The 425 units of the National Park System bear a wide range of titles—national park, national monument, national preserve, national historic site, national recreation area, and national battlefield, among many others. What is indicated by these different titles? Are the units managed differently under different designations? Do some types of units receive more protection with respect to use or development? This report addresses questions that legislators have asked about park unit titles, when considering proposals to establish new park units, redesignate existing units, or change provisions governing a unit.¹ It also discusses potential advantages and disadvantages of systemwide recommendations to simplify park nomenclature.

There are no definitive criteria for naming a park unit. Bills to designate new units of the National Park System, or to rename existing units, may specify any title, even one not previously used in the park system. The statutory authorities and management policies of the National Park Service (NPS) generally apply to all park system units, regardless of title.² Also regardless of title, Congress may specify exceptions to NPS laws, regulations, and policies in a given unit—for example, Congress may authorize hunting or mining, generally prohibited in the National Park System, in a particular unit.

While few statutory distinctions exist among the designations, their differences can nonetheless be meaningful. In practice, Congress has grouped similar units under similar titles, and often has followed precedents regarding the activities authorized in particular types of units. The designations thus have developed distinctive characteristics. In addition, a park's title can influence public perceptions of the park. Changes in designation may affect visitation patterns, which may have local and regional economic repercussions. Finally, a few designations indicate that units, in addition to being in the National Park System, also are part of other legislatively established systems that confer their own protections.

What Are the Park Titles?

The units of the National Park System vary widely in their physical features and the purposes for which they were designated. These differences are reflected in the titles Congress has bestowed when creating units. More than 20 different designations have been used.

• National parks. The 63 national parks contain some of the country's best-known natural attractions. They typically are large, diverse areas with outstanding natural features and ecological resources. They tend to be among the most strictly protected park units, in that Congress has historically been reluctant to authorize consumptive activities such as mining or hunting in the national parks.
• National monuments. National monuments may be established by Congress or proclaimed by the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906.³ Many of the park system's 84 national monuments contain historical or archaeological artifacts, but others are notable for their natural features or recreational opportunities.
• National preserves. The 19 national preserves are similar to national parks in their size and natural features but typically allow uses (such as hunting or oil and gas exploration) that Congress considered incompatible with national park designation. Many preserves adjoin and share a name with a national park (e.g., Denali National Park and Preserve).
• National reserves. The two national reserves are similar to national preserves except that both are managed in partnership with state, local, or private entities.⁴
• National recreation areas. NPS manages 18 national recreation areas.⁵ This designation originally was given to areas that surround Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs and feature water-based recreation; it has since been used for recreational units in or near urban centers. Activities such as boating, fishing, or hunting may be explicitly authorized in establishing legislation.
• National lakeshores and national seashores. The 10 national seashores are on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, and the 3 national lakeshores are on the Great Lakes. Both recreation and natural resource preservation are prioritized in these units. A number of national seashores and lakeshores permit hunting.
• National rivers and wild and scenic rivers. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act of 1968, Congress has preserved rivers in a free-flowing state (unaltered by dams or channels).⁶ The National Park Service manages 10 wild and scenic rivers as stand-alone park units, and others as parts of broader units. Also, four national rivers or riverways were designated outside the WSR Act. The rivers offer hiking, canoeing, and other outdoor activities (sometimes including hunting).
• National trails. Congress has established national trails under the National Trails System Act of 1968.⁷ NPS manages three national trails as full park units; all are designated as "national scenic trails" and wind through multiple states. The trails are managed for recreational use, primarily hiking. Other national scenic and historic trails are managed by NPS as parts of other units.
• National parkways. The four national parkways encompass roads and surrounding parkland. Sites of cultural interest lie along their routes. The parkways were designed for recreational driving through scenic countryside, although the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia has become a heavily used commuter route.
• National and international historic sites. The 74 national historic sites and 1 international historic site designate places significant to U.S. history.⁸ Many are structures of historical interest, such as the homes of notable Americans, or buildings where important events occurred.
• National historical parks. Like historic sites, the 63 national historical parks are notable for their connection with events or people of historical interest. These entities usually extend beyond a single building or property.
• National battlefields, national battlefield sites, national battlefield parks, and national military parks. The 11 national battlefields, 1 national battlefield site, 4 national battlefield parks, and 9 national military parks all designate locations of significant military actions. They include landscapes where battles occurred (primarily during the American Revolution and the Civil War) and military and civil structures in those areas.
• National memorials. National memorials need not be located at historically significant sites. Instead, many of the 31 national memorials, such as the Washington Monument or the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, are structures erected to commemorate people or events.
• Other designations. The National Park Service administers a number of areas in the Washington, DC, region that do not fit into the above classifications. The Park Service classifies these 11 units as having "other designations" than the standard types, and they bear a variety of names.⁹

What Do the Titles Mean?

