Recreation and Protected Land

Resources in the United States

A Technical Document Supporting

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz,

and Stanley J. Zarnoch
Product Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for 

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

The Authors:

H. Ken Cordell, Pioneering Research Scientist;

Carter J. Betz, Outdoor Recreation Planner;

and Stanley J. Zarnoch, Mathematical 

Statistician, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Asheville, NC 28804.

January 2013

Southern Research Station

200 W. T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov
Recreation and Protected Land Resources 

in the United States: A Technical 

Document Supporting the Forest Service 

2010 RPA Assessment

H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz, and Stanley J. Zarnoch

Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

chapter 2 An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

invited paper Private Lands in the United States—Their Ownership and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Eric M. White, Ralph J. Alig, and Anita T. Morzillo

invited paper Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Matt C. Reeves

chapter 3 Protecting Rural Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

invited paper Development Pressures on the Private Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Susan Stein, Ronald E. McRoberts, Lisa G. Mahal, and Sara Comas

invited paper Threatened Wilderness Areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Allison Ginn Barnes, Gary T. Green, Nathan P. Nibbelink, and H. Ken Cordell

invited paper State and Local Government Financing for Land Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Andrew du Moulin and Mary Bruce Alford

invited paper The National Wilderness Preservation System and Its Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Chad P. Dawson and John C. Hendee

invited paper Values of the Urban Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Particia Winter

chapter 4 Recreation Through the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

invited paper Private Partnerships on Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Margaret Bailey

invited paper Concession Operations on Bureau of Land Management Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Phil Walker

chapter 5 Public Outdoor Recreation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

invited paper Parks for City People: Greenspace in the Metropolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Peter Harnik, Ben Welle, and Coleen Gentles

chapter 6 Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

chapter 7 Projections of Future Recreation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

chapter 8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Literature Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

iii

Figure 1.1—Regions and sub-regions for the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment of Forest and Rangeland Resources. . . .3

Figure 1.2—National population projections for the three scenarios used for the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment . . . .4

Figure 2.1—The geospatial pattern of land cover across the surface area of the United States, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2.2—Federal lands and Indian reservations in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2.3—Land ownership in the contiguous United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.4—Undeveloped rural land use on non-Federal lands by U.S. region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2.5—Area of non-Federal rural land in crop and pasture, range, and forest land uses, 1982–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2.6—Area of non-Federal rural land in the contiguous United States converted to developed uses, 

1982–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 2.7—Percentage increase in developed land area projected for States and regions, 2000–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 2.8—Estimated distribution of rangelands occurring in the conterminous United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 2.9—Estimated rangeland area managed by Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.10—Estimated area of human modified rangeland expressed as a percent of historic rangeland area for 

the conterminous United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 2.11—Percent of forest land in the United States by ownership, 2007 (1000s of acres, percentages sum to 100s) . . . . . 29

Figure 2.12—Public and private forest land in the United States and percent of private forest that is industrial . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.13—Counties of the United States by level of population density, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.1—Map based on PAD-US data showing location of public and private protected land and water in the 

United States by GAP level of protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 3.2—Ownership of forest lands in the United States, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3.3—Watersheds by percentage of private forest projected to experience increased housing density . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3.4—Watersheds by potential for basal area loss due to insect pests and diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3.5—Watersheds by susceptibility and vulnerability of private forests to wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3.6—Trend in land conservation spending using State government funding by year, 1998–2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3.7—Total acres protected using State government funding in the United States, 1998–2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3.8—Trend in total State funds spent by region and year, 1998–2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3.9—Conservation funding level (millions of dollars) by State for the period 1998–2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

List of Figures

v
Figure 3.10—Acres of land protected through State financing of conservation easements or fee simple purchase, 1998–2005 . . . 52

Figure 3.11—Successful ballot measures for land conservation and conservation funds approved by level of government, 

1990–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3.12—Trends in local government spending by level of government from 1990–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 3.13—State enrollment status, Legacy areas, and completed tracts in the USDA Forest Service Forest 

