60846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

ANILCA, the Service would be required 

to provide Doyon with adequate and 

feasible access to its holdings, which 

could include a road and/or pipeline 

across Refuge lands, if warranted by 

production. 

(3) Modified land exchange with 

conservation easements. The land 

exchange would proceed as described in 

Phase 1 under Alternative 1 above. In 

addition, at the time of the initial 

exchange, Doyon would donate to the 

U.S. conservation easements that 

preclude development on those Doyon 

lands identified in Phase II of the 

Agreement in Principle (whether or not 

oil/gas is produced from the exchange 

lands). If Doyon were to produce oil/gas, 

the U.S. would receive reduced 

‘‘production payments.’’

(4) Modified land exchange excluding 

White-Crazy Mountains. The Yukon 

Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

recommended Wilderness designation 

for a 658,000 acre area in the WhiteCrazy Mountains. Under Alternatives 1 

and 3, Doyon would receive title to 

about 26,270 acres of this land; under 

Atlternative 4, these 26,270 acres would 

be excluded from the exchange. In 

Phase I of the exchange, Doyon would 

receive approximately 84,000 acres of 

Refuge lands, surface and subsurface. 

From Doyon, the U.S. would receive an 

equal-value amount of land. Doyon 

would receive some oil and gas rights at 

the northern edge of the recommended 

Wilderness area, but only off-site 

drilling would be allowed; there would 

be no surface occupancy by Doyon. 

There would be no access corridor 

through the Service-recommended 

Wilderness area. The land consolidation 

exchange and 12(b) reallocation 

provisions of Phase I would proceed as 

detailed in the Agreement in Principle. 

Phase II of the exchange, would proceed 

as detailed in the Agreement, however 

Doyon’s commitment to sell the U.S. 

additional lands would be reduced from 

about 120,000 acres to about 80,000 

acres. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

released an Evaluation and Review of a 

Proposed Land Exchange and 

Acquisition of Native Lands on 

February 3, 2005, and accepted public 

comments until July 30, 2005. The 

Evaluation and Review, along with the 

comments received to date will be used 

in the scoping of a more detailed 

analysis through the EIS process. The 

Summary of Public Comments on a 

Proposed Land Exchange, Yukon Flats 

National Wildlife Refuge, 2005 is posted 

at http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/yukonflats/ 

current.htm. Issues of concern 

repeatedly identified during the public 

comment period that will be addressed 

in the EIS may include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Refuge Purposes. The potential 

conflict between the proposed land 

exchange and the purposes of the 

Refuge; 

(2) Environmental Impacts. The 

potential for environmental degradation 

and contamination of air, water, and 

fish and wildlife resources; 

(3) Subsistence Impacts. The potential 

for negative effects on subsistence 

resources and increased user conflicts; 

(4) Impacts to Special Designation 

Areas. The potential for the exchange to 

jeopardize the wilderness character of 

the Service-recommended White-Crazy 

Mountains Wilderness Area and to 

degrade the ‘‘wild’’ quality of the Beaver 

Creek Wild River; 

(5) Insufficient Information. The 

potential that available biological, 

environmental, and socio-economic data 

may be insufficient to analyze the 

impacts of the exchange; 

(6) Impacts to Rural Communities. 

The potential for both positive and 

negative impacts on rural communities 

within the Yukon Flats region; 

(7) Loss of Native-owned Lands. There 

is opposition to the divestiture of Native 

lands within the Yukon Flats region; 

(8) Socio-economic Benefits. The 

potential for oil development to provide 

high-paying jobs to local residents and 

strengthen the regional economy; and 

(9) Refuge Benefits. The proposed 

exchange would increase the amount of 

land protected in the Refuge and would 

facilitate management by consolidating 

both Refuge and private ownerships. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

Rowan Gould, 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 05–20883 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Notice of Revised Instructions for 

Preparing and Prioritizing Water 

Program Funding Requests 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) will implement revised 

procedures for preparing and 

prioritizing funding requests in order to 

improve the management of two water 

programs with non-recurring annual 

appropriations. The two programs are 

the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation 

Program (Water Rights Program) and the 

Water Resources Management, Planning 

and Pre-development Program (Water 

Resources Program). These water 

programs support the long-term goals of 

assisting Indian tribes in confirming and 

defining water rights, resolving claims 

through negotiation or litigation, and 

promoting the prudent conservation, 

management and use of natural 

resources. 