For the most part, the different park titles signify different types of resources and attractions: a visitor expects to find historic buildings at a national historic site, natural attractions at a national park, and recreational opportunities at a national recreation area. In some cases, the title also may signal information about who established the unit (Congress or the President), who manages it, and what activities Congress has permitted or prohibited in the unit. Within each designation, the characteristics of units may vary considerably, complicating a clear meaning for any designation.

Type and Size of Resource

Most designations give a sense of the type of attraction to be found in the park unit, whether primarily natural (e.g., national parks or preserves), historical (e.g., national historic sites or historical parks), military (e.g., national battlefields or battlefield parks), or recreational (e.g., national recreation areas). However, these distinctions are not absolute; units set aside primarily for one type of attraction may also contain other types. Many national parks, for example, are notable for their historical and cultural artifacts and recreational opportunities as well as for their natural features.

The National Park Service has recognized this mix of resources in park units. At one point in its history, the Park Service had separate management tracks for primarily "natural" areas, primarily "recreational" areas, and primarily "historical" areas. These were abolished in favor of an integrated approach that focuses on all park resources, regardless of a park's title or the way in which it became part of the National Park System.¹⁰

Some of the finer title distinctions may signal differences in the size of otherwise similar park units. For example, a national historical park generally is larger than a national historic site. The single national battlefield site is smaller than most national battlefields,¹¹ whereas the four national battlefield parks are larger. However, these size distinctions are far from absolute. Several national historical parks, for example, are less than 10 acres in size,¹² while a few national historic sites are unusually large, exceeding the size of many national historical parks.¹³ Similarly, while the "national park" designation usually has been used for large natural areas, Gateway Arch National Park—a former national memorial redesignated by an act of Congress in 2018—is smaller than many national historical parks and some national historic sites.¹⁴

A Part of the National Park System?

NPS's main responsibility is to administer the 425 units of the National Park System, but it also manages or assists other areas outside the system (often nonfederally owned) that are "linked in importance and purpose" to the National Park System.¹⁵ In most cases, an area's title indicates whether it is part of the National Park System or one of these "related areas." In other cases, it may not be possible to tell from the title whether the area is in the park system, because the title applies to both park system units and related areas. Separately, some NPS designations also are used for sites managed by other federal agencies, such as the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Table 1 lists selected park titles and indicates whether they refer to units of the National Park System and/or other areas.

Authority to Establish the Unit

Today, only one type of National Park System unit may be established by an entity other than Congress. National monuments may be proclaimed on federal lands by the President, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, as well as by Congress.¹⁶ Some other types of park units were established in the past by entities other than Congress or the President. The Secretary of the Interior designated some national historic sites under authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935.¹⁷ This authority was limited in 1992 by an amendment to the act stipulating that Congress must authorize the appropriation of any funds used to carry out secretarial designations. Also in the past, some units were administratively transferred to NPS from other agencies. For example, some national recreation areas were originally established through interagency agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation.¹⁸

Permitted and Prohibited Uses

National Park System units are among the most strictly protected federal lands, as compared to those administered by other agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Under laws applying to all National Park System units, park administrators must manage activities in the parks to avoid derogation or impairment of park resources. Thus, activities that may consume or damage resources—including hunting, grazing, mining, logging, and off-road vehicle use, among others—generally are limited or prohibited.¹⁹ However, Congress may authorize a desired activity at a specific unit, typically by including provisions in the unit's enabling legislation to permit the activity.²⁰

Although Congress may authorize specific land uses in any type of park unit, in practice, activities that might damage or consume resources (sometimes called "consumptive" activities) are more often permitted in some types of units than in others. In particular, Congress has tended against allowing consumptive uses in national parks. For example, Congress has not authorized sport hunting in any national park, whereas this activity is authorized in some other types of units, including some national recreation areas, national preserves, national rivers, national monuments, and national seashores and lakeshores.²¹ Similarly, off-road vehicle use typically is not permitted in national parks, although it may be allowed in national recreation areas, national seashores and lakeshores, and national preserves.²²

Congress has been especially open to consumptive uses in certain types of park units. The main example is the national preserves. Many of the preserves adjoin national parks and might have been incorporated in the parks were it not for interest in activities such as hunting, trapping, and oil and gas exploration on the land. Congress has accommodated such activities in the enabling legislation for national preserves, in distinction from the more restrictive national parks. Some park types also explicitly encourage general recreational development and use, as seen in the enabling statutes for national recreation areas, national seashores, and national lakeshores.²³

