U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
Other State Department Archive SitesU.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
Home Issues & Press Travel & Business Countries Youth & Education Careers About State Video

Teleconference Regarding the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List Meeting Minutes

Get Acrobat Reader PDF version   

U.S. National Commission for UNESCO
October 4, 2007

Thursday, October 4, 2007
11:00 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. Eastern Time

  1. Agenda
  2. Notes
  3. Recommendations
  4. Participants
  5. Referenced Resources

    1. List of Members of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Subcommittee on the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List

    2. Minutes and Recommendations from Subcommittee Meeting

    3. Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO

I. Agenda

  • Introduction/Roll-call/Overview of Process (Susanna Connaughton)
  • Brief Description of a World Heritage Site (Jim Charleton)
  • Report by Co-Chair of Commission's Subcommittee U.S. UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List (Bob Wilburn)
  • Commission comment period
  • Call opened to public comments under Federal Advisory Committee Act
  • Commission opportunity to revise and finalize recommendations on previously discussed items
  • Conference call conclusion

II. Notes

Susanna Connaughton conducted a roll call of phone participants (see Part IV for list of Participants). Connaughton highlighted the primary purposes of the call:

  • Produce final recommendation on the National Park Service staff report relating to the U.S. UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List

Connaughton gave an overview of the tentative list process. The process included a National Park Service (NPS) call for applications of which over 30 were received. The NPS staff experts then produced a staff report of recommendations. An expert panel as a Subcommittee of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (see Part V, i) was established to review the applications and staff report. This Subcommittee met on September 27, 2007 and provided recommendations (see Part V, ii and iii) which are being reviewed by the entire U.S. National Commission for UNESCO today during an open public call operated under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Commission recommendation to the U.S. government will be shared with the Department of the Interior, which will be posting in the Federal Register both the NPS staff recommendations and the Commission recommendations for a 30 day public comment period. Later this fall the Secretary of the Interior will determine the final U.S. Tentative List, which will be forwarded to the State Department to present to the World Heritage Committee. The U.S. rotates off the World Heritage Committee in 2009 and will not propose any added sites until its term is completed.

Connaughton opened the call to comments from Commission members.

Alan Moghissi inquired about Mt. Vernon's exclusion from the Tentative List. Bob Wilburn referred to World Heritage Committee evaluation criteria in his explanation.

Ron Bogle noted that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the World Heritage convention in the United States and offered to assist in helping to make the World Heritage program and tentatve list process more widely known.

Connaughton opened the call to members of the public under the Federal Advisory Committee Act for any questions or comments.

Carl Westmoreland applauded the Subcommittee for recommending the Civil Rights churches for the Tentative List, and then expressed his wish that the Underground Railroad sites be moved to a fast track situation to enable them to be added to the Tentative List. He stated that the Ripley, Ohio, sites are symbols of freedom upon which the civil rights movement built. He said they were also excellent examples of white and black citizens working together.

Sally Elk asked how she could learn why Eastern State Penitentiary was moved from the Tentative List (NPS recommendation) to the Future Consideration category (Subcommittee). Bob Wilburn explained that notes of the Subcommittee meeting would be made public. With respect to Eastern State Penitentiary specifically, he said that Subcommittee members had expressed concerns about the sustainability of the site. Elk said that visitation rates are rapidly growing, and she indicated that Eastern State Penitentiary would be using the 30-day period following the Federal Register announcement to make its case.

David Cornelius asked if it would have aided Eastern State Penitentiary if it had applied as an extension of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The Commission responded that it would not have helped in that the two are not logically related.

Larry Blake asked why the Subcommittee had assigned the Dayton Aviation Sites to the list for future consideration. Bob Wilburn explained that some Subcommittee members thought the Dayton sites were not ideal expressions of the aviation innovations associated with the Wright Brothers. Some members thought that the application would have been stronger if Kitty Hawk had been included-this despite the fact that there are integrity issues associated with Kitty Hawk.

Linda Waggoner drew a parallel to the Frank Lloyd Wright buildings and their relation to Taliesin, noting that by including Taliesin the case for the Wright buildings had been strengthened. She also asked when it was anticipated that the Frank Lloyd Wright buildings would be moved forward as a candidate for the World Heritage List. Jim Charleton said that no timing decisions have been made, and that the Frank Lloyd Wright applicants should use the time to ensure that the two buildings not already designated National Historic Landmarks are listed as such.

