U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71-117 PDF 2012

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

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 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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 NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
3 

tional 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 

4 

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 

5 

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. 

6 

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. 

7 

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) 

8 

and being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and our nonfederal 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 predate CERP (the ‘‘Foundation Projects’’) for Everglades restoration that work handin-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 

9 

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. 

10 

• 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 PreProject 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 publicprivate 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 

11 

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 apVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

preciate 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. Twothirds 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 reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

duce 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 

14 

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. 

15 

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 

16 

1This data is provided by the Service’s Finance Center and represents the actual payments 

made to the individual counties. 

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, wildlifedependent 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. 

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. 

17 

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? 

18 

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. 

19 

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 CommisVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
20 

sion 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 

21 

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 

22 

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. 

23 

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? 

24 

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. 

25 

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 

26 

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 

27 

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? 

28 

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. 

29 

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. 

30 

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. 

31 

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. 

32 

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 

33 

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. 

34 

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. 

35 

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 ecosystem 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 

36 

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. 

37 

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. 

38 

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. 

39 

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 

40 

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. 

41 

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 

42 

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 conservaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

tion 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 

44 

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 

45 

iMather 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. 

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: 

‘‘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. 

46 

iiOrzell, 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. 

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

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 

47 

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 ivSouth 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. vLynch, S. and L. Shabman. 2011. Designing a payment for environmental services program 

for the Northern Everglades. National Wetlands Newsletter 33:12–15. viSouth 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. 

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?’’ 

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. 

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. 

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 

48 

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. ix Id. At iv. 

(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. 

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. 

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. 

49 

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 LaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
50 

goon 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 

51 

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 

52 

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. 

53 

#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; 

54 

(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 EverVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
55 

glades? 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. 

56 

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. 

57 

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 

58 

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) 

59 

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) 

Ten 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 sportsmanfriendly 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 

60 

1http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=41577 

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? 

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 

61 

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 

62 

$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 

63 

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 

64 

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. 

65 

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. 

66 

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—— 

67 

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 moVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\71117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
68 

rass 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? 

69 

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 

70 

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 

71 

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. 

72 

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. 

73 

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. 

74 

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 

75 

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 

76 

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 inlue of tax money to these governmental agencies. 

77 

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 

78 

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 

79 

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 

80 

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. 

81 

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 

82 

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: 

83 

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 

84 


71117.001.eps
85 

[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 

86 

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. 

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 


71117.002.eps
87 

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, Swallowtailed 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., 

88 

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) 

89 

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 lessthanfee (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 

90 

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. 

Æ