Management Arrangements

Traditionally, units of the National Park System are managed solely by NPS, but Congress also has legislated partnership management arrangements with both federal and nonfederal land managers in some units.²⁴ Although partnership management spans multiple unit types, NPS has noted that one type of park, the national reserve, is specifically associated with management partnerships with state, local, and/or private entities.²⁵ At some national recreation areas and national seashores, NPS manages units in cooperation with federal agency partners.²⁶

Relation to Other Land Management Systems

All NPS units are part of the National Park System, but a few types of units also belong to other land management systems with their own requirements and protections. Units titled "wild and scenic rivers" are established under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, which preserves free-flowing rivers in their natural state (i.e., without new dams or diversions).²⁷ Depending on how the river is classified—as wild, scenic, or recreational—the act restricts development and protects water rights on the river to a greater or lesser degree. Not all wild and scenic rivers are assigned to NPS, and of those that are, only three constitute full park units; others are contained within larger park units and managed as part of those units.²⁸

The three park system units titled "national scenic trails" were established under the National Trails System Act of 1968.²⁹ This law provides for four categories of trails: scenic trails, historic trails, recreational trails, and connecting or side trails. Depending on the type of trail, certain activities may be prohibited (e.g., use of motorized vehicles) or encouraged (e.g., trail development for hiking, biking, horseback riding, or cross-country skiing). As with wild and scenic rivers, trails designated under the act are not necessarily managed by NPS.³⁰ NPS manages three trails as full park units, and manages other trails within broader units or as "related areas."

Finally, in some park units, special protections to restrict development are provided by wilderness designation.³¹ Federal lands designated as wilderness areas under the 1964 Wilderness Act generally prohibit commercial activities, roads and motorized access, and structures and facilities. Congress can designate wilderness in any type of park unit, as well as on federal lands outside the park system. A high number of national parks contain wilderness areas, but not all do, and other types of park units—including some national monuments, national preserves, and national seashores—also have designated wilderness areas.

How and Why Are Park Titles Changed?

A change to the title of a park unit requires an act of Congress. Bills to change unit designations—for example, to redesignate a national monument as a national park—are common. In the 118^th Congress, H.R. 1479 and S. 736 would redesignate the Chiricahua National Monument as a national park, H.R. 1647 and S. 961 would redesignate Salem Maritime National Historic Site as a national historical park, and H.J.Res. 76 and S.J.Res. 35 would redesignate the Arlington House Robert E. Lee Memorial as a national historic site. In the 117^th Congress, P.L. 117-328 redesignated the Pullman National Monument as a national historical park. Laws enacted in the 116^th Congress (P.L. 116-6, P.L. 116-9, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 116-328, P.L. 116-341) redesignated several units as national historical parks, one unit as a national historic site, one unit as a national park, and one unit as a national park and preserve. Previous Congresses have made similar title changes to other units.

Why Change a Park Title?

In many cases, the motivation to redesignate a unit under a new title may be economic. This is especially the case with measures to adopt the title "national park" for units that have previously borne other titles. Many of the country's best-known natural attractions lie in national parks, and visitors planning travel itineraries often target the national parks over other units of the park system. Members of Congress and other stakeholders may seek to retitle a unit as a national park to draw more visitors to the site and to give surrounding communities a financial boost.

For example, when P.L. 116-260 redesignated the former New River Gorge National River as the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve, congressional supporters stated, "This National Park and Preserve designation will bring in visitors from across the country to experience the beauty and rich history of the New River Gorge, while also contributing to local economies."³² Concerning P.L. 112-245, which redesignated the former Pinnacles National Monument as a national park, a supporting Senator stated, "Now we will attract even more Americans and visitors from around the world.... This bill will ensure that [the park] gets the recognition it deserves while also boosting the area's tourism economy."³³ Stakeholders may hope that the change will benefit the park itself, as well as the surrounding community. For instance, if a redesignation drew more visitors to a park that charged an entrance fee under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814), this could provide added funding to be used directly at the park.³⁴