All of the BIA’s water program 

managers and many water rights and 

water resources program managers 

employed by Indian tribes request these 

appropriations to support numerous 

Indian water rights litigation and 

negotiation efforts, to conduct water 

resources management, and to develop 

associated plans for tribal water 

resources. Typically, the BIA’s Office of 

Trust Services receives more than 400 

funding requests annually for water 

rights and water resources managementrelated activities. Funding requests are 

submitted by all 12 of the BIA’s 

Regional Offices and approximately 150 

to 175 Indian tribes each year. 

The current system for preparing and 

prioritizing water program funding 

requests needs improvement in order to 

provide BIA decision makers with more 

clear demarcations of priority. These 

revised procedures will allow for more 

effective prioritization and thus enable 

BIA decision makers to distribute more 

efficiently the available water program 

funds. 

DATES: The revised procedures for 

preparing and prioritizing water 

program funding requests will be used 

to distribute funding in Fiscal Year 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Jeffery Loman, Chief, 

Natural Resources, Office of Trust 

Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mail 

Stop 4655–MIB, Code 210, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 

Telephone (202) 208–7373. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery Loman, (202) 208–7373. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Water Rights Program 

The BIA manages the Water Rights 

Program for the purpose of confirming 

and defining Indian water rights 

through litigation and court decree or 

through negotiated settlement. The first 

priority for program funds is to provide 

all documentation and other materials 

deemed necessary to further the United 

States’ water rights claims on behalf of 

Indian tribes or individuals. These 

materials may include preparing 

hydrographic survey reports; 

determining surface and ground water 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 60847 

supplies; identifying arable lands; 

completing a practicably irrigable 

acreage (PIA) assessment; determining 

point(s) and means of diversion, 

purpose(s) and place(s) of use, and 

amount of water diverted or depleted; 

and conducting studies to determine the 

water needs of fish, wildlife, or other 

resources for which Indian tribes have 

reserved rights. These funds may also be 

used to provide similar materials as 

necessary to facilitate active Indian 

water rights negotiations undertaken by 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

Water Resources Program 

The BIA manages the Water Resources 

Program for the purpose of managing, 

conserving and utilizing reservation 

water resources. The first priority for 

these program funds is to provide 

necessary technical research, studies, 

and other information for Indian tribes 

to serve as informed and prudent 

managers of their water resources. These 

efforts may occur through partnerships 

or through coordination and 

cooperation with other governmental 

entities to obtain information describing 

surface and ground water assessments, 

inventories, monitoring, modeling and 

gauging. Additionally, these funds are 

used for the preparation of 

comprehensive reservation water 

management and development plans, 

use surveys, interagency drought 

management planning, and necessary 

assessments to define and characterize 

tribal water resources. 

Activities Not Eligible for Funding 

Examples of activities typically not 

eligible for funding from either water 

program include: 

• Projects that duplicate work that the 

BIA has identified as necessary for its 

efforts, has undertaken, or has 

completed through its employees or 

contractors or through arrangements 

with other Federal agencies, including 

the U.S. Department of Justice; 

• Projects to design, construct, repair 

or improve water facilities, including 

domestic water supply, waste water, 

and irrigation or dam infrastructure, 

except to the extent that PIA analyses 

under the Water Rights Program require 

such design projects; 

• Development of recommendations 

or conditions in hydropower licensing 

procedures and water quality studies to 

initiate actions needed to address 

pollution problems; 

• Attorney fees and related expenses 

for legal services; and 

• Administrative overhead costs. 