Pieter Roos said he thought it would be great for the Tentative List to be considered "tentative," and for it to be regularly reviewed. He also asked whether there would be a published record of the Subcommittee's meeting. Alex Zemek said that notes of the discussion would be published on the Commission's website. Roos also noted that if "Future Consideration" is a formal category, it might help with fund-raising for the Newport World Heritage Committee.

Connaughton asked if the Commission desired to revise its recommendations based on the discussion. There were no additional comments. The Commission motioned to approve and finalize its previously mentioned Subcommittee recommendations on the U.S. Tentative List. The Commission accepted the Subcommitttee's recommendations on the U.S. Tentative List with no objections.

The conference call then concluded.

III. Recommendations

The Commission recommended approval of the Subcommittee recommendations (note: see Part V: Referenced Resources for full Recommendations)

Recommended for Inclusion on the U.S. Tentative List (11)

Papahanaumokuakea National Monument, HI (mixed)*
Civil Rights Movement Sites, AL (cultural)*
Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings, AZ, CA, IL, NY, OK, PA, WI (cultural)
Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, OH (cultural)
Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, GA (natural)
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (natural)
Poverty Point State Historic Site, LA (cultural)
San Antonio Franciscan Missions, TX (cultural)
Serpent Mound, OH (cultural)
Thomas Jefferson Buildings: Poplar Forest and Virginia State Capitol, VA (cultural, extension)
White Sands National Monument, NM (natural)#

* = The Subcommittee's informal poll ranked these two sites as the ones recommended that be put forward to UNESCO World Heritage Committee for inclusion at the first eligible opportunity.

# = The Subcommittee wanted the National Park Service to confirm local support for this nomination.

IV. Participants

Executive Secretary/Designated Federal Officer

  1. Susanna Connaughton - Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO
Other Office of UNESCO Affairs/National Commission Executive Secretariat Staff

    1. Alex Zemek - Deputy Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO
    2. Ken Kolson - Culture and Communications Program Officer, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO

    Commission Members:

    1. Kathie Bailey-Mathae - National Academy of Sciences
    2. Ford Bell - American Association of Museums
    3. Ron Bogle - American Architectural Foundation
    4. Nigel Cameron - Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future
    5. Bruce Cole - National Endowment for the Humanities
    6. Hank Hatch - Oakton, Virginia
    7. Frank Hodsoll - Falls Church, Virginia
    8. Jackie Hawkins - Austin, Texas
    9. Richard Kurin - Washington, DC
    10. James Luyten - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
    11. Alan Moghissi - Institute for Regulatory Science
    12. Jan Smith - Heritage Foundation
    13. John Steadman - IEEE
    14. Andre Varchaver - Americans for UNESCO
    15. Diana Wall - Colorado State University
    16. Bob Wilburn (Co-Chair of Subcommittee) - Gettysburg Foundation

    National Park Service:

    1. Jim Charleton
      Phyllis Ellin
      Toni Lee
      Jonathan Putnam
      Barbara Little

    Public Observers:

    Dean Alexander - Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks
    Brad Barr - NOAA
    Jack Blosser - Ohio Historical Society
    Kara Bertran - Page & Turnbull
    Andrea Birnbaun - Olana
    Larry Blake - Dayton Aviation Sites
    David Cornelius - Eastern State Penitentiary
    Chris Darling - Georgetown University
    Audra Dye - Frank Lloyd Wright
    Sara Jane Elk - Eastern State Penitentiary
    Alison Gibson - Underground Railroad Sites
    Diana Greenlee - Poverty Point
    Kerry Irish - Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
    Melbourne Johnston - Eastern State Penitentiary
    Christine Kalke - National Endowment for the Humanities
    Travis McDonald - Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest
    Don Murphy -Underground Railroad Sites
    Betsy Packard - U.S. Department of Commerce
    Dan Pothememoth - Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
    Ed Roche - National Historical Society - Dayton, Ohio
    Pieter Roos - Newport World Heritage Committee
    Greg Schildwachter - White House Office of Council on Environmental Quality
    Brett Schaeffer - Heritage Foundation
    Susan Snow - San Antonio Mission
    Linda Waggoner - Fallingwater
    Ray Wanner - UN Foundation
    Carl Westmoreland -Underground Railroad Sites
    Ken Wells
    Paul Wigganlang - San Antonio Mission

    V. Referenced Resources

    i.   List of Members of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Subcommittee on the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List

