![](media/image1.png){width="0.46041666666666664in"
height="0.5868055555555556in"}

GUIDE TO THE

U.S. WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM

**May nOV**November 2005 Draft aft

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.625in" height="1.2652777777777777in"}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

**PREFACE**

Purpose and Organization

For More Information

**I. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM ADD PAGE NOS.**

U.S. Role in the World Heritage Convention X

International Effects of World Heritage Listing X

Relationship of the World Heritage Convention to the United Nations

U.S. Domestic Legal Effects of World Heritage listing

Some Benefits of World Heritage listing

Identifying and Nominating World Heritage Sites

How World Heritage Sites are Designated

World Heritage Criteria

**II. HOW THE U.S. NOMINATES WORLD HERITAGE SITES**

Introduction

Summary of U.S. World Heritage Nomination Process

Prerequisites for Nominating U.S. Sites

Beginning of the U.S. World Heritage Nomination Process: How to Apply

U.S. Tentative List and How It Is Used

Selecting U.S. Sites to Nominate

Drafting U.S. World Heritage Nominations

Protection Agreements for U.S. World Heritage Nominations

Evaluating U.S. World Heritage Nomination Drafts

Submitting U.S. World Heritage Nominations

Inscription on the World Heritage List

Figure\--Flow Chart of U.S. World Heritage Nomination Process

Figure\--Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage

**III. HOW THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE LISTS SITES**

Role of World Heritage Centre

Timetable for Consideration of World Heritage Nominations

Roles of Advisory Bodies

Action by the World Heritage Committee

**IV. KEY ISSUES IN THE WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION PROCESS**

**Summary**

**U.S. issues:**

Voluntary Restraint in Nominating Sites

Recognition vs. Protection

National significance vs. "Outstanding Universal Value"

Revision of the U.S. Tentative List

Recent Sites

Difficulties with Historic Districts and Serial Nominations

Emergency Nominations

Lessons from U.S. Nominations

Future Prospects for U.S. Nominations

**International issues:**

Jurisdiction and Relation to Other Treaties

Representivity of the World Heritage List

War Sites and Other "Negative Sites"

Historic Cities and Historic Districts

Cultural Landscapes

Heritage Canals and Routes

Modern Sites

Mixed Sites

World Heritage Comparative, Thematic, and Regional Studies

Development Threats and Management Impacts

**V. REPORTING ON WORLD HERITAGE SITES**

Introduction

Reactive Reports

Periodic Reports

Followup to Reports

**VI. WITHDRAWAL OF WORLD HERITAGE LISTING**

Summary

Procedure for Withdrawal

**APPENDICES**

A. Instructions for Preparing U.S. World Heritage Nominations

B.  Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the World Heritage
    Convention

> (<http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf>)
>
> C. U.S. World Heritage Program Regulations
> (<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/36cfr73_03.html>)

D.  Glossary of World Heritage Terms

> (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1997/whc-97-conf208-inf13e.pdf)

E.  List of U.S. World Heritage Sites
    (http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/list.htm)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  U.S. 1982 Tentative List
    (http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/list1.htm)

> G. Completed Nomination Form Samples (hyperlinks)

H. Bibliography (<http://whc.unesco.org/statutorydoc>)

See pages 141-145

**INTRODUCTION**

**Purpose and Organization**

The purpose of this **Guidebook** is to provide a reasonably brief guide
for persons and organizations who are interested in the U.S. World
Heritage Program, as well as for owners of nationally important cultural
and natural sites, in understanding the World Heritage List. It will
also explain fully how a very few exceptional sites in this country are
nominated to it and how owners and other interested parties may
participate.

Because there has been much confusion as to what inclusion in the List
means, the **Overview** (Chapter I) also briefly discusses what
inclusion in it means **and what it does not mean.**

Chapters II and III explain the extremely selective nomination process
for World Heritage Sites in detail; annotated instructions for preparing
U.S. World Heritage nominations in the required **Format** appear in
**Appendix A**. Chapter IV, which discusses key issues in the program,
is intended to be helpful to those who wish to propose nominating
particular types of sites. Chapter V discusses reporting on sites
already designated. Chapter VI explains how sites can be removed from
the List, although that has never occurred to date.

The **Appendices** to this **Guidebook** provide some documents
essential in the World Heritage Program. These include the ***U.S. World
Heritage Program Regulations*** and the ***Operational Guidelines***
used by the World Heritage Committee to conduct the international World
Heritage Program. **Annex V** to the ***Operational Guidelines*** is the
***Format and Explanatory Notes*** for preparing World Heritage
nominations. This ***Format*** has been annotated specifically for the
preparation of U.S. World Heritage nominations and appears as **Appendix
A---Instructions for Preparing U.S. World Heritage Nominations.**

Finally, to provide easy reference within the chapters and sections of
this **Guidebook,** numerous cross references to related sections of the
***Operational Guidelines*** and the ***U.S. Program Regulations*** have
been provided**.**

**For More Information**

Although the fundamentals of the World Heritage process have remained
unchanged at the national and international levels for more than a
quarter century, the nomination form, the criteria, the program
procedures, and basic administrative requirements and deadlines have all
changed multiple times.

Therefore it is quite important for users of this **Guidebook** to check
with the Office of International Affairs of the National Park Service
and/or the World Heritage Centre to be sure the information they have is
up to date. The ***Operational Guidelines*** also contain numerous
Internet addresses where additional documents can be found.

**World Heritage Program Officer** **World Heritage Centre**

National Park Service 7, place de Fontenoy

Office of International Affairs (0050) 75352 Paris 07 SP France

Washington, DC 20240 33-1-4568-1136

202-354-1803

[I. Overview of the U.S. World Heritage Program]{.smallcaps}

U.S. Role in the World Heritage Convention

The purpose of the World Heritage Convention ("Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage"), the 1972 treaty
which established the World Heritage List, is to enhance worldwide
understanding and appreciation and international cooperation for
heritage conservation and to recognize and preserve a relatively small
number of exceptional natural and cultural properties around the world
that have been formally determined to possess outstanding universal
value to humanity. The United States, under President Nixon, was a
primary architect of the World Heritage Convention and became the first
signatory when the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty 95-0 on October 26,
1973. The United States has continuously maintained a leadership role in
the work of the Convention, including serving multiple terms on the
World Heritage Committee, the governing body of 21 countries elected
from among the nations that have signed the Convention.

In terms of nations, the World Heritage Convention, with 180
signatories, is the most nearly universal treaty for cultural
preservation and nature conservation in human history. World Heritage
Sites are extremely exceptional cultural and natural properties
nominated voluntarily by signatory nations, which have been approved for
inclusion in the List by the World Heritage Committee. As of July 2005,
there were 812 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List in 137
countries. It is not to be expected that World Heritage listing will
ever be common. The criteria are exceptionally demanding.

In the U.S., there are 20 World Heritage Sites, notably including the
Grand Canyon, Yellowstone National Park, Independence Hall, and the
Statue of Liberty. Two transborder sites are listed jointly with Canada.
*(See **Appendix E** for the full list of U.S. sites.)*

International Effects of World Heritage Listing

***Operational Guidelines VI-VII---Paragraphs 211-257 and Annex 8***

Most nations eagerly seek World Heritage listing for some of their most
important sites and consider the designation a badge of honor.
Initially, this was the case in the United States, no doubt in part
because of the key U.S, role in its establishment. However, based on
hundreds of inquiries expressing concern that have been received by the
National Park Service over the past decade, inaccurate reports about the
nature and effects of United States participation in the World Heritage
Convention are widespread Notably, there is an impression that its
implications are far greater than they are in fact. Actually, the United
States has participated in this international cooperative program for
more than 30 years. Participation does not infringe on the national
sovereignty of the United States.

Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, nations
**voluntarily** nominate their most outstanding examples of natural and
cultural heritage to the World Heritage List. A nation that nominates
properties to the World Heritage List does not surrender sovereignty,
control, or ownership over them. Neither the listing of a property nor
its placement on the corresponding List of World Heritage in Danger
supersedes United States sovereignty. The World Heritage Committee does
not thereby gain any legal or management authority over U.S. World
Heritage Sites.

Relationship of the World Heritage Convention to the United Nations

Article VI of the World Heritage Convention points out that the
Convention was drafted with the express intent of "fully respecting the
sovereignty" of the nations that became States Party to it. Those
nations may also renounce, or withdraw from participation in the
Convention, although none ever has.

At the urging of, among others, the United States, the World Heritage
Convention was proposed to the world community by the General Conference
of UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) in 1972. Although the membership of UNESCO is quite
similar to that of the Convention, the governing body of the Convention,
the General Assembly of States Party to the Convention, is an
independent body. The General Assembly's main responsibility is to elect
the World Heritage Committee. From 1984 until 2003, the United States
was not a member of UNESCO, but remained active in the General Assembly
and the World Heritage Committee.

The World Heritage Centre, which provides the staff support and
administrative services for the Committee, consists of UNESCO staff and
is housed in UNESCO's headquarters building in Paris, France, but the
Centre possesses considerable functional autonomy within UNESCO and is
in major ways responsible to the World Heritage Committee.

Therefore any suggestion that the U.S. Government has turned over
sovereignty, ownership or management authority over U.S. World Heritage
Sites to the United Nations is utterly untrue.

U.S. Domestic Legal Effects of World Heritage listing

Nomination to and inclusion in the World Heritage List represents the
formal pledge by the United States to itself and to the international
community to take all steps necessary to protect a property, including
regular reports on its condition, but U.S. laws and regulations
affecting the property are not superseded or abrogated. Rather, World
Heritage listing affirms existing U.S. law.

It is vital to note that World Heritage nomination or listing has, in a
number of cases in many countries, including the U.S., had the effect of
stimulating public debate and even intense international publicity
regarding what measures should be taken to protect properties regarded
as threatened or potentially threatened. As might be expected, there is
often no consensus on the nature of threats and on what steps should be
taken to remedy them.

Opposing parties in these debates have in recent years tried, in the
reporting process for World Heritage Sites, to involve the World
Heritage Committee in what are at least in part domestic administrative
controversies. They fundamentally misread the nature of the World
Heritage Convention, which is intended to serve as a forum for
international cooperation, not as an international court of
environmental justice. It is a mistaken notion to think that the
Committee has judicial authority to compel a national government and
site managers to take specific actions. It cannot do so; it has only
advisory authority and the power of persuasion. The Committee's only
real sanction is deletion of a site from the World Heritage
List---which, as of early 2005, has still never occurred.

Some Benefits of World Heritage Listing

-   The publicity that accompanies World Heritage listing and the
    placement of World Heritage plaques has led to increased tourism at
    some sites, often to the benefit of the economies of surrounding
    areas.

-   International organizations and national governments and foundations
    often give priority to World Heritage Sites in their financial and
    technical assistance. In recent years, such sources of assistance
    have been quite substantial when compared to the limited amounts
    provided by the World Heritage Committee through the World Heritage
    Fund. This has happened in substantial part because World Heritage
    listing attests not only to the international importance of the site
    but also to the commitment of the nation in which it is situated to
    protect it.

-   Cooperative efforts to assist World Heritage Sites have not
    attracted nearly as much publicity as the controversial debates over
    how to protect a few threatened sites, but it is clear that World
    Heritage listing has encouraged international cooperation and
    assistance and outcomes beneficial to World Heritage Sites,
    especially at lesser known sites and in countries needing financial
    resources or information exchange to care for their World Heritage
    sites. For example, a useful information exchange has occurred
    between Stonehenge and the Cahokia State Historic Site
    ("Woodhenge"), in Illinois. Even controversies have sometimes been
    resolved to good effect as far as the World Heritage Sites were
    concerned. Thus, the State of California rerouted a major highway to
    avoid damage to Redwood National Park and mines planned near
    Waterton-Glacier and Yellowstone were not constructed.

Identifying and Nominating World Heritage Sites

Within a broad framework of common criteria, format, deadlines and other
shared administrative measures, set up by the World Heritage Committee,
each signatory county ("State Party") is responsible for developing a
process for identifying and nominating sites under its own legal system.
A nominating nation must possess sovereignty over the entirety of any
site that it nominates.

The U.S. process for nominating sites to the World Heritage List is
discussed in the next Chapter. U.S. sites are nominated under
requirements set out in the applicable law and in program regulations.
The rights of owners are fully protected because, by Federal law,

no property can be nominated without the **full concurrence** and
cooperation of **[all]{.underline}** its owners.

How World Heritage Sites are Designated

The process for consideration of World Heritage Sites at the
international level is discussed in more detail in Chapter III. World
Heritage Site nominations are received and processed under the
***Operational Guidelines*** adopted by the World Heritage Committee
**(Appendix B**).

The World Heritage Committee (formally known as the Intergovernmental
Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage)
is the Committee established by Article 8 of the Convention and which is
assisted by the World Heritage Centre established within and by UNESCO.
The Committee is composed of 21 nations elected from among all those
participating in the Convention, and is responsible for implementing the
Convention at the international level. The Committee establishes the
criteria which properties must satisfy for inclusion on (and deletion
from) the World Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger,
meets annually to approve properties for inclusion on the two lists, and
awards international assistance to sites. The Committee's actions are
governed by formal ***Rules of Procedure*** (which may be consulted on
the World Heritage Centre's website).

World Heritage Criteria

***Operational Guidelines IID-IIE---Paragraphs 77-95***

Although cultural heritage and natural heritage are defined in the World
Heritage Convention. the Committee has adopted (and several times
revised) criteria and other requirements that explain in more detail how
sites that meet these definitions are to be selected. Only sites that
the Committee judges to meet these criteria of "outstanding universal
value" will be listed. The World Heritage Convention's definitions of
cultural and natural heritage and the currently adopted World Heritage
criteria appear in full in the ***Operational Guidelines*** at
**Paragraphs 45-53 and 77-78,** respectively**. (Appendix B ).**

The World Heritage criteria are extremely stringent. Although there are
no limits or quotas on the total number or the number in any nation, it
is specifically noted in the ***Operational Guidelines (Paragraph 52)***
that the Convention;

> is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great
> interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most
> outstanding of these from an international viewpoint. It is not to be
> assumed that a property of national and/or regional importance will
> automatically be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

A number of precedents in the use of the criteria have been set, and it
will be very valuable to study them before undertaking to nominate a
site. Some general precedents are discussed in Chapter IV. The
explanatory notes in **Section 3** of **Appendix A** explain how to use
the criteria in preparing that section, the **Justification for
Inscription** section of the World Heritage nomination, and give
information on how to obtain examples of how the criteria have been used
in past nominations..

