Everglades National Park
Country
United States of America (USA)
Inscribed in
1979
Criteria
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "critical" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
This site at the southern tip of Florida has been called 'a river of grass flowing imperceptibly from the hinterland into the sea'. The exceptional variety of its water habitats has made it a sanctuary for a large number of birds and reptiles, as well as for threatened species such as the manatee. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Critical
Current state and trend of VALUES
Critical
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Large, flat, low-lying landscape
Criterion
(viii)
The Everglades is a vast, nearly flat, seabed that was submerged at the end of the last Ice Age supporting a vast continuum of shallow marine, estuarine, freshwater and terrestrial landscapes (seagrass, mangrove, wetland and terrestrial vegetation) (World Heritage Committee, 2006).
One of the most active areas of modern carbonate sedimentation
Criterion
(viii)
The limestone substrate of the site is one of the most active areas of modern carbonate sedimentation (World Heritage Committee, 2019).
Diverse array of habitats
Criterion
(ix)
The Everglades contains vast subtropical wetlands and coastal/marine ecosystems including freshwater marshes, tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rocklands, saltwater marshes and seagrass ecosystems important to commercial and recreational fisheries. It contains the largest mangrove ecosystem in the Western Hemisphere. Such a mixture of subtropical and temperate wildlife species is found nowhere else in the United States (World Heritage Committee, 2019).
Oligotrophic ecosystem
Criterion
(ix)
Extremely low nutrient, P-limited throughout much of the park and N-limited at marine end-member—giving rise to plant and algal species that form the basis of the food web and are very sensitive to changes in water quality.
Biodiversity sustained through trophic interactions
Criterion
(ix)
Complex biological processes range from basic algal associations through progressively higher species and ultimately to primary predators such as the alligator, crocodile and Florida panther; the food chain is superbly evident and unbroken (ENP, 2015). A periphyton-based food web supports a diverse assemblage of fish and invertebrates in addition to a suite of large predators including panther, alligator, crocodile, etc. and a large wading bird community.
A uniquely diverse combination of species from different biogeographic realms
Criterion
(ix)
The diversity of habitats described above supports a uniquely diverse combination of species from different biogeographic realms (Carolinian, Louisianan and West Indian) and lies at the nexus of two major migratory bird routes: the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways (World Heritage Committee, 2006).
Threatened, endangered and endemic species
Criterion
(x)
The site provides habitat for 36 native Florida species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) including the Florida Panther, American Crocodile, American Alligator, West Indian Manatee, Wood Stork, and Snail Kite (World Heritage Committee, 2006; NPS, 2025). Everglades National Park also provides habitat for approximately 180 plant and animal species that are also listed by the State of Florida as threatened, endangered, species of special concern, or commercially exploited including: numerous orchid species, tree snails, pine rockland herb and shrub species, Schaus swallowtail butterfly and Everglades mink (Lodge, 2010; NPS, 2025).
Essential wading bird habitat
Criterion
(x)
The exceptional variety of its water habitats has made the Everglades ecosystem a sanctuary for a large number of birds. The site provides important foraging and breeding habitat for more than 400 species of birds and is a major corridor for migration (World Heritage Committee, 2006). It is the most significant breeding ground for wading birds in North America including: roseate spoonbill, great egret, snowy egret, great blue heron (and white morph), reddish egret, wood stork, little blue heron, and tricolored heron. In recent years exceptionally large white ibis supercolonies were recorded in the park (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Miccosukee and Seminole peoples knowledge
The lands and waters of the Everglades are the geographic and spiritual home of the Miccosukee and Seminole peoples. The health and well-being of the Everglades is synonymous with that of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (hereafter the Miccosukee Tribe) and the Seminole Tribe of Florida (hereafter the Seminole Tribe). The Tribes have a wealth of knowledge about the South Florida ecosystem based on their intimate reciprocal relationship with the biophysical environment that has been developed through lived experience and passed down through generations (CISRERP, 2024).
Assessment information
Current threats such as reduced water flows, water pollution and shifting habitats, exacerbated by climate change and especially sea level rise, are affecting the health of the site and the amount and quality of habitat. Whilst many threats and their underlying drivers are larger scale unmanaged changes in conditions, they may not be actionable threats at the site level. Large-scale restoration projects are being implemented to address many of threats, however benefits will not be evident for another few years. Additionally, threats from urbanization and associated impacts need to be effectively managed. Invasive alien species appear to be a significant threat to the site's habitats and species with new species being recorded and already present species expanding their range. Coordinated efforts and sustainable funding for invasive and alien species (IAS) prevention, detection and removal are essential. Climate change and sea level rise are increasingly impacting the property, including through saltwater intrusion and the intensity of impacts is anticipated to increase in future. Projections indicate that South Florida will continue to face changes in surface, atmospheric, oceanic, and coastal water temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, increased evapotranspiration, and more intense tropical storms.
Fire & Fire Management
(Devastating fires (peat, tree island) )
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Fire is a natural part of the Everglades landscape. Due to proximity to large urban/suburban population centres, fire suppression has potentially altered natural habitats especially near the park boundaries. More importantly, fire frequency and intensity is unnaturally high due to historical water management for flood control that creates a drier ecosystem than historically. This led to habitat change and loss of organic soils over large areas, as well as loss of significant archaeological sites (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). While a return to historical fire frequencies and recovery of soil lost is unlikely, recent improvements in management of prescribed fire within the site and progress on Everglades Restoration projects have greatly reduced this threat (Everglades National Park 2015b; IUCN Consultation, 2020). There have been no large-scale, damaging fires in the park in over a decade (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Residential Areas
(Urbanization in the greater Everglades watershed)
Outside site
Urbanisation has reduced the greater Everglades footprint, impacting water supply and water quality, and affecting the way water is managed in the ecosystem (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010), including the lower 20% of this vast system that forms the Everglades National Park World Heritage site. Any expansion in urbanisation would increase needs for flood protection, complicating the options for additional water deliveries to the site. The urban system surrounding the site is also a source of invasive species (Krysko et al. 2011) and light and noise pollution. Various proposed development projects are currently a threat to the site's values as well as continued attempts to expand the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County. The proposed Kingston project, which the Army Corps of Engineers is currently considering for a permit, would add another 3,300 acres of new homes and commercial development to the environmentally sensitive area of corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed. Rural Lands West project (AKA Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, Town of Big Cypress) is also being considered for a permit and is upstream of the 26,000-acre Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which is perhaps the single most important area for the panther population (Crooks, 2024).
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Road kills and road noise)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Wildlife mortality by roadkill occurs inside and outside the site. Seasonal wildlife movements and nesting can affect the intensity of this threat, but site management actions such as seasonal decreases in vehicular speed limits and signage along the main park road have been implemented to address it (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Vehicle collisions are a significant species-level impact on the endangered Florida Panther, but most of this mortality occurs outside the World Heritage site (FWC, 2019).
