Chesapeake Bay Journal

The Chesapeake Bay may be a national treasure, but it has long lacked one recognition associated with other natural wonders such as Yosemite and Yellowstone—the status of a National Park.

That could change under the recommendations of a two-year National Park Service study which concludes that the Chesapeake Bay is ”unquestionably nationally significant,” represents “a major part of the nation’s heritage” and warrants inclusion in the National Park System.

The study recommends that the existing Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network become a permanent part of the National Park system, and that two large visitor and interpretation centers be created to help introduce people to the Chesapeake and its natural and cultural heritage.

In addition, the report leaves open the possibility that a larger park focused on the Bay and its resources could be created in the future, if state and local support emerges for a potential host site.

The study—which was requested by Congress—reflects the best professional judgment of the Park Service, which determined that the Bay met all major criteria for new units of the National Park system, and noted that in their comments, the public “strongly rejected” a do-nothing alternative.

“This study clearly finds that the Chesapeake is a resource of national, and even international, significance, and had a tremendous influence on much of the region’s and the nation’s history, along with its importance as an ecological resource,” said Jonathan Doherty of the Park Service, who was in charge of the study.

“Many of the people who commented during the study clearly recognized that and reacted by saying this is a story that needs to be told and this is a resource that needs to be conserved,” he added. “That is a clear message that comes across.”

Any action to create a new unit of the National Park system would require action by Congress. The Interior Department is expected to forward the final Special Resource Study to Congress, with its recommendation, early this fall.

Without action, the Park Service role in coordinating the Gateways Network would end in 2008.

A recommendation for any new or expanded Park Service role would be significant as it comes at a time when the agency has been the subject of tight budgets and has a huge maintenance backlog at existing parks. As a result, the Bush administration has been reluctant to endorse additions to the National Park system.

The report said that an expanded Park Service role in the Bay would help to improve public appreciation of the Bay and stimulate involvement in its restoration.

The report noted that with its mosaic of significant historic, natural and cultural resources, along with “outstanding” recreational opportunities, it was difficult to develop an alternative that both told the Chesapeake Bay story, and was feasible.

It concluded, that making the Gateways Network permanent—and expanding its scope—was a “remarkably efficient and effective approach to advancing public understanding and enjoyment of Chesapeake resources and stimulating resource conservation.”

The Gateways Network, launched by the Park Service in 2000, is a system of about 140 natural, cultural and historical sites. The sites include state parks, private museums, historic sites, natural areas and national wildlife refuges, each of which tell part of a broader Chesapeake story. In addition, the network includes more than 20 water trails, extending more than 1,100 miles.

Taken as a whole, the network is intended to provide visitors with a broad understanding of the Bay and how it has influenced human activities and, in turn, been affected by humans.

The report calls for taking the existing Gateways Network to a “new level” by ensuring a long-term Park Service commitment and developing two interpretive and education centers, one in the northern, and one in the southern part of the Bay.

The study envisions developing the centers through partnerships with other organizations or existing institutions, either in existing buildings or expanded structures. They would be located in areas that draw large numbers of people, have a direct view of the Bay waters, and be near natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources.

“In effect, the two centers would be high visitation starting points through which people would get a first impression of the Bay and from which they would begin a longer exploration at other sites,” the report said.

The new interpretive centers would provide a range of interpretive programming, activities and facilities focusing on overarching and principal Bay themes. They would serve as a starting point from which people could map out visits to scores of individual Gateway sites.

As part of an enhanced Gateways Network, the Park Service would also encourage efforts by individual sites to develop tours and programs that address the farm, forest and maritime landscapes around them and how they relate to the Bay, as well as to the focus of particular sites.

Right now, the Gateways Network has no mechanism to incorporate landscapes into the Bay “story.” In addition, the Park Service would provide technical and financial assistance to local organizations to support conservation efforts related to those landscapes.

The Park Service would continue to produce comprehensive maps and guides to the network and maintain the network’s web site. It would also continue to provide technical help and grants to designated gateways, although those individual sites would continue to be operated by various local, state and federal agencies and nongovenmental organizations.

The Park Service would continue to set standards for network participation in conjunction with an advisory panel that includes representatives from the Bay Program, state and federal agencies, designated Gateways and private organizations.

Although making the Gateways Network a permanent part of the National Park System requires the lowest level of commitment by the Park Service of any action alternative examined by the study, the designation would still “recognize the national significance of the Chesapeake Bay and the special role of the National Park Service in facilitating the telling of the Bay story through the Gateways Network.”

The study noted noted that 92 percent of the more than 3,000 public comments supported some kind of park. The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, echoing a view expressed by many, called the status quo “unacceptable.”

While making the Gateways Network permanent was widely supported, many also supported a larger Park Service presence. The National Parks and Conservation Association, for instance, called maintaining the Gateways Network the “minimal baseline” for Park Service involvement in the Bay.

But of the three other action alternatives, no single option emerged as a clear favorite. Other alternatives considered included:

o A Chesapeake Bay Estuary National Park that would encompass an area, primarily of water, representative of core aspects of the Bay’s estuarine environment, shorelines and islands.

o A Chesapeake Bay National Reserve that would encompass an area representative of the Bay region’s maritime and rural, agricultural heritage. Areas would remain privately owned, but the Park Service would help conserve the reserve’s landscape, protect its resources and interpret the Bay’s heritage within the reserve.

o A National Ecological and Cultural Preserve that would work to conserve and restore a tributary ecosystem and use it as a tool to teach the public about how human actions can influence the health of the Chesapeake from its headwaters to the Bay.

The report said those concepts all met Park Service criteria and, “At some time in the future, a unit of the National Park System encompassing either one or several of these alternative concepts could make a significant contribution to protection and public enjoyment of the Chesapeake Bay.”

But the report said that no specific, broadly supported proposal for where one or more of the park concepts could be located came forward during the study. No further consideration of those options will take place unless a detailed proposal comes forward for a specific site which has both state and local government support, the report said.

In public comments, many had also called for a specific Chesapeake Bay National Water Trail, which would link gateway sites around the Bay, to be developed in tandem with any proposal.

The Park Service, in its report, did not support such a designation, saying the Gateways Network already supports a series of water trails, and the “creation of a unit for this purpose alone would be redundant with ongoing efforts unless it adds new elements not possible through existing authorities.”

It said the enhanced gateways effort will provide ample opportunities for an integrated and nationally recognized Chesapeake Bay water trail system.