[II. How the United States Nominates World Heritage Sites]{.smallcaps}

Introduction

There is just one way in which sites in the United States can be
nominated to the World Heritage

List. Only the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of
the U.S. Department of the

Interior, the designated executive official responsible for the United
States World Heritage Program, can nominate properties to the World
Heritage List on behalf of the United States. The Assistant Secretary
can do so only with the full concurrence of all property owners. This
complicated and lengthy nomination process is first summarized and then
explained in detail in this Chapter.

The day-to-day work of the U.S. World Heritage Program is carried out by
a staff officer in the

Office of International Affairs (OIA) of the National Park Service
(NPS). That officer not only responds to information requests about the
nomination of sites but also initially handles other program
administrative issues for the Assistant Secretary.

Anyone interested in determining whether a particular site may qualify
for nomination should first contact the Office of International Affairs
after reviewing this chapter and Chapter IV, where a number of specific
national and international issues relating to nominating sites to the
World Heritage List are discussed. The staff officer's address and phone
number are:

World Heritage Program Officer

National Park Service

Office of International Affairs (0050)

Washington, DC 20240

202-354-1803

General questions may also be raised through the OIA website, where this
entire document is also posted.

In conducting the World Heritage Program, the Assistant Secretary and
the National Park Service must follow (and are legally bound by) the
program regulations, which are based on the World Heritage Convention
and a subsequent law authorizing the program. The Convention, the law,
and the program regulations set many rigorous requirements and
procedural steps that must be met by a successful candidate site. These
requirements are explained in detail below. *(See text of the U.S. World
Heritage Program Regulations at Appendix C; Sections 73.7-73.11 deal
with the nomination of World Heritage Sites.)*

Summary of U.S. World Heritage Nomination Process:

*Regulations 73.7*

The Assistant Secretary initiates the process for identifying candidate
properties for the World Heritage List and subsequently preparing,
evaluating, and approving U.S. nominations by publishing a legal notice
in the Federal Register, the official U.S. Government legal gazette.
This notice includes a list of candidate sites, the Tentative List
(formerly known as the Indicative

Inventory of Potential Future U.S. World Heritage Nominations) and
requests that public agencies and private organizations and individuals
recommend properties both for addition to the

Tentative List and for World Heritage nomination.

The Assistant Secretary, after consulting with an advisory panel (the
Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage) *(see **Figure** at end of
this Chapter*) may propose for possible nomination a limited number of
properties listed on the Tentative List.

Next, property owners, in cooperation with NPS, voluntarily prepare a
detailed nomination document for their property that has been proposed
for nomination. The nominations must meet the *Format* and other
requirements determined by the World Heritage Committee. *(See Appendix*
*A.*) The Panel reviews the accuracy and completeness of draft
nominations and makes recommendations on them to the Assistant
Secretary.

The Assistant Secretary then decides whether to nominate any of the
proposed properties. He

transmits any approved United States nominations, through the Department
of State, to the World Heritage Centre to be processed for consideration
by the World Heritage Committee for addition to the World Heritage List.

Finally, the World Heritage Committee decides whether to include a
property on the World Heritage List.

Prerequisites for Nominating U.S. Sites

***Regulations 73.7(b)***

A property in the United States **must** satisfy the following three
legal requirements **and** appear

to meet one or more of the World Heritage Criteria **before** the
Assistant Secretary can nominate

it to the World Heritage List:

1.  The property **must have been formally determined to be nationally**
    **significant before**

**nomination.** A property qualifies as \`\`nationally significant\'\'
**only** if it is:

-   A property that the Secretary of the Interior has designated as a
    National Historic Landmark (36 CFR part 65) or a National Natural
    Landmark (36 CFR part 62) under provisions of the 1935 Historic
    Sites Act (Public Law 74-292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);

-   an area the United States Congress has established by law as
    nationally significant; or

-   An area the President of the United States has proclaimed as a
    National Monument

> under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 433).

**2. All** of the property\'s owners **must concur** **in writing** to
the nomination and provide a protection agreement. Thus, it is
particularly important that owners be kept fully informed at every stage
of consideration for World Heritage nomination. If a unit of United
States government (Federal, State, and/or local) owns or controls the
property, a letter from the owner(s) demonstrates concurrence. If
private parties own or control the property, they must provide the
protection agreement outlined in Sec. 73.13(c) of the program
regulations before final approval of the nomination.

An *owner* is any individual or organization of record that owns private
land that is being nominated for World Heritage status, or the head of
the public agency, or subordinate to whom such authority has been
delegated, responsible for administering public land that is being
nominated for World Heritage status.

All owners of any property interest in a nominated property must concur
**before** the Assistant Secretary can finally include their property
within a World Heritage nomination. For example, a responsible Federal
management official can concur for the unit, but cannot concur for any
non-Federal property interest within the boundaries of the unit. NPS
will seek the concurrence of those who own or control any non-Federal
property interest if it is determined that the property interest is
integral to the entire property\'s outstanding universal values.

3.  The final nomination document **must** include evidence of such
    legal protections as may be necessary to ensure the preservation of
    the property and its environment. *(The distinct protection
    requirements for public and private properties are identified below
    under the section entitled "Protection Agreements for U.S. World
    Heritage Properties.")*

Beginning of the U.S.

World Heritage Nomination Process: How to Apply

***Regulations 73.7(c) and 73.9; Operational Guidelines II.D.-E. --
Paragraphs 77 et seq.***

Any person or organization may suggest to the staff coordinator for
World Heritage in the National Park Service's Office of International
Affairs that a nationally significant property should be considered for
nomination, although the full support of **all owners** will be required
before a site can be nominated. The Assistant Secretary or the National
Park Service may also propose properties for review but they must meet
the same requirements as any other. The initial suggestion should make
clear as fully as possible the exact extent and nature of the property
and document the reasons it is believed to satisfy the World Heritage
criteria**.** It is very important to note that the World Heritage
criteria require that the sites possess **international** significance
or outstanding universal value, **not merely national** importance.
*(See **Operational Guidelines** at **II.D. -- Paragraph 77 et seq**.
for the current criteria.)*

The coordinator reviews the proposal against the legal Prerequisites for
nomination noted just above to determine whether it is likely the
property can meet them. The coordinator may also request additional
information and should determine whether all the owners support the
property's consideration. If it seems that the property might meet the
legal requirements, the coordinator will ask the cultural and/or natural
resource officials of the National Park Service to review the merits of
the property against the World Heritage criteria.

## Next, the coordinator will advise the party who made the suggestion of the outcome of the National Park Service review, including whether additional information is needed and in what form, and indicate whether the Assistant Secretary will be asked to continue the nomination process. 

If the Assistant Secretary believes that a property (or properties)
deserves to be scheduled for consideration, he, through the NPS,
publishes a First Notice in the ***Federal Register*** to begin the U.S.
World Heritage nomination process. This notice, among other things:

(1) Sets forth the schedule and procedures for identifying proposed U.S.
    nominations to the

> World Heritage List. It includes specific deadlines for receipt of
> suggestions and comments, and for preparing and approving nomination
> documents for properties proposed as U.S. nominations;

(2) Includes the U.S. Tentative List (former Indicative Inventory*) (see
    just below),* solicits recommendations on which properties on it
    should be nominated, and requests suggestions of properties that
    should be considered for addition to it; and

\(3\) Identifies any special requirements that properties must satisfy
to be considered for nomination.

U.S. Tentative List (former Indicative Inventory) and How It Is Used

### **Regulations 73.7(d); Operational Guidelines II.C. -- Paragraphs 62-76 and Annex 2**

The World Heritage Convention (Article 11) requests each signatory
nation to submit a list of candidate sites for the World Heritage List.
These lists are also known as Tentative Lists and have formerly been
known in the U.S. as the Indicative Inventory. They are used at the
national and international levels as one tool to compare the potential
World Heritage values of properties. The NPS compiled and maintains the
Tentative List for the Assistant Secretary. It is a list of cultural and
natural properties in the United States that, based on preliminary
review, may qualify for the World Heritage List and that the Assistant
Secretary may consider for nomination to the List

Inclusion of a property on the Tentative List **does not** confer World
Heritage status on it, but merely indicates that the Assistant Secretary
may further examine the property for possible nomination. The Assistant
Secretary selects proposed nominations from the Tentative List. Thus,
the Assistant Secretary uses the Tentative List as the basis for
selecting United States World Heritage nominations. Any agency,
organization, or individual may recommend additional properties, with
accompanying supporting documentation, for inclusion on the Tentative
List. Ordinarily, a property must have been listed on the Tentative List
before the Assistant Secretary can consider it for nomination, but there
is nothing to prevent the Assistant Secretary from adding the property
to the Tentative List and then immediately nominating it.

Additions to and (potentially) deletions from the Tentative List are
considered by the Assistant Secretary along with proposals to nominate
sites as part of the cycle of review initiated by the First Notice. The
Assistant Secretary, in cooperation with the Panel and other sources as
he may

determine appropriate, decides whether to include a recommended property
on the Tentative List. If a property is included, NPS will list it the
next time the Tentative List appears in the ***Federal Register.*** The
Assistant Secretary, as needed, updates the Tentative List, including
documentation on each property\'s location and significance, and sends
it to the World Heritage Committee for use in the comparative evaluation
of nominations.

The U.S. Tentative List was prepared in 1982 and last amended in 1990.
The Assistant Secretary

can amend or revise it at any time.

**Preparation of a New U.S. Tentative List:**

As this [Guidebook]{.underline} was being prepared, in 2005, the
Assistant Secretary's Office decided to

respond to a request from the World Heritage Committee by preparing a
new U.S. Tentative List, in 2005-07. Pending the completion of that
revision, the Assistant Secretary, barring an emergency situation, is
not expected to nominate any new sites to the World Heritage List.
***(See Appendix F for the current U.S. Tentative List (Indicative
Inventory). See also Chapter IV, Revision of U.S. Tentative List.)***

Explanatory material on the preparation of the new U.S. Tentative List
is being prepared separately from this **Guide.** This **Guide** will,
however, be distributed to those who wish their properties considered
for inclusion in the new Tentative List.

#### Selecting U.S. Sites to Nominate 

***Regulations 73.7(e)***

After the First Notice\'s comment period expires, NPS compiles all
suggestions and comments. The Assistant Secretary then reviews the
comments and suggestions and works in cooperation with the Federal
Interagency Panel for World Heritage, which he chairs, to decide whether
to add any properties to the Tentative List and whether to identify any
properties as proposed U.S. nominations. A key step in this work has
generally been review of the proposals at a public meeting of the
Federal Interagency Panel. The meeting is advertised in the ***Federal
Register*** and is open to the public. Written comments are received and
public comment may be allowed, although the meeting is not a formal
public hearing.

The Assistant Secretary may announce the decision at the conclusion of
the meeting or later. In addition to how well the property satisfies the
World Heritage criteria and the legal requirements outlined above, the
Assistant Secretary may consider:

\(i\) How well the particular type of property (i.e., theme or region)
is represented on the World Heritage List;

\(ii\) The balance between cultural and natural properties already on
the List and those under consideration;

\(iii\) Opportunities that the property affords for public visitation,
interpretation, and education;

\(iv\) Potential threats to the property\'s integrity or its current
state of preservation; and

\(v\) Other relevant factors, including public interest and awareness of
the property.

Selection as a proposed nomination indicates that a property appears to
qualify for World Heritage status and that the Assistant Secretary will
encourage the preparation of a complete nomination document for it.

The Assistant Secretary publishes a Second Notice advising the public of
the outcome of the Panel meeting and listing any nominations that will
be prepared. Owners and other interested parties are notified.

#### Drafting U.S. World Heritage Nominations 

*Regulations 73.7(g)*

NPS coordinates arrangements for the preparation of a complete
nomination document for

# 

# each proposed property. Property owners, in cooperation with NPS, are responsible for preparing or approving a draft nomination and for gathering documentation in support of it, including the preparation of the required protection agreement discussed in the next section. NPS may render assistance in the preparation of a nomination, depending on the availability of staff and funding, but in all cases oversees the preparation of the nomination and ensures that it follows the procedures contained in the *U.S. World Heritage Program Regulations* and the *Format* and procedural guidelines established by the World Heritage Committee. It is expected that each nomination will be prepared according to the schedule set out in the First Notice. *(See Appendix A for the detailed Instructions for Preparing U.S. World Heritage Nominations.)*

In drafting a nomination, it will be useful for the preparers to consult
not only with the Office of International Affairs, but also to seek
advice from the U.S. International Council on Monuments and Sites
(USICOMOS) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature of
the U.S. (IUCNUSA). Contacts for them are:

**USICOMOS IUCNUSA**

401 F Street, NW, Suite 331 1630 Connecticut Ave. NW, 3^rd^ floor

## Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20009 

202-842-1866 202-387-4826

Learned societies, museums, professional organizations, etc., may also
be asked to assist.

Protection Agreements for U.S. World Heritage Nominations

***Regulations 73.13***

**Protective Requirements**

The World Heritage Convention mandates that each participating nation
shall take, insofar as possible, the appropriate legal, scientific,
technical, administrative, and financial measures necessary for the
identification, protection, conservation, preservation, and
rehabilitation of properties of outstanding universal value; and U.S.
Federal law (Pub. L. 96-515). requires that no non-Federal property may
be nominated to the World Heritage List unless its owner concurs in
writing to such nomination. The nomination document for each property
must include evidence of such legal protections as may be necessary to
ensure preservation of the property and its environment, including, for
example, restrictive covenants, easements, and other forms of
protection.