Dams & Water Management/Use
(Flood control and water supply)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
The Central South Florida Project and subsequent flood control features altered the flow of water through the ecosystem, including the inflows to the property—resulting in loss of landscape pattern and changes in habitat (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Specific effects of this threat on the OUV of the site are numerous, but include increased fire incidence and intensity, soil drying and oxidationas well as persistent drought periods, that are extended in time, space, and level of intensity by water management practices. The Everglades Restoration program is a long-term, USD 23.2 billion+ effort to modify the water management system and remedy this threat (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024). Completion of the CEPP along with the EAA Reservoir over the coming years is critical for restoring a more historic hydrologic regime to the Everglades ecosystem. As an example, the combination of the CEPP and the EAA Reservoir is expected to send an additional 370,000 acre-feet of clean water to the Everglades by 2032 (State Party of the USA, 2024). Although significant efforts have been made to increase freshwater inputs to the World Heritage site (e.g., 3+ miles of bridging along Tamiami Trail), and water volumes in the property increased significantly during 2020 and 2021, resulting in longer flooding durations (UNESCO, 2023), uncertainty due to climate change and rising sea levels persist.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive species)
Other invasive species names
Python bivittatus, Schinus terebinthifolia, Lygodium microphyllum, Melaleuca, Salvator merianae, Monopterus albus, Ardisia elliptica
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
At present, the extent and number of invasive species established is high, and eliminating all invasive species from Everglades National Park is not possible. Instead, efforts focus on prevention, eradication, and control of the most problematic species. Currently, park efforts center on invasive plants, freshwater and marine fish, and herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians). Invasive species include Burmese python (Dorcas et al., 2012), Brazilian pepper, Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), melaleuca, birds (e.g., starling), non-native apple snails, Cuban tree frog, Argentine black and white tegu and several fish species (Everglades CISMA 2019). Of the 1,040 plant species that have been reported in Everglades National Park, approximately 270 are nonnative and approximately 68 are considered invasive according to the Florida Invasive Species Council’s 2023 Plant List (State Party of the USA, 2024). The number of invasive plants and the threat of invasive plants from adjacent lands are increasing. Within the park, melaleuca, Australian pine, Old World climbing fern, Brazilian peppertree, and shoebutton ardisia are the five most widespread species requiring intensive and ongoing management via chemical control, biological control (e.g., natural predators of the species), and mechanical control (e.g., physical removal) methods. Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), has become more common during the reporting period and continues to be observed in greater frequency in the park. Several other invasive fishes have established populations in the broader South Florida canal system and could pose a risk to spread into Everglades National Park. Since 2020 the invasive Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus/javanensis) has spread into SRS, posing a potential threat to small fish and crayfish populations (State Party of the USA, 2024). Parkwide monitoring efforts covering additional freshwater habitat found invasive fishes at 40% of monitoring sites in 2022 and 47% of monitoring sites in 2023. Invasive species represented 2.7% and 3.2% of the total catch at these sites in 2022 and 2023, respectively. This was an increase in the number of sites where invasive species were observed in 2021 (approximately 15%). New species of herpetofauna continue to expand their range in South Florida and existing species habitat's are expanding e.g. Burmese pythons occupy an increasingly large range. There is a need for additional comprehensive preventive regulation. Non-native invasive species threaten habitat quality and biodiversity throughout the Everglades (State Party of the United States of America, 2017). The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force developed a coordinated strategy and specific actions to address the problem in 2014 (SFERTF 2019b), and Everglades National Park has shifted restoration research funds toward exotic species research and control (IUCN Consultation, 2020); however, these advances are woefully inadequate to address the level of the threat. In 2019, the federal government de-activated a 20-year advisory committee dedicated to high-level interagency coordination on invasive species at the national level, a significant step backwards that affects options for progress at the site (DOI, 2019). The scale of the problem and limited resources has prevented establishment of control programs for invasive fish and some invasive wildlife species (State Party of the USA, 2024). In response to direction from the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2020 to prioritize invasive species management (formerly referred to as the SLITHER Act: Suppressing Looming Invasive Threats Harming Everglades Restoration Act), the U.S. Department of Interior recently convened an interagency team of invasive species experts to develop a tool to prioritize potential new invasive species before they become established. The team also helps focus early detection and rapid response (EDRR) efforts if or when new species are detected in the wild. Over USD 5 million were expected to be spent on managing invasive species in 2021-2022, including for prevention, early detection and rapid response (UNESCO, 2023). The park is successfully continuing aggressive treatments of priority invasive plants while also maintaining previously treated areas. Melaleuca receives the most management attention of any invasive plant in the park via the application of chemical and biological control agents. In 2024 and 2025, the park plans to treat the remaining initial infestations of melaleuca, keep the area already at maintenance level in a treatment rotation, and treat a portion of the low-density outlier areas. Efforts continued to control Argentine black and white tegus and Burmese pythons and EDRR was implemented on several occasions. From July 2022 through May 2024, a total of 53 tegus were captured in the park across all size classes confirming reproduction occurring within the park. During the same reporting period, 8,777 acres (3,552 ha) of invasive plants were treated. Treatment efforts focused on reducing melaleuca, Brazilian peppertree, shoebutton ardisia, and Australian pine infestations. A biological control option (Brazilian peppertree thrips) became available in 2019 and was released in Everglades National Park in 2021 and 2022. Everglades National Park also achieved an important milestone in 2022 with the completion of the removal of invasive Brazilian pepper and shoebutton ardisia from the 6,300-acre (2,550 ha) Hole-in-the- Donut restoration project (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Pollution from contaminants other than nutrients and mercury)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Everglades National Park undertook the "Contaminants Assessment and Risk Evaluation Project" from 2005 through 2012. Assays were conducted for a large number of potential contaminants: only a few compounds were of immediate potential risk, and these were limited to borders of the park adjacent to contamination sources (Castro et al. 2016).
Recreational Activities
(Impact of tourism)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Isolated to relatively small areas of the site, there is still visible impact by visitors and tourism in the site. This is most often evident as airboat trails (in the freshwater marsh) or propeller scars (in the shallow marine areas). Management policies implemented as part of the General Management Plan are intended to address these issues: periodic monitoring is ongoing (Everglades National Park 2015a and 2019c; State Party of the United States of America, 2017).
Utility & Service Lines
(Light pollution)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Increasing light levels are altering circadian rhythms in organisms, and can alter nocturnal migratory/movement cues, attract prey and predators, and interfere with nocturnal behaviour (Longcore & Rich, 2004). The urban areas on both the east and west coasts of the park produce light pollution. The park designs its own lighting projects to maximize efficiency and minimize wildlife impacts and light pollution (Everglades National Park 2019d).
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Sea level rise, temperature rise, ocean acidification)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Sea levels have been rising in the region causing shifts in plant communities, changes in wading bird feeding locations and saltwater intrusion into formerly freshwater locations (Park et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2018). Projections for sea level rise in south Florida are beginning to be included in the design of Everglades Restoration Projects but a formal and systematic re-appraisal of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and related programs to include sea level rise and assess effects on restoration goals has not yet been conducted. Climate change and sea level rise are increasingly impacting the property, including through saltwater intrusion and the intensity of impacts is anticipated to increase in future (UNESCO, 2023). Evidence shows that salinity levels downstream are on the rise and salt water intrusion is accelerating (Pineda and Blackwell, 2024). Climate change and sea level rise combined with reduced flows of fresh water are causing some areas within Everglades National Park to experience marsh collapse, shifts in vegetation species, and saltwater intrusion. Mangrove wetlands within the park have already encroached into freshwater wetlands. The most significant change is in the southeastern area of the park, where sea level rise and reductions in water deliveries have caused an expansion of the white zone and increased salinity levels in Northeast Florida Bay (NEFB) (State Party of the USA, 2024). Projections indicate that South Florida will continue to face changes in surface, atmospheric, oceanic, and coastal water temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, increased evapotranspiration, and more intense tropical storms. Florida’s sea level rise has outpaced national averages, with predictions ranging from 2.6 feet (80 cm) to 6.8 feet (207 cm) by 2100. Air temperatures are expected to continue rising throughout the 21st century, leading to increased evapotranspiration and reduced surface water availability, even if rainfall remains constant. Ocean acidification poses a potentially high threat as it affects biogeochemical processes related to carbonate precipitation, particularly along the southwestern boundary between Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico (Robbins and Lisle 2018). Restoring the Everglades is a critical strategy to build a resilient ecosystem and mitigate the effects of climate change and sea level rise (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Pollution from agriculture)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Nutrient pollution from upstream agricultural sources has been a major concern regarding water quality at the site (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Nutrient pollution modifies marsh algal communities and shifts the natural patchwork of marsh habitats toward a monospecific community of cattail which drastically reduces the diversity and abundance of wildlife (Surratt et al. 2011). The Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) are the largest complex of constructed treatment wetlands in the world with a current treatment area of over 25,000 ha which will total approximately 25,900 ha by the end of 2025. The treatment areas are located upstream and are beginning to improve water quality of water arriving on site. They are designed to remove phosphorus from agricultural and urban stormwater runoff, and when there is available capacity, they can also receive and treat water from Lake Okeechobee (Armstrong et al. 2023). Large scale water management projects include the State of Florida’s Restoration Strategies Plan to further improve water quality, the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP), as well as the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Reservoir project that will redirect Lake Okeechobee discharges southward, back into the Everglades. While projects are progressing, their full benefits are not expected to be realized before approximately 2032. To date, with increased water flows a proportion of some structures has shown a decrease in levels of total phosphorus and overall phosphorus concentrations across all marsh stations were below the established long-term target of to 8 μg L-1. Nevertheless, some sampling locations have concerning trends that require additional investigation (State Party of the USA, 2024). Full restoration of the hydrology of the Park relies on diverting more water from Lake Okeechobee to the park, but that goal is highly threatened by continued phosphorus over-enrichment of Lake water. The 2019 Basin Management Action Plan for Lake Okeechobee (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2019), declared they do not project meeting the Lake's phosphorus goals by the year 2034. Mercury, which enters the ecosystem through atmospheric deposition through emissions from coal-fired power plants (UNESCO, 2023), is also an issue due to legacy depositions in soils that continue to be mobilized, made biologically available through interaction with certain agricultural additives (primarily sulfates) upstream of the park and carried to the park through the canal system (Orem et al. 2019). This issue requires a regional response and has not yet been systematically addressed. However, this threat has been substantially reduced by the various State of Florida projects (see *Projects).
Atmospheric & Space Activities
(Soundscape impacts from air traffic)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
The site lies near a major airport (Miami International Airport) and immediately adjacent to smaller regional airports which contribute to noise pollution at times (McVoy et al., 2011; Davis Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010).
Potential threats, including farm and road development pose significant risks to the site's OUV due to potential impacts on the hydrological regime of the property. Collaboration between the park authority and the road development authority will be essential to prioritise the conservation and further restoration of the property above infrastructure development. US national parks are facing challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts. This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities.