Evidence is mixed as to the effectiveness of such redesignations as a way of increasing tourism at a unit and in surrounding communities. On the one hand, NPS visitor statistics show that national parks indeed receive more visitors on average than most other types of units.³⁵ On the other hand, units redesignated as national parks have not always shown subsequent increases in visitation. One in-depth study of eight national monuments that were redesignated as national parks, conducted in 2005, found that the name change accounted for an additional 13,000 visitors annually per site, on average, when controlling for other variables.³⁶ (To put an increase of 13,000 visitors in context, visits to these eight national parks ranged between 140,000 and 3.1 million in 2022.) However, gains from a name change did not always make up for losses from other factors, so overall visitation did not always increase. A 2018 study found "no clear distinct designation effect such as immediately increased visits after redesignation" but found higher visitation on average across the system for national parks than for national monuments, as well as higher overnight visits and spending per visitor. Further, this study found that from 2000 to 2016, recreation visits to national parks increased while visits to national monuments decreased.³⁷ A 2019 study by the same organization similarly found mixed trends in visitation at individual parks after redesignations, while also finding that, in NPS's Intermountain West region, recreation visits and overnight stays grew since 2000 at a significantly higher rate for national parks than for national monuments.³⁸

Beyond economic incentives, there may be other reasons for changing park unit designations. For example, when reestablishing national monuments originally proclaimed by Presidents, Congress often has used a different title that more clearly signals the type of attraction to be found in the unit. Former national monuments have become national parks, national preserves, national historic sites, national historical parks, in one case a national battlefield, and in another a national scenic trail.

Concerns in Changing Park Titles

Measures to redesignate park units may face several challenges. In the case of attempts to adopt the "national park" title, supporters may need to make a case that the attractions of the unit are outstanding enough to warrant the national park label, which has traditionally been reserved for the "crown jewels" of the National Park System. For instance, the National Park Service at one point argued against redesignating Pinnacles as a national park, stating that the unit "does not include the full range of resources usually found in national parks."³⁹ Similarly, NPS suggested the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial should be redesignated as Gateway Arch National Monument rather than Gateway Arch National Park, stating, "We believe that the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is too small and limited in the range of resources the site protects and interprets to be called a national park."⁴⁰

Another concern is that measures to rename units could potentially be paired with other, more controversial proposed changes, such as changes to park boundaries or management policies, or wilderness designation. A redesignation in itself rarely changes the laws, regulations, and policies governing a unit's management.⁴¹ However, Congress may choose to change other provisions in conjunction with a title change. For example, in discussions of the 116^th Congress redesignation of the New River Gorge National River as a national park, some stakeholders reportedly expressed concerns about provisions in the legislation to change the amount of land available for hunting in the unit.⁴² When stakeholders sought a redesignation of Colorado National Monument as a national park, concerns were expressed about whether this would bring new limits on road access for local residents, and whether stricter air quality standards would be applied.⁴³ (Redesignation as a national park would not inherently affect a unit's classification under Clean Air Act requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, absent other steps to pursue a new classification.⁴⁴) An initiative to redesignate Washington's Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument as a national park was opposed by some congressional, state, and local leaders because the change would transfer administrative responsibilities from the Forest Service to NPS, with potential implications for management (including policies on hunting).⁴⁵

Are Multiple Park Titles Necessary?

An issue faced by Congress is whether to continue using the current wide variety of park titles. The National Parks Second Century Commission expressed concern that the range of park titles is confusing to visitors, and recommended reducing the number of titles in order to enhance recognition of the parks.⁴⁶ In May 2010 testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, then-NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis also supported a simplified naming system:

People do not have a problem identifying Yosemite National Park or Yellowstone National Park as parts of the national park system. But many people would be surprised to learn that the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway are also parts of the system. One of the recommendations of the Second Century Commission that we believe has merit is to substantially reduce the more than two dozen different park titles currently used for units of the national park system. We feel strongly that a nomenclature with fewer titles would make the public more aware of the national park system as a whole.⁴⁷

Recommendations to consolidate park titles have been discussed along with other tools to increase park visitation, such as use of the National Park System logo or public awareness campaigns.⁴⁸ In this view, increased recognition of the National Park System "brand" could potentially boost visitation at under-recognized units, bringing consumers and jobs to surrounding communities. Correspondingly, some observers have recommended title consolidation—in particular, using the national park title for more units—as a way to address overcrowding in the current set of national parks, by drawing visitors away from the best-known national parks toward newly branded ones.⁴⁹

On the other hand, it could be argued that a stricter nomenclature might reduce Congress's flexibility to choose park names that reflect a unit's unique features. In certain units, prescribed designations might not adequately convey to the public the full set of attractions to be found.⁵⁰ A few nonstandard names of park units—for example, the White House or the Washington Monument—are iconic American symbols, and efforts to tailor them to a prescribed set of park designations could prove unpopular. Moreover, as discussed above, opponents of efforts to rename individual parks often express concern that unwanted restrictions could accompany title changes. If, in consolidating park titles systematically, Congress also made new determinations about what activities could take place in certain types of units, or altered other management arrangements, these changes could potentially provoke opposition.