nature Conservancy.
EHNWR&CA Concept
The concept for the proposed EHNWR&CA began with a conversation in
2009 between USFWS and Nature Conservancy staff while touring a
strategically located preserve owned by the Conservancy between the
eastern flank of the Lake Wales Ridge and the southwestern shoreline of
Lake Hatchineha. Because the preserve--Hatchineha Ranch--supports
several high quality and endemic habitats (cutthroat grass-dominated
Flatwoods, longleaf pine-dominated Mesic Flatwoods, Scrub and Sandhill)
and numerous imperiled species (Florida scrub-jay, Snail kite, Swallow-
tailed kite, Florida panther and many species of rare plants), USFWS
staff thought it an ideal property to extend the current Lake Wales
Ridge NWR to the 'east to protect lands and waters encompassing the
Kissimmee Chain of Lakes that are part of the headwaters of the
Everglades ecosystem. Considering the fact that the State of Florida's
premier land protection program, Florida Forever, is now able to
provide fewer to no dollars for conservation of water and land
resources in the region, the concept of a new refuge that would help to
protect the origin of much of the Everglades water supply was
initiated.
Upon further study and analysis by the USFWS and partner
organizations, it was determined that the protection of the significant
natural and hydrological resources of the entire Kissimmee River basin
was far from complete as envisioned by many planning efforts for the
region and protection of additional lands in the Everglades' watershed
was warranted. Not only would the proposed EHNWR&CA complement years of
vital conservation efforts in the region by numerous public agencies
(e.g., Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, South Florida
Water Management District) and private organizations (The Nature
Conservancy's Disney Wilderness Preserve), but it would help to fill in
the gaps and connect these already protected areas for wildlife, reduce
the overall costs of management and allow water to more easily move
across the landscape toward the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee.
Efforts directed at getting the water storage and seasonal timing needs
of the hydrology north of Lake Okeechobee is seen as a necessary--and
cost effective--complement to the years of restoration efforts of the
Everglades system that exist south of Lake Okeechobee.
A rigorous scientific analysis of the Kissimmee River basin has
been undertaken by the USFWS and various state and federal agencies, as
well as an array of private conservation partners, Much of the data
utilized for the Preliminary Project Proposal and Draft LPP and EA were
provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the
University of Florida's GeoPlan Center and the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (part of Florida State University).
Various remote sensing (e.g., Landsat),data were utilized, followed
by the analysis of aerial photographs, coupled with known data and
distributions for imperiled species and habitats. Landowner information
was also used to determine inclusion of many of the lands identified.
More information on the exhaustive methodology can be found in the
Draft LPP and EA that can be accessed through the following link:
http:I/www.fivs.govIsoutheast/evergladesheadwaters/.
In contemplating and proposing the establishment of any new
National Wildlife Refuge, the USFWS is bound by a series of strict
requirements embodied in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
as well as their authorizing and organic statutes including the
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, approved by Congress and
enacted into law in 1997. The rigid NEPA process for the authorization
and establishment of new refuges and conservation areas dictates that a
Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) be prepared and submitted to the
general public and other governmental agencies for review. Such a PPP
was prepared for the EHNWR&CA in late 2010 and widely disseminated for
public comment, including four Public Scoping hearings held in the late
winter/early spring of 2011. These hearings were held in towns within
the area proposed for the new refuge, including Kissimmee, Sebring,
Okeechobee and Vero Beach. Additionally, staff from the USFWS met with
numerous private landowners and sportsman's groups throughout the
region, Boards of several County Commissions, newspaper editorial
boards and others. After the initial public comment period on the PPP,
revisions were made--including a substantial reduction in the size of
the area under consideration for the proposed refuge and the
elimination of three large areas of multiple ownerships where some
owners had expressed a desire not to be included in the boundary--and a
Draft Land Protection Plan (LPP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) were
released in early September of 2011. Two additional public hearings
were held on these documents--in Avon Park and Kissimmee, both in the
region of the proposed refuge and in facilities large enough to
accommodate more than a thousand people each--on September 24, 2011,
and on October 1, 2011, respectively. Although the public comment
period on the Draft LPP and EA was scheduled to close on October 24,
2011, it was extended for 30 days by the USFWS at the request of
various sportsman groups.