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Commercial and recreational fishing)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Limited to Florida Bay, intense fishing pressure has led to declines of some species in some areas. However, other species such as lobster, sponges and stone crabs are protected. Commercial fishing is no longer allowed within the site (McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Close coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and long-term monitoring of the estuarine fishery in the park are activities that help to reduce this threat (Everglades National Park 2015a).
Oil & Gas exploration/development
(Oil exploration and exploitation)
Outside site
At present there is no hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) or other form of oil and gas developments inside the property. However, in 2013, a company operating in the Everglades ecosystem upstream of the property used an ‘acidisation process’, which involved the injection of 700,000 gallons of acidic water into the ground. This was stopped and the company fined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. On January 15, 2020 the State of Florida purchased the 20,000 acre property to prevent any future oil exploration at that location (Fleshler, 2020).
Terrestrial Animal Farming, Ranching & Herding
(Farmland development)
Outside site
In Homestead, south of Miami, there is pressure to develop flood-prone, low lying farmlands between the Everglades and Biscayne national parks, the realisation of which could affect water quality and quantity within the parks (Pineda & Blackwell, 2024).
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Road development)
Outside site
In 2017, the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority proposed the extension of SR-836/Dolphin Expressway from its current terminus southward for 14 miles (23 km). The proposed extension is adjacent to the park and is planned by Miami-Dade County to go through, or have secondary impacts on, sensitive wetlands including the Bird Drive Basin and Pennsuco wetlands. According to the Environment Protection Agency, the extension of SR 836 / Dolphin Expressway “will have substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts on the Greater Everglades wetland ecosystem”. In 2020, a state administrative law judge sided with Tropical Audubon Society that the proposed highway extension was not allowed by the Miami-Dade County CDMP, and the project was temporarily halted. In June 2021, the State of Florida Administration Commission (Florida’s Governor and Cabinet) voted to override the ruling which cleared the way for the county to move forward with the extension as proposed. This allowed the county to seek permits from state agencies to construct the extension. The Tropical Audubon Society appealed the Administration Commission findings. In July 2024, the court upheld the Administration Commission’s ruling, which found that the CDMP amendment allowing for the highway extension was proper. As a response, the Tropical Audubon Society filed a motion asking the court to clarify its ruling, rehear the matter, and certify the case for appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The NPS is involved in the planning process for the BBSEER project and is recommending that these sensitive wetlands remain in the project as study areas emphasizing their overall importance to restoration. Everglades National Park and the US Department of Interior will work with the Miami-Dade Expressway authority to develop alternatives to lessen impacts on the property and to avoid impacts on sensitive wetlands currently being considered in the planning process of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Removing/Reducing Human Management
(Changes in staff capacity and funding)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
US national parks are facing challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts (e.g. Matza, 2025; Rosenblat, 2025). This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
The site faces challenges due to the diversity and number of stakeholders, and their differing expectations. Improvements have been made to interactions with internal park stakeholders (the tourism and fishing communities) as a result of the finalization of the General Management Plan and additional efforts made by the park to communicate with stakeholders frequently. Increased local demand for water supply and flood control benefits reduce the expected ecological benefits from restoration projects. Also, some stakeholder groups such as the hunting community and bass fishers want to protect their recreational interests in the greater Everglades outside the park. In some instances these interests conflict with the goals of restoration that involve filling-in of canals used by bass fishermen and re-hydration of lands that are currently traversed by hunters on foot (McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Because the Everglades Restoration Program affects so many different interests, this topic is likely to continue to be a concern and require significant effort from the park authorities for some time. To reduce further conflict over the seepage of water
out of Everglades National Park into neighboring developed areas, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) worked on the construction of a project to prevent flooding in the vulnerable Las Palmas community (also known as the 8.5 Square Mile
Area, 8.5 SMA). The construction of the 7.3-mile (11.7 km) underground seepage barrier along the eastern boundary of the park is designed to prevent shallow groundwater and elevated surface water from affecting areas downstream of normal groundwater flow,
especially in the Las Palmas community. Protecting this vulnerable area from flooding means much higher volumes of water can be allowed to flow into the park without increase of flooding risk. The final 5 miles (8 km) of the seepage barrier, a component of
the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP), was completed in early 2024 (State Party of the USA, 2024).
The Western Everglades Planning Project (WERP) as proposed offers important benefits to the western Everglades, but implementation progress largely depends on non-CERP source control implemented by private landowners, which could lead to large delays without implementation and performance requirements. Acquiring ownership of lands around the park has been one solution. Since 2024, public ownership of lands in the East Everglades has been acquired to re-establish water flows in NESRS. In general, WERP features, if implemented as planned, should improve hydration, hydrologic and ecological connectivity, and water quality, which have been longstanding concerns in the WERP study area. Yet, issues regarding flood risk of the Looneyville community still need to be addressed to meet Savings Clause requirements (CISRERP, 2024). Regarding indigenous people: Indigenous Knowledge could be better included in CERP planning and management. Over the past decade, consultation has become less proforma and more meaningful, as exemplified by the application of Indigenous Knowledge to inform decision making in WERP and in a 2023 temporary deviation from the seasonal closures of the S-12A and S-12B structures. The work required to shift agency cultures to further elevate meaningful Tribal engagement will be labor- and resource-intensive for both agencies and Tribes but will reap rewards for Everglades restoration. The recently developed Miccosukee internal peer review process is an important step toward facilitating consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in Everglades restoration processes and provides a potential model for others throughout the nation (CISRERP, 2024).
out of Everglades National Park into neighboring developed areas, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) worked on the construction of a project to prevent flooding in the vulnerable Las Palmas community (also known as the 8.5 Square Mile
Area, 8.5 SMA). The construction of the 7.3-mile (11.7 km) underground seepage barrier along the eastern boundary of the park is designed to prevent shallow groundwater and elevated surface water from affecting areas downstream of normal groundwater flow,
especially in the Las Palmas community. Protecting this vulnerable area from flooding means much higher volumes of water can be allowed to flow into the park without increase of flooding risk. The final 5 miles (8 km) of the seepage barrier, a component of
the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP), was completed in early 2024 (State Party of the USA, 2024).
The Western Everglades Planning Project (WERP) as proposed offers important benefits to the western Everglades, but implementation progress largely depends on non-CERP source control implemented by private landowners, which could lead to large delays without implementation and performance requirements. Acquiring ownership of lands around the park has been one solution. Since 2024, public ownership of lands in the East Everglades has been acquired to re-establish water flows in NESRS. In general, WERP features, if implemented as planned, should improve hydration, hydrologic and ecological connectivity, and water quality, which have been longstanding concerns in the WERP study area. Yet, issues regarding flood risk of the Looneyville community still need to be addressed to meet Savings Clause requirements (CISRERP, 2024). Regarding indigenous people: Indigenous Knowledge could be better included in CERP planning and management. Over the past decade, consultation has become less proforma and more meaningful, as exemplified by the application of Indigenous Knowledge to inform decision making in WERP and in a 2023 temporary deviation from the seasonal closures of the S-12A and S-12B structures. The work required to shift agency cultures to further elevate meaningful Tribal engagement will be labor- and resource-intensive for both agencies and Tribes but will reap rewards for Everglades restoration. The recently developed Miccosukee internal peer review process is an important step toward facilitating consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in Everglades restoration processes and provides a potential model for others throughout the nation (CISRERP, 2024).
Legal framework
The greater Everglades ecosystem is highly compartmentalised with varying jurisdiction and management strategies for each compartment. For example, water in the Water Conservation Areas is managed by the State of Florida (South Florida Water Management District), water quality is a State of Florida responsibility, and Florida also has an important regulatory role in the management of fisheries and wildlife resources. In turn, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with management of important aspects of the engineered system, with the primary goal of flood protection. Endangered species are managed at the State and Federal levels and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is viewed by some as an impediment to restoration of the greater ecosystem. Some areas that used to be wet historically are kept dry for management of wildlife that were not abundant in those areas in the pre-impact state. At the downstream end of this water management system, the Everglades National Park World Heritage site is managed by the National Park Service but inflows are managed by the State. There are also tribal interests involved at many levels (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Threats to the site demonstrate that the legal framework could be improved to enhance coordination across jurisdictions and management agencies and streamline the protection of natural resources at the watershed level. Regarding invasive and alien species (IAS), the park does not have jurisdictional authority over nearby areas from which new invasive populations may originate, nor does the park have the ability to generate policies that may prevent new introductions. Instead, the park engages in formal collaborations with federal, state, and local partners through participation in the Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area Steering Committee and the Florida Invasive Species Council (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Governance arrangements
The CERP lacks a mechanism for centralized, multi-agency reporting of project-level restoration outcomes. Data, when available, are often presented in permit reports produced by a single agency or in monitoring reports produced by contractor. Increased attention to multi-agency data synthesis and interpretation is needed to support assessment and learning and improve management effectiveness overall (CISRERP, 2024). Regional management does not allow for effective protection of World Heritage values. While park staff and management participation in Everglades Restoration project planning and coordination through the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force is ongoing, the technical complexities, timeline and diverse objectives of this program remain a challenge (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; IUCN Consultation, 2020). Regarding IAS, the park does not have jurisdictional authority over nearby areas from which new invasive populations may originate, nor does the park have the ability to generate policies that may prevent new introductions. Instead, the park engages in formal collaborations with federal, state, and local partners through participation in the Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area Steering Committee and the Florida Invasive Species Council. The result of these partnerships is regular coordination of management actions and research priorities for multiple taxa, as well as a synergy of resources across agencies (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
Integrative planning is effective; however, implementation has not achieved the same level of success. The landscape of South Florida is one of the largest, most highly engineered, and closely operated water management systems in the world. It was designed, and is currently operated, to provide flood protection and water supply to the urban and agricultural areas of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach. All the previously mentioned large-scale projects assure that legal levels of flood protection, as well as water availability for people, will not be diminished because of implementation of restoration project features. Although the overall purpose and vision of large-scale restoration projects remain the same, this backdrop of shifting constraints (e.g., legal issues, economic concerns, changes in land use, sea level rise) require regular adjustments to the scope and timing of the implementation of corrective measures (CISRERP, 2024). Additionally, as shown by the pressure to develop farmland and road development, there are incompatibilities between regional and state-level planning and development priorities and the protection of the Everglades ecosystem.
