What does it mean to be a new national park? Ocmulgee Mounds in Georgia may soon find out
**Ocmulgee Mounds: A Step Closer to National Park Status**
Ocmulgee Mounds, located in central Georgia, is a site rich in Indigenous history spanning over 12,000 years. Recently, it has gained attention as it moves toward potential redesignation as a national park, a prestigious title within the National Park Service (NPS) system. This 3,000-acre site is significant for its connection to the Mississippian culture, which constructed the impressive earth mounds over 3,000 years ago, and serves as an ancestral homeland for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The site features seven monumental mounds, the largest reaching 55 feet in height and covering approximately two acres, along with a museum housing millions of artifacts, including pottery and tools that tell the story of the region’s Indigenous peoples.
While the transition from a national historical park to a national park may not change the site’s legal protections or funding—especially in light of recent cuts to the NPS budget—it carries substantial implications for community engagement and tourism. The redesignation could enhance Ocmulgee’s visibility and appeal, drawing more visitors and potentially boosting local economies. This is particularly relevant in the context of past redesignations, such as the transformation of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial to Gateway Arch National Park, which was driven more by the desire to attract tourism than by conservation needs. The Ocmulgee redesignation is supported across party lines and has not met significant opposition from local communities, suggesting a collective recognition of the site’s cultural importance and the potential benefits of increased tourism.
The proposed redesignation includes not just the park status but also the addition of land designated as a national preserve, which allows for collaborative management with local Indigenous groups and permits traditional hunting practices. This dual approach underscores the importance of honoring the cultural ties of Indigenous peoples to the land while also promoting its historical significance. As Ocmulgee Mounds moves closer to national park status, it stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of Indigenous cultures in America and the ongoing dialogue about how best to protect and celebrate these vital historical sites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbysB4KRhsE
Earth Lodge at Ocmulgee Mounds shows an example of earthworks that are over 1,000 years old.
Skhamse1 via Wikimedia Commons
,
CC BY-SA
Ocmulgee Mounds, a site in central Georgia with
12,000 years of Indigenous history
, may be on the verge of
becoming the newest U.S. national park
. This is the flagship designation of the National Park Service system, which includes many types of properties in addition to formally designated national parks.
Although this
redesignation
may not include much change for the site itself, it could mean quite a lot to visitors, supporters and locals alike.
The
3,000-acre park
protects land and features important to the
Mississippian culture
, which built the mounds there starting roughly 3,000 years ago, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, for which the site is an ancestral homeland.
The site includes
seven enormous ceremonial and burial mounds made of earth
, the largest of which is 55 feet (15 meters) tall and covers about 2 acres, as well as a museum containing
millions of cultural artifacts
, including pottery, stone tools, jewelry and bells.
The National Park Service has
managed the site since the 1930s
, first as a
national monument
and
since 2019
, as a
national historical park
. There are no legal or practical differences in protection between these redesignations, though the branding and marketing of the site may change.
As a
geographer
who studies parks and the naming of places, I have seen that when a National Park Service unit is redesignated as a national park, as a pending
bill in Congress currently proposes
for Ocmulgee Mounds, it does not typically change the funding available to run the site. That’s especially true at a time when
National Park Service funding and personnel are being cut
. However, a park redesignation does serve political purposes and affects how visitors perceive that park.
How parks are designated
The National Park Service
manages 433 units
with
19 different designations
, such as “national battlefields,” “national lakeshores” and “national scenic trails.” Only
63 of these units
carry the formal title or designation of “national park.”
All but one of these categories can be bestowed only by Congress. National monuments, however, can be created by the president directly, under the provisions of the
Antiquities Act of 1906
.
For example, the Antiquities Act allowed President Barack Obama to designate 1.3 million acres in Utah as
Bears Ears National Monument
in a December 2016 proclamation. That same act allowed President Donald Trump to
shrink the protected area to 200,000 acres
in 2017 – and President Joe Biden to
re-expand it to 1.3 million acres
in 2021.
Other examples of redesignation
In rare cases, a community, group or other organization proposes adding an area that is not currently managed by the National Park Service to the system, but this
takes a lot of time
and is different from the more common process of changing the formal designation of a property already within the system.
For instance, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore became
Indiana Dunes National Park
in 2019. That same year, White Sands National Monument in New Mexico became
White Sands National Park
. And in 2020, New River Gorge National River in West Virginia became
New River Gorge National Park and Preserve
.
The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is the defining attraction of the smallest official national park in the U.S.
Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images
Why redesignations make a difference
My analysis of the
contentious redesignation
of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis to
Gateway Arch National Park
in 2018 found that it was not done to offer additional protection to this site of national importance. Rather, the move was meant to take advantage of the
public significance of the “national park” label
and thereby attract more tourists and tourism revenue to the local economy.
The effort to make it a national park was part of a
local campaign to renovate the underground visitor center
, revitalize the park grounds and increase tourism. But the
law that formalized the change
included no additional funding, resources or protections for the Gateway Arch.
Changing the designation contradicted the park service’s own declaration that the term “national park” should be used for an area that “
contains a variety of resources
and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources.”
During congressional hearings, the deputy director of the National Park Service, Robert Vogel, recommended the site not be labeled a national park but rather a national monument, because the site “
is too small and limited
in the range of resources the site protects and interprets to be called a national park.”
Gateway Arch National Park is now the smallest-area park in the U.S., at less than 200 acres, and is home to a
large steel arch, an open lawn area, a museum and a single historic building
– a courthouse where
one of the Dred Scott trials
was heard, along with other civil rights cases. It does not have the wildlife viewing, spectacular geologic features, outdoor recreation opportunities and sense of wilderness that
the public has come to expect from national parks
.
The park’s website admits “
it is unusual for a national park to have no natural plant life
” and describes the park as adjacent to the “
concrete jungle of downtown St. Louis
.”
What actually would change for Ocmulgee Mounds?
The redesignation effort for Ocmulgee Mounds has two primary aspects. First, it would declare the area a national park.
Second, it would add additional land to this protected area, designating that portion as a national preserve. The distinction matters: Public hunting, including traditional Indigenous hunting, is not allowed in national parks, but it is allowed in national preserves. And while national parks are managed by the National Park Service under the Department of Interior, national preserves can be
managed in collaborative partnership
with other groups, including local Indigenous people with cultural ties to the land.
The changes for Ocmulgee Mounds are supported by members of
both political parties in both houses of Congress
. And the redesignation does not appear to have triggered
opposition from local communities
, who in other places have objected for several reasons, including fear of increased tourism and desire to
preserve any long-standing uses of the land
that would be banned if it were to become a national park.
There are redesignation efforts underway seeking to make national parks in other locations as well, including the
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
Chiricahua National Monument
in Arizona,
Buffalo National River
in Arkansas, and
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
in Wisconsin.
The only real changes in these places, though, would be in marketing – the signs,
brochures
and merchandise sold in gift shops. But these changes would have an important effect: The tagline of “new national park”
markets well
and is believed to
help attract more visitors
to the site. But it won’t actually protect these landscapes any better than they already are under the stewardship of the National Park Service.
Seth T. Kannarr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