The primary source of funding for any new NWR is the federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF is authorized to receive
$900 million annually, with the vast majority of that funding derived
from offshore oil and gas leases (about 90% of that fund is from Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas leases), as well as proceeds from the
disposal of surplus federal property. Additionally, some funds for new
NWRs are derived from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
which awards funds to wetlands conservation projects for the benefit of
migratory birds and other wildlife, as well as the Migratory Bird
``Duck Stamp'' program with funding derived from the annual sale of the
federal Duck Stamp.
Any lands, or rights therein, that are acquired by the USFWS within
the future EHNWR&CA are from strictly willing landowners. It has been
emphasized through the entire process of public hearings and in
numerous meeting with landowners that any and all participation in the
proposed refuge and conservation area is strictly voluntary.
Additionally, landowners not participating in the new refuge, but that
may have lands adjacent to or contiguous with lands that may become
part of the new EHNWR&CA will not be subject to regulation or oversight
by the USFWS or any other federal agency as part of this program.
The establishment of the proposed EHNWR&CA has the support of
numerous public agencies that are part of the Greater Everglades
Partnership Initiative. Chief among those are the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Defense.
Concerning the latter, Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) sits near the
center of the proposed refuge area and is actively supporting its
establishment because of the need to buffer the base from incompatible
encroachment that may jeopardize its continued mission. Indeed, APAFR
supports a vital training mission for many air and ground troops that
utilize the facility for gaining realistic training just prior to
heading into harm's way overseas. To that end, the Department of
Defense is engaged in the partnership including providing Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) funds to protect with a
conservation easement lands within the general area of the refuge that
will help to buffer the installation.
A special effort has been made by the USFWS--one that grew out of
the initial Public Scoping meetings (specifically in Sebring)--to work
cooperatively with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) to identify new opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation within the EHNWR&CA. As part of these ongoing discussions,
the Conservancy is supporting a Memorandum of Understanding between the
USFWS and the FFWCC to ensure long-term management by the State of
Florida of hunting, fishing and access opportunities on any fee lands
acquired for the refuge. To this end, a meeting was held between
agencies and sportsman's groups in Okeechobee on October 5, 2011, to
discuss these opportunities and to help craft the MOU between the USFWS
and the FFWCC that will formalize the arrangement. It is important to
note that with this proposal will make available 50,000 new acres to
sportsman's groups for hunting and fishing.
Part of the specific--and publically stated--goal of the proposed
refuge and conservation area will be to protect the ranching culture
and heritage of the private lands in the Kissimmee Valley. Cattle
ranches comprise one of the predominate land uses in the region and the
USFWS and other partners will work with these landowners to protect
sustainable agricultural operations that are important to the State of
Florida's economy and overall national security through domestic food
production. Fully two thirds of the proposed EHNWR&CA will be protected
through lessthan-fee (i.e., conservation easements) arrangements with
strictly willing landowners.
Since many of the lands in the region encompassed by the EHNWR&CA
are active cattle ranches, the greatest opportunity will be to protect
these kinds of lands--particularly through conservation easements. It
should be clear, however, that many of these ranches not only encompass
improved pasture areas (that provide wildlife habitat benefits), but
exist as a mosaic of intact, natural habitats with large blocks of
native forest and grassland cover that support a large array of
imperiled species, several of which are found nowhere else in the
world. It has also been suggested that any fee lands acquired as part
of the proposed refuge should be the highest quality and most intact
lands that do not require expensive restoration of native habitats--
although some hydrological restoration will likely be undertaken--and
thereby will keep management costs to a minimum (including grazing and
public hunting as part of the overall management). Depending upon
negotiations with willing sellers on the terms of conservation
easements, some hydrological restoration may also occur on these
private lands that, taken together, should prove both water storage and
water quality benefits for the headwaters of the Everglades ecosystem.