Preparing Funding Requests 

Funding requests should not be 

lengthy (2 to 3 pages maximum) and 

should not include endorsements or 

other extraneous information such as 

contractor proposals or contracts. The 

following information must be provided 

in funding requests: 

(1) Name and contact information 

(mailing address, e-mail, telephone and 

fax number) of person preparing the 

request. 

(2) Date of request. 

(3) Type of request (Congressional/ 

Court Mandate, Water Rights Litigation 

Support, Active Water Rights 

Adjudication/Negotiation Support, 

Water Management, Water Planning/ 

Pre-Development). 

Note: Congressional/Court Mandate-based 

requests must include a copy of the mandate, 

and Water Rights Litigation requests must 

include case citation. Also, the requests must 

state clearly the ultimate goal of the project 

in one sentence. 

(4) Copy of current tribal resolution or 

cover letter signed by tribal leader 

supporting request. (For all non-BIA 

generated requests.) 

(5) Project manager name and contact 

information (mailing address, e-mail, 

telephone and fax number). 

(6) DOI and DOJ Attorney name(s) and 

contact information for all water rights 

requests, including tribal requests. All 

water rights litigation/adjudication 

requests must be prepared in 

consultation with the Federal 

attorney(s), and consensus must be 

reached on the amount of funds 

requested for litigation support. Where 

consensus cannot be reached, an 

explanation should be included 

describing the position of the BIA 

Project Manager and the federal 

attorney(s). 

(7) Name and contact information of 

Federal Indian Water Rights Negotiation 

Team Chair for all water rights 

negotiation requests. 

(8) Project purpose and description, 

including: Summary of past 

accomplishments, if applicable; list of 

all outstanding activities yet to be 

completed or finalized; status of 

litigation, if applicable; and, status of 

negotiations, if applicable, including a 

list of primary participating parties. 

(9) Scope of Work, including project 

deliverables, method, and timeline to 

accomplish work. 

(10) Amount requested and budget 

justification, including a breakdown of 

labor/equipment costs per project task, 

a clear articulation of individual task 

priorities (as funding may not be 

available to support all requested 

activities), and total amount requested. 

Note: The request should be limited to the 

amount necessary to accomplish the 

proposed work in accordance with industry 

standards and to meet critical project 

objectives during the fiscal year for which 

funds are being requested. 

(11) History of funding received 

during the past 3 years from the Water 

Rights or Water Resources Programs, 

including a description of past 

accomplishments and an explanation of 

any amount(s) unexpended. 

Funding requests do not need to 

identify the specific water program from 

which funds are being requested. The 

BIA will determine the appropriate 

program(s) based on the information 

provided in the requests. 

Prioritizing Water Program Funding 

Requests 

The Deputy Director, Office of Trust 

Services, will make final decisions for 

the distribution of funding from the 

Water Rights and Water Resources 

Programs. In order to receive funding 

from these programs, all funding 

requests must be in strict accordance 

with the directions provided above. All 

funding requests, including those from 

Indian tribes, must be submitted by the 

Regional Water Programs Coordinator to 

the Office of Trust Services, Division of 

Natural Resources, Water Programs 

Branch, on or before September 15 of 

each year. Therefore, the Regional Water 

Programs Coordinators must set the 

deadline by which the Indian tribes in 

their respective regions must submit 

their requests to the Regional Office, 

and the Coordinators must 

communicate this information to the 

Indian tribes they service annually. Any 

additional requests or requests for 

changes or additions to previously 

submitted requests forwarded after 

September 15 of each year must be 

accompanied by a memorandum from 

the respective Regional Director 

providing justification for any postdeadline submissions. 

The BIA will complete the funding 

allocation decision process for these 

programs by October 31 of each year, 

unless Congress has not yet completed 

the appropriations process for the 

Interior Department and related 

agencies. The BIA also cannot distribute 

funds until Congress completes the 

appropriations process for the BIA. 

