C ongress regularly considers legislative proposals to designate lands using a variety of titles, such as national park, national wildlife refuge, national monument, national conservation area, national recreation area, and many others. Additionally, Congress provides oversight of land designations made by executive branch entities. These congressional and executive land designations may bring few management changes to a site or may involve significant management changes, based on individual designating laws and/or general authorities governing a land system. Often, the designations are applied to federally owned lands (including lands already under federal administration and those that the designating law may authorize for federal acquisition), but some federal designations are conferred on lands that remain nonfederally owned and managed. The designations may authorize federal funding for an area, but they do not always do so. This report addresses questions about which federal title or designation might be appropriate for particular areas. What do the different land titles signify, and how does each type of unit differ? Who has authority to confer each designation? Which agency or nonfederal entity is responsible for managing the land under each designation, and which statutes would govern management decisions? What types of uses would be allowed on the land under each designation, and what uses would be prohibited? The report compares a variety of federal land designations with respect to these factors. It is beyond the scope of this report to assess the benefits or drawbacks of conferring federal designations on lands, although such questions often arise when federal designations are contemplated. For any given area, some stakeholders might favor a federal designation (for example, to bring federal funding to an area, to promote visitation, or to bring new resource protections) and others might oppose one (for example, to forestall the federal government's becoming a stakeholder in regional land use decisions or to preserve federal funds that might be spent on area management for allocation to other priorities). Additional CRS products, cited at the end of this report, explore such questions in greater detail for specific land designations. This report begins by briefly discussing some general factors that Congress may consider when determining which, if any, federal land designations might be suitable for a given area. It then compares selected designations across multiple attributes ( Table 1 ). A primary question for stakeholders often is which federal agency would manage the land under a given designation. Table 1 indicates the federal agency or agencies that have responsibilities for area management under selected designations. It also lists some designations in which lands typically remain in nonfederal management (while receiving technical and/or financial assistance from a federal agency). Four agencies manage almost all federal land in the United States: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. These agencies administer their lands under different statutorily defined missions. Both BLM and FS manage most of their lands for sustained yields of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, timber, mineral production, watershed, wildlife and fish habitat, and conservation. FWS, by contrast, has a dominant-use mission for most of its lands—to conserve plants and animals for the benefit of present and future generations—although other priority uses are provided for if compatible. NPS administers its lands with the dual purpose of preserving valued resources and providing for their enjoyment by the public. Within these broad missions, each agency manages sites with a variety of titles, management provisions, and allowed uses. In some cases, the management framework for an individual site may differ from the overall framework for the agency, depending on the statutory authorities pertaining to the specific site. An area's physical characteristics may suggest certain types of designations over others. For example, specific natural features may suit themselves to some designations, such as national seashore or wild and scenic river. Some features may suggest management by a particular agency—for example, FS in the case of a forest—although in practice Congress has assigned a range of sites to each agency (e.g., agencies other than FS manage many forested areas). If the site consists primarily of built structures with historical, cultural, or commemorative significance, designations such as national historic site or national memorial might be considered. Each agency manages some historic and cultural assets, but many sites with primarily historical and cultural features either are managed by NPS or are federally designated but nonfederally owned and managed. A closely related question concerns the values for which designation is sought. Stakeholders may seek to protect a site's scenic qualities, its flora and fauna, its historical and cultural significance, its recreational opportunities, or combinations of these or other values. Some land designations may indicate the importance Congress places on a particular value—for instance, public recreation in the case of a national recreation area, or history in the case of a national historic site. Additionally, certain values (such as wildlife conservation) may be particularly aligned with the mission of a certain agency (such as FWS). Although the agency missions provide a broad guide, each agency also manages sites whose congressionally established values differ from the overall mission. For example, in national monuments or wilderness areas on BLM or FS lands, certain uses typically associated with these agencies' multiple-use, sustained-yield missions often are restricted or prohibited. Some designations pertain to statutorily defined land systems, whose laws may specify requirements for areas to qualify for the system designation. For example, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a water body designated as a wild river is to be free from any impoundments (e.g., dams), among other attributes. Congress could choose to ignore or modify system requirements when designating a new site in the system, but the criteria typically have been given weight when Members contemplate applying a designation. Other designations are not associated with statutorily defined land systems. For example, Congress has established 49 individual national heritage areas (primarily on nonfederal lands) but has not enacted a law defining a system of heritage areas with parameters for area inclusion. Where no law defines qualifying criteria for a particular designation, Congress has often, but not always, followed past precedents when conferring the same designation on a new site. Most federal land designations are made by an act of Congress, but in some cases Congress has authorized executive branch officials, such as the President and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, to confer specific land designations. For example, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the President may proclaim national monuments on federally owned land. Individual agencies may establish some protective designations on lands they manage (such as BLM's Areas of Critical Environmental Concern), and the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may make certain designations on nonfederal lands . Members sometimes choose to work with executive entities to pursue a federal designation for a site rather than introducing legislation to designate the site. Among other reasons, an executive designation may be seen as a faster route to achieve the designation than moving a bill through the legislative process. (Typical timelines for executive designations vary widely, however, and can extend