The protective agreements should be gathered and/or prepared in the
course of preparing the World Heritage nomination and must be submitted
as a part of it. (*See **Section 4c** of the **Instructions** in
**Appendix A.)***

**Protection Measures for Public Properties**

For properties owned or controlled by Federal, State, and/or local
governments, the following items satisfy the protective requirements:

\(1\) Written concurrence by the owner prior to nomination;

\(2\) The nomination document must include reference to:

\(i\) All legislation establishing or preserving the area; and

(i) All existing and proposed administrative measures, including
    management plans, that

> would ensure continued satisfactory maintenance of the property and
> its environment; and

(3) A written statement by the owner(s) that such protective measures
    satisfy the requirements.

**Protection Measures for Private Properties**

For properties owned or controlled by private organizations or
individuals, the following items satisfy the protective requirements:

(1) A written covenant executed by the owner(s) prohibiting, in
    perpetuity, any use that is not consistent with, or which threatens
    or damages the property\'s universally significant values, or other
    trust or legal arrangement that has that effect; and

(2) The opinion of counsel on the legal status and enforcement of such a
    prohibition, including, but not limited to, enforceability by the
    Federal government or by interested third parties.

In addition, if the owner(s) is willing, a right of first refusal may be
given for acquisition of the property, along with a guaranteed source of
funding and appropriate management framework, in the event of any
proposed sale, succession, voluntary or involuntary transfer, or in the
unlikely event that the requirements outlined above prove to be
inadequate to ensure the preservation of the property\'s outstanding
universal value.

The protective measures for **each** private property being considered
for possible nomination to the World Heritage List will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis to ensure that the requirements set forth above are
met and to fulfill the mandate of Federal law.

Evaluating U.S. World Heritage Nomination Drafts

The draft nomination document serves as the basis for the Assistant
Secretary\'s decision to nominate the property to the World Heritage
List. NPS coordinates the review and evaluation of draft World Heritage
nominations. Copies are distributed to all members of the Federal
Interagency Panel for World Heritage and other interested parties with a
request for comments regarding the international significance of the
property and the adequacy of the draft nomination. (Depending on the
schedule, NPS may decide to circulate the draft to the World Heritage
Centre staff for preliminary review.) Afterward, the recommendations and
comments are compiled and presented at another public meeting of the
Panel.

The Assistant Secretary, based on personal evaluation and the
recommendations from the Panel, may decide to nominate a property that
appears to meet the World Heritage criteria to the World Heritage
Committee on behalf of the United States. The Assistant Secretary may
announce his decision as to whether to nominate a property at the second
Panel meeting or may do so later.

A Third Notice is published in the **Federal Register** to explain the
outcome and announce the decision.

Submitting U.S. World Heritage Nominations

If the Assistant Secretary is satisfied that the property merits
nomination and that all procedural requirements have been met, he signs
the nomination and sends the approved nomination document, through the
Department of State, to the World Heritage Committee. The nomination
document should be transmitted so that the World Heritage Committee
receives it before the deadline established for any given year. If not,
consideration will be postponed for at least a year.

*(When this [Guide]{.underline} was prepared the annual deadline was
February 1 of a given year for complete nominations to be scheduled for
review no sooner than the summer meeting of the World Heritage Committee
the following year. Because of a heavy workload at the Committee level
and other factors, final consideration may even be postponed to a later
year. See Chapter III.)*

Inscription on the World Heritage List

Nomination by the United States does not place a property on the World
Heritage List. The World Heritage Committee must still consider and
approve the nomination, normally at its meeting during the midsummer of
the year following the submittal of the complete approved nomination,
before it is inscribed as a World Heritage Site*.*

The process at the international level, including reviews of cultural
and natural sites by ICOMOS and IUCN, respectively, is detailed in
Chapter III of this **Guidebook** and ***Section III.E.---Paragraphs
143-151*** and ***Annex 6*** of the ***Operational Guidelines**.)*

[U.S. World Heritage Nomination Process]{.smallcaps}

**Agency, organization, or individual proposes nomination**

**NPS OIA reviews to determine prerequisites are met**

**NPS OIA and program experts review**

**Owners approval confirmed**

**Nomination proposal revised**

**First Notice---Assistant Secretary convenes Interagency Panel**

**Interagency Panel reviews proposal**

**Assistant Secretary decides whether nomination is to be
prepared---Second Notice**

**Nomination and owners' protection agreement prepared**

**Interagency Panel reviews nomination and protection agreement**

## Assistant Secretary decides whether to forward nomination\--Third Notice

**Department of State forwards nominations (by annual deadline)**

**World Heritage Centre reviews for completeness and forwards to
Advisory Bodies**

**ICOMOS IUCN**

**(cultural sites) (natural sites)**

**Advisory Bodies perform technical review, visit site, and recommend on
listing**

**World Heritage Committee lists, defers, or declines**

**(Committee's annual meeting currently in June or July each year)**

Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage

***Responsibilities***

The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage ("Panel") was
established to advise the Department of the Interior on implementation
of the World Heritage Convention.

As the key executive official of the U.S. World Heritage Program, the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, or his/her
designee, chairs the Panel, and sets its agenda and schedule. The NPS
provides staff support to the Panel.

Among other things, the panel assists in the following activities:

(1) development of policy and procedures for effectively implementing
    the Convention in the U.S.;

\(2\) evaluation of draft U.S. nomination documents;

\(3\) making of recommendations for approval of U.S. nominations;

\(4\) dissemination of information on the Convention within other
Federal agencies; and

> \(5\) promotion of increased awareness and understanding of the
> importance of heritage conservation

***Membership***

The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage is composed of
representatives, named by their respective agencies, from the following
agencies and offices:

-   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks,
    U.S. Department of the Interior;

-   National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior;

-   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior;

-   President\'s Council on Environmental Quality;

-   Smithsonian Institution;

-   Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;

-   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce; and

-   U.S. Department of State.

Additional representatives from other Federal agencies with mandates and
expertise in heritage conservation may be requested to participate in
the Panel.

**Source:** World Heritage Program Regulations, Section 73.13

# [How the World Heritage Committee Lists Sites]{.smallcaps}

## Role of World Heritage Centre

##### Operational Guidelines I.F. -- Paragraphs 27-29 and III.D. \-- Paragraphs 140-142

After a country submits a nomination, the World Heritage Centre reviews
it for completeness and then sends it to the appropriate Advisory Bodies
for review and evaluation. The Centre staffs all aspects of the World
Heritage Committee's work, including maintaining an archives of
nominations and the Committee's records. The Centre's staff also advises
nations in preparing nominations and is, for example, willing to review
nomination drafts.

## Timetable for Consideration of World Heritage Nominations

##### Operational Guidelines III.J \-- Paragraph 168

The current deadline for submittal of complete nominations to the World
Heritage Centre is February 1 in any given year. The normal process of
review takes about 16 months with nominations normally scheduled for
review at the annual summer meeting (June-July) of the World Heritage
Committee in the year following their submittal.

Roles of Advisory Bodies

***Operational Guidelines I.G. --Paragraphs 30-37 and III.E. --
Paragraphs 143-151 & Annex 6***

Technical advice on and evaluations of completed nominations are
provided by two of the Committee's three statutory Advisory Bodies. Two
of them are independent international organizations: the International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union
(IUCN), which evaluate the merits of cultural and natural sites,
respectively, and visit them to prepare on-site inspection reports. The
Advisory Bodies may also request supplementary information from the
nominating countries. *(See **Annex 6** to the **Operational
Guidelines** for a detailed description of the Advisory Bodies'
evaluation procedures.)*

The third Advisory Body is the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an
international governmental organization which provides the Committee
with expert advice on the care and treatment of cultural sites and on
training activities for staff who deal with World Heritage Sites and
issues.

The Advisory Body evaluations are provided to the Committee members and
the nominating country in advance of the World Heritage Committee
meeting scheduled to consider the nominations, which occurs
approximately 16 months after the nominations are submitted.

## Action By the World Heritage Committee

***Operational Guidelines III.G. -- Paragraphs 154-160 and III.H. \--
Paragraphs 161-162***

Once a year, in late June or early July, the Committee meets in regular
session in the home country of the Chair to decide which sites to
include in the World Heritage List from among those submitted by
February 1 of the previous year (as well as any requests for emergency
consideration). The Committee reviews the nomination and reports on each
site from the Advisory Bodies and decides whether or not to include the
property in the World Heritage List. (As with other Committee decisions,
a 2/3 majority of Committee Members present and voting is required for
inscription.)

The Committee may also defer action and request additional information
from a nominating country or request additional study of the site along
with similar properties.

The Committee not only inscribes sites on the World Heritage List but
also examines reports on the condition of designated World Heritage
Sites, including the placement of sites on the List of World Heritage in
Danger, the provision of assistance to sites from the World Heritage
Fund to which signatory nations contribute, and all other key decisions
needed to implement the World Heritage Convention.

IV. [Key Issues in The World Heritage Nomination Process]{.smallcaps}

Summary

The substance of World Heritage and the issues involved in it are as
intricate as the evolution of humanity's cultures in their multitude of
expressions and as diverse as nature in all its manifestations. The task
is nothing less than attempting to represent equitably the most
significant aspects of all nature and all culture in one list. To do so
requires that national chauvinism and narrow prejudices of race,
culture, class, and politics be set aside or at least suspended. The
preceding chapters could not provide a thorough picture of just how hard
this is to accomplish.

The earlier chapters have sketched how the complex process of selecting
World Heritage Sites operates on the international level and in the
United States. But it is not just the procedures of World Heritage that
are complex and excruciatingly demanding. This Chapter will discuss some
key issues that have arisen in dealing with World Heritage in practice,
on both the U.S. national and the international levels. The intent is to
help those in the United States who are interested in World Heritage,
especially those who would like to propose nominating sites, to
understand these issues, how they have been dealt with, and why some of
them have proved so difficult to solve. Readers are advised to glance
through the headings below and review any topics that appear to apply to
a proposed nomination or other issues with which they are concerned.

This Chapter discusses some of the troublesome, even puzzling,
substantive issues involved in World Heritage. Examples will be drawn
from three decades of work with them and efforts to resolve them at the
national and international levels. In some cases, the ways in which the
U.S. Government or the World Heritage Committee have chosen to deal with
these issues have placed major limits on the application of the
Convention. In other cases, no satisfactory solutions have been found.

This review of issues is by no means complete. It should be considered
as a work in very slow progress. But it is a discussion of great
importance in understanding the World Heritage program because there is
no official codification or even a thorough study of these issues and
precedents.

U.S. ISSUES:

Some of the issues are specific to U.S. law and practice and to the
circumstances of natural and cultural sites in this country. Other
countries encounter corresponding but differing sets of issues. Other
issues, particularly that of the representivity of the World Heritage
List and its overall management, must be dealt with at both levels.

The goal of this analysis is to present these issues in as factual and
apolitical a manner as possible. It is noteworthy that, insofar as the
U.S. approach to most of the issues cited below is concerned, the
approaches in law, regulation, policy, and practice have been remarkably
similar and stable under the management of successive Administrations.

At the outset, it should be emphasized that the time, effort, and other
resources involved in preparing and processing World Heritage
nominations has consistently been underestimated by practically everyone
concerned. Accordingly, any notions that a property might be nominated
to meet such goals as achieving its inscription by a particular date or
anniversary or to assist in short-term fund-raising are highly
unrealistic and impractical.

Voluntary Restraint in Nominating Sites

As a international policy matter unrelated to the nature of potential
U.S. sites, the U.S. has severely limited the number of sites that it
will forward to the World Heritage Committee. The U.S. has, in fact, not
nominated any new site since 1994.

Although other reasons have influenced this decision, there are
long-standing international concerns about equity in the composition of
the World Heritage List, both by nation and by various site types. There
is also a practical limit to the number of nomination proposals and
other business that the World Heritage Committee can process at a single
meeting. These two factors have led to repeated requests from the
Committee for nations to voluntarily delay the submittal of nominations
and the U.S. has done so.

In fact, the United States has led in efforts to keep the listing
process equitable and representative. In 1999, the U.S. proposed a
"waiting list" for nominations to help insure that nominations from
unrepresented and less represented countries and site types would
receive priority consideration. The Committee has adopted a modified
version of the "waiting list" concept and has also set an upper limit on
the number of nominations that are to be reviewed at the annual
Committee meeting. The latest review of this decision set the total
number of nominations to be considered annually at 45, with a quota of 2
per country, at least one of which must be a natural area nomination.

Recognition vs. Protection

Another factor has placed limits on resources available to identify and
process nominations of World Heritage Sites. On both the national and
international levels, all listing programs for sites, except those that
are strictly honorary, have a natural tension between programs that list
sites and those that advise and assist them. The balance between these
programs changes over time as more sites requiring advice and assistance
are identified. Program resources tend to flow disproportionately to
listed sites and to those with the greatest problems; the latter must be
scrutinized continuously.

Thus, the U.S. program has, in recent years, devoted much of its
attention to Reactive Reporting on the 20 listed sites, especially
Yellowstone and Everglades, which have been on the List of World
Heritage in Danger for much of that time and to the preparation of the
Periodic Reports for all listed sites, which must be submitted once
every 6 years. *(See Chapter V.)*

National Significance versus "Outstanding Universal Value**"**

The World Heritage List is intended to embrace properties on a worldwide
basis. It is not intended to be an international list of national lists
but rather a single list selected on this basis of a common set of
criteria and a process that identifies only those sites that possess
"outstanding universal value." In practice the international criteria
for both nature and culture are subject to differences of interpretation
and the application of principles of selection in strikingly different
ways, but still they are, in their basic intent, highly selective,
almost exclusionary.

About 3300 properties in the U.S. have been designated as nationally
important, including nearly 2500 National Historic Landmarks and almost
600 National Natural Landmarks designated by the Secretary of the
Interior and some 200 other areas officially designated by Congress and
the President as nationally significant.