Water Programs Coordinator 

Each Regional Director will identify a 

Water Programs Coordinator(s). The 

Coordinator(s) will be responsible for 

forwarding the instructions set forth in 

this notice to all Indian tribes and 

appropriate Bureau field offices serviced 

by each respective Regional Office. The 

60848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

Coordinator(s) will also be responsible 

for collecting the requests, reviewing 

each request to determine that funding 

is being requested for eligible activities, 

and determining whether the amount of 

funds being requested is in accordance 

with industry standards or is otherwise 

reasonable. After reviewing each 

request, the Coordinator(s) and other 

BIA staff may make suggestions for 

improvement or corrections as 

necessary. Once the reviews are 

completed, the Water Programs 

Coordinators will prepare a summary of 

all funding requests for their respective 

regions, listing the projects in order of 

priority, and send a copy of the requests 

and summary to the Office of Trust 

Services, Water Programs Branch, Mail 

Stop 4600–MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, on or before 

September 15 of each year. 

Water Funding Prioritization Team 

The Office of Trust Services’ Water 

Programs Branch staff will assemble all 

BIA funding requests, including Central 

Office requests, and prepare a master 

summary with the original Regional 

Office delineation of priorities intact. A 

Water Funding Prioritization Team shall 

be established, with BIA members being 

appointed by the Deputy Director, 

Office of Trust Services, and shall 

consist of one representative from the 

Office of Trust Services, three 

representatives from any of the BIA’s 

Regional Offices, one representative 

from the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Indian Water Rights Office, and one 

representative from the Office of the 

Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs. The 

Regional Office Team members will be 

selected at random and rotated each 

year so that every Regional Office 

participates on an equal basis. The 

Team will be provided a copy of each 

request and the master summary. The 

Team will prioritize each request in 

accordance with the following criteria: 

Water Rights Program (34420) 

(1) Congressional and Court 

Mandates: 

Assign 100 points to each request for 

activities essential for supporting 

compliance with a Congressional or 

Court mandate that the BIA must fulfill. 

No further ranking is necessary. 

(2) Indian Water Rights Litigation/ 

Adjudication with Time Sensitivity: 

Assign 60 to 70 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

active Indian water rights litigation/ 

adjudication with court-mandated 

deadline(s) for which work must 

commence or continue to meet those 

deadline(s). 

(3) Indian Water Rights Litigation/ 

Adjudication without Time Sensitivity: 

Assign 50 to 60 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting an 

active Indian water rights litigation/ 

adjudication for which no specific 

court-mandated deadline is evident. 

(4) Indian Water Rights Negotiations 

with Time Sensitivity: 

Assign 50 to 60 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

active Indian water rights negotiations 

or settlement implementation for which 

the activities are required to meet a 

specific schedule recognized by the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Indian Water 

Rights Office. 

(5) Indian Water Rights Negotiations 

without Time Sensitivity: 

Assign 30 to 40 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

active Indian water rights negotiations 

or settlement implementation for which 

no specific time requirement has been 

indicated. As with the previous 

category, these situations typically 

involve a Secretarial priority and/or 

have a Federal negotiation team 

assigned. 

(6) Indian Water Rights Litigation/ 

Adjudication/Negotiation Feasibility: 

Assign 20 to 30 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting the 

development of Indian water rights 

claims for the purpose of establishing 

the feasibility of future negotiations, 

adjudication or litigation but for which 

no current negotiation or litigation is 

taking place. 

Water Resources Program (34020) 

(1) Water Management—Indian Water 

and Associated Reserved Resources: 

Assign 50 to 60 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

water management activities necessary 

for the use of tribal water resources or 

to protect against the encroachment on 

or management of tribal water and 

associated reserved resources. 

(2) Water Management—

Coordination/Cooperation/ 

Consultation/Conservation: 

Assign 30 to 40 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

water management activities necessary 

for intergovernmental cooperation, 

consultation, and coordination designed 

to conserve water and associated 

reserved resources. 

