NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES for the Recreation Areas of the National Park System

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Washington, D. C. 20240

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON GEOGRAPHIC NAME PROPOSALS

Supplementing United States Board on Geographic Names Guidelines of March 5, 1946

These guidelines are intended to supplement the United States Board on Geographic Names guidelines of March 5, 1946. The Board, cojointly with the Secretary of the Interior, Formulates Federal Government principles, policies, and procedures related to both domestic and foreign geographic names and determines the choice, spelling and application of these names for official use.

The Service guidelines consist essentially of two sets of criteria and some general principles designed to guide the National Park Service Committee on Geographic Names in formulating its recommendations to the United States Board on Geographic Names on proposals to name geographic features in the areas administered by the Service for individuals, including its former or deceased employees. The two sets of criteria are subdivided for convenience into Classifications A and B. The numbered criteria under Classification A closely relate to those correspondingly numbered under Classification B, differing principally in the higher degree of importance of those in Classification A.

CLASSIFICATION A

A proposal will, as a general rule, be recommended by the Service Committee for adoption by the Board on Geographic Names if the individual qualifies under one or more of the following criteria:

1. His public service, achievements, or fame are of transcendent national importance and are recognized as enduring in character.

2. He contributed in substantial degree to the knowledge of the feature itself, or the general area in which it is located, through discovery, exploration, survey, or scientific investigation.

3. His personal efforts resulted in the conservation of the feature or the area in which it is situated, or both, or contributed to their proper long range preservation, or development for appropriate public enjoyment and use.

4. He died in the line of duty while performing an act of heroism result in the granting of a posthumous Valor Award or for which the Valor Award in all probability would have been granted had provision for it existed at the time the act of heroism was performed.

5. He was an early occupant or owner of recognized historical note himself, particularly in relation to the feature proposed to be named for him.

6. His name is already firmly established by local usage and tradition with respect to the feature.

CLASSIFICATION B

If the individual does not qualify under at least one of the criteria under Classification A, his name may receive further consideration if it meets two or more of the following requirements under classification B:

1. His public service, achievements, or fame are recognized and will likely endure in the locality or region in which the feature proposed to be named for him is located.

2. He donated land, structures, or historical or scientific objects or collections of recognized value to the administration, management, or interpretation of the area in which the feature proposed to bear his name is located.

3. He, as a former or deceased employee of the service, made lasting contributions for transcending the normal requirements of his position.

4. He died upon, or in proximity to, the feature, or met death in line of duty, including service in the armed forces, through no negligence of his own, and was formerly associated with the feature, or its immediate vicinity.

5. He was an early occupant or owner of, or was associated in some other manner such as through work or residence with, the feature or the immediate area for a considerable period of time.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Several compelling reasons exist as to why proposals to name features in areas administered by the Service for its former or deceased employees should be critically evaluated. The simple fact that the unnamed geographic features yet available are becoming progressively more scarce is one good reason for this. Another is that a highly sensitive matter of propriety is involved in taking actions which tend to preempt the remaining unnamed features in areas the Service administers for its former or deceased employees at the exclusion of other individuals.

It is also important to recognize that it is not an objective of the program on geographic names proposals to name features in the areas administered by the Service for every individual whose qualifications meet the criteria. Moreover, an individual may already be adequately memorialized in other ways and in other locations. For example, the great naturalist, John Muir, has probably been sufficiently memorialized, though not every area the Service administers with which John Muir was significantly associated contains a feature named for him.

Some additional general principles which will prove helpful to the committee in its deliberations appear in the numbered sections below:

1. Suggested Five-year Waiting Period. The Board on Geographic Names adheres to the following quoted policy statement in connection with proposals to name geographic features for individuals:

An existing name of a geographic feature should not be replaced unless it is a duplicate or is inappropriate. Descriptive names or names associated with nearby features are preferred in naming unnamed natural features. These features may be named for individuals when the association between the area or feature and the individual is of transcending importance. The individual should not be so honored during his lifetime, or, except in extremely unusual situations, within the five-year period after the death of the individual.

Observance of a five-year waiting period after the death of an individual before considering proposals to name geographic features for him resolves some of the inherent difficulties. In any event, the waiting period should extend beyond the emotion-charged interval which usually follows an untimely death.

A minimum of five years generally allows sufficient time for a sober evaluation of the contribution the individual has made and of the other aspects relating to his overall worthiness for memorialization.

2. Use of Unnamed Category. Opportunities exist in some areas to promote an atmosphere of complete naturalness by retaining single natural features, or clusters of such features, in a nameless category. As an illustration, it has been found that the "Unnamed Wilderness Peaks" of the Alaskan Range rival Mount McKinley in visitor interest. The fact that the peaks are unnamed, and that they are so designated, contributes much to the feeling and atmosphere of wilderness associated with them.

3. Latitude in Naming Manmade Features. The jurisdiction of the Board on Geographic Names does not cover proposals for the naming of manmade features. Therefore, considerable latitude exists in the choice of names for features such as buildings, bridges, roads, and trails except for those officially named in legislation pertaining to them. The dedication of suitable memorial markers or plaques erected for features in this category can be made the occasion for appropriate ceremonies. Whether it be a proposal to name a manmade or a natural feature, a reasonable degree of consistency should prevail between the significance or magnitude of the feature on the one hand and the qualifications of the person for whom it would be named on the other.

The Statement of Policy for Applying Names of Persons to Natural Features, issued on March 5, 1946, is used by the United States Board on Geographic Names in considering proposals.

Approved:
12-12-66

GEORGE B. HARTZOG, JR.,
Director