Boundaries
Boundaries of the National Park are well established and guidelines for protection within boundaries are understood. This aspect is highly effective. However, the watershed boundaries extend well beyond (i.e. upstream) the boundaries of the World Heritage site, which exacerbates water quantity and quality problems (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010).
Overlapping international designations
The national park includes three international designations, which are recognised in the park management plan, the vision of which is to effectively manage the site according to the purpose of all three designations. However, the extent to which management actions consider World Heritage values alongside the Ramsar and Biosphere Reserve objectives is unclear.
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
For reasons described above, only partial success has been seen in the implementation of Committee decisions and recommendations, and as such the site is retained on the List of World heritage in Danger (World Heritage Committee, 2019a) and therefore of some concern. Decision 45 COM 7A.17 recognises the progress made by the State Party and the achievements of meeting previous recommendations e.g. allocating additional funding, preventing oil, gas and mineral exploration in the Everglades Protection Area, and the strengthening of IAS legislation and management. However, key areas of concern remain including the adverse impact of the planned extension of the SR 836 / Dolphin Expressway on the Greater Everglades wetland ecosystem and a need to update the corrective measures, including a timeline for their implementation. In addition, concern has been raised regarding the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise, however the site management has developed an extensive climate action response (see climate action).
Climate action
Besides supporting Everglades restoration efforts, the park is also expanding its internal climate change expertise by creating a Resiliency and Sustainability Team that will focus on understanding the impacts of climate change on the Everglades ecosystem, as well as how Everglades restoration will mitigate those impacts. For the next three years, Everglades National Park will be hosting brainstorming workshops to develop a climate change roadmap for the park’s short-term and long-term futures. These workshops will focus on setting targets and developing a strategy for mitigating climate change and sea level rise. The outcome will be an adaptation strategy for the park within the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework. Topics will focus on freshwater delivery needs and land management strategies to maintain marl prairie and ridge and slough habitats, salinity levels in Florida Bay, and a healthy mangrove/marsh ecotone interface (State Party of the USA, 2024). NPS staff proactively monitor and mitigate for climate change impacts on cultural and natural resources and visitor amenities. Education and interpretive programs help visitors understand climate change impacts in the national park and beyond, and how they can respond to climate change. Partnerships with various agencies and institutions allow NPS staff to participate in research on climate change impacts to park and ecosystem resources (Seki, 2023).
Management plan and overall management system
Park management has shown consistent improvement over the past decade as the General Management Plan has begun to be implemented. Internal management at the site has direct effect on threats such as unnaturally intense or frequent fires, roadkill frequency, and tourism and fishing impacts. Nevertheless, regional management of water quality and quantity (controlled by the State and to some extent the Federal government) is not focused on the park, which is the World Heritage site. The park is at the downstream end of the greater Everglades ecosystem, and decisions made regarding management upstream of the site have not always been compatible with protecting the WH site (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Lodge, 2010). While site participation in Everglades Restoration project planning and coordination through the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force is ongoing, the technical complexities, timeline and diverse objectives of this program remain a challenge (IUCN Consultation, 2020). To improve coordination of the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem, the 68 projects of the CERP were bundled into larger plans. The ones most relevant to the park include the CEPP, the Western Everglades Restoration Plan (WERP), the Biscayne Bay and Southeastern Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSEER), and the Southern Everglades Study.
Law enforcement
Enforcement within the Everglades National Park/World Heritage site is strong, while upstream of the park enforcement varies, sometimes with results that conflict with strong resource protection downstream in the World Heritage site. This is in part due to the range of actors responsible for different aspects of land and resource management. Two oil and gas permits considered earlier in the vicinity of the property have been resolved through the withdrawal of one application and the permanent protection of 8,000 ha of land and associated drilling rights in the Everglades Protection Area acquired by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (State Party of the USA, 2024; UNESCO 2023)
Sustainable finance
Internal financing for the site itself has remained steady, and implementation of in-house projects in line with the General Management Plan and national level policy has created opportunities for the park to acquire funding through increases to entrance fees and concessions management (Everglades National Park 2019b). In terms of funding for Everglades Restoration projects, during the last few years, there was a significant increase in federal and state budgets dedicated to CERP resulting in acceleration of several feature - most recently an additional commitment of almost USD 1.5 billion to accelerate critical restoration projects toward achieving the DSOCR (UNESCO, 2023). In 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other appropriations provided nearly $1.1 billion capacity for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to accelerate Everglades restoration, enabling them to simultaneously move forward on multiple projects (State Party of the USA, 2024). The pace of restoration implementation has reached historic levels, based on record state and federal investments in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Six CERP projects are under construction, one CERP project and two major project components have been completed, and one additional project is essentially complete. The Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) continues to progress rapidly, as befits the project that is the keystone to restoring the central heart of the Everglades. Maintaining this pace of progress requires both continued construction funding and support for other agencies responsible for facilitating restoration implementation (e.g., permitting, monitoring). With so many projects under construction, if future funding levels fall short of those used for planning, difficult decisions will need to be made as to whether to delay all projects equally or, preferably, to expedite those with the greatest near-term benefits (CISRERP 2024).
Funding for invasive species detection and control remains insufficient, although some budget from the restoration priority has been shifted to IAS management (State Party of the USA, 2024). Over USD 5 million were to be spent on managing invasive species in 2021-2022, including for prevention, early detection and rapid response (UNESCO, 2024).
Overall, US national parks are facing escalating challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts (e.g. Matza, 2025). This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities, also for the Everglades National Park.
Funding for invasive species detection and control remains insufficient, although some budget from the restoration priority has been shifted to IAS management (State Party of the USA, 2024). Over USD 5 million were to be spent on managing invasive species in 2021-2022, including for prevention, early detection and rapid response (UNESCO, 2024).
Overall, US national parks are facing escalating challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts (e.g. Matza, 2025). This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities, also for the Everglades National Park.
Staff capacity, training and development
NPS staff at the Everglades National Park undertake a high degree of mandatory training (IUCN Consultation, 2020). An area that could be improved is the aspect of Tribal input and opportunities for meaningful collaboration and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge. The pace of Everglades restoration planning, operations, and adaptive management and the associated requirements for effective engagement may exceed the existing staff resources of both the CERP agencies and the Tribal Nations. CERP agencies’ dependence on a single staff member to coordinate Tribal relations creates vulnerabilities. CERP agencies could improve their capacity through increased agency training and staffing to ensure a breadth of expertise and uninterrupted relations in the event of personnel turnover. Other restoration programs have provided grants to Tribes, when needed, to increase Tribal staff availability for consultation and engagement. To continue to improve the quality of Tribal engagement and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge, training should be developed, in consultation with the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, and required on a recurring basis for all agency staff who interact with Tribal members (CISRERP, 2024).
Education and interpretation programmes
Efforts at conveying natural aspects and values – and the threats thereto – are perhaps unparalleled. The NPS has partnered with teachers 'to provide curriculum-based, hands-on education experiences in the park' since 1971 (Everglades National Park, 2020a). Recent interpretation programs have improved access to cultural resources (IUCN Consultation, 2020; CISRERP, 2024).
Tourism and visitation management
Changes to concessions management (Everglades National Park 2018) and associated quality control programs have increased the consistency of interpretation experiences for park visitors. Fishing guide businesses, while small in numbers, have a large economic impact and provide quality interpretation of resources. With relatively stable visitor numbers (maximum 1.16 million in 2022 vs. minimum 0.6 million in 2018), dipping sharply due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the current management system in place is effective at managing visitation and potential adverse impacts from tourism.