(3) Water Management—Other: 

Assign 20 to 30 points to each request 

for activities essential for supporting 

other water management activities not 

previously listed. 

(4) Water Planning and PreDevelopment—Indian Water: 

Assign 30 to 40 points to each request 

for activities essential for the planning 

or pre-development of tribal water 

rights. 

(5) Water Planning and PreDevelopment—Other: 

Assign 20 to 30 points to each request 

for activities essential for the planning 

or development of multi-jurisdictional 

waters. 

(6) All Water Program Funding—Cost 

Effectiveness: 

Assign an additional 1 to 10 points to 

each request based on the degree of 

overall cost effectiveness, where the 

estimated cost of each activity is 

appropriate for the objectives to be 

accomplished and the amount requested 

comports with industry standards and is 

otherwise reasonable. Examples of cost 

effectiveness include requests that 

demonstrate benefits to be gained 

through leveraging funding from 

multiple agencies and those that will 

complete projects more efficiently 

within the current funding cycle. 

(7) All Water Program/Project 

Funding—Compliance with Requesting 

Guidelines: 

Assign an additional 1 to 10 points to 

each request based on the degree of 

adherence to the instructions set forth in 

this notice. 

(8) All Water Program/Project 

Funding—Efficiency and 

Accomplishment: 

Assign an additional 1 to 10 points to 

each request based on the degree of 

accomplishment in utilizing funds 

previously provided or anticipated 

efficiency in utilizing funds in the 

future. 

Instructions for Water Funding 

Prioritization Team 

In assigning points to each funding 

request, Water Funding Prioritization 

Team members will consider the degree 

to which requested funds will support 

the establishment of title to Indian 

water. Team members will also take into 

account any urgency with respect to the 

need to complete activities or how the 

activities will promote and support 

coordination, cooperation, consultation 

and conservation in water management 

and planning. A request involving 

multiple categories of activities should 

be carefully evaluated. Team members 

must also take into account the need to 

support the trust responsibility of the 

United States. 

The Team will compile the scores of 

each member on a master list and obtain 

an average score by dividing the total of 

each member’s score for each request by 

the number of team members. The Team 

will enter the average score for each 

request on the master summary and 

provide the master summary to the 

Deputy Director, Office of Trust 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 60849 

Services, on or before October 15 of 

each year. Although a single ranking is 

conducted, the BIA will utilize the 

scores to make funding decisions for 

projects supporting both the Water 

Rights Program and the Water Resources 

Program. Funding for all requests will 

be provided from the appropriate 

program consistent with the intent of 

Congress. 

Distribution Decision Making and 

Reserved Funds 

When the total amount of 

appropriations for each program is 

insufficient to fund all requests, the 

Deputy Director, Office of Trust 

Services, will determine the appropriate 

cut-off for funding the requests received 

and will reserve 3 percent to 5 percent 

of the total amount from each program 

to fulfill unforeseen high priority 

contingencies (e.g., court-ordered 

activities or other emergencies). This 

determination may include a decision 

not to fund lower-ranking requests and/ 

or to conduct across the board funding 

reductions, beginning first, and in 

magnitude, with water planning and 

pre-development activities, followed by 

water management, water rights 

negotiation, water rights adjudication 

and finally, and only when absolutely 

necessary and while maintaining 

efficiency and effective prosecution of 

each legal requirement, active water 

rights litigation support. 

Authority: This notice is published in 

accordance with the authority delegated by 

the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs 

by part 209 of the Departmental Manual. 

Dated: October 3, 2005. 

Michael D. Olsen, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 05–20919 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

60-Day Notice of Intention To Request 

Clearance of Collection of Information: 

Opportunity for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS) Office of International Affairs 

(OIA) proposes to collect information 

from property owners who volunteer for 

their properties to be included in a list 

of sites (Tentative List) that will be 

considered for nomination by the 

United States to the World Heritage List. 

