Section I of the Periodic Report on the Application of the World Heritage Convention:

Application of the World Heritage Convention by the

United States of America

December 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE NO.

I.1 Introduction3

a. State Party3

b. Year of ratification of the Convention3

c. Organization responsible for the preparation of the report3

d. Date of the Report3

e. Signature on behalf of the State Party3

I.2 Identification of Cultural and Natural Heritage Properties3

a. National inventories3

b. Tentative list5

  1. Nominations5

I.3 Protection, Conservation, and Presentation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage9

a. General policy development10

b. Status of services for protection, conservation and presentation12

c. Scientific and technical studies and research13

d. Measures for identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation

15

e. Training17

I.4 International co-operation and fund raising19

I.5 Education, Information and Awareness Building23

I.6 Conclusions and Recommended Action25

a. Main conclusions25

b. Proposed future actions and timeframe27

SECTION I: APPLICATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I.1 Introduction

  1. State Party

United States of America

  1. Year of ratification or acceptance of the Convention

December 7, 1973

  1. Organization responsible for the preparation of the report

U.S. National Park Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC20240

  1. Date of the report

2004

  1. Signature on behalf of the State Party

Paul Hoffman

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

U.S. Department of the Interior

The United States operates under a federal system of government with fifty states and several territories, each with its own government. Municipal and other local governments are chartered by the States. There are also federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments which enjoy a measure of sovereignty and with which the Federal government maintains a “government-to-government” relationship. Responsibility for specific heritage sites and their management may be shared by several levels of these governments. This report reflects the large number of entities with authority on heritage matters.

I.2Identification of cultural and natural heritage properties

a. National inventories

The list of United States World Heritage properties is maintained by the Office of International Affairs of the National Park Service (NPS). A brief description of each property and its date of inscription can be accessed on the Internet at The NPS also has published the list of US World Heritage Sites and general information about the World Heritage Convention in a printed brochure, US World Heritage Sites.

In addition to World Heritage Sites, the units of the National Park System (388 in total) designated by the US Congress and managed by NPS (including natural and/or cultural sites), constitute another inventory of nationally significant sites maintained by the NPS. The index of NPS units, which is regularly updated as new units are added, is found on the National Park Service web site.
Besides maintaining the US World Heritage Site list and the index of its own units, NPS also maintains several other national inventories:

National Historic Landmarks

National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are nationally significant historic places, in public and private ownership, that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Fewer than 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction. Working with citizens throughout the nation, NPS nominates new landmarks and provides assistance to existing landmarks. Further information on National Historic Landmarks program is available on the Internet at

National Natural Landmarks

The National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program recognizes and encourages the conservation of nationally outstanding examples of natural history. It is the only US natural areas program of national scope that identifies and recognizes the best examples of biological and geological features in both public and private ownership. To date, fewer than 600 sites have been designated. If requested, the National Park Service assists NNL owners and managers with the conservation of these important sites.

National Register of Historic Places

While the lists of National Historic and Natural Landmarks only include sites of national significance, the National Register of Historic Places, also maintained by the National Park Service, is a broader list.

The National Register of Historic Places ( is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The Register, which is continually expanded, now includes more than 50,000 properties of local, state, and national significance.

There are many other national inventories of significant natural resources, some maintained by the NPS as part of national designation programs or for other purposes. These include the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, and the list of designated Wild & Scenic Rivers. Other agencies of the Federal government maintain their own national inventories. For example, the National Oceans Service maintains a national inventory of marine managed areas including National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves, while the Bureau of Land Management maintains a list of Outstanding Natural Areas within its jurisdiction.

b. Tentative List

The current United States tentative list (formally known as the Indicative Inventory of Potential Future US World Heritage Nominations) is available at The Indicative Inventory, consisting of 50 properties, was compiled following a lengthy consultation process involving experts and the public in the 1982. According to the US system, as delineated in the Federal regulations for the US World Heritage program, any agency, organization, or individual may recommend additional properties, with accompanying documentation, for inclusion on the Indicative Inventory. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, in cooperation with a Federal Interagency Panel and other sources as appropriate, decides whether to include a recommended property in the Inventory. If a property is included, the National Park Service publishes the notice of its inclusion in the Federal Register, the official daily federal publication of government announcements. The Indicative Inventory was most recently expanded with the addition of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Arizona home-studio-school, Taliesin West, in 1990. Generally, properties have not been added to the Indicative Inventory unless the property meets all the requirements for nomination and there is active interest from the property owner(s) and others in pursuing a nomination.

c. Nominations

The United States has nominated 20 properties that have been accepted for inscription by the World Heritage Committee. The list of designated World Heritage Sites in the United States includes 18 units of the National Park System, administered directly by the National Park Service. The three non-NPS sites include Pueblo de Taos, owned and managed by the Tribal government; Monticello—the University of Virginia, owned and managed by the private, Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the State of Virginia, respectively; and Cahokia Mounds, owned and managed by the State of Illinois as a state historic site. (La Fortaleza, the residence of Puerto Rico’s Governor, nominated in conjunction with San Juan National Historic Site, is owned by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.)