Many of the nationally significant U.S. sites are excluded from the
World Heritage candidate pool because they lack any apparent relation to
or influence on international events or phenomena. Others are
disqualified by reasons of rule or practice at the international level,
including their potential for inciting controversy and competition
rather than cooperation: examples include battle sites and the homes of
many prominent individuals, which have been largely excluded at the
international level. Limitation of the use of cultural criterion (vi)\--
from 1996 to 2005, it could not be used alone and the Committee still
prefers that it be used in conjunction with other criteria\--has further
curtailed the prospects for nomination of sites dealing with associative
history and relatively few U.S. sites appear likely to qualify on the
basis of the other cultural criteria.

The Original U.S. Tentative List (Indicative Inventory 1982-2007)

Some 70 unlisted sites remain on the U.S. Tentative List (former
Indicative Inventory of Potential Future World Heritage Nominations),
the candidate pool from which U.S. nominations have in theory been drawn
since 1982. (*See **Appendix F*****.)** The prospects that very many of
these sites will be nominated are quite limited and not just because of
the limitation on criterion (vi) and because the World Heritage
Committee has sought to limit nominations from the well represented
countries*. (* The new Tentative List, which is designed to serve for
about a decade, will essentially begin anew.)

There are some serious issues with the original Tentative List. Even
casual review will make clear that it lacks some types of sites that are
clearly important in American culture and nature but that appear to be
well represented internationally; for example, historic landscapes and
sites associated with many aspects of aboriginal, ethnic and racial
history, are not included. Some types of natural sites are conspicuously
absent; marine sites being a very prominent example. Some of these
apparent contradictions can be explained by the fact that in many cases
there have been no comprehensive studies to identify nationally
significant sites associated with these topics.

Nationally significant sites continue to be identified and the U.S.
Tentative List is no doubt destined to be revised over time, so it can
be expected that these gaps in subject matter will eventually be
reviewed. For example, studies of Spanish missions and U.S. architecture
prepared for the National Park Service well after the preparation of the
Tentative List made recommendations as to which sites might qualify for
nomination in those two important subject areas but those
recommendations have not been integrated into the Tentative List.

Although the U.S. Tentative List was established as a revolving list
that could be added to and deleted from as studies progressed, the World
Heritage Committee also intended that nations review their Tentative
Lists after a decade. However, as of late 2005, when the preparation of
a new Tentative List was undertaken, the U.S. Tentative List had been
largely unchanged for more than 23 years and completely unaltered for
15. Recently, the Committee has again urged nations to review their
candidate lists with the idea of identifying short lists that would only
include properties intended for nomination during the next decade. The
preparation of such a new Tentative List has been begun by the National
Park Service in late 2005.

Although revision and shortening of the Tentative List will likely
provide a more realistic and accurate indication of what the U.S. will
nominate during the next decade, competition for inclusion will probably
be quite intense, especially if it is recognized that no further
revision will be likely for at least a decade or longer and that any
additions will, during that time, be quite unlikely.

Recent Sites

One case where the U.S. criteria for national significance do not
conform to the World Heritage criteria and practice is with recent
cultural sites. The U.S. criteria are more exclusionary. Except in
exceptional circumstances, the National Historic Landmark criteria
deliberately exclude almost all sites associated with events less than
50 years in the past and with living individuals, such as architects and
artists. These rules have been breached fairly seldom in the U.S. On the
other hand, other nations have successfully nominated several relatively
recent sites.

Difficulties with Historic Districts and Serial Nominations

U.S. law and regulation give owners an absolute veto over whether their
property is included within a World Heritage nomination and requires
that willing owners submit protection agreements. These requirements
have had several important effects:

-   Owners may not wish to take part in the World Heritage process if
    they feel it limits their management authority or economic
    prospects.

-   Otherwise willing owners may balk at the time and expense involved
    in preparing a World Heritage nomination, and, especially, a legally
    acceptable protection agreement.

-   Historic districts with numerous owners, such as a collection of
    urban buildings, are exceedingly difficult to nominate in the United
    States.

-   Thematic or serial nominations of related sites cannot be
    successfully proposed for nomination in the United States unless all
    the owners agree.

-   A noteworthy imbalance exists at the national level when properties
    are excluded from consideration for the World Heritage List because
    of factors other than their significance. For example, if the most
    prominent site or sites cannot be nominated for legal reasons, it
    will be extremely difficult to justify proposing nomination of a
    lesser site or of only some of a group.

Emergency Nominations:

The U.S. nomination process, including the requirements for multi-stage
notification and the advance approval of protective agreements by U.S.
Government legal counsel, is so complex and time-consuming that it is
unlikely to yield requests for emergency nomination, which ordinarily
involves simultaneous inscription in the List of World Heritage in
Danger. However, the prospects for doing so should not be categorically
excluded, especially in cases of natural disaster or terrorism.

Lessons from U.S. Nominations:

Most U.S. nominations have consisted of national parks and other
Department of the Interior property. This is in part because it has been
easier to satisfy the protection requirement when the Department was
offering the pledge for itself. The difficulty of securing protection
agreements that will satisfy all concerned is formidable in the case of
most other sites.

The World Heritage Committee has declined to list several U.S.
nominations. These failed or stalled nominations do, however, offer
lessons that can be helpful in considering future nominations.

Based on apparent deficiencies in the nominations, the early rejection
of the Edison National Historic Site and Wright Brothers National
Memorial nominations by the World Heritage Committee provide at least
the following lessons for the future.

-   It is essential to review all sites associated with scientific
    developments or events and select only sites that have both great
    importance and a high degree of historic authenticity;

-   Scientific and technological accomplishments or events and where
    they occurred should be emphasized rather than the length of time
    famous individuals spent at the sites;

-   Related scientific developments in all countries and sites
    associated with them should be fully and clearly evaluated.

The lesson to be drawn from the refusal of the World Heritage Committee
to accept the nomination of Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesins is that
nominations of similar or related properties must be constructed with
great care given to what is included to represent a particular topic.
After almost 15 years, no serial nomination has yet been prepared that
includes the most important of his hundreds of works.

The inscription of Hawaii's Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical
Park on the World Heritage List was deferred in 1986 pending a study of
sites illustrative of Pacific cultures, even though the nomination text
made use of a study that sought to address other examples of places of
refuge in the Pacific. This deferral would seem to offer several
lessons:

-   It is extremely difficult to persuade the World Heritage Committee
    and its international advisory bodies to list precedent-making sites
    until a thorough comparative international study has been conducted.

-   It cannot be assumed that the importance of particular types of
    sites will be easily accepted; there will probably need to be a
    review of all types of sites important to a culture.

-   Sites representing cultures or other phenomena that cross national
    boundaries should, when feasible, be considered for joint nomination
    by all countries concerned

-   Great care must be taken in evaluating the authenticity of a site
    and in presenting its construction history.

Future Prospects for U.S. Nominations

The World Heritage List already includes some of the most prominent
sites in the United States, sites that were obvious choices for
nomination. Possible future nominations are not so obvious. The list of
possibilities that follows is speculative and suggestive; it largely
based on trends in nature conservation and cultural site preservation,
including some studies conducted by IUCN and ICOMOS and sites encouraged
by the Committee. It is meant to spur thought on the topic, and
especially to encourage examination of sites from new or different
perspectives.

-   Nominations of sites that represent unrepresented or relatively
    under-represented topics or types of sites

-   Joint nominations by the U.S. and other nations: The Committee has
    encouraged such nominations. Joint nominations of similar natural
    areas, such as types of marine reserves and forests, seem
    reasonable. Linked cultural sites associated with exceptionally
    important cultural events, such as slavery or the Industrial
    Revolution, may present good opportunities. The exceptional
    multiracial, multiethnic, and economic diversity of the United
    States make such prospects better than for most nations.

-   Sites or collections of sites that reflect exceptional routes that
    transcend national boundaries such as the Underground Railroad or
    the migration routes of animals may be difficult to evaluate and
    nominate, but are more plausible in light of the listing of such
    sites as the pilgrimage routes of Santiago de Campostella in France
    and Spain.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

No listing process that seeks to recognize and assist the most important
natural and cultural places in the world will be perfectly
representative or universally acknowledged as perfectly constituted or
administered. Yet this is what the World Heritage List is established to
do and its resources to accomplish this are really quite meager relative
to the task.

Many of the key topics addressed just above as national issues resonate
to some degree on the international level. Those discussed below are
intended to help those unfamiliar with World Heritage operations at the
international level to understand its workings. The credibility of the
World Heritage List is at stake, depending on how well these issues are
understood and addressed.

Jurisdiction and Relation to Other Treaties

*Operational Guidelines I.I. -- Paragraphs 41-44*

It is critical that everyone who deals with the World Heritage Program
understand that, despite its prestige and the grandeur of its mission,
the program rests on the basis of the national programs for nature
conservation and cultural preservation and can only be as effective as
the willingness of nations to provide the necessary financial and
intellectual resources both at home and for the international program.
The World Heritage Committee is a forum for voluntary international
cooperation by sovereign nations, not a world court for the environment.
It is not chartered or staffed to operate as a judicial body. The
Committee does not even have its own Legal Advisor. Yet, it exists
within an international legal context and its effectiveness is also
influenced by international political issues and disputes.

Notably, although the World Heritage Committee has encouraged "closer
coordination of its work" with other international programs and the
relevant conventions there is no clearly defined or universally accepted
relationship between the World Heritage Convention and such
international instruments as the convention on biodiversity, the
treaties on the law of war and the law of the sea and various treaties,
conventions, and declarations aimed at protecting human rights and
indigenous peoples rights. One limiting factor is that few of those
instruments are as universal as the World Heritage Convention.

It is a clear and unmistakable conclusion to be drawn from the recent
history of the World Heritage Convention that efforts to raise such
issues as indigenous rights or to impose inscription on the List of
World Heritage in Danger on a nation that does not desire a site to be
so inscribed will lead to controversies and debates that hamstring the
work of the Committee and dilute its very limited time and resources. It
is also inevitable that aggrieved parties will still try to raise such
issues in any available international forum and there is no question but
that the Committee and its Advisory Bodies have contributed to that
problem by not firmly remanding such debates to the national authorities
or to any more appropriate international bodies. It should also be
understood by all that the World Heritage system will work better when
programs of action have been hammered out before coming to the
Committee.

Issues where boundaries, sovereignty, or ownership rights between
countries and/or other parties are disputed are beyond the prerogatives
and have proved to be beyond the practical capability of the World
Heritage Committee to address. Efforts to apply the Convention in
disputed seas, in Antarctica, and to extraterrestrial sites have been so
far rebuffed. A major instance in which such an issue was raised was in
the nomination of Jerusalem by Jordan; the site was inscribed without
reference to sovereignty, over the objections of, among others, the
United States. The listing has proved ineffective without the
cooperation of Israel.

One additional category of issues has also led to great difficulties.
Assertions by one nation or its citizens of rights against another
generally cannot be effectively dealt with by the Committee. Examples
include claims for real and personal property owned by individuals and
an effort by a corporation to defeat a World Heritage nomination in
another country. Such claims need to be addressed by negotiations
between the parties concerned.

Representivity of the World Heritage List

***Operational Guidelines II.B. -- Paragraphs 54-61***

Other than issues of jurisdiction, issues concerning the representivity
of the World Heritage List are perhaps the most basic at the
international level. The major consequence of these concerns has been
Committee action in recent years to give a measure of priority to
unrepresented and less represented countries and types of sites. There
are several aspects to this issue:

-   size of the List overall and its integrity. There are no limits set
    for the overall size of the List or for its components or for the
    number of sites or types of sites from any country or region.
    However, as a practical matter related to the length of its
    meetings, the Committee has recently struggled to limit the number
    considered for addition to the List in any given year.

-   the balance between nature and culture and between various aspects
    of both, including equity between geographical regions and cultural
    groupings. There has been much concern at the international level
    because cultural sites generally and certain regions and countries,
    especially those in Europe, are much more heavily represented than
    others.

There are some important cautions that need to be considered when
reviewing this issue:

-   Nations and regions of the world are profoundly different and
    present different possibilities for nomination. Some countries, for
    example, may lack any natural sites that are plausible to nominate
    or may lack particular types of sites, such as coastal and marine
    sites or high mountains.

-   The types of sites that can qualify for the World Heritage List are
    different in so many ways that it is not reasonable to simply count
    and compare the raw numbers of sites. For example, a natural site
    nomination may embrace more territory than some countries and a
    serial nomination of cultural sites may group many properties in one
    listing.

-   Some nations have been slow to participate, for various reasons, and
    others that have ratified recently have had fewer opportunities to
    present properties to the World Heritage Committee.

-   New discoveries and changes in scientific thinking have led to
    changes in the types of sites that are proposed.

-   Jurisdictional issues and difficulties in arranging international
    cooperation have limited the nomination of joint and serial sites
    common in or on the borders of more than one country. The problems
    encountered here are similar to the issues confronted when a nation,
    such as the U.S., seeks to submit a serial nomination that must be
    prepared in multiple components.

-   The uncovering of previously unknown or unnoticed archeological
    sites and new concepts in cultural history and anthropology have
    given prominence to new categories of sites.

-   Progress in identifying types of sites varies dramatically from
    country to country, making comparisons of types of sites that occur
    in more than one country extremely difficult

War Sites and Other "Negative" Sites

Throughout the Committee's history, concern has periodically been
expressed about the possible damaging consequences for the World
Heritage List of the inscription of "negative" sites (such as battle
sites and concentration camps) and the introduction of other politically
charged issues (such as ones connected solely with boundary disputes or
the careers of political and military leaders). The Committee has
usually tried to sidestep or limit such inscriptions, as in the case of
Auschwitz, where the Committee limited future inscriptions of similar
sites. Nevertheless, great defensive fortification systems, such as the
Spanish fortifications of the Caribbean, the Great Wall of China,
Hadrian's Wall, and walled city centers, have been inscribed.

