How are national recreation areas funded?

July 13, 2020

Congress appropriates funding annually for national recreation areas in the Department of the Interior’s budget for the operations of the National Park Service. The level of funding is based on the scale and scope of the operations. Two relevant partnership-focused examples in the NPS budget for fiscal year 2019 are Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, at $1.1 million, with 16 full-time-equivalent staff, and Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area, which has a budget of $1.7 million and 24 total staff.

To supplement federal funding, management of the CNRA would utilize additional funding tools, including philanthropy, recreation fees  at National Park Service properties, and other revenue sources. Opt-in partners would continue to provide funding for their own sites.

It is the goal of core nonprofit partners to raise private funds to supplement the budget for the CNRA. This funding may come from local and national private sources, such as competitive grants, foundations, and private donors. Achieving national recreation area status typically expands private fundraising opportunities by enhancing the region’s ability to compete for funding from non-local sources.

The proposed Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act would permanently authorize the Chesapeake Gateways program as a part of the CNRA and should include sufficient base funding for management of the Gateways program and the national recreation area.  This would enhance the technical and financial assistance now provided to various state and local agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Do national recreation areas have any regulatory authority?

July 13, 2020

Congress establishes national recreation areas through specific enabling laws. These statutes set out the specific authorities of a particular national recreation area. Congress has wide latitude in defining authorities. National recreation area statutes—even for more traditional areas—often allow activities prohibited at national parks, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.

Designation as a national recreation area would NOT impact or otherwise affect statutory authority concerning navigation or regulation of commercial or recreational fishing activities in the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries.

Designation as a national recreation area would NOT authorize acquisition of private land or interests in land without the consent of the owner.

How would this impact recreation and businesses in the Chesapeake Bay?

July 13, 2020

A Chesapeake National Recreation Area would greatly enhance recreation and businesses based in the Chesapeake Bay. Boating, fishing, hunting, and other recreational uses are part of the Chesapeake’s rich heritage. Commercial fishing is also an important part of the Chesapeake Bay’s economy and heritage, and this would be a celebrated part of the Chesapeake National Recreation Area.

Boating, fishing, hunting, and other recreational uses of the Chesapeake Bay are primarily managed by state governments. The Chesapeake National Recreation Area would not impose any additional regulations on recreational or business activities in the Chesapeake Bay, nor would the National Park Service authority supersede state authority on these matters.

The National Park Service would have authority only on the few parcels under its ownership in the Chesapeake National Recreation Area.

Having an official National Park Service unit would greatly enhance tourism and marketing opportunities, as well as recreation opportunities, in the Chesapeake Bay.

Does this mean that the entire Chesapeake Bay would be a national park?

July 13, 2020

This proposal is for a limited, but official and permanent, National Park Service presence in the Chesapeake Bay. The national recreation area model allows for voluntary “opt-in” partnerships with state parks and other already existing public lands that would represent the full Chesapeake National Recreation Area. These existing parks would benefit from National Park Service branding and marketing related to the Chesapeake National Recreation Area, but would retain their existing management and ownership. The National Park Service would enter into partnership agreements to define the responsibilities of each party. In addition, the National Park Service would acquire, through purchase or through donation, parcels that will enhance public access to the Chesapeake Bay and provide the National Park Service a limited land base through which to operate. These National Park Service properties combined with “opt-in” partner parks (state parks, wildlife areas, etc.) would represent the full Chesapeake National Recreation Area.

How would a national recreation area benefit the region?

July 13, 2020

Economic benefits

National park visitors make a significant contribution to the nation’s economy and, especially, to gateway communities adjacent to these areas. The National Park Service reports that 327.5 million visitors in 2019 spent $21 billion in local gateway regions while visiting national parks. The national economic impact of this spending supported 340,500 jobs, $14.1 billion in labor income, $24.3 billion in value added, and $41.7 billion in economic output.[1]

Twenty national park units in Maryland and Virginia contributed $1.07 billion to the region’s economy in 2019 and national park units in the District of Columbia added an additional $830 million.[2] National parks and monuments are also among the top four priority destinations for international tourism. Over one third of all international visitors visit national parks and monuments.

The principal economic beneficiaries of park visitation include vendors in the food, lodging, outdoor recreation, and travel businesses. Other local and national firms benefit by providing services or supplies required for operating, maintaining, and sustaining recreation sites and opportunities.

A Chesapeake National Recreation Area would create a major new draw for visitors to the region and make substantial contributions to the region’s economy. Consider, for example, the economic impacts of a set of existing national park units relevant to a Chesapeake National Recreation Area model.

2019 National Park Visitor Spending Effects and Federal Appropriations
Park Unit 2019 Economic Output[3] FY20 Operations Appropriation[4]
Gateway National Recreation Area $287.5 million $26.3 million
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area $43 million $8.9 million
Shenandoah National Park $128.8 million $12.6 million
Cape Cod National Seashore $672 million $8 million
Assateague Island National Seashore $116.8 million $5.6 million
Indiana Dunes National Park $130 million $9.5 million
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park $143 million $9.6 million
Boston National Historical Park $273 million $9.9 million

 

Additional NPS resources

National Park Service sites have long been recognized for their focus on interpretation—engaging visitors with the many stories and meanings of a place. In recent years, the National Park Service has increasingly focused on conveying the stories of under-represented peoples and communities. The Chesapeake watershed is a diverse landscape, rich with under-represented stories. A Chesapeake National Recreation Area would bring additional resources and capacity, technical assistance, and financial assistance to interpreting these stories at participating sites.

Additional outside investment

National parks heighten the national profile and public consciousness of any place, including one as recognized as the Chesapeake Bay. They broaden the constituency and interest beyond a local or regional scale, because they are national parks. With this comes an increased rationale for investments and commitments to enhance, restore, and conserve resources and visitor experiences associated with the park. This has played out in and around many national parks where agencies, the private sector, and philanthropists have invested in a wide range of projects. Designation of a Chesapeake National Recreation Area would bring an added focus and rationale for investing in participating sites and communities.

[1] Cullinane Thomas, C., and L. Koontz. 2020. 2019 national park visitor spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2020/2110. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2021 National Park Service, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2021-budget-justification-nps.pdf