Sustainable use
Within the boundaries, most of the site has Federal Wilderness-protected status with a very low developed footprint. Fishing guide businesses generally support sustainable use of the coastal/marine areas (Everglades National Park 2015a). Use outside of boundaries is not sustainable for all resources, thereby contributing to some impacts within the site (McVoy et al., 2011; Lodge, 2010).
Monitoring
Continued monitoring will be essential in tracking changes due to climate change, sea level rise and ecosystem restoration. Some key parameters are being monitored by agencies other than the National Park Service; these efforts are coordinated through the Everglades Restoration framework (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; SFERTF, 2019).
Every year, state and federal sponsoring agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), update the Integrated Delivery Schedule (IDS) tracking the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (State Party of the USA, 2024). The COP Biennial Report is an example of effective multi-agency analysis of extensive monitoring data on hydrologic, water quality, and ecological conditions in support of learning and adapting management. Simplified and straightforward analyses of key metrics will provide increased transparency of restoration outcomes to the public and Congress (CISRERP, 2024). Additionally, other stakeholders are involved in monitoring efforts, for example catches from fishers are used to monitor fish populations and trends. Sport fish catch rates are monitored by Everglades National Park using creel surveys that ask recreational anglers about their catch and fishing practices. Catch per unit effort (CPUE or catch rate) is an indirect measure of fish species abundance that can be calculated from creel surveys to provide information on species trends.(State Party of the USA, 2024). The status and trends of a larger set of system-wide ecological indicators are also being evaluated for the entire South Florida
ecosystem in the Department of the Interior’s Strategy and Biennial Reports to Congress, which focus on broader Everglades restoration progress (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Every year, state and federal sponsoring agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), update the Integrated Delivery Schedule (IDS) tracking the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (State Party of the USA, 2024). The COP Biennial Report is an example of effective multi-agency analysis of extensive monitoring data on hydrologic, water quality, and ecological conditions in support of learning and adapting management. Simplified and straightforward analyses of key metrics will provide increased transparency of restoration outcomes to the public and Congress (CISRERP, 2024). Additionally, other stakeholders are involved in monitoring efforts, for example catches from fishers are used to monitor fish populations and trends. Sport fish catch rates are monitored by Everglades National Park using creel surveys that ask recreational anglers about their catch and fishing practices. Catch per unit effort (CPUE or catch rate) is an indirect measure of fish species abundance that can be calculated from creel surveys to provide information on species trends.(State Party of the USA, 2024). The status and trends of a larger set of system-wide ecological indicators are also being evaluated for the entire South Florida
ecosystem in the Department of the Interior’s Strategy and Biennial Reports to Congress, which focus on broader Everglades restoration progress (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Research
Research has been and will continue to be vital to managing the World Heritage values of the site. The South Florida Natural Resources Center (SFNRC), a division of Everglades National Park (ENP), was established in 1978 to serve four National Park Service units: Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve. In addition to serving the four park units, the center was also given the unprecedented mandate to address the impacts of activities taking place outside park boundaries. This unique charter requires that center scientists conduct scientific inquiries into the ecology of the region as a whole, and evaluate the impacts that land-use and water resources management actions have on the freshwater, estuarine, and coastal ecosystems of south Florida. Today, the SFNRC is organized around four major categories of activities: Natural Resources Management, Inventory and Monitoring, Restoration Assessments, and Applied Science. The primary goal of the SFNRC is to ensure a functional ecosystem. Center scientists work to conserve and, where necessary, restore the normal suite of interactions occurring among the biological and physical elements of the environment. The Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) is a research funding program administered by the South Florida Natural Resources Center to answer key questions of management importance. Over the last fifteen years, the CESI program has generated significant contributions to our understanding of the Everglades ecosystem, evidenced by the suite of funded projects outlined below. The center, unique within the NPS for the size and complexity of its science mission, is dedicated to the NPS goal of preserving resources for the enjoyment of future generations.
Everglades National Park’s South Florida Natural Resources Center has 70 scientists and technicians that monitor and conduct research. Much fundamental research is largely supported by agencies other than the National Park Service; formal coordination of this research occurs through the Everglades Restoration framework (State Party of the United States of America, 2017).
Everglades National Park’s South Florida Natural Resources Center has 70 scientists and technicians that monitor and conduct research. Much fundamental research is largely supported by agencies other than the National Park Service; formal coordination of this research occurs through the Everglades Restoration framework (State Party of the United States of America, 2017).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
The park continues to face difficulties in addressing the many threats originating outside the site, such as reduced water flow, nutrient pollution, invasive species, climate change impacts and sea level rise. Recent advances in implementing a number of regional Everglades Restoration projects to improve water flow across the entire ecosystem, diminish the loss of water across the eastern boundary of the park, and improve water quality are encouraging; however, the timeline for implementation of projects that would bring significant improvements to the ecological health of the park are far into the future (13-22 years for completion, depending on the project) (ENP, 2016; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018). Additionally, the potential infrastructure, urban and agriculture developments in the site's vicinity are serious threats to the OUV. Regarding IAS, although the park does not have jurisdictional authority over nearby areas from which new invasive populations may originate, the park engages in formal collaborations with federal, state, and local partners through participation in the Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area Steering Committee and the Florida Invasive Species Council.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Although there is a positive or sustainable trend for about one quarter of the sub-indicators since 2013, various sub-indicators have deteriorated, and in 2022, almost two thirds of the sub-indicators still remained below the restoration targets. This emphasizes the need to continue to strengthen current efforts to attain the DSOCR, including the implementation of the State of Florida’s Restoration Strategies Project, and the CEPP with the EAA Reservoir project. The corrective measures are not sufficient to deliver the volumes of clean water needed to achieve the DSOCR, recalling that additional restoration projects were announced in 2015; Around USD 1.5 billion of additional funding has been made available to accelerate critical restoration projects; the estimated time needed for completion ranges from 13 to 22 years, depending on funding; A new Resiliency and Sustainability team has been formed to strengthen climate change adaptation strategies; Given that invasive alien species remain a serious concern, the new legislation and additional resources to prevent, manage or eradicate these are welcomed.
Although there is a positive or sustainable trend for about one quarter of the sub-indicators since 2013, various sub-indicators have deteriorated, and in 2022, almost two thirds of the sub-indicators still remained below the restoration targets, emphasizing the need to strengthen current efforts to attain the DSOCR, including the implementation of the State of Florida’s Restoration Strategies Project, and the CEPP with the EAA Reservoir project. Additional funding, including around USD 1.5 billion will hopefully accelerate critical restoration projects, however the estimated time needed for completion ranges from 13 to 22 years and overall CERP achievement is expected to take more than 50 years. While the impressive restoration efforts at the regional level must be commended, there remain tensions between water and flood protection needs of different stakeholders and urban development and agricultural changes continue to occur in South Florida, adding pressure on the fragile Everglade ecosystem, beyond the park authority's control. A new Resiliency and Sustainability team has been formed to strengthen climate change adaptation strategies and the plans to develop a climate adaptation strategy are positive. Given that invasive alien species remain a serious concern, the new legislation and additional resources to prevent, manage or eradicate these are welcomed, however the threat from IAS to the OUV are high. Another key concern is that US national parks are facing escalating challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts. This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities, and the capacity of staff to manage the increasing threats affecting Everglades National Park.
Good practice examples
The recently developed Miccosukee internal peer review process is an important step toward facilitating consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in Everglades restoration processes and provides a potential model for others throughout the nation (CISRERP, 2024).
Large, flat, low-lying landscape
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
Changes in soil elevation can affect the flow of water, the patterning of the landscape and concentration of wading bird prey (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). A regional synthesis of surface elevation change data from mangrove forests and coastal marshes in the Greater Everglades region showed that rates of surface elevation change ranged from −9.8 to 15.2 mm year−1, indicating some wetlands are keeping pace with sea-level rise while others are at risk of submergence and conversion to open water. There is a lack of a clear indication to what extent this value is changing, however this comprehensive study indicates the changes are not linear and that there is no significant relationship between rates of surface elevation change and elevation (NAVD 88) or rates of sea-level rise. Site-specific examples indicate that hurricanes, plant productivity, hydrologic exchange, and proximity to sediment and nutrient inputs are critical but confounding drivers of surface elevation change dynamics in the Greater Everglades region (Feher et al. 2024).
One of the most active areas of modern carbonate sedimentation
Data Deficient
Trend
Data Deficient
Sea-level rise, reduced freshwater flow and changes in ocean alkalinity will alter the location of active peat accumulation and carbonate precipitation in the coastal Everglades or threaten carbonate precipitation over longer periods of time (State Party of the United States of America, , 2017; McVoy et al., 2011; Lodge, 2010; Robbins and Lisle 2018). However, the efforts to increase freshwater flow have shown initial successes e.g. improvements in distribution of flows between NWSRS and NESRS and increases in water levels to the desired state of conservation (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Diverse array of habitats
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The diversity of habitats is being threatened by loss of ridge and slough patterning, loss of tree islands, collapse of peat soils along the saltwater/freshwater interface and invasive/exotic plants and animals (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010; Wilson et al. 2018). Focusing on the implementation of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEEPP) through 2033 is anticipated to benefit Everglades National Park marsh and coastal ecosystems. The CEPP will help restore some of the natural functions of the park that have been degraded by decades of ecologically damaging water diversion and management practices. The CEPP is expected to protect biodiversity by improving habitat
quality for many species within the park (State Party of the USA, 2024). However, it is too early to detect any positive impacts currently.
quality for many species within the park (State Party of the USA, 2024). However, it is too early to detect any positive impacts currently.