Historic Cities and Historic Districts

***Operational Guidelines Annex 3 -- Paragraphs 14-16***

The referenced section of **Annex 3** to the ***Operational
Guidelines*** provides guidance for the nomination of historic city and
town centers, of which quite a number have been inscribed. Ancient
cities that are maintained as archeological sites and have small
populations have presented few issues compared to the historic cores of
inhabited modern cities. The latter present several problems. For one
thing, as has been noted, it is not practical for legal reasons for the
United States (and perhaps some other countries) to nominate large
historic districts that embrace major parts of modern cities or even
large towns. Also, such nominations present formidable burdens in
nomination documentation and even greater continuing burdens in
reporting, for the World Heritage Committee does not function readily or
effectively as a design review board for historically important
inhabited urban cores, which are typically among the most sensitive
sites politically in their nations.

Cultural Landscapes

***Operational Guidelines Annex 3 -- Paragraphs 6-13***

These also receive special attention in the ***Operational
Guidelines***. Relatively few have been listed and therefore the
cautions expressed elsewhere about the difficulty of nominating
precedent-setting sites bear repetition here. Among the principal issues
are the difficulty of documenting them and the application to them of
the test of authenticity. For example, must rice forever remain the main
crop on the Rice Terraces of the Philippines World Heritage Site? The
World Heritage Committee may one day have to decide.

Heritage Canals and Routes

***Operational Guidelines Annex 3 -- Paragraphs 16-24***

Such historic relics tend to be composed of vast numbers of components,
including linear elements of vast extent, that vary in their historic
integrity and authenticity. Their nomination also poses complex boundary
and other issues.

Modern Sites

With the exception of 20^th^ century towns, nominations of which,
despite the inscription of Brasilia, are ordinarily to be deferred,
there has been no clear or consistent guidance or lasting consensus from
the World Heritage Committee for dealing with modern sites, although
there has been pressure to inscribe them from time to time. These
include very recent sites and those associated with living architects or
other prominent living persons. The Committee has rarely listed such
sites. The U.S. process has for the most part excluded them.

Mixed Sites

These are sites found to qualify separately under both natural and
cultural criteria. There are few and it is not to be expected that there
will be many successfully nominated. In addition to documenting such
sites and applying the tests of authenticity and integrity to them,
there is the over-arching issue of how to resolve potential conflicts
between nature and culture that may arise.

World Heritage Comparative, Thematic, and Regional Studies

***Operational Guidelines Annex 3 \-- Paragraphs 25-26 & the Select
Bibliography on World Heritage***

Issues dealing with the representativity and maintenance of the List
have led to the commissioning of various international studies
(including some dealing with certain of the topics discussed just
above), by or in cooperation with ICOMOS and IUCN. These studies examine
and make recommendations regarding what are judged by subject matter
experts to be the most prominent candidates in particular topics. These
studies have not been adopted by the

Committee, but do provide a very strong basis for a country to nominate
a property to the World Heritage List. On the other hand, if no current
international comparative study exists, a site nomination may languish
indefinitely, as in the case of the United States' nomination of
Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park in Hawaii in the
mid-l980s.

Accordingly, the preparer of a nomination should make every effort to
obtain and cite any applicable global studies. (Internet addresses for
these studies are referenced in the ***Operational Guidelines*** end
sections noted above.) If the study is not supportive of a site's
prospects, a decision should be made on whether to suspend work on the
nomination proposal or whether to attempt to supplement, challenge or
refute the findings in any subject studies altogether.

Development Threats and Management Impacts

Cases where development threats arise near, but beyond the boundaries,
of a proposed or listed World Heritage property, have proven to be among
the most controversial and contentious issues with which national
governments and the World Heritage Committee have dealt at World
Heritage Sites.

Intrusive development can harm a site's setting, or the views from it or
of it. Industrial processes can threaten a property by polluting the air
or water or damaging delicate construction materials in buildings or
exposed rock art. Management within a site's boundaries also has
impacts, For example, the construction of new roads or tourist and
transportation facilities in or nearby can bring to a property more
visitors than it can absorb in safety.

But there is frequently no consensus on the effects of specific impacts
or whether they are compatible with the preservation of a site's World
Heritage values and its management, whether for public, private, or
mixed use. One person's development threat may be regarded by another
person as an economic opportunity. All that can be said is that such
issues are best resolved or at least clarified before proceeding with
nomination. Otherwise, the proposed nomination is likely to encounter
delays at either the national or international level or both.

#  [Reporting on World Heritage Sites]{.smallcaps}

## Introduction

World Heritage Sites are subject to change by a variety of forces. A
World Heritage nomination presents the situation of a site and knowledge
about it at the time of its nomination. Because the World Heritage
Convention envisions a program of continuing cooperation and mutual
assistance to recognize and protect sites, it is necessary to assess and
report on conditions at World Heritage Sites on an on-going basis,
especially those that are suffering damage. In the absence of reporting
and action to correct damage to sites, the long-term credibility of the
World Heritage List would be called into question.

Although there are often disagreements regarding which developments at
or near a site merit inclusion in a report and what measures should be
proposed in response, it is clear that those qualities and features for
which a site was explicitly inscribed are to be protected and are
subject to reporting.

## Reactive Reports

##### Operational Guidelines IV.A. \-- Paragraphs 172-198

Reactive reporting is reporting regarding changes to properties that
arise over time and may address any of a vast array of issues. Common
examples include major construction or new extractive industry near on
within a site, visitor pressures, and poaching of wildlife or the
removal of artifacts. The national governments, in cooperation with site
managers, are expected to submit reactive reports in response to
conditions as they arise. Governments are asked to use the on-line State
of Conservation Reporting Tool developed by the World Heritage Centre
([http://whc.unesco.org.soc](http://whc.unesco.org.soc/)). The reports
are to be sent to the World Heritage Centre no later than February 1 of
the year following the Committee meeting that requested them. The World
Heritage Centre, other sectors of UNESCO, the Committee's Advisory
Bodies, and external bodies may also prepare reactive reports.

Not all reactive reports necessarily go to the Committee for review.
Issues are sometimes resolved or determined not to be sufficiently
serious to merit the Committee's attention. The Centre's staff
customarily edits reports or submits supplementary reports or
recommendations that are reviewed by the Committee and form the basis
for its decisions.

## Periodic Reports

##### Operational Guidelines V. \-- Paragraphs 199-210 and Annex 7

In 1998, the Committee adopted a cycle of regular reports on conditions
at all World Heritage Sites as well as national and regional reports on
the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Currently, each
nation is to report on all its sites every 6^th^ year. The site reports
present a "snapshot" of current conditions. The first set of United
States Periodic Reports was presented in February 2005.

The Periodic Reports are designed to conform generally to and present
and update the same information as contained in the World Heritage
nominations*.*

The Format for Periodic Reports presented in the ***Operational
Guidelines*** has been modified in practice by States Parties, including
the United States.

Followup to Reports

Various steps may be taken. An update of the nomination in whole or part
might be undertaken. For example, a revision of the boundary to reduce
or enlarge the World Heritage Site might be

undertaken or consideration under an additional criterion requested.
Major boundary or content revisions require the submission of new
documentation, just as if the proposal were a new nomination.

#  

# Reports to the Committee may also form the basis for inscription of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

# [Withdrawing a World Heritage Listing]{.smallcaps}

# 

# Summary

***Operational Guidelines IV.C. -- Paragraphs 192-198***

The World Heritage Committee has provided a process for the removal or
deletion of sites from the World Heritage List. This can occur if the
property has deteriorated to the point where it has lost the
characteristics that led to its listing **or** if the site was
threatened at the time of its listing and has not received the measures
necessary to correct the threats. However, as of June 2005, no site had
ever been removed from the World Heritage List and only in a few
instances has the issue been seriously raised. Thus, the discussion here
is highly speculative.

Examples of the types of situations that might lead to a site's removal
include destruction of a cultural site in whole or in part, whether
deliberately by human hands or by forces of nature, and irreparable
damage to a natural area caused by ecological changes or catastrophes,
whether brought about by humans or nature.

# Procedure for Withdrawal

The withdrawal process, if not begun at the request of the nation in
which the site proposed for removal is located, is to include full
consultation with that nation, and the consideration of all possible
measures to prevent a site's removal. It is to be anticipated that in
many cases a nation will regard a proposal to remove as a site as a
sanction. Thus, only if a site's initial nomination and subsequent
reports on it are comprehensive and crystal-clear can proposals dealing
with its condition be handled fairly and with a minimum of controversy.

Removal of a site from the World Heritage List requires a two-thirds
vote of the World Heritage Committee members present and voting. Removal
of a site from the List does [not]{.underline} require the consent of
the country in which the site is located.

There is no procedure for the removal of a site from the World Heritage
List based solely upon the request of a State Party. The more extreme
case of the status of sites in a country which has denounced the
Convention and withdrawn from participation is a hypothetical question
that hopefully will never need to be addressed.

#  APPENDIX A

#######  **INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING**

U.S. WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS

#### Introduction

Following these introductory pages is an expanded and annotated version
of the latest official ***Format*** and ***Explanatory Notes*** for
World Heritage Nominations, as approved by the World Heritage Committee
in 2004, which appears as **[Annex 5]{.underline}** to the
***Operational Guidelines*** and also at
http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominationform. The version appearing here has
been adapted specifically for use with U.S. properties and also includes
information extracted from ***Operational Guidelines Section
III.A-C---Paragraphs 120-139*** . (NOTE : Because of successive
generations of changes and additions to the content required and in the
order and naming of the elements and subelements, great care will need
to be exercised in comparing nominations prepared using this
***Format*** with those for sites nominated before 2005.)

The World Heritage nomination ***Format**,* the international
regulations **(*Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention)(Appendix B),*** and the national regulations
***(U.S. World Heritage Program Regulations)** **(Appendix C)*** use
numerous technical terms. Although an effort has been made to explain
the terms used as clearly as possible within the text, the reader should
refer to the ***World Heritage Glossary (Appendix D)*** and the U.S.
program regulations **(*Appendix C, Section 73.3)*** for official legal
definitions.

# 

CAUTION : Although volunteer efforts have been helpful to the U.S. World
Heritage Program, please, to avoid waste of effort, do not begin
completing a World Heritage nomination until it is reasonably certain
that the prerequisites for nomination *(see Chapter II* ) can be met and
that the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks will
consider the nomination. Consult with the World Heritage Program Officer
in the National Park Service's Office of International Affairs to
discuss in advance the status of any proposed nomination and whether it
is advisable for you to begin work :

World Heritage Program Officer

National Park Service

Office of International Affairs (0050)

Washington, DC 20240

202-354-1803

#### General Guidelines

Purposes 

A World Heritage nomination serves two main purposes:

First, it is to describe the property in a way which brings out the
reasons it is believed to meet the World Heritage criteria for
inscription, and to enable the property to be assessed against those
criteria.

Secondly, it is to provide basic data about the property, which can be
revised and brought up to date incrementally and periodically in order
to record the changing circumstances and state of conservation of the
property.

**General Editorial and Writing Guidelines**

Make information as precise and specific as possible. Quantify
information when possible and reference it fully. Endeavor to ensure its
scientific and scholarly accuracy.

Documents should be concise and written in a straightforward scientific
writing style to minimize the difficulty of translation. Avoid in
particular long historical and descriptive accounts of properties and
events, especially such accounts as are readily available in published
sources; these can be referenced and included in the **Bibliography.
*(*Section 7e** *below).*

Support expressions of opinion by referring to the authority on which
they are made and the verifiable facts which support them, using a
consistent system of footnotes to explain or document them.

**Sourcebooks and Background Material for World Heritage Nominations **

Because U.S. cultural sites proposed for World Heritage nomination must
be either Federal properties designated as nationally significant or
have been previously designated as National Historic Landmarks, their
nominations for such status, which are compiled on a somewhat similar
form (National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form), provide
considerable material that can be useful in drafting a World Heritage
nomination. The preparer is advised to obtain from the National Park
Service the text of the National Register nomination form for the
property and to review sections of the National Park Service's ***How to
Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations*** that correspond to
those in this ***Format.***

For a U.S. natural area being proposed for nomination, the preparer
should obtain the corresponding National Natural Landmark study and also
consult any site inventory at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre's
databases (at **www.unep-wcmc.org).**

Also consult the Office of International Affairs and/or the World
Heritage Centre files to obtain samples of nominations of similar listed
sites in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world that may be helpful in
preparing the nomination. Some, but not all, of the nominations of the
812 sites listed as of 2005 are available at various places on the
Internet. However, copies of the World Heritage Committtee Advisory Body
reviews of the sites, which will also be helpful, are are available at
whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm/cid=31, as are the texts of the World Heritage
Committee decisions on the sites (at whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm/cid=60)

Editorial Style

References, including footnotes and Bibliography, should follow a
consistent format.

Use the metric system for all distances, sizes, and volume dimensions,
providing English equivalents following in parentheses.

Use common names for plant and animal species, when such exist, with the
Latin genus and species following in parentheses.

**Requirement for Inclusion of Nominated Properties in Tentative Lists**

The ***U.S. World Heritage Program Regulations*** and the World Heritage
Committee's ***Operational Guidelines*** require that **all** nominated
sites be included in the U.S. Tentative List before nomination. (For the
U.S., the Tentative List was formerly known as the "Indicative Inventory
of Potential World Heritage Nominations.") The 1982 version appears as
Appendix F in the ***Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program.*** It has
been published in the *Federal* *Register* (47 FR 19648, as amended by
48 FR 38101 and 55 FR 33781) and is also available on the Internet at
**www.cr/nps.gov/worldheritage/list1.htm.**

Additions to the Tentative List are accomplished through the process
described in Chapter II of the ***Guide*** and in Section 73.7 of the
***U.S World Heritage Program Regulations (Appendix C*). [(The
preparation of a new U.S. Tentative List was being undertaken in late
2005.) ]{.underline}**

Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types of Properties

***Transboundary properties***

A nominated property may occur:

a\) on the territory of a single State Party (i.e., country) , or

b\) on the territory of all concerned States Parties having adjacent
borders (transboundary property).