    1. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (John Fowler)
    2. US Fish & Wildlife (Donita C. Cotter)
    3. NOAA (Timothy R. E. Keeney)
    4. Smithsonian (Len Hirsch)
    5. White House CEQ (Greg Schildwachter)
    6. Department of the Interior (Doug Domenech)
    7. State Department (Gerry Anderson)
    8. US/ICOMOS (Gustavo Araoz)
    9. National Park Service (Toni Lee)
    10. Frank Hodsoll (Co-Chairperson)
    11. Bonnie Burnham, World Monuments Fund
    12. John Francis, National Geographic Society
    13. Melinda Kimble, UN Foundation
    14. Tim Whalen, Getty Conservation Institute
    15. Anne Radice, IMLS
    16. Bruce Cole, NEH
    17. Robert Wilburn, Gettysburg Foundation (Co-Chairperson)

    ii.  U.S. National Commission for UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List Sub-committee Minutes and Recommendations, September 27, 2007

    Todd Willens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, welcomed members of the Sub-committee to the Secretary's Conference Room, Main Interior Building. Mr. Willens explained that because of the central role of the Secretary of the Interior at other stages of the process, he would not be participating in the deliberations of the Sub-committee.

    Bob Wilburn, Sub-committee Co-Chair, offered his welcome, explained the purpose of the meeting and went over the agenda and ground rules. He proposed that the Sub-committee endeavor to find consensus, rather than employing formal parliamentary rules of procedure.

    Stephen Morris, Chief, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, discussed the application process and the role of NPS staff and external consultants in evaluating the applications under review. The initial staff recommendations can be found at: http://www.nps.gov/oia/TLEssayFinal.pdf

    Susanna B. Connaughton, Executive Director of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, thanked Mr. Wilburn for stepping in at the last minute for Frank Hodsoll, whose schedule prevented him from attending the meeting. She then summarized the steps that would be followed to convey the substance of the Sub-committee's recommendations to the full Commission.

    The Sub-committee then proceeded to review the applications, which were briefly summarized by NPS staff members, then discussed in full by the Sub-committee.

    Discussion of Applications

    Petrified Forest, AZ (natural)

    • Subcommittee members judged this application to be very strong. Similar and in some ways even superior to World Heritage site Ischigualasto Park (Argentina).

    • Strong aesthetic appeal.

    • Also distinguishable from other fossil sites: Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada), Messel Pit (Germany), and Monte San Giorgio (Switzerland).

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    White Sands, NM (natural)

    • Site features white gypsum dunes and on-going geological processes that began 250 million years ago.

    • Many unique species, biodiversity steadily increasing.

    • No gypsum deposits on World Heritage List, other dune sites distinguishable.

    • Members judged this application to be very strong.

    • Members noted reference to local opposition from Otero County commissioners and urged that if there are any issues they should try to be resolved.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, GA (natural)

    • Site offers undisturbed peat deposits that are precursors to coal seam formation. Wide variety of habitants including endangered species.

    • Distinguishable from Everglades in that Everglades is an end river system whereas Okefenokee is a headwaters system.

    • Members judged this to be a strong application and one to be strongly considered for early submission.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Fagatele Bay, American Samoa (natural)
    Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, MA (natural)

    • These two applications were discussed at the same time.

    • Advocates argued that marine sanctuaries are underrepresented on the World Heritage List and therefore in need of heightened attention.

    • Advocates for these two sites argued that reviewers failed to recognize their virtues, particularly those of Fagatele Bay, which was described as "the world's most resilient corral reef."

    • NPS staff noted that both applications need considerably more work.

    • Some members expressed support for Fagatele Bay as a possible component in a multi-national serial nomination of multiple sites, rather than as a stand-alone.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that both of these applications be reserved for future consideration.

    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, HI (mixed)

    • Site offers the longest, clearest, and oldest example of island formation and atoll evolution in the world. One quarter of 7,000 marine species here exist nowhere else.

    • World Heritage sites at Galápagos Islands (Ecuador) and Cocos Island (Costa Rica) do not share Polynesian history. Easter Island (Chile) is listed for culture only. Other barrier reefs affected by continental land masses.

    • Members not certain that battle of Midway and vestiges of World War II can figure in this application.

    • Has potential to be exemplary site. In preparing nomination, site will need technical assistance from NOAA, NPS.

    • Informal vote of the Sub-committee ranked this as the site most desired to be included in the first eligible opportunity for U.S. submissions to the World Heritage Committee for addition to the WH List.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Poverty Point, LA (cultural)

    • Site is without parallel in North America. Hunter-gatherers who built impressive ceremonial center and imported materials from hundreds of miles away.