Oligotrophic ecosystem
Critical
Trend
Deteriorating
With the addition of phosphorus from agricultural and urban runoff, the northern Everglades has become gradually enriched, making the ecosystem less oligotrophic. Changes in water depth from sea-level rise and water management and increased nutrient loading can affect patterns of production, biomass allocation and the ultimate accumulation of organic matter in Everglades’ soils and sediments (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). With increased water flows a proportion of some structures has shown a decrease in levels of total phosphorus and overall phosphorus concentrations across all marsh stations were below the established long-term target of to 8 μg L-1. Nevertheless, some sampling locations have concerning trends that require additional investigation (State Party of the USA, 2024). Notably, the recent completion of seepage management, combined with non-CERP projects, has enabled increased flows to Northeast Shark River Slough, a long-time restoration goal. With restoration of flows, however, concerns about new or increasing phosphorus impacts have arisen and warrant further study (CISRERP, 2024).
Biodiversity sustained through trophic interactions
Critical
Trend
Deteriorating
The periphyton-based food web of the Everglades is threatened by nutrient (mainly phosphorus) loading (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Over 23,000 ha (57,000 acres; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2016) of stormwater treatment areas are beginning to meet water quality goals for phosphorus removal and periphyton protection. Additional water quality constructed features are expected to be finalized in 2025 (SFWMD, 2019). Small increases in phosphorus concentrations can decrease periphyton biomass, shift community structure, and adversely impact higher trophic levels. The measurements of periphyton tissue TP in 2013 and 2023 indicated some level of negative impacts. Periphyton biomass measurements were outside of the desired range in TS during 2013, 2017, 2019, 2022, and 2023. Periphyton biomass measured at stations in SRS indicated some level of impact in 64% of the years since 2013. Attention and consideration to this current trajectory needs to be given to both sloughs, which are the major conduits of water through the park (State Party of the USA, 2024).
The effects of invasive species on biodiversity and trophic interactions also needs to be considered. Since 2020 the invasive Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus/javanensis) has spread into SRS, posing a potential threat to small fish and crayfish populations and has already led to significant declines in species vulnerable to predatory fishes (e.g., Everglades and slough crayfishes Procambarus alleni and P. fallax) in TS. However, in regard to invasive plant species, management efforts have led to decreasing percentages of infested areas of melaleuca, Australian pine, Old World climbing fern, Brazilian peppertree (State Party of the USA, 2024). New species of herpetofauna continue to expand their range in South Florida and existing species are expanding their presence. Abundance of mammals has been severely impacted by the presence of invasive Burmese pythons at the site, and the marsh rabbit has been locally extirpated and is unable to persist in the park (Dorcas et al. 2012; McCleery et al. 2015). More recent reptilian invasions bordering the site, particularly Argentine tegu, have the potential to alter the trophic structure and native biodiversity at the site. Invasive plants such as Old-World climbing fern present at the site are altering habitat structure at the local level. Primarily because of the current and future impacts of invasive species, this value should be considered critical.
The effects of invasive species on biodiversity and trophic interactions also needs to be considered. Since 2020 the invasive Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus/javanensis) has spread into SRS, posing a potential threat to small fish and crayfish populations and has already led to significant declines in species vulnerable to predatory fishes (e.g., Everglades and slough crayfishes Procambarus alleni and P. fallax) in TS. However, in regard to invasive plant species, management efforts have led to decreasing percentages of infested areas of melaleuca, Australian pine, Old World climbing fern, Brazilian peppertree (State Party of the USA, 2024). New species of herpetofauna continue to expand their range in South Florida and existing species are expanding their presence. Abundance of mammals has been severely impacted by the presence of invasive Burmese pythons at the site, and the marsh rabbit has been locally extirpated and is unable to persist in the park (Dorcas et al. 2012; McCleery et al. 2015). More recent reptilian invasions bordering the site, particularly Argentine tegu, have the potential to alter the trophic structure and native biodiversity at the site. Invasive plants such as Old-World climbing fern present at the site are altering habitat structure at the local level. Primarily because of the current and future impacts of invasive species, this value should be considered critical.
A uniquely diverse combination of species from different biogeographic realms
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Loss of habitat (see above) will affect species diversity. A few species in particular are at risk due to decreased habitat quality (e.g. Everglades snail kite).
Threatened, endangered and endemic species
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Approximately 30 Federally listed species are at-risk of being lost from the ecosystem. Endemic species may be at risk of going extinct (State Party of the United States of America, 2017; Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010). Nevertheless, there have been some recent improvements, for example in the nesting effort and nesting success of the American Alligator and the trend in total population and reproduction for American Crocodiles (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Essential wading bird habitat
High Concern
Trend
Stable
The Everglades is an essential wading bird habitat in south Florida. However, continued impacts from water management and loss of habitat may lead to mass defection and abandonment of habitat in favour of other areas (e.g. roseate spoonbills in Florida Bay) (Everglades National Park 2015a; McVoy et al., 2011; Davis & Ogden, 1994; Lodge, 2010; Lorenz 2013). For example, the impacts of climate change and rising sea levels are becoming increasingly significant and Roseate spoonbills, which historically nested in Florida Bay have been abandoning historic nesting sites in favour of nesting locations in the coastal Everglades and elsewhere. In the 2018 and 2021 wading bird nesting seasons, water depth and prey conditions in the western marl prairies and coastal ecotone of Everglades National Park appeared to have improved due to increased overall water flow and longer flooding durations. In response, exceptionally large white ibis supercolonies returned to the park with nesting numbers and fledgling success that had not been observed in 70 years. During the 2022 and 2023 nesting seasons, ibis supercolonies did not form in South Florida, but the birds continue to nest in greater numbers than in the early 2000s (State Party of the USA, 2024). However, there have been no improvements to the total number of pairs of nesting birds in South Florida, and the nesting in the park did not been the target in 2022 or 2023 (14% and 23%) but nesting continues to be higher than in the 1990s and 2000s (2% to 10%) (State Party of the USA, 2024).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
Major issues with water quantity, quality, distribution and timing, invasive species and climate change continue to create over-riding impacts to the system, and the continued deteriorating trends threaten the park’s OUV. Although some major Everglades Restoration projects have been completed and the park is able to accept additional water flows when available, critical water operational plans are still not complete and the overall achievement of the CERP is not expected within the next 50 years. Furthermore, modifications to pre-CERP components resulted in a reduction in the originally estimated hydrologic and ecological benefits of these projects. Current hydrologic and water quality restoration projects estimated to be complete in about 2027 are intended to address this "benefit setback". Future sea-level rise impacts have yet to be taken into account sufficiently in the Everglades Restoration program and non-native invasive species have increasing impacts on the site's values.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important values
Good
Improving
There is an increased focus on improving the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge in CERP planning and management. Over the past decade, consultation has become more meaningful, as exemplified by the application of Indigenous Knowledge to inform decision making in WERP and in a 2023 temporary deviation from the seasonal closures of the S-12A and S-12B structures. The recently developed Miccosukee internal peer review process is an important step toward facilitating consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in Everglades restoration processes and provides a potential model for others throughout the nation. With these developments it is expected that the recognition and meaningful integration of Indigenous Knowledge in the site management will improve.
Additional information
Water provision (importance for water quantity and quality)
The site provides essential freshwater storage and aquifer recharge services for the greater South Florida urban, commercial and agricultural communities. Despite these threats, the system maintains its ability to recharge regional aquifers used for municipal water supplies.
Urban development and consequent increasing water demands continue in spite of projected declines in rainfall due to climate change.
Coastal protection
The mangrove coastal expanse, several miles wide in places, provides critical buffering against storm surge and wind for inland communities.
Increases in catastrophic hurricane frequency may decrease resiliency of native plant communities by invasive species; mangroves are already advancing inland with reduced freshwater flows into the park and rising sea levels.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
On average 1 million visitors pass through the entrance stations of the site each year (this does not include the visitors using the site’s marine resources). These visitors have a significant economic impact on the surrounding communities of Florida City, Homestead, Miami, the Florida Keys and Everglades City. During the spring months, a high percentage of visitors to the site are international. In 2023, visitor spending at Everglades National Park amounted to $120.65 million (NPS, 2024).
While the new General Management Plan (2015) enhances visitor access and opportunities, the gradual decline of fauna and flora to systemic impacts will affect the visitor experience.