Wherever possible, transboundary nominations should be prepared and
submitted by States Parties jointly in conformity with Article 11.3 of
the Convention. It is highly recommended that the States Parties
concerned establish a joint management committee or similar body to
oversee the management of the whole of a transboundary property.

Extensions to an existing World Heritage property located in one State
Party may be proposed to become transboundary properties.

***Serial properties***

Serial properties will include component parts related because they
belong to:

a\) the same historico--cultural group;

b\) the same type of property which is characteristic of the
geographical zone;

c\) the same geological, geomorphological formation, the same
biogeographic province, or the same ecosystem type;

and provided it is the series as a whole -- and not necessarily the
individual parts of it -- which are of outstanding universal value.

A serial nominated property may occur:

a\) on the territory of a single State Party (serial national property);
or

b\) within the territory of different States Parties, which need not be
contiguous and is nominated with the consent of all States Parties
concerned (serial transnational property)

Serial nominations, whether from one State Party or more, may be
submitted for evaluation over several nomination cycles, provided that
the first property nominated is of outstanding universal value in its
own right. States Parties planning serial nominations phased over
several nomination cycles are encouraged to inform the Committee of
their intention in order to ensure better planning.

# 

# 

# 

# Technical Requirements

# 

# Required Format:

All nominations to the World Heritage List must follow this
***Format*,** which, with ***Explanatory Notes*,** was adopted by the
World Heritage Committee in 2004**.** The next section of this
***Guidebook*** follows the order and numbering scheme of the
***Format*** for ease of use by those who are preparing U.S. World
Heritage nominations. The ***Explanatory Notes*** have been revised and
expanded here*. (Earlier forms, prepared using a different format, do
not correspond fully.)*

Also, in order to eliminate confusion, nominations should provide
information under [every]{.underline} section heading and subheading
listed below or indicate that the heading is [Not
Applicable]{.underline}.

**Paper:**

Complete nominations on A4 letter-size paper (210mm x 297mm) with maps
and plans a maximum of A3 paper (297mm x 420mm). .

Preliminary Instructions

**Photographs, Illustrations, and Maps**

See under **Section 7 (Documentation)** below on how to organize and
submit these materials. Because the technology used for these items is
evolving rapidly, check with the Office of International Affairs and/or
the World Heritage Centre for the latest suggested formats or
requirements.

The World Heritage Centre staff retains the nomination and all
supporting documentation (maps, plans, photographic material, etc.)
submitted with it. Therefore, do not submit unique, rare, or valuable
documents or exhibits unless it it intended that the World Heritage
Centre retain them.

**Deadline for Submittal:**

U.S. nominations are prepared according to a timeline established by the
Assistant Secretary

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks when issuing the First Notice. *(See
Chapter II of the **Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program.)***

Only **complete** nominations received from a national government at the
World Heritage Centre before February 1 of a given year will be eligible
for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its meeting during
the **following year**.

The Committee has several times modified the deadline for submittal and
the timeline for consideration. Consideration may also be postponed
based on the completion of Advisory Body review, the Committee's
workload and other factors.

Language:

The two working languages of the World Heritage Committee are English
and French. Documents submitted in one language are translated into the
other. The U.S. Department of State submits in **English** signed paper
copies of the World Heritage nomination through the Permanent Delegation
of the United States of America to UNESCO to:

**Director**

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

7, place de Fontenoy

75352 Paris 07 SP France

Tel: +33 (0) 1 4568 1136

Fax: +33 (0) 1 4568 5570

**E-mail: wh-nominations@unesco.org**

Copies:

Number of copies required

Nominations of cultural properties (excluding cultural landscapes): 2

Nominations of natural properties: 3

Nominations of mixed properties and cultural landscapes: 4

At least one paper copy shall be presented in a loose-leaf format to
facilitate photocopying, rather than in a bound volume.

Also please submit the full text of the nomination on diskette or CDROM
in Word format with appropriate hyperlinks

**FORMAT FOR THE NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST**

**Where to Find and How to Use the Format**

**The original format is available at the following Web address:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominationform.**

**This version is further annotated for use with U.S. sites. When using
either version, delete the explanatory notes.**

**Title Page**

There are no formal instructions and this page may be kept simple*. An
example of one used by the U.S. is shown at the end of these
instructions.*

**Table of Contents**

If the nomination is very lengthy or complicated, e.g., if it includes
multiple components or multiple documents within the following sections
and subsections, a table of contents should be prepared.to make the
document as a whole easier to use.

######### Executive Summary

**This information, to be provided by the State Party, will be updated
by the Secretariat following the decision by the World Heritage
Committee. It will then be returned to the State Party confirming the
basis on which the property is inscribed on the World Heritage List.**

**State Party** \[United States\]

**State, Province or Region** \[e.g. State, or U.S. Territory\]

**Name of Property**

**Geographical coordinates to the nearest second**

**Textual description of the boundary(ies) of the nominated property**

**A4 (or 'letter') size map of the nominated property (**showing
boundaries and buffer zone, if present)

Attach A4 (or "letter") size map

**Justification Statement of Outstanding Universal Value**

(Brief text should clarify what is considered to be the outstanding
universal value embodied by the nominated property.)

**Criteria under which property is nominated (*itemize criteria, but do
not state in full*)**

(See Paragraph 77 of the *Operational Guidelines.)*

##### Name and contact information of official local institution/agency 

Organization:

Address:

Tel:

Fax:

E-mail:

Web address:

1.  **Identification of the Property**

Together with **Section 2,** this is the most important section in the
nomination. It must make clear to the Committee precisely where the
property is located and how it is geographically defined. In the case of
serial nominations, insert a table that shows the name of the component
part, region (if different for different components), coordinates, area
and buffer zone. Other fields could also be added (page reference or map
number, etc.) that differentiate the several

components.

**1.a Country (and State Party if different)**

United States of America

The names of other countries may be added if a joint nomination is being
prepared. However, only State Parties to the Convention may nominate
sites and only sites over which they possess sovereignty or exercise
responsiblity for foreign policy. The status of properties in U.S.
Territories or associated Commonwealths depends on the nature of the
agreement with the United States Government.

**1.b State, Province or Region**

If the property overlaps State boundaries, list all relevant States or
Territories.

**1.c Name of Property**

This is the official name of the property that will appear in published
material about World Heritage. It should be concise. Do not exceed 200
characters, including spaces and punctuation.

***\--Popular and Historic names***

Give care to the selection of the primary site name(s), while striving
for brevity, and explain any special factors. For example, if popular
usage or antiquated systems of transliteration or translation have
created inaccuracies, explain the proposed name(s) that been selected.
Or, if deference will be given to either the original language or its
English or French equivalent, explain the choice.

***\--Naming of multiple component properties and transborder sites*.**

Choose brief descriptive names

***\--Naming of serial nominations***

In the case of serial nominations (see Paragraphs 137-140 of the
***Operational Guidelines***), give a name for the **ensemble** (e.g.,
*Baroque Churches of the Philippines*). Do not include the name of the
components of a serial nomination, which should be included in a table
as part of **Sections** **1.d** and **1.f** just below.

***\--Other names or site numbers***

If a site has multiple names, explain the primary choice of name(s). If
the site has no popular name or is known only by a number or set of
numbers, explain the choice.

**1.d Geographical coordinates to the nearest second**

Provide the latitude and longitude coordinates (to the nearest second)
or UTM coordinates (to the nearest 10 metres) of a point at the
approximate centre of the nominated property. Do not use other
coordinate systems. If in doubt, please consult the Secretariat.

In the case of serial nominations, provide a table showing the name of
each property, its region (or nearest town as appropriate), and the
coordinates of its centre point. Following are coordinate format
examples:

N 45° 06\' 05\" W 15° 37\' 56\" or UTM Zone 18 Easting: 545670 Northing:
4586750

**1.e Maps and plans, showing the boundaries of the nominated property
and buffer**

**zone**

The boundaries of the property being proposed shall be clearly defined,
unambiguously distinguishing between the nominated property and any
buffer zone (when present) (see ***Operational Guidelines paragraphs
103-107**).* Maps shall be sufficiently detailed to determine precisely
which area of land and/or water is nominated. Up-to-date officially
published topographic maps of the State Party annotated to show the
property boundaries shall be provided if available.

To facilitate copying and presentation to the Advisory Bodies and the
World Heritage Committee, an A4 (or 'letter') size reduction and a
digital image file of the principal maps should be included in the
nomination text if possible.

Annex to the nomination, and list below with scales and dates:

***(i) Topographic Map***: An original copy of a topographic map showing
the property nominated, at the largest scale available which shows the
entire property. The boundaries of the nominated property and buffer
zone should be clearly marked. Either on this map, or an accompanying
one, there should also be a record of the boundaries of zones of special
legal protection from which the property benefits. Multiple maps may be
necessary for serial nominations.

Maps may be obtained from the addresses shown at the following Internet
address

http://whc.unesco.org/en/mapagencies

If topographic maps are not available at the appropriate scale, other
maps may be substituted. All maps should be capable of being
georeferenced, with a minimum of three points on opposite sides of the
maps with complete sets of coordinates. The maps, untrimmed, should show
scale, orientation, projection, datum, property name and date. If
possible, maps should be sent rolled and not folded.

Geographic Information in digital form is encouraged if possible,
suitable for incorporation into a GIS (Geographic Information System).
In this case the delineation of the boundaries (nominated property and
buffer zone) should be presented in vector form, prepared at the largest
scale possible. The State Party is invited to contact the Secretariat
for further information concerning this option.

**(ii) *Location Map:*** A map showing the location of the property
within the State Party,

**(iii) *Other maps*:** Site plans and special maps of the property
showing the position of major natural features and individual monuments
or buildings mentioned in the nomination are helpful. Consider including
such additional maps or plans.

Sketch maps and historical/illustrative maps may be helpful if the
site's history or construction is complicated, but they may better be
used in illustrating the site's **Description** or **Justification for
Inscription**. *(* **Sections 2 and 3** below*.*) List, briefly
describe, and enclose any additional maps selected that show the
location and boundary of the property in relation to its most
significant features (whether buildings, structures or natural
formations and features).

*NOTES : In preparing this subsection, please compare the boundary
proposal here to the discussion under **2a---Description** below*.)

***\--Buffer zones***

Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination must include a
statement as to why a buffer zone is not required for the proper
conservation of the nominated property. If it is considered that
existing zones of protection make it unnecessary to inscribe a buffer
zone, those zones also should be shown clearly on the map of the
property. At least one map should record the boundaries of zones of
special legal protection from which the property benefits***.***

In some cases national planning policies or existing laws may provide
the powers needed to protect the setting of a property as well as the
property itself. In other cases it will be highly desirable to propose a
formal buffer zone where special controls will be applied. This should
include the immediate setting of the property and important views of it
and from it.

In considering whether to propose a buffer zone it should be borne in
mind that, in order to fulfil the obligations of the World Heritage
Convention, properties must be protected from all threats or
inconsistent uses.

Buffer zones, as such, have not been proposed for U.S. sites, but it has
been customary to include maps and boundary descriptions of all
non-generic protective legislation and regulation at all levels of
jurisdiction, including, for example, such items as a National Park
Service Land Protection Plan.

**1.f Area of nominated property (ha.) and proposed buffer zone (ha.)**

**Area of nominated property: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ha**

**Buffer zone \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ha**

##### Total \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ha

The areas requested should be stated in hectares (*1 hectare- - 2.471
acres*). Corresponding acre equivalents can be given in parentheses.

In the case of ***serial nominations*** (see Paragraphs 137-140 of the
*Operational Guidelines*), insert a table that shows the name of the
component part, region (if different for different components),
coordinates, area and buffer zone. The serial nomination table should
also be used to show the size of the separate nominated areas and of the
buffer zone(s).

**2. Description**

**2.a Description of Property**

This section should provide a complete but concise outline of the
property's features at the date of nomination. It should refer to all
the significant features of the property, with emphasis on clear
identification of those features or aspects that make it universally
significant. Information on present or proposed uses of the property may
also be included. This information shall provide the important facts
needed to support and give substance to the argument that the property
meets the criteria of outstanding universal value and conditions of
integrity and/or authenticity.

The entire nominated property identified in **Section 1 (Identification
of the Property**) should be described. All component parts that are
mapped shall be identified and described. In the case of serial
nominations (see Paragraphs 137-140 of the ***Operational
Guidelines***), each of the component parts should be separately
described.

Because of the wide variation in the size and type of properties that
may be nominated for World Heritage listing it is not possible to
suggest the number of words in which their description and history
should be given. The aim, however, should always be to produce the
briefest account which can provide the important facts about the
property. These are the facts needed to support and give substance to
the claim that the property properly comes within the criteria. The
balance between description and history will change according to the
applicable criteria. For example, where a cultural property is nominated
under cultural criterion (i), as a unique artistic achievement, it
should not be necessary to say very much about its history and
development.

###### Cultural property

In the case of a cultural property this section will include a
description of whatever elements make the property culturally
significant. For properties in urban area, include the name of the city
or town, and the street and number**.** Enumerate cultural resources and
identify those that relate to international importance and their current
and former functions or uses. This section could include a description
of the principal or significant building or buildings and their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. This section
should also describe important aspects of the setting such as gardens,
parks, etc. For a rock art site, for example, the description should
refer to the rock art as well as the surrounding landscapes. In the case
of an historic town or district, it is not necessary to describe each
individual building, but important public buildings should be described
individually and an account should be given of the planning or layout of
the area, its street pattern and so on.

Other tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values should be carefully considered
for inclusion.

###### Natural property

In the case of a natural property the account should deal with important
physical attributes, geology, habitats, species and population size, and
other significant ecological features and processes. Species lists
should be provided where practicable, and the presence of threatened or
endemic taxa should be highlighted. The extent and methods of
exploitation of natural resources should be described. Carefully
consider for inclusion other tangible geographic, topographic,
ecological, and/or other scientific values.