The twenty sites with their year of inscription follow:

YearSiteCriteria

1978 YellowstoneN(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

1978Mesa VerdeC(iii)

1979Grand Canyon National ParkN(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

1979Everglades National ParkN(i)(ii)(iv)

1979IndependenceHallC(vi)

1979Wrangell-St. Elias (in conjunction w/N(ii)(iii)(iv)

Kluane, Canada) (extended in 1992 with

addition of Glacier Bay) N(ii)

1980Redwood National ParkN(ii)(iii)

1981Mammoth Cave National ParkN(i)(iii)(iv)

1981 Olympic National ParkN(ii)(iii)

1982 Cahokia Mounds State Historic SiteC(iii)(iv)

1983La Fortaleza—San Juan Historic SiteC(vi)

1983Great Smoky MountainsNational ParkN(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

1984YosemiteNational ParkN(i)(ii)(iii)

1985Statue of LibertyC(i)(vi)

1987Chaco CultureNational Historical ParkC(iii)

1987 Hawaii Volcanoes National ParkN(ii)

1987 Monticello—University of VirginiaC(i)(iv)(vi)

1992Pueblo de TaosC(iv)

1995GlacierNational Park (in conjunction w/N(ii)(iii)

Waterton, Canada)

1995Carlsbad CavernsNational ParkN(i)(iii)

Further information on the inscribed sites is available at

Several US nominations have been deferred, referred back to the US, or rejected by the Committee. In 1980, the Committee decided not to inscribe Edison National Historic Site, based on a negative recommendation by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (4th Session of the Committee). In 1981, the US Delegation to the Bureau meeting of the World Heritage Committee withdrew a proposed nomination for the Wright Brothers National Memorial, in response to a negative finding by ICOMOS. In 1987, the US nomination of Pu’uhonua o HonaunauNationalHistoricalPark was deferred by the Committee, pending a detailed regional study of Pacific heritage sites that would allow a more considered comparative assessment of the property. In 1991, the Bureau of the Committee deferred consideration of the Frank Lloyd Wright properties, Taliesin and Taliesin West, nominated by the US “pending the results of a topic-by-topic study of contemporary architecture.” (Bureau 15th Session). In 1995, the Bureau, following the recommendation of ICOMOS, referred the nomination of the city plan of Savannah, Georgia back to the US indicating that the nomination could only be listed if the entire urban fabric of the historic town were included, not just the streets and open spaces that constituted the city plan (Bureau, 19th Session). Given the US requirement that 100 percent of the private property owners concur in a nomination of their property to the World Heritage List, no further effort was made to pursue the inscription of Savannah.

Nomination process

Before a property in the United States can be considered for nomination to the World Heritage List, it must satisfy the following requirements established by law (National Historic Preservation Act, as amended) and regulation (36 Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 1, Part 73). In addition, it must appear to meet at least one of the World Heritage criteria:

  • the property must be nationally significant (designated by Congress as such, or listed as a National Historic Landmark or National Natural Landmark, or proclaimed a National Monument by the President)
  • the property’s owner, or owners, must concur (in writing) to the nomination, and
  • the property must currently be legally protected to ensure its preservation in the United States (as subsequent inscription in the World Heritage List does not confer any additional direct legal protection for the property under US law). Private owners of sites to be nominated must pledge in writing to preserve their property in perpetuity.

In the US, nominations can be processed throughout the year independent of the World Heritage Committee’s nomination submission deadline. When approved by the US authorities, the US requests that the Committee consider the nomination in the next available review cycle. The US nomination process follows these steps:

  1. The National Park Service publishes a notice in the Federal Register that describes the procedures and the schedule for consideration of proposed new nominations by the Assistant Secretary (including additions to the Indicative List). A comment period with a deadline for submissions is part of the notice.
  2. Comments and suggestions are compiled and the Assistant Secretary, in conjunction with the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage, decides whether to add any properties to the Indicative List and whether to identify any properties as proposed US nominations. Among the factors that have been considered in making the decision are how well the particular type of property (theme or region) is represented on the World Heritage List; the balance of cultural and natural US properties already on the list; opportunities for public visitation and interpretation of the property; and threats to the property’s integrity or state of preservation.
  3. A second notice in the Federal Register announces the Assistant Secretary’s intent to proceed with proposed US nominations or additions to the Indicative List. The property owner and others are notified in writing.
  4. Property owners and proponents of inscribing the property prepare a nomination draft under the coordination of the National Park Service.
  5. The draft nomination document is reviewed and evaluated by the Federal Interagency Panel and others as appropriate.
  6. If the draft nomination is approved, it is transmitted to the World Heritage Committee through the US State Department.
  7. A third Federal Register notice announcing the World Heritage nomination is published.