Carbon sequestration
With ongoing restoration of water flows to the site there is significant opportunity to sequester carbon by accretion of peat soils in freshwater marshes, tree islands and mangrove swamps.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP; USD 10.5 billion +) funding and implementation are critical to recover system functions and must continue. Early CERP projects are providing improvements to water quality, timing, distribution and quantity.
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
Florida Bay and the mangrove coast support the economically important recreational fishery (red drum, sea trout and others). In addition, the mangrove ecosystem provides critical spawning ground for important commercial species and the aquatic food chain.
Science-based management/monitoring must underpin management decisions to protect this important resource from intense recreational fishing pressures.
History and tradition,
Wilderness and iconic features,
Sacred natural sites or landscapes,
Sacred or symbolic plants or animals,
Cultural identity and sense of belonging
The site is the most highly protected part of the larger Everglades ecosystem, which is important culturally and spiritually to the Seminole and Miccosukkee tribes as well as to the history and traditions of early Florida settlers of European origin (Redwine and Mitchell 2016). The site contains and has recently begun to interpret the Nike Missile Base, a cultural resource of military importance during the Cold War. Local interest in the Nike Missile Base exceeded expectations, and the park has recently expanded available tours (Everglades National Park, 2019b).
Water management over the last century has modified habitats and modified the availability of access to areas of importance to the Miccosukkee tribe. The impact of climate change, sea level rise and invasive species on the site's cultural and spiritual values is largely unknown but impacts are expected as habitats and species availability change as a result.
The natural resources protected by Everglades National Park provide key ecosystem services to the regional human population. These services include water storage and recharge of the aquifer, buffering against the impacts of tropical storms and hurricanes, as well as economic benefits associated with tourism, including recreational fishing and the commercial fishing industry. In 2023, Everglades National Park-related tourism generated USD 120.65 million in economic benefit locally, providing 2,408 jobs (NPS, 2014; NPS, 2024). Benefits to the wider, world community include those associated with the protection and preservation of unique habitats and species, as well as climate modification benefits from carbon sequestration within the mangrove forests and sea grasses of Florida Bay.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection (RCP), NPS and the South Florida National Parks Trust | The Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection (RCP) works with other agencies to improve seagrass protection, augment habitat recovery through proven scientific restoration techniques, and increase public awareness of the importance of seagrass. |
https://floridadep.gov/rcp/rcp/content/seagrass-restoration-efforts#:~:text=Northwest%20Florida%20Aquatic%20Preserves%20has,successful%20in%20the%20Panhandle%20estuaries.
|
| 2 | Miccosukee Tribe, US Army Corps of Engineers, US National Park Service | Tamiami Trail, a historic roadway connecting Tampa and Miami, has long been recognized as a barrier that restricts water flows into ENP. This final phase of the TTNS project will work in combination with Phase 1, completed in April 2019, and the Central Everglades Planning Project to improve water conveyance, marsh connectivity, and sheetflow between Water Conservation Area 3A/3B north of Tamiami Trail, and the Northeast Shark River Slough (SRS) of ENP. The reconstructed roadway will also improve roadway stability throughout its 100-year lifespan and provide long-term reliable access to economically and culturally important sites for rural and tribal communities. |
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=26159
|
| 3 | US Army Corps of Engineers, US National Park Service, South Florida Water Management District | The C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project is an enhancement to the 1994 C-111 General Reevaluation Report. The project will improve Everglades National Park (ENP) conditions by establishing more natural water flows in Taylor Slough, thus improving the timing, distribution, and quantity of water in Florida Bay. The project affects about 252,000 acres of wetlands and coastal habitat. |
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/C-111-SC/
|
| 4 | US Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District | Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) is to deliver a finalized plan, known as a Project Implementation Report (PIR), for a suite of restoration projects in the central Everglades to prepare for congressional authorization, as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Central Everglades Planning Project will identify and plan for projects on land already in public ownership to allow more water to be directed south to the central Everglades, Everglades National Park, and Florida Bay. Public participation is a major component of this planning effort. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force’s Working Group sponsored a number of public workshops to receive input from the public, and keep them informed and engaged as active participants. |
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/Ecosystem-Restoration/Central-Everglades-Planning-Project/
|
| 5 | NPS Everglades National Park, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | This restoration project involved more than a decade of development, planning, field experiments and reports, and permitting. This project is a large and ambitious wetland restoration and when complete will not only restore about 6,300 acres of short-hydroperiod wetland, but also provide enormous benefit to the habitats surrounding the Hole-in-the-Donut that are in serious jeopardy from Brazilian pepper invasion. |
https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/hidprogram.htm
|
| 6 | NPS | Work to plug man-made canals and ditches in the Cape Sable region of Everglades National Park. This work is oriented toward reducing the negative impact of the canals, toward restoring a more natural hydrology and salinity regime in the area, and toward restoring habitats for American crocodile. All planning work is complete as is most of the implementation. Only one canal (Raulerson) still remains to be implemented (Everglades National Park 2019b). |
http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/upload/SecureCapeSableFSLow-2.pdf; https://fl.audubon.org/news/cape-sable-canal-dam-restoration-finally-funded#:~:text=The%20project%20is%20estimated%20to,will%20result%20from%20its%20completion.
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Armstrong, C., Piccone, T., & Dombrowski, J. (2023). The largest constructed treatment wetland project in the world: the story of the Everglades stormwater treatment areas. Ecological Engineering, 193, 107005.
|
| 2 |
Audubon (2019). Important Bird Areas: Everglades National Park, Florida. Available at <https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/everglades-nat…;. [Accessed January 15, 2019].
|
| 3 |
CISRERP (2024). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Tenth Biennial Review - 2024. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27875.
|
| 4 |
Castro, J., Gardinali, P. Rand, G. (2016). Contaminant assessment and risk evaluation project: Summary report. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida and Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 19 pp. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/upload/CARE_merged_fi…;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 5 |
Crooks, A. (2024). Stand With Us to Preserve the Greater Western Everglades. Opinion piece. Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Published online 3 October 2024. Available at: https://conservancy.org/stand-with-us-to-preserve-the-great…
|
| 6 |
DOI (2019). Department of the Interior Invasive Species Advisory Committee (presently in an administratively inactive status). Available at: <https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/isac-resources>. ; [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 7 |
Davis, S. and Ogden, J.C. (1994). Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
|
| 8 |
Davis, S. and Ogden, J.C. (1994). Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
|
| 9 |
Dorcas, M.E., Willson, J.D., Reed, R.N., Snow, R.W., Rochforde, M.R., Millerf, M.A., Meshaka, Jr. M.E., Andreadish, P.T., Mazzottie, F.J., Romagosai, C.M. and Hartj, K.M. (2012). Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(7), pp.2418-2422.
|
| 10 |
Dorcas, M.E., Willson, J.D., Reed, R.N., Snow, R.W., Rochforde, M.R., Millerf, M.A., Meshaka, Jr. M.E., Andreadish, P.T., Mazzottie, F.J., Romagosai, C.M. and Hartj, K.M. (2012). Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(7), pp.2418-2422.
|
| 11 |
ENP. (2015). Everglades National Park, Final General Management Plan. East Everglades Wilderness Study. [online] Environmental Impact Study. Vol. 1. Homestead, FL: US, NPS. Available at: [Accessed 11 March 2019].
|
| 12 |
Everglades CISMA (2019). Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area. Available at: <https://www.evergladescisma.org/>. ; [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 13 |
Everglades National Park (2015a). General Management Plan. [online] NPS. Available at <https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=1117…;. [Accessed January 19, 2020].
|
| 14 |
Everglades National Park (2015b). Everglades National Park Fire Management Plan. [online] NPS. Available at: <https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=1954…; [Accessed January 18, 2020].
|
| 15 |
Everglades National Park (2017). Acquisition of Florida Power and Light Company Lands in the East Everglades Expansion Area. [online] NPS. Available at: <https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=3722…; [Accessed January 18, 2020].
|
| 16 |
Everglades National Park (2019a). Federally Listed species and Critical Habitat in Everglades National Park. [online] NPS. Available at <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/techecklist.htm>.&…; [Accessed January 15, 2019].
|
| 17 |
Everglades National Park (2019b). Everglades National Park Fees changing in 2019. [online] NPS. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/everglades-national-par…;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 18 |
Everglades National Park (2019c). Everglades Marine Zone: Florida Bay Boating Management Zones and Corridors. [online] NPS <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/management/poleandtroll.htm&…;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 19 |
Everglades National Park (2019d). Lightscape/Night Sky. [online] NPS. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/lightscape.htm>;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 20 |
Everglades National Park (2019e). Exotic Vegetation Management Program. [online] NPS. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/exoticvegprogram.htm&…; [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 21 |
Everglades National Park. (2020a). Everglades National Park- Education. [online] NPS. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/education/index.htm [Accessed 24 November 2020].
|
| 22 |
FWC (2019). Panther Biology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Available at <https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/panther/biology…;. [ Accessed January 18, 2020].