######## Cultural landscapes

In the case of cultural landscapes, it will be necessary to produce a
description under all the matters mentioned above. Special attention
should be paid to the interaction of humans and nature.

**2.b History and Development**

Describe how the property has reached its present form and condition and
the significant changes that it has undergone, including its
conservation or preservation history. Also include in this discussion an
explanation of how the boundary for the nominated site was selected.

***Cultural sites***

This should include some account of construction phases in the case of
monuments, sites, buildings or groups of buildings. Where there have
been major changes, demolitions or rebuilding since completion they
should also be described. For archeological sites, archaeologists and
dates of their work should also be noted, especially if the site is
regarded as important in the history of archeology as well as for its
intrinsic merits.

***Natural sites and landscapes ***

In the case of a natural property, the account should cover significant
events in history or prehistory that have affected the evolution of the
property and give an account of its interaction with humans. This will
include changes in the use of the property and its natural resources for
hunting, fishing or agriculture, or changes brought about by climatic
change, floods, earthquake or other natural causes.

######## Cultural landscapes

Similar information will also be required in the case of cultural
landscapes, where all major aspects of the history of human activity in
the area need to be covered.

***Boundary selection***

Although boundaries are often drawn for legal and management convenience
and for other reasons and these may be acceptable to avoid confusion or
for ease of administration, it is preferable for the boundary selected
for a World Heritage Site to be as defensible as possible on logical
grounds, such as topography or landforms or the range of wildlife for
natural areas or any historical boundary or defining structures (such as
walls) for cultural sites. Careful analysis should be undertaken to
insure that the nomination does embrace all the internationally
significant resources and a minimum of unrelated buildings and other
unrelated structures and features. *(Basically, the authenticity or
integrity of the site as a whole and in its parts must be reviewed and
boundaries selected accordingly.)*

A useful example of boundary selection is Independence Hall, an urban
cultural site. Only the city block on which the Hall itself and two
adjoining structures are located is included, not the numerous other
buildings and historic sites forming the rest of Independence National
Historical Park The latter were not included because they are not
regarded as of international importance.

On the other hand, the inclusion of enclaves or inholdings within sites
are very questionable, especially if they contain uses or potential uses
contrary to the conservation or preservation of the

site as a whole.

**3. Justification for Inscription**

This is the most crucial and difficult aspect of the whole nomination.
It must make clear to the Committee why the property can be accepted as
being \"of outstanding universal value.' It should not include detailed
descriptive material about the property or its management, which are
addressed in other sections, but should concentrate on why the property
is important.

There is no good study of or guide to the preparation of **Justification
for Inscription** sections of World Heritage nominations nor is there
any good collection of acknowledged best examples. The suggestions and
examples discussed below may help in preparing them.. There is also a
semi-official commentary presenting its author's conclusions on the
Committee's precedents in the application of the criteria during the
Convention's first 20 years (1972-92). (See pp. 11-31 of Leon
Pressouyre's study *The World Heritage Convention, twenty years later*)

The whole of this section of the nomination should be written with
careful reference to the criteria for inscription found in Paragraph 75
of the ***Operational Guidelines***. Also review carefully the
**Justification** **for Inscription** sections for any nominations of
similar sites already inscribed under the same criteria being proposed
and determine whether a comparable statement can be made or researched.
The Advisory Body evaluations **(whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31**) and
texts of World Heritage Committee decisions
**(whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=60)** will also be helpful.

**3.a Criteria under which inscription is proposed (and justification
for inscription**

**under these criteria)**

Provide a separate justification for each criterion cited. See Paragraph
77 of the ***Operational Guidelines*.**

State briefly how the property meets those criteria under which it has
been nominated (where

necessary, make reference to **Description (Section 2)** and
**Comparative Analysis (Section 3c** just below)), but do not duplicate
the text of those sections.

**3.b Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value**

Based on the criteria proposed above, the **Proposed Statement of
Outstanding Universal Value** should make clear why the property is
considered to merit inscription on the World Heritage List (see
Paragraphs 154-157 of the ***Operational Guidelines***).

This statement is the primary basis used by the national and
international review bodies to evaluate the World Heritage nomination.
It should clearly explain the internationally significant values
embodied by the property, not its national prominence. It must be a
concise self-contained and comprehensive documented narrative statement
justifying the inclusion of the property on the World Heritage List.

*\--Natural sites*

A natural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of a type of
habitat. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival of an
eco-system. It may comprise assemblages of threatened endemic species,
exceptional eco-systems, outstanding natural landscapes or other natural
phenomena. *Operational Guidelines* *Annex 3* contains a list of studies
of types of natural sites that may be useful in preparing this section.

***\--Cultural sites* **

A cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of a particular
building form or an exceptional example of a designed town. It may be a
particularly fine or early or rich survival and it may bear witness to a
vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem. Elements to consider for
inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal facts about the site as:

Historic Context

Period of International Significance

Internationally Significant Dates

Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events

Cultural Affiliation

Consult ***Operational Guidelines Annex 3*** for additional guidelines
on the inscription of cultural landscapes, towns, canals, and routes,
and references to international studies on several types of cultural
sites.

***\--Cultural landscapes***

There are relatively few sites inscribed to date. It is especially
important to review and accommodate the issues discussed in the
***Operational Guidelines Annex 3*.**

***\--Mixed sites:***

Such sites, which are few in number, require **Justification** under at
least one from **both** sets of criteria. It is not to be expected that
there will ever be many mixed sites listed, because the presence of
cultural factors significantly diminishes the prospects that a natural
area will possess the necessary level of integrity under applicable
criteria**.** See ***Operational Guidelines* *Paragraphs 87-95. ***

**3.c Comparative analysis (including state of conservation of similar
properties)**

The property should be compared to similar properties, whether on the
World Heritage List or

not. The comparison should outline the similarities the nominated
property has with other properties and the reasons that make the
nominated property stand out. The comparative analysis should aim to
explain the importance of the nominated property both in its national
and international context. (The comparative analyses prepared by States
Parties when nominating properties for inscription in the World Heritage
List should not be confused with the thematic studies prepared by the
Advisory Bodies at the request of the Committee. The latter are
discussed below and in **Operational Guidelines Paragraph 148.)**

This section requires the preparer to summarize and **document** the
results of study of the proposed property along with comparable
properties **internationally** to determine whether the site proposed is
**more (or equally)** worthy than the others for inscription on the
World Heritage List. and whether **any** of them qualify **singly** or
**as a group**. An initial step is to determine whether the World
Heritage Committee has considered any similar cases.

*[It cannot be emphasized too strongly at the outset that the outcome of
comparative study of a potential site will in the vast majority of cases
be the conclusion that the site does not qualify. Typically, national
importance may be affirmed.]{.underline}*

In all cases, the information on which the conclusions stated in this
section are based needs to be documented to scholarly standards. and
their achievement of this standard will be judged by expert committees
of IUCN and ICOMOS for natural and cultural sites, respectively. Such a
comparative study may be a daunting or impractical task if the site is a
new discovery or recent historical phenomenon or represents a subject
little studied on a comparative basis internationally. It may not be
possible to conduct a full survey or even one with an acceptable margin
of error. Nevertheless, unless a convincing case for international
significance can be made from existing scholarship or work under way, it
will not be prudent to nominate the site, because the World Heritage
Committee will very likely defer any decision pending further study.
Even a thorough study of an international topic by one nation may not be
accepted as a substitute for a broadly based international study.

In some cases, the IUCN and ICOMOS (or other specialized bodies or
learned societies) have performed global studies of similar sites and
offered preliminary recommendations as to whether the sites qualify for
World Heritage inscription. (See ***Operational Guidelines Annex 3** or
**www.icomos.org/studies** and
**www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/Worldheritage.htm.**)* If such a study
includes the site or similar sites, the State Party may be spared much
of the effort involved in comparative analysis. Such a study also offers
one of the best possible types of supporting information on a proposed
site. If a site has been included in such a study, that fact must by all
means be discussed in this section. A positive recommendation will be
enormously helpful. Likewise, a negative recommendation in one will be
extremely difficult to reverse at the international level and serious
consideration should be given to suspending any further work on the
nomination of such a site.

Preparing a comparative analysis will be relatively easy if similar
sites are already inscribed in the World Heritage List. In that case, it
is only necessary to determine what features either distinguish the site
proposed from those properties *and* allow it to be regarded as
**more**, **equally** or **jointly** worthy). This may be because the
property is intrinsically better, or, for example, possessed of more
features, species or habitats.

It may also be that a property is a larger or better preserved or more
complete survival or one that has been less prejudiced by later
developments. This is the reason for the requirement for information on
the state of conservation of similar properties.

In drafting comparative statements extreme care must be taken to guard
against fallacious distinctions or false measures of importance that may
be advanced to promote the exceptional character of a property. For
example, superlatives such as the biggest, best preserved, oldest, or
most scenic or beautiful must always be presented in context ; a
slightly bigger or older site may not be a meaningful distinction and
beauty or scenic character are extremely subjective judgments.

If the results of the comparative study are inconclusive or reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and possess
international significance as a group, recommendations may still be made
that more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a
joint nomination by more than one State Party. An example of the latter
is the Spanish fortifications of the Caribbean.

**3.d Integrity and/or Authenticity**

The statement of integrity and/or authenticity should demonstrate that
the property fulfils the

conditions of integrity and/or authenticity set out in Section
II.D.-II.E. of the ***Operational Guidelines Paragraphs 78-95*,** which
describe these conditions in greater detail.

As with a site's international significance, the clear intent of this
requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity or integrity
must rise to a superlative level.. Because U.S. definitions differ from
those adopted by the Committee, it is very important to review these
definitions carefully. Thus, for example, it is quite important to
understand that reconstructions of historic structures or sites or
restored ecosystems will usually be disqualified from inscription in the
World Heritage List.

***Cultural property* **

The test of authenticity for cultural sites applies to design,
materials, workmanship and setting, and

in the case of cultural landscapes to their distinctive character and
components.

This subsection should indicate clearly whether repairs have been
carried out using materials and methods traditional to the culture, in
conformity with the Nara Document on Authenticity (1995). *(*See
***Operational Guidelines Annex 4.)***

Basically*,* if cultural concepts of historic authenticity require the
periodic renewal of building materials in traditional ways or other
practices at odds with the traditional interpretation of authenticity,
due consideration and respect will be given to such practices. Examples
include thatched huts in the Ashanti villages of Ghana and the
periodically renewed wooden temples of Japan.

***Natural property***

In the case of natural properties this subsection should record any
intrusions from exotic species of fauna or flora and any human
activities which could compromise the integrity of the property.

Specific tests also apply to each natural criterion.

**4. State of Conservation and factors affecting the Property**

This section shall include accurate information on the present state of
conservation of the property (including information on its physical
condition of the property and conservation measures in place). It shall
also include a description of the factors affecting the property
(including threats).

**4.a Present state of conservation**

The information presented in this section constitutes the base-line data
necessary to monitor the state of conservation of the nominated property
in the future. Information should be provided in this section on the
physical condition of the property, any threats to the property and
conservation measures at the property. For the indicators and
statistical benchmarks used to monitor the state of conservation of the
property see under **Section 6 - Monitoring** below.

As well as providing a general impression of the state of conservation.
statistical or empirical information should be given wherever possible.
An estimate could also be given of the adequacy or otherwise of what is
available, in particular identifying any gaps or deficiencies in care or
knowledge or any areas where help may be required.

***Cultural sites* **

For example, in a historic town or area, buildings, monuments or other
structures needing major or minor repair works, should be indicated as
well as the scale and duration of any recent or forthcoming major repair
projects.

## 

## 

## 

## Natural sites

Data on species trends or the integrity of eco-systems should be
provided. This is important because the nomination will be used in
future years for purposes of comparison to trace changes in the
condition of the property.

**4.b Factors affecting the property**

This section should provide information on all the factors which are
likely to affect or threaten a property. It should also describe any
difficulties that may be encountered in addressing such problems and
relate them to measures taken, or proposed to be taken, whether by
application of the protective measures described under the next
**Section 5** or otherwise. Not all the factors suggested in this
section are appropriate for all properties. They are indicative and are
intended to assist the State Party to identify the factors that are
relevant to each specific property.

***(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, adaptation,
agriculture, mining)***

Itemize types of development pressures affecting the property, e.g.,
pressure for demolition, rebuilding or new construction; the adaptation
of existing buildings for new uses which would harm their authenticity
or integrity; habitat modification or destruction following encroaching
agriculture, forestry or grazing, or through poorly managed tourism or
other uses; inappropriate or unsustainable natural resource
exploitation; damage caused by mining; the introduction of exotic
species likely to disrupt natural ecological processes, creating new
centres of population on or near properties so as to harm them or their
settings.

***(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)***

List and summarize major sources of environmental deterioration
affecting building fabric, flora and fauna.

Air pollution can have a serious effect on stone buildings and monuments
as well as on fauna and flora. Desertification can lead to erosion by
sand and wind. Indicate in this section those pressures which are
presenting a current threat to the property, or may do so in the future,
rather than an historical account of such pressures in the past.

***(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)***

For a property located in an area where natural disasters are likely,.
indicate any that present a foreseeable threat to the property and
provide relevant background data (e.g., for one in a seismic zone, give
details of past seismic activity, on the precise location of the
property in relation to the seismic zone, etc.)

Indicate steps that have been taken to draw up contingency plans for
dealing with them, whether by physical protection measures or staff
training. (In considering physical measures for the protection of
monuments and buildings it is important to respect the integrity of the
construction.)

***(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures***

Describe the \"carrying capacity\" of the property. Can it absorb the
current or likely number of

visitors without adverse effects?

An indication should also be given of the steps taken to manage visitors
and tourists. Possible forms of deterioration due to visitor pressure
are: wear on stone, timber, grass or other ground

surfaces; increases in heat or humidity levels; disturbances to species
habitats; or disruption of

traditional cultures or ways of life.