to several years or more.) Alternatively, limitations on executive authorities, such as a lack of federal funding associated with the designation, might make executive designations less attractive in some cases. Some executive designations—especially the President's authority to proclaim national monuments under the Antiquities Act—have been controversial at times, because the designations may restrict previously available uses of public land. Table 1 discusses some of the uses typically permitted or prohibited in different types of designated areas, based on authorities pertaining to the administering agency and/or land system. In general, National Park System lands are among those most strictly protected from uses that may consume or damage resources (sometimes called consumptive uses ), given NPS's mandate to preserve park resources "unimpaired" while providing for their enjoyment by the public. On FWS lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife-related activities such as hunting, fishing, and bird-watching are considered priority uses; other uses (motorized recreation, timber cutting, grazing, mineral development) may be allowed to the extent that they are compatible with the mission of the system and the purposes of a specific unit. BLM and FS lands, as discussed, generally allow consumptive uses such as timber production, grazing, and mineral development. Also, some cross-cutting land systems affect certain lands across all four land management agencies. Of these, the Wilderness Act provides the highest level of protection. On designated wilderness lands, commercial activities, motorized uses, roads, structures, and facilities generally are prohibited, and resources are to be preserved "untrammeled" by human presence. Regardless of such general authorities, Congress may decide to allow, limit, or prohibit particular uses in an individual area through site-specific laws. Within all four agencies' lands are units with varying restrictions or allowances of land uses. For example, although hunting typically is prohibited in the National Park System, some individual units, such as many national preserves, allow hunting as authorized or mandated by site-specific laws. Mineral development is allowed on most BLM lands, but new development is prohibited by law or executive action in some BLM areas, such as many national monuments. In contrast to federal lands, Congress has limited authority to control uses of nonfederal land. Accordingly, congressional designations for nonfederal lands typically do not prohibit the nonfederal landowner from engaging in particular land uses, even where the use might adversely affect the values for which the area was designated. However, activities incompatible with the values of a designation—such as modernizing a designated national historic landmark—may lead to a withdrawal of the federal designation; also, federal funds or permits to carry out projects that compromise these values may be restricted. When a federal designation is contemplated for land not already in federal management, Members may consider whether or not the federal government should acquire the land. Many designations involve federal land acquisition, but as shown in Table 1 , under certain designations nonfederal entities typically continue to own and manage the land. Also, for any specific site, Congress may make individual provisions regarding federal land acquisition. Members may weigh, among other issues, the cost and effort to the federal government of acquiring and managing the land; the resources available to state, local, or private owners to maintain and protect the land; potential benefits of federal management (such as ongoing federal funding or a potentially higher public profile for the land if managed as part of a federal system); potential drawbacks of federal management (such as a loss of local control over management decisions or a reduction to the state and local tax base); and stakeholder positions on the size of the federal estate generally. Table 1 , below, compares selected designations used by Congress and the executive branch for federal lands and other areas. The table begins with designations that are common to multiple agencies and then lists designations exclusively or primarily related to an individual agency. The four agencies appear in order of the overall amount of land each agency manages (BLM, then FS, FWS, and NPS). The table provides information on the entity that confers each designation (e.g., Congress, the President, the Interior or Agriculture Secretary); statutory authorities for the designation; the agency or agencies that administer each type of area (also noting designations for which the area typically remains in nonfederal management); selected characteristics of the areas; and examples of each type of area. Designations for nonfederally owned and managed sites are listed according to the agency with administrative responsibility for the designation (e.g., responsibility for evaluating site qualifications and providing technical and/or financial assistance to designated sites). The table reflects a selection of titles that have been used repeatedly for multiple areas. It is not comprehensive. For example, Congress has designated many sites with unique titles (such as "national park for the performing arts" or "national tallgrass prairie") that are not reflected in the table. CRS Report R41658, Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice , by Jacob R. Straus. CRS Report R41285, Congressionally Designated Special Management Areas in the National Forest System , by Katie Hoover. CRS In Focus IF10585, The Federal Land Management Agencies , by Katie Hoover. CRS Report R43429, Federal Lands and Related Resources: Overview and Selected Issues for the 115th Congress , coordinated by Katie Hoover. CRS Report RL33462, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues , by Laura B. Comay and Carol Hardy Vincent. CRS Report R41330, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act , by Carol Hardy Vincent. CRS Report R41816, National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify? , by Laura B. Comay. CRS Report R43868, The National Trails System: A Brief Overview , by Sandra L. Johnson and Laura B. Comay. CRS Report R42614, The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A Brief Overview , by Sandra L. Johnson and Laura B. Comay. CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics , by Katie Hoover.

Summary: This report provides a brief guide to selected titles—such as national park, national wildlife refuge, national monument, national conservation area, national recreation area, and others—that Congress and the executive branch have used to designate certain U.S. lands. These designations primarily apply to federal lands administered by land management agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. The report also discusses certain designations that Congress and executive branch entities have bestowed on nonfederally managed lands to recognize their national significance. It addresses questions about what the different land titles signify, which entity confers each designation, who manages the land under each designation, which statutes govern management decisions, and what types of uses may be allowed or prohibited on the land. Depending on the authorities governing each land designation, congressional and executive designations may bring few management changes to a site or may involve significant management changes. The designations may authorize new federal funding for an area, but they do not always do so. The report begins by briefly discussing some general factors that Congress may consider when contemplating which, if any, federal designation might be suitable for a given area. It then compares selected designations across multiple attributes.