Motivation, obstacles and difficulties encountered in the process

The motivation for nominating properties to the World Heritage list is to achieve international recognition of the outstanding universal value of the sites. International recognition brings attention to the importance of preserving the site among a broad segment of society. Although the US regularly submitted nominations for a period of almost 20 years starting in 1978, for a variety of reasons the US has not put forward any proposed nominations since 1995. Given US legislative requirements that proposed sites be recognized as nationally significant before being considered for World Heritage listing, the pool of eligible sites already enjoys a significant amount of recognition and visibility; in some cases, the added recognition a site would receive by inclusion in the World Heritage list is viewed as outweighed by the length, rigor, and uncertainty of the nomination process.

A major reason the US has not actively encouraged nominations in recent years is because of its commitment to the principles of a balanced World Heritage List. It has been the US Government’s belief that the US, with numerous sites already designated, should refrain from submitting new nominations that might “compete” for the Committee’s attention with those submitted by other States Parties which may have no sites yet inscribed on the List.

A challenge to listing US sites under multiple ownership is presented by the US requirement in federal law that all the property owners support the nomination and pledge in writing that they will preserve their property in perpetuity. For this reason, in practical terms, it has never been possible under current law for the US to nominate historic districts with numerous owners, such as the core of the city of Savannah, Georgia.

Another challenge to the nomination of US sites to the World Heritage List resulted from the Committee’s 1995 decision, with the concurrence of the US Government, to inscribe YellowstoneNational Park on The List of World Heritage in Danger. The controversy surrounding the inscription of Yellowstone on the World Heritage in Danger List caused significant erosion in the support for the World Heritage program among some local populations and the US Congress. The Danger listing led to perceptions in some quarters that US participation in the World Heritage Convention had opened the door to a loss of sovereignty over our national parks and “UN interference or control” over US territory.

An example of the consequences of the Yellowstone Danger listing is provided by Carlsbad CavernsNational Park which was inscribed by the Committee in 1995. Following the inscription of Carlsbad Caverns, concerns were raised among local farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas industry representatives who feared the establishment of a UNESCO-mandated buffer zone around the park. Similar concerns soon prompted the introduction of proposed legislation in several sessions of Congress that would have required a separate Act of Congress before a nomination could be submitted to the Committee. The proposed bill would also have required the Department of the Interior to determine that the designation of a new site would not adversely affect private property within ten miles of the site. In the absence of any new US nominations the controversy regarding World Heritage has diminished; however, negative perceptions regarding World Heritage have lingered in some regions of the country and continue to surface from time to time.

Benefits of listing

Perceived benefits of World Heritage listing include:

  • increased recognition by different levels of government and the private sector of the international importance of the property,
  • ability to leverage greater public and private investment in the sites,
  • increased attention and concern by the public and by non-governmental organizations to management of the site,
  • indirect protection of outstanding values from degradation or loss, though World Heritage status confers no additional direct protections under US law.

Achievement of World Heritage status has benefited US sites in several ways. Among these, of course, is the increased international recognition the sites have received as a consequence of inscription in the List. The Illinois state historic site, Cahokia Mounds, reported an increase in international visitation following inscription on the World Heritage List. In several instances, the World Heritage designation of individual parks and non-federal properties has been a useful tool for site managers to highlight the importance of the site’s resources and why they should be preserved. For example, at Taos Pueblo, the Tribal government challenged a proposed expansion of the local airport in 1994 on the basis that it would harm the universal value for which the Pueblo was designated a World Heritage site. During the same year, at RedwoodNational Park, the California Department of Transportation redesigned a road project to avoid destroying a large number of the park’s redwood trees after being reminded of the site’s World Heritage designation. The site manager at Cahokia Mounds attributed the willingness of the state government to grant funding for a new visitor center and new land purchases in the mid-1980s to the World Heritage designation of the site.

World Heritage designation has also resulted in increased cooperation with Canada at sites that are jointly listed. For example, at Wrangell-St.EliasNational Park and Preserve and Glacier BayNational Park and Preserve, two parks that are listed jointly with Canadian parks across the border, World Heritage designation has resulted in direct cooperation with Canada on mountain rescue, managing traffic, and rescue operations on the AlsekRiver. In 1993, the World Heritage Committee supported the United States in protecting Glacier BayNational Park, by publicizing US concerns about an open pit Canadian mine near the Bay and reminding the Canadian government of its obligations under the Convention to protect the site.

The benefits of World Heritage Listing continue to attract interest in the program from around the country. The National Park Service’s Office of International Affairs responds regularly to inquiries about the US process for nominating sites to the World Heritage List. At present, one effort has received US Government support through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an independent federal agency that provides financial assistance for the arts. In 2003, the NEA awarded the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy of Chicago, Illinois $20,000 to support the nomination of Frank Lloyd Wright structures to the World Heritage List. The Conservancy is in the process of selecting the best and most representative examples of Wright’s work and meeting with owners of this select group of Wright buildings to determine their interest and willingness to participate in the endeavor.