***(v) Number of inhabitants within the property and the buffer zone***

**Estimated population located within:**

**Area of nominated property \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Buffer zone \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Total \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Year \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Give the best available statistics or estimate of the number of
inhabitants living within the nominated property and any buffer zone.
Indicate the year this estimate or count was made.

**5. Protection and Management of the Property**

This section of the nomination is intended to provide a clear picture of
the legislative, regulatory, contractual, planning, institutional and/or
traditional measures (and the management plan or other management system
that are in place to protect and manage the property as required by the
World Heritage Convention. (See ***Operational Guidelines II.F
Paragraphs 96-119*** and ***III.B. Paragraph 132 Subparagraph5.***) It
should deal with policy aspects, legal status and protective measures
and with the practicalities of day-to-day administration and management

.

Legislative, regulatory, contractual planning and/or institutional
texts, or an abstract of the texts, shall also be attached in English or
French. An appropriate management plan or other management system is
essential and shall be provided in the nomination. Assurances of the
effective implementation of the management plan or other management
system are also expected.

A nomination which does not include the above-mentioned documents is
considered incomplete unless other documents guiding the management of
the property until the finalization of the management plan are provided
as outlined in ***Operational Guidelines* *Paragraph 115.***

**5.a Ownership**

List the name(s) and addresses of the current owners.

Indicate whether the property is in public or private ownership and
briefly discuss the nature and legal character of the entities holding
ownership. Indicate the major categories of land ownership (including
State, Provincial, private, community, traditional, customary and
non-governmental ownership, etc.). If applicable, indicate the relative
percentages or nature of the interests owned by different parties.

Identify any authority or authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, including names and addresses. In the case of
public property, identify both the responsible official and agency.
Identify any representative body for owners. Also indicate any
restrictions on the property's accessibility to the general public.

**5.b Protective designation**

Describe briefly the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that are in force applying to the property and also describe
any traditional ways in which custom safeguards it. List the relevant
legal, regulatory, contractual, planning, institutional and/ or
traditional status of the property: For example, national or provincial
park; historic monument, protected area under national law or custom; or
other designation.

Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize their
main provisions. Include applicable zoning, easements, covenants, State
and local historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the
like.

Provide the year of designation and the legislative act(s) under which
the status is provided.

If the documents cannot be provided in English or French, an English or
French executive summary should be provided highlighting the key
provisions.

***NOTE : It is extremely important that the protection agreements
required of U.S. site property owners should be identified, listed and
described in this subsection. If they are lengthy, the texts should be
appended to the nomination.***

**5.c Means of implementing protective measures**.

Describe how the protection afforded by its legal, regulatory,
contractual, planning, institutional and/or traditional status indicated
in **Section 5.b** actually works and how responsibility for dealing
with potential or actual breaches of protection is exercised. For
example, it would be desirable to indicate who is responsible for
ensuring that the nominated property is safeguarded, whether by
traditional and/or statutory agencies and whether adequate resources are
available for this purpose.

**5.d Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is**

**located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation plan, tourism
development plan)**

List the agreed plans which have been adopted by governmental or other
agencies and which will have a direct influence on the way in which the
property is developed, conserved, used or visited. Include the dates and
agencies responsible for their preparation. The relevant provisions
should be summarized in this section. A copy of the plan should be
included as an attached document as indicated in **Section 7.b.**

If the plans exist only in a language other than English or French, an
English or French executive summary should be provided highlighting the
key provisions.

**5.e Property management plan or other management system**

An appropriate management plan or other management system is essential
and shall be provided in the nomination. Assurances of the effective
implementation of the management plan or other management system are
also expected.

A copy of the management plan or documentation of the management system
shall be annexed to the nomination, in English or French as indicated in
**Section 7.b** below.

If the management plan exists only in a language other than English or
French, an English or French detailed description of its provisions
shall be annexed. Give the title, date and author of

management plans annexed to this nomination.

A detailed analysis or explanation of the management plan or a
documented management system shall be provided.

**5.f Sources and levels of finance**

Show the sources and level of funding which are available to the
property on an annual basis. An estimate could also be given of the
adequacy or otherwise of resources available, in particular identifying
any gaps or deficiencies or any areas where assistance may be required.

**5.g Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management
techniques**

Indicate the expertise and training which are available from national
authorities or other organizations to the property. An estimate could
also be given of the adequacy or otherwise of resources available, in
particular identifying any gaps or deficiencies or any areas where
assistance may be required.

**5.h Visitor facilities and statistics**

As well as providing any available statistics or estimates of visitor
numbers or patterns over several years, this section could describe the
facilities available on site for visitors, for example

interpretation/explanation, whether by trails, guides, notices or
publications; property museum,

visitor or interpretation centre; overnight accommodation; restaurant or
refreshment facilities; shops; car parking; lavatories; search and
rescue.

**5.i Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion
of the**

**property**

This section refers to Articles 4 and 5 of the *Convention* regarding
the presentation (or interpretation) and transmission to future
generations of the cultural and natural heritage. States Parties are
encouraged to provide information on the policies and programmes for the
presentation and promotion or publicity of the nominated property.

**5.j Staffing levels (professional, technical, maintenance)**

Indicate the skills and training which are available at the property.

If the management plan provides details of staffing levels it would not
necessary to complete this subsection and other subsections where the
plan provides adequate information (e.g. on finance and training). Do
provide a cross reference in the text back from such omitted sections to
this **Section 5(j),** however.

6.  **Monitoring**

    This section of the nomination is intended to provide the evidence
    for the state of conservation

    of the property which can be reviewed and reported on regularly so
    as to give an indication of

    trends over time.

    **6.a Key Indicators for measuring state of conservation**

    List in table form those key **Indicators** that have been chosen as
    the measure of the state of conservation of the whole property (see
    **Section 4.a** above). Indicate the **Periodicity** of the review
    of these **Indicators** and the **Location of Records** for
    them**.** . The **Indicators** could be representative of an
    important aspect of the property and relate as closely as possible
    to the **Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** (see
    **Sections 2.b** and **3b** above). Where possible they could be
    expressed numerically and where this is not possible they could be
    of a kind which can be repeated, for example by taking a photograph
    from the same point.

    Examples of good **Indicators** are.

    \(i\) the number of species, or population of a keystone species on
    a natural property;

    \(ii\) the percentage of buildings requiring major repair in a
    historic town or district

    \(iii\) the number of years estimated to elapse before a major
    conservation programme is likely to be completed;

    \(iv\) the stability or degree of movement in a particular building
    or element of a building;

    \(v\) the rate at which encroachment of any kind on a property has
    increased or diminished.

    **6.b Administrative arrangements for monitoring property**

    Give the name and contact information of the agency(ies) responsible
    for the monitoring referenced in **6.a.**

    Explain if there is a regular system of monitoring of the property,
    leading to the recording, at least annually, of the conditions of
    the property. If monitoring is performed less frequently, please
    explain.

    **6.c Results of previous reporting exercises**

    List, with a brief summary, earlier reports on the state of
    conservation of the property and provide extracts and references to
    published sources (for example, reports submitted in compliance with
    international agreements and programmes, e.g., the Ramsar Convention
    and the Man and the Biosphere Program).

7.  **Documentation**

    This section of the nomination is the check-list of the
    documentation which shall be provided to make up a complete
    nomination.

    **7.a Photographs, slides, image inventory and authorization table
    and other audiovisual**

    **materials**

    States Parties shall provide a sufficient number of recent images
    (prints, slides and, where possible, electronic formats, videos and
    aerial photographs) to give a good general picture of the property.
    There should be enough photographs, slides and, where possible,
    film/video to provide a good general picture of the property,
    including one or more aerial photographs of large sites. The photos
    should be carefully selected to pertain to the qualities/features
    that justify the property's nomination to the World Heritage List.

    Slides shall be in 35mm format and electronic images in jpg format
    at a minimum of 300 dpi (dots per inch) resolution. If film material
    is provided, Beta SP format is recommended for quality assurances.

    This material shall be accompanied by the image inventory and
    photograph and audiovisual authorization form as set out below.
    Include in the inventory list those dispersed in other sections of
    the nomination for narrative purposes and any that are too bulky to
    appear in sequence here.

    At least one photograph that may be used on the public web page
    illustrating the property shall

    be included.

    States Parties are encouraged to grant to UNESCO, in written form
    and free of charge, the non exclusive cession of rights to diffuse,
    to communicate to the public, to publish, to reproduce, to exploit,
    in any form and on any support, including digital, all or part of
    the images provided and license these rights to third parties.
    **(***Use the **Authorization** form following the end of these
    **Instructions**.)*

    The non-exclusive cession of rights does not impinge upon
    intellectual property rights (rights of the photographer / director
    of the video or copyright owner if different) and that when the
    images are distributed by UNESCO a credit to the photographer /
    director of the video is always given, if clearly provided in the
    form.

    All possible profits deriving from such cession of rights will go to
    the World Heritage Fund.

    **7.b Texts relating to protective designation, copies of property
    management plans or**

    **documented management systems and extracts of other plans relevant
    to the**

    **property**

    Copies of property management plans and extracts of other plans
    relevant to the property should be provided, as well as legislation
    relevant to the property, if necessary summarized.

    Attach the texts as indicated in sections **5.b, 5.d** and **5.e**
    above.

    **7.c Form and date of most recent records or inventory of
    property**

    Provide a straightforward statement giving the form and date of the
    most recent records or

    inventory of the property. Only records that are still available
    should be described.

    **7.d Address where inventory, records and archives are held**

    Give the name and address of the agencies holding inventory and
    property records (e.g., for buildings, monuments, flora or fauna
    species).

    **7.e Bibliography**

    List the principal published references, using a standard
    bibliographic format.

    The Bibliography should list**, but not attach**, references to the
    main published domestic and international sources on the nominated
    property, especially those most helpful in understanding the
    international importance of the property. For cultural sites, a
    brief analysis of references in world literature (encyclopedias,
    histories of art or architecture, records of voyages or
    explorations, scientific reports, and guidebooks, etc.) may be also
    be attached. For newly discovered properties information regarding
    attention the discovery has received will be helpful.

    The Bibliography should be compiled to international standards,
    following a consistent format, such as those of the U.S. Government
    Printing Office, the University of Chicago, or the Modern Language
    Association.

8.  **Contact Information of responsible authorities**

    This section of the nomination will allow the Secretariat to provide
    the property with current

    information about World Heritage news and other issues.

    **8.a Preparer**

    **Name:**

    **Title:**

    **Address:**

    **City, Province/State, Country:**

    **Tel:**

    **Fax:**

    **E-mail:**

    Provide the name, address and other contact information of the
    individual responsible for preparing the nomination. If an e-mail
    address cannot be provided, the information must include a fax
    number.

    **8.b Official Local Institution/Agency**

    Provide the name and address of the agency, museum, institution,
    community or manager locally responsible for the management of the
    property. In the case of public property, identify both the
    responsible official and the agency. If the normal reporting
    institution is a national agency, please provide that contact
    information.

    **8.c Other Local Institutions**

    List the full name, address, telephone, fax and email addresses of
    all museums, visitor centres and official tourism offices who should
    receive the free *World Heritage Newsletter* about events and issues
    related to World Heritage.

    **8.d Official Web address**

    **http://**

    **Contact name:**

    **E-mail:**

    Please provide any existing official web addresses of the nominated
    property. Indicate if such web addresses are planned for the future
    with the contact name and e-mail address.

9.  **Signature on behalf of the State Party**

The nomination should conclude with the **original autograph** signature
of the official empowered to sign it on behalf of the State Party, **not
the author or preparer**. The title of the official should also be
clearly indicated.

If the signature is in a writing system other than the Roman alphabet, a
transliteration into the Roman alphabet should be supplied. If the title
of the official is not readily understood in English or French, a
translation should be supplied.

> **AUTHORIZATION**
>
> 1\. I,
>
> the undersigned, hereby grant free of charge to UNESCO the
> non‑exclusive right for the legal term of copyright to reproduce and
> use in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2 of the present
> authorization throughout the world the photograph(s) and/or slide(s)
> described in paragraph 4.
>
> 2\. I understand that the photograph(s) and/or slide(s) described in
> paragraph 4 of the present authorization will be used by UNESCO to
> disseminate information on the sites protected under the World
> Heritage Convention in the following ways:

a\) UNESCO publications;

> b\) co‑editions with private publishing houses for World Heritage
> publications: a percentage of the profits will be given to the World
> Heritage Fund;
>
> c\) postcards ‑ to be sold at the sites protected under the World
> Heritage Conven­tion through national parks services or antiquities
> (profits, if any, will be divi­ded between the services in question and
> the World Heritage Fund);
>
> d\) slide series ‑ to be sold to schools, libraries, other
> institutions and eventually at the sites (profits, if any, will go to
> the World Heritage Fund);
>
> e\) exhibitions, etc.
>
> 3\. I also understand that I shall be free to grant the same rights to
> any other eventual user but without any prejudice to the rights
> granted to UNESCO.
>
> 4\. The list of photograph(s) and/or slide(s) for which the
> authorization is given is attached.
>
> (Please describe in the attachment the photographs and give for each a
> complete caption and the year of production or, if published, of first
> publication.)
>
> 5\. All photographs and/or slides will be duly credited. The
> photographer\'s moral rights will be respected. Please indicate the
> exact wording to be used for the photographic credit.
>
> 6\. I hereby declare and certify that I am duly authorized to grant
> the rights mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present authorization.
>
> 7\. I hereby undertake to indemnify UNESCO, and to hold it harmless of
> any respon­sibility, for any damages resulting from any violation of
> the certification mentioned under paragraph 6 of the present
> authorization.
>
> 8\. Any differences or disputes which may arise from the exercise of
> the rights granted to UNESCO will be settled in a friendly way.
> Reference to courts or arbitration is excluded.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Place date Signature, title or function of the person duly

authorized

*SAMPLE TITLE PAGE*

The Statue of Liberty

Nomination to the

World Heritage List

by the

United States of America

1983