|
| 23 |
Feher, L. C., Osland, M. J., McKee, K. L., Whelan, K. R., Coronado-Molina, C., Sklar, F. H., ... & Allain, L. (2024). Soil elevation change in mangrove forests and marshes of the Greater Everglades: a regional synthesis of surface elevation table-marker horizon (SET-MH) data. Estuaries and Coasts, 47(7), 2027-2056.
|
| 24 |
Fleshler, D. (2020). Florida buys Everglades land to prevent oil drilling. Available at: <https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/phys.org/news/2020-…; [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 25 |
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Basin Management Action Plan for the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for total phosphorus by the Department of Environmental Protection in Lake Okeechobee. [online] Tallahassee: FDEP. Available at: https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/LakeOkeechobeeBM… [Accessed 26 August 2020].
|
| 26 |
IUCN Consultation. (2020). IUCN Confidential Consultation: Everglades National Park, USA
|
| 27 |
Krysko, K.L., Burgess, J.P., Rochford, M.R., Gillette, C.R., Cueva, D., Enge, K.M., Somma, L.A., Stabile, J.L., Smith, D.C., Wasilewski, J.A., Kieckhefer III, G.N., Granatosky, M.D. and Nielsen, S.V. 2011. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: Outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028: 1-64. MorphoBank Project No. P536. Available at <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f0d/b86f7af7cda377c647bc3…; . [Accessed on January 19, 2020].
|
| 28 |
Lodge, T.E. (2010). The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem, 3rd Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
|
| 29 |
Lodge, T.E. (2010). The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem, 3rd Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
|
| 30 |
Longcore, T. and Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, pp.191-198.
|
| 31 |
Longcore, T. and Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, pp.191-198.
|
| 32 |
Lorenz, J.J. (2013). The Relationship Between Water Level, Prey Availability and Reproductive Success in Roseate Spoonbills Foraging in a Seasonally Flooded Wetland While Nesting in Florida Bay. Wetlands: Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists. Available at author’s ResearchGate site. [Accessed January 19, 2020].
|
| 33 |
McCleery, R.A., Sovie, A., Reed. R.N., Cunningham, M.W., Hunter, M.E. and Hart, K.M. (2015). Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous decline of mammals in the Everglades. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20150120. Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0120>. ; [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 34 |
McVoy, C.W., Said, W.P., Obeysekera, J., Van Arman, J. and Dreschel, T. (2011). Landscapes and Hydrology of the Pre-Drainage Everglades. Gainsville, FL: University Press of Florida.
|
| 35 |
McVoy, C.W., Said, W.P., Obeysekera, J., Van Arman, J. and Dreschel, T. (2011). Landscapes and Hydrology of the Pre-Drainage Everglades. Gainsville, FL: University Press of Florida.
|
| 36 |
Mitchell, C.L. and Johnson, R. (2013). Everglades National Park: 2013 State of Conservation. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. Resource Evaluation Report SFNRC Techyncial Series 2031: 2. 43 pp. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/upload/2013-State-of-…;
|
| 37 |
NPS (2024). NPS Stats, National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park/EVER
|
| 38 |
NPS (2025). Threatened and Endangered Species. Everglades National Park Florida. National Park Service. Updated online 17 April 2025. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/techecklist.htm#:~:te….
|
| 39 |
NPS. (2014). National Park Visitor Spending Effects. Natural Resources Report NP/NRSSEQD/NRR—2014/769. [Online] Available at: www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/products.cfm#MGM.
|
| 40 |
NPS. (2014). National Park Visitor Spending Effects. Natural Resources Report NP/NRSSEQD/NRR—2014/769. [Online] Available at: www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/products.cfm#MGM.
|
| 41 |
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades. The Sixth Biennial Review—2016. 246 pp. Washington, DC: Water Science and Technology Board, Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress.
|
| 42 |
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades. The Sixth Biennial Review—2016. 246 pp. Washington, DC: Water Science and Technology Board, Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress.
|
| 43 |
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <https://doi.org/10.17226/25198>;. [ Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 44 |
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Tenth Biennial Review - 2024. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27875.
|
| 45 |
Orem, W.H., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Poulin, B. and Aiken, G (2019). Sulfur contamination in the Everglades, a major control on mercury methylation. Abstract available at: <https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70203511>;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 46 |
Paneda, D. and Blackwell, R. (2024). In Florida, a race is on to save the Everglades and protect a key source of drinking water. AP News, Climate section. Published online 20 December 2024. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/everglades-florida-water-restora…
|
| 47 |
Park, J., Stabenau, E. and Kotun, K. (2017). Sea-level rise and inundation scenarios for national parks in South Florida. Park Science 33(1):63–73. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/articles/parkscience33-1_63-73_park_et_…;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 48 |
Redwine, J. and Mitchell, C.L. (2016). Everglades and Dry Tortugas Biosphere Reserve: 2016 Periodic Report. Everglades National Park. 88 p.
|
| 49 |
Robbins, L.L. and Lisle, J.R. (2018). Regional Acidification Trends in Florida Shellfish Estuaries: a 20+ Year Look at pH, Oxygen, Temperature, and Salinity. Estuaries and Coasts 41: 1268-1281. Available at <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12237-017-0353-8…;. [Accessed January 19 2020].TTI had increasing pH, salinity and decreasing DO over the 20 year period, pH decrease was more here than in other Florida Estuaries.
|
| 50 |
SFERTF (2019a). REstoration COordination & VERification: System Status Reports. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Available at: <https://evergladesrestoration.gov/ssr/>;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 51 |
SFERTF (2019b). Invasive Exotic Species Strategic Action Framework. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Available at: < https://evergladesrestoration.gov/content/ies/>;. [Accessed January 21, 2020].
|
| 52 |
SFWMD (2019). South Florida Water Management District: Restoration Strategies for Clean Water for the Everglades. Available at: <https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/restoration-strategies>;. [ Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 53 |
Seki, M. A. (2023). Planning for Climate Change in US National Parks: Assessing the Quality of National Park Management Plans (Master's thesis, Arizona State University).
|
| 54 |
South Florida National Parks Trust (2017). New Access Corridors for Boaters in Florida Bay. Available at <https://www.southfloridaparks.org/news/new-access-corridors…;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 55 |
State Party of the USA (2024). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Everglades National Park (United States of America). [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/ [Accessed 01/01/2025]
|
| 56 |
State Party of the USA. (2019). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Everglades National Park (United States of America). [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/ [Accessed 10 October 2019].
|
| 57 |
State Party of the USA. (2020). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Everglades National Park (United States of America). [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
|
| 58 |
State Party of the United States of America. (2017). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Everglades National Park (United States of America). [online] Washington D.C., United States of America: Dept. of the Interior. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/ [Accessed 11 March 2019].
|
| 59 |
Surratt, D., Shinde, D., and Aumen, N. (2011). Recent Cattail Expansion and Possible Relationships to Water Management: Changes in Upper Taylor Slough (Everglades National Park, Florida, USA). Environmental Management 49(3):720-33. Available at <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00267-011-9798…; . [Accessed January 19, 2020].
|
| 60 |
UNESCO (2023). Report on the State of Conservation of the Everglades National Park, USA. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: Everglades National Park - Documents - UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
|
| 61 |
UNESCO. (2019). Report on the State of Conservation of the Everglades National Park, USA. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3839 [Accessed 10 October 2019].
|
| 62 |
Wilson, B.J., Servais, S., Mazzei, V., Kominoski, J.S., Hu, M., Davis, S.E., Gaiser, E. Skalr, F., Bauman, L., Kelly, S. Madden, C. Richards, J. Rudnick, D. Stachelek, J, and Troxler, T.G (2018). Salinity pulses interact with seasonal dry-down to increase ecosystem carbon loss in marshes of the Florida Everglades. Ecological Applications 28(8): 2092-2018. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1798>;. [Accessed January 20, 2020].
|
| 63 |
World Heritage Committee (2019a). Decision : 43 COM 8C.2. Update of the List of World Heritage in Danger (Retained Properties). In: Report of decisions of the 43rd session of the World Heritage Committee (Baku, 2019). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7373 [Accessed 24 November 2020].
|
| 64 |
World Heritage Committee (2019b). Decision : 43 COM 7A.3. Everglades National Park (USA). In: Report of decisions of the 43rd session of the World Heritage Committee (Baku, 2019). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp.73-74. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7461 [Accessed 24 November 2020].
|
| 65 |
World Heritage Committee. (2006). Statement of Significance. Decision 30COM 11B. Follow-up to the Periodic Report for North America / Adoption of Statements of Significance. Context of Decision WHC-06/30.COM/11B.Add, p.5. [Online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/ [Accessed 5 March 2019].
|
| 66 |
World Heritage Committee. (2019c). Decision 43 COM 8E. Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value- Everglades National Park (USA). [online] Baku, Azerbaijan: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7393 [Accessed 10 October 2019].
|
| 67 |
World Nuclear News (2018). Regulator approves licences for new Florida units. Available at: <https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Regulator-approves-li…; [Accessed January 19, 2020].
|