    • Only one other hunter-gatherer site on the WH list (Canada).

    • As with other pre-Columbian sites, concerns were expressed about "balancing" such sites against those representing later periods of American history, thereby avoiding redundancy. Is there some way to "group" the pre-Columbian sites?

    • On the other hand, members recognized that Poverty Point is in many ways sui generis.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, OH (cultural)

    • Members recognized that the Hopewell mounds represent a very different and earlier civilization than the Mississippians.

    • Questions were raised about integrity and reconstruction.

    • Application cites prodigious size of Hopewell mounds. Some members asked how significant is mere size in determining significance, universal value.

    • As with other pre-Columbian sites, concerns were expressed about "balancing" such sites against those representing later periods of American history, thereby avoiding redundancy. Is there some way to "group" the pre-Columbian "mound" sites?

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Serpent Mound, OH (cultural)

    • World's largest prehistoric effigy mound, but again, how important is size?

    • Are there reconstruction issues here?

    • Distinguishable from Lines and Geoglyphs of Nazca (Peru) WH site.

    • Might be first element of serial nomination including other North American effigy mounds. As with other pre-Columbian sites, concerns were expressed about "balancing" such sites against those representing later periods of American history, thereby avoiding redundancy. Is there some way to "group" the pre-Columbian sites?

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Pipestone National Monument, MN (cultural)

    • There is no comparable World Heritage site.

    • Some thought one of Pipestone's virtues is that it is a "living" site - still quarried by Native Americans.

    • Members questioned the global significance of Pipestone and thought that the case for "outstanding universal value" was not as persuasive as those that had been mounted for the other Native American sites.

    • Yes, it is important nationally, but where is the international significance? This must be addressed before a persuasive nomination could be made for the site.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    San Antonio Franciscan Missions, TX (cultural)

    • Largest single group of Spanish colonial buildings in U.S.

    • Remote Jesuit missions usually became ruins, these formed the core of a great modern city.

    • Some potential for trans-national nomination of Franciscan missions or way to include Missions in California.

    • Members disagreed about how well the Alamo "fits" with the other San Antonio missions.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Mount Vernon, VA (cultural)

    • Members recognized that the application for Mount Vernon was submitted as an 18th century Anglo-American plantation and landscape rather than as the home of George Washington.

    • World Heritage Committee generally disinclined to inscribe sites having military or political significance. This site would only meet one WH criterion and most sites meet two. (Independence Hall did meet one.)

    • It was noted that Mount Vernon also has a distinctive place in the history of historic preservation in the United States.

    • Some sub-committee members considered the application problematic because of integrity issues. There has been a great deal of reconstruction over a long period of time, not only of the main house, but of the outbuildings and landscape. This reconstruction is well documented, to be sure, but it is reconstruction nonetheless.

    • One sub-committee member noted that World Heritage criteria stress architectural integrity more than history, and that Mt. Vernon is distinguished more for its history than for its architectural merits, per se.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application not be considered for addition to the U.S. Tentative List.

    French Creole Properties of the Mid-Mississippi Valley, IL and MO (cultural)

    • It was generally acknowledged that French colonial architecture is important in the history of North America, but that it falls short of "universal" significance.

    • The application stresses French colonial construction techniques. Some of the buildings have been reconstructed to a significant extent-not just the fort, but some of the residences as well.

    • These structures superior to those in Natchitoches, where some language has survived?

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Eastern State Penitentiary, PA (cultural)

    • Gave tangible form to Quaker concept of penitence and reform.

    • Some members noted how odd it is that Eastern State Penitentiary influenced prison architecture world-wide, but not in the United States.

    • There are other WH sites (e.g., New Lanark, Scotland) representing social reform.

    • Sub-committee members lamented the deplorable condition of the site; some doubted whether the site is "sustainable."

    • Several members were concerned that inclusion of a penal institution on the U.S. Tentative List could be misperceived internationally.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Olana (home of Frederic Church), NY (cultural)

    • Application is strong, but site is eccentric.

    • Advocates stressed the quasi-religious spirit embodied in Olana. Others questioned whether, as the home of the second-best painter of the Hudson Valley School, it could clear the "outstanding universal value" bar on a world stage. Others inquired about part of a serial nomination with other Hudson Valley School sites.