Since fully two thirds of all lands slated for proposed protection
under the EHNWR&CA will be through conservation easements, the lands
will be available to stay on the tax rolls, and under private
management by their current owners. Additionally, any fee lands are
likely to be scattered across several counties, so as to reduce the
burden to any single governmental entity. It is also of significance
that the USFWS makes payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to counties/
municipalities that current payments show more than offset any lost
property tax revenue (estimated in some areas by about 6:1), as well as
helping counties avoid costly infrastructure for such lands and
providing the potential for enhanced tourism and hunting/fishing
revenues. The Conservancy is strongly supportive of efforts in this
Congress to reauthorize this PILT Program, and has spent a great deal
of time working with the sportsmen and outdoor recreation communities
in recent years to identify and advocate for large landscape
conservation opportunities, the vast majority with significant long-
term economic benefits for small, rural communities via new public
access and recreation opportunities.
Information gathered from several landowners by The Nature
Conservancy also show that many of these agricultural (i.e., green belt
exemptions) pay far less in property taxes than various county
commissions claim might be lost if these lands are actually taken off
the tax rolls. Here is a sample of those data: 1) For a 30,000+ acre
ranch in Osceola County, they pay total annual property taxes of about
$75,000 (including house valuations, fire rescue MSBU and personal
property tax). This comes to about $2.40 per acre. Even if 50,000 acres
came off the tax roll it would only amount to about $120,000 per year
for that county (but, again, would be more than made up by the PILT);
2) For about a 4,600 acre ranch (includes house and structures on
property) also in Osceola County they pay $8,572 which equates to $1.86
per acre. Assuming that all 50,000 acres were in Osceola County, this
would translate to a loss of $93,000. This is very different from an
$800,000 figure being discussed at a recent Osceola County Board of
County Commissioners meeting; 3) For an approximately 7,700 acre ranch
in Okeechobee County, the total tax paid by the ranch was just under
$35,000 and averaged between $1.33 and $1.40 per acre of vacant land
(excluding a large house, stables and other infrastructure/facilities).
At the current time, numerous large and well-established
landowners, mostly cattle ranchers, in the Northern Everglades area
support the EHNWR&CA and are willing to participate in its
establishment. The Nature Conservancy has obtained ``willing seller''
letters from 15 landowners in the region and these have been presented
to the USFWS for inclusion in the public record. As well, we know of at
least two additional large landowners--who while declining to provide
The Nature Conservancy with letters--are willing to participate in the
sale or partial sale of rights (i.e., conservation easements) to the
USFWS for the proposed refuge and conservation area,
Conclusion
In summary, The Nature Conservancy strongly supports and endorses
the proposed EHNWR&CA and is working with a variety of governmental and
non-governmental partners (e,g. private landowners) to ensure the
establishment and success of the refuge. We also believe the Draft LPP
and EA are well crafted and that an excellent case is made within each
for the protection of the ecologically significant and diverse natural
resources of the Kissimmee River Valley and Chain of Lakes. We
therefore strongly support adoption of Alternative C--the Conservation
Partnership Approach--as the proposed action as detailed in the Draft
EA and put forward in the Draft LPP with the following four primary
recommendations:
1. Land protection should focus on highest quality habitats
and landscape connectivity between Three Lakes WMA and
Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park, as well as the western
side of the Chain of Lakes and Lake Kissimmee from the Disney
Wilderness Preserve to the Avon Park Air Force Range.
2. Land protection, both fee simple and less-than-fee, should
focus on intact habitats and working lands with the highest
percentage of natural lands that best accomplish the landscape-
scale objectives for the refuge and conservation area.
Properties that are highly improved or that do not accomplish
landscape connectivity goals should be afforded secondary
priority.
3. Fee simple acquisition for the refuge lands should focus on
the highest quality lands throughout the project area so that
the public will be able to enjoy first-class outdoor
recreational experiences--including hunting opportunities on
lands with abundant game species--on some of the finest natural
areas that Central Florida has to offer.
4. The USFWS's identification of public access opportunities
within the EHNWR&CA--consistent with the compatible uses of the
refuge system and in close coordination with the State of
Florida and local communities--is an important objective to
ensure the longterm success of this landscape initiative,
We further believe the EIINWR&CA complements the ongoing CERP
efforts and the work of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
Interior and State of Florida to implement the CERP. We believe both
efforts and their long-term strategies lead to an enhanced restoration
program for the Greater Everglades ecosystem.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing
record.