In order to manage the U.S. World 

Heritage Program (37 CFR 73) effectively 

and in a timely manner NPS must 

prepare and submit through the 

Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of State to the World Heritage 

Centre by February 1, 2007, a Tentative 

List of properties that appear to meet the 

criteria for nomination to the World 

Heritage List and which the United 

States intends to nominate during the 

ensuing decade (2007–2017). 

Only sites that have been found to be 

of national significance and that have 

such legal protections as are necessary 

to ensure the preservation of the 

properties and their environment may 

be considered for nomination by the 

United States. By law, all property 

owners must also concur in any World 

Heritage nomination. 

In order to gather the required 

information for the preparation of the 

Tentative List, it is proposed that an 

expanded and annotated version of the 

‘‘World Heritage Nomination Format’’

(or form, hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Application’’) be made available to 

owners who wish to apply for inclusion 

in the U.S. Tentative List. It would be 

made available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nps.gov/oia and http:// 

www.georgewright.org. 

Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 

CFR part 1320, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements, the NPS 

invites comments on the need for and 

proposed manner of gathering the 

information in the study. Comments are 

invited on: (1) The practical utility of 

the information being gathered; (2) the 

accuracy of the burden hour estimate; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of information collection to 

respondents, including the use of 

automated information collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

DATES: Public comments will be 

accepted on or before sixty days from 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Send Comments to: Send comments 

and requests for copies of a draft of the 

proposed Application and the 

accompanying Guidebook to the U.S. 

World Heritage Program to James H. 

Charleton, Office of International 

Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 I 

Street NW. (0050). E-mail: james_ 

charleton@contractor.nps.gov. Phone: 

(202) 354–1802. Fax (202) 371–1446. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James H. Charleton, (202) 354–1802 or 

April Brooks, (202) 354–1808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Instructions for Preparing U.S. 

World Heritage Nominations. 

Form: Format for the Nomination of 

Properties for Inscription on the World 

Heritage List. 

OMB Number: To be requested. 

Expiration Date: To be requested. 

Type of Request: Request for new 

clearance. 

Description of Need: The primary 

purpose of the proposed Collection of 

Information is to gather the information 

necessary to evaluate the potential of 

properties for nomination by the United 

States to the World Heritage List and to 

use the information for preparing a 

Tentative List of candidate sites. The 

World Heritage List is an international 

list of cultural and natural properties 

nominated by the signatories of the 

World Heritage Convention (1972). The 

following year, the United States was 

the first nation to ratify the treaty. U.S. 

participation and the roles of the 

Department of the Interior and the 

National Park Service are authorized by 

Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act 

Amendments of 1980 and conducted in 

accord with 36 CFR 73—World Heritage 

Convention. 

A Tentative List is a national list of 

natural and cultural properties 

appearing to meet the eligibility criteria 

for nomination to the World Heritage 

List. It is an annotated list of candidate 

sites which a country intends to 

nominate within a given time period. 

The World Heritage Committee has 

issued Operational Guidelines asking 

participating nations to provide 

Tentative Lists, which aid in evaluating 

properties for the World Heritage List on 

a comparative international basis and 

help the Committee to schedule its work 

over the long term. The Guidelines 

recommend that a nation review its 

Tentative List at least once every 

decade. The current U.S. Tentative List 

(formerly Indicative Inventory) dates to 

1982. 

The U.S. Tentative List will serve as 

a guide for at least the next decade 

(2007–2017) of U.S. nominations to the 

World Heritage List. The Tentative List 

will be structured so as to meet the 

World Heritage Committee’s December 

2004 request that the Tentative List 

allow for the nomination of no more 

than two sites per year by any one 

nation, at least one of which must be a 

natural site (excluding potential 

emergency nominations not at present 

foreseen). 

The National Park Service Office of 

International Affairs (NPS–OIA) and the