    • Members wished for a more convincing demonstration of Olana's international significance. Some thought it hard to connect the house with Hudson River Valley School values.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Dayton Aviation Sites, OH (cultural)

    • There may be no comparable WH site justified solely on criterion ii. Perhaps Varberg Radio Station (Sweden) comes closest.

    • NPS staff pointed out that ICOMOS rejected a nomination for the Wright Brothers National Memorial (Kitty Hawk) in 1981. The opinion was expressed that perhaps ICOMOS might now view the site differently, especially if it were grouped with the Dayton sites.

    • Some members wondered how exactly the Wright Brothers' success in pioneering powered aviation were represented by the properties included in the Dayton Aviation Sites. One said that "the site doesn't speak of the innovation."

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Gamble House, CA (cultural)

    • Sub-committee members agreed that this is a wonderful house, though it is only one house, and they thought the application had failed to demonstrate the international significance of Greene and Greene.

    • Though the arts and crafts movement started in England, that alone does not demonstrate international significance.

    • There was some support for the idea that Gamble House should be part of a serial proposal, or grouped with other Greene and Greene properties.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings, AZ, CA, IL, NY, OK, PA, WI (cultural)

    • Members described this as a well-crafted, balanced proposal for an impressive set of Wright buildings.

    • Serial nomination of Wright residential and non-residential buildings should overcome WH lack of recognition of residential architecture to date.

    • Nomination probably needs to be more based on contribution to modern architecture than work of Wright, the architect, per se.

    • Informal vote of the Sub-committee placed this site high as a cultural site that should be consider early on for inscription on the World Heritage List.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Civil Rights Movement Sites, AL (cultural)

    • Convincing application if conceived as the beginning of serial nominations.

    • Could even be broadened to include groups other than African-Americans.

    • Could perhaps be justified not only on criterion vi but also iv, with Wittenberg Luther Memorials (Germany) as a comparable.

    • Members agreed that relying on any criterion other than vi would be, unfortunately, a stretch.

    • Informal vote of the Sub-committee ranked this site very highly amongst the cultural sites that should be strongly considered at the first opportunity for inscription on the World Heritage List

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Thomas Jefferson Buildings, VA (cultural)

    • Some members observed that Poplar Forest was a ruin as recently as the 1980s. "How could it not be a reconstruction?"

    • Some thought Poplar Forest redundant, given Monticello.

    • Some thought Virginia State Capitol has greater integrity, despite the modern wings.

    • Committee felt this extension nomination would help round out Jefferson's work by adding a legislative building to the university and residence already on the list.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be included on the Tentative List.

    Moundville Site, AL (cultural)

    • Sub-committee members agreed that as Mississippian mound sites go, Moundville has considerable integrity-probably even more than Cahokia.

    • Some members wondered what Moundville tells us about this culture that Cahokia doesn't. One said he did not oppose extending the Cahokia property to Moundville, but that it seemed "redundant."

    • Members recognized that extensions unfortunately count as one of the two nominations that a member state is allowed per year.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Moravian Bethlehem, PA (cultural)

    • Members thought the Moravian properties have potential primarily as one component of a multi-national nomination.

    • There was insight into a possible Danish Moravian submission and the members pondered whether this was an opportunity for international submission.

    • Members departed from the Park Service report by recommending that this application be reserved for future consideration.

    Colonial Newport, RI (cultural)

    • Members lamented that Lunenburg (Nova Scotia) is the only Anglo-American colonial town on the World Heritage List, and that the U.S. law requiring unanimous consent of pertinent property owners makes it unlikely that any U.S. colonial town will ever represent our English heritage on the World Heritage List.

    • Some members thought that the actual buildings included in the application are not the best representatives of the application's theme, which is the distinctive role of religious liberty in the history of Rhode Island.

    • Is Newport the town that is most representative of Rhode Island religious liberty?

    • Members generally agreed that this case demonstrated the importance of frequent review and revision of the Tentative List.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be reserved for future consideration.

    Shaker Villages, ME, NH, NY, KY (cultural)

    • Members indicated that they agreed with the NPS recommendation to put this application on the list for future consideration.

    • Members felt that the site was more noted for its arts and crafts than its architectural value.

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be reserved for future consideration.

    Underground Railroad Sites, OH (cultural)

    • Some thought the properties in question too narrow to represent the class of Underground Railroad sites in existence, and that the idea of the underground railroad itself needs to be redefined.

    • Others noted that there is increasing interest in the underground railroad, and that it is an idea that resonates internationally. Still others hoped for trans-national sites representing the slave trade, and also emancipation, to properly contextualize properties associated with the underground railroad.

    • One subcommittee member said that the proposal needs "time to grow."

    • Members agreed with the Park Service report that this application should be reserved for future consideration.

    Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1, NM (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Meadowcroft Rockshelter, PA (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    SunWatch Village, OH (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Historic Center of Savannah, GA (cultural)

    • Members noted that this application, like some others, raises the issue of unanimous owner consent.

    • The sub-committee was urged to recommend an examination of this law to see how it could be adapted to meet the needs of all constituencies.

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    New Harmony, IN (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Central of Georgia, Savannah Shed and Terminal Facility, GA (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Gilded Age Newport, RI (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Shenandoah-Dives Mill, CO (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    Columbia River Highway, OR (cultural)

    • Members agreed with the NPS recommendation that this application be disapproved.

    iii. Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO

    Recommended for Inclusion on the U.S. Tentative List (11)

    Papahanaumokuakea National Monument, HI (mixed)*
    Civil Rights Movement Sites, AL (cultural)*
    Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings, AZ, CA, IL, NY, OK, PA, WI (cultural)
    Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, OH (cultural)
    Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, GA (natural)
    Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (natural)
    Poverty Point State Historic Site, LA (cultural)
    San Antonio Franciscan Missions, TX (cultural)
    Serpent Mound, OH (cultural)
    Thomas Jefferson Buildings: Poplar Forest and Virginia State Capitol, VA (cultural, extension)
    White Sands National Monument, NM (natural)#

    * = The group's informal poll ranked these two sites as the ones recommended that be put forward to UNESCO World Heritage Committee for inclusion at the first eligible opportunity.

    # = The group wanted the National Park Service to confirm local support for this nomination.

    Recommended for Future Consideration (13)^

    Fagatele Bay, American Samoa (natural)
    Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, MA (natural)
    Pipestone National Monument, MN (cultural)
    French Creole Properties of the Mid-Mississippi Valley, IL and MO (cultural)
    Eastern State Penitentiary, PA (cultural)
    Olana (home of Frederic Church), NY (cultural)
    Dayton Aviation Sites, OH (cultural)
    Gamble House, CA (cultural)
    Moundville Site, AL (cultural)
    Moravian Bethlehem, PA (cultural)
    Shaker Villages, ME, NH, NY, and KY (cultural)
    Colonial Newport, RI (cultural)
    Underground Railroad Sites, OH (cultural)

    ^ = These sites should be considered during future U.S. Tentative List discussions, but the Subcommittee felt they were not ready for immediate inclusion.

    Other Applications Reviewed (10)

    Mount Vernon, VA (cultural)
    Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1, NM (cultural)
    Meadowcroft Rockshelter, PA (cultural)
    SunWatch Village, OH (cultural)
    Historic Center of Savannah, GA (cultural)
    New Harmony, IN (cultural)
    Central of Georgia, Savannah Shed and Terminal Facility, GA (cultural)
    Gilded Age Newport, RI (cultural)
    Shenandoah-Dives Mill, CO (cultural)
    Columbia River Highway, OR (cultural)

    General and Procedural Observations

    The Subcommittee also made General Recommendations about the process:

    • The Subcommittee noted that highly significant national sites might not necessarily meet the test of "outstanding universal value" required for inscription on the World Heritage List.

    • The possibility for more Joint or Trans-national and Thematic serial nominations should be explored.

    • Explore the U.S. Preservation Act legal requirement of unanimous owner consent and its effect on World Heritage Site application.

    • Future Tentative List application processes should include both the "grassroots" open nomination methods used this time and a "top-down" government suggested application approach method. Members were amenable to reconvening for future advice that the government might need on World Heritage issues.

    • Improve American citizen understanding of UNESCO World Heritage Program and what inclusion on the list entails.

    • Recognize that 851 World Heritage properties is pressing against the limit. Some members thought it was time to slow down the process of inscription and pay more attention to conservation.


      Back to top

    U.S. Department of State
    USA.govU.S. Department of StateUpdates  |   Frequent Questions  |   Contact Us  |   Email this Page  |   Subject Index  |   Search
    The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
    About state.gov  |   Privacy Notice  |   FOIA  |   Copyright Information  |   Other U.S. Government Information

    Published by the U.S. Department of State Website at http://www.state.gov maintained by the Bureau of Public Affairs.