Legacy Program, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 3.14—Long-term trend in acreage enrolled and program costs, 1986–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.15—National Park System coverage of ecosystem types in the contiguous United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 3.16—National Wildlife Refuge System coverage of ecosystem types in the continental United States . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 3.17—National Wilderness Preservation System coverage of ecosystem types in the continental United States . . . . . . 76

Figure 4.1—Federal lands (top frame) and State parks (bottom frame) superimposed on conterminous U.S. counties, 

showing different levels of population density (person per square mile) in 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 4.2—Reasons for individual or family ownership of private forest. Note: Green bars represent the percent 

of total family forest area owned by respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 4.3—Percentage of recreation and of all farms by primary agricultural production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 4.4—Percent of vacant housing units in counties in the United States that are seasonal or recreational, 2000 . . . . . . . 85

Figure 4.5—National Park System commercial services program distribution of revenue by business category . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 5.1—Number of local government units that provide parks and recreation services by type of government 

and region, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 5.2—Number of local government parks and recreation departments per million people by region, 1997 and 2007 . . . 102

Figure 5.3—Distribution of three types of local government recreation and park agencies by county in the conterminous 

United States, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 5.4—Number of local government parks and recreation full-time equivalent employees per 10,000 people by region, 

1997 and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 5.5—Percent of State park system units and acres in the United States by type of system area, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 5.6—Acres in State park systems by type of area and region, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 5.7—State park system units in the contiguous United States (2009) and county population density 

(persons per square mile), 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 5.8—State park system acres by county in the contiguous United States, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

List of Figures

vi
Figure 5.9—State park system units overlaid on Bailey ecosystem divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Figure 5.10—Percent of State park system areas with selected recreation facilities and total number of facilities 

by region, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 5.11—Percent change in number of State park system recreation facilities per 1 million people, 2002–2009 . . . . . . . 121

Figure 5.12—Percent of selected State forestry agency characteristics by region, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 5.13—Percent of forest that is State-owned and in State forestry agencies, and percent of State forestry budgets

for recreation by region, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 5.14—Percent of Federal land by agency, including Alaska, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 5.15—Percent of Federal land in the three water-resource agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority), by region, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 5.16—Percent decrease in per capita acres of Federal land, including Alaska, 1995 and 2002–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 5.17—Acres of land in the National Wilderness Preservation System, by region (Alaska separate) and agency, 2009 . . 129

Figure 5.18—Highways in the National Scenic Byways Program by designation, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Figure 5.19—Number of Federal recreation facilities by activity availability (or type of facility) and region, 2009. . . . . . . . 133

Figure 6.1— Percent of total land area that is Federal and State park land, 2008, within home county, 

within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 6.2—Acres of Federal and State park land per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 6.3—Percent of total surface area that is water, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Figure 6.4—Acres of total water area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 6.5—Percent of total land area that is non-Federal forest, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Figure 6.6—Acres of total non-Federal forest land area per capita, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

Figure 6.7—Percent of total land area that is open range and pasture, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

Figure 6.8—Acres of total open range and pasture area per capita, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

List of Figures

vii
Figure 6.9—Percent of total land area that is in coastal counties, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Figure 6.10—Acres of total coastal county area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151

Figure 6.11—Percent of total land area that is mountainous, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Figure 6.12—Acres of total mountainous area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure 6.13—Percent of total land area that is in snow counties (>28.5 mean days with 1+ inches of snow depth), 2008, 

within the home (snow) county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . 156

Figure 6.14—Acres of total snow county area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 miles distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 6.15—Percent of total land area that is specially designated Federal land, 2008, within the home county, 

within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Figure 6.16—Acres of specially designated Federal land per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 6.17—Number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile 

distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Figure 7.1—Acres of Federal and State park land per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . 165

Figure 7.2—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of Federal and State park land projected for 2060, 

within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Figure 7.3—Acres of total water area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figure 7.4—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of total water area projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . 169

Figure 7.5—Acres of total non-Federal forest land area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . .171

Figure 7.6—Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-Federal forest projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . .172

Figure 7.7—Acres of open range and pasture area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . .174

Figure 7.8—Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-Federal open range and pasture projected for 2060, 

within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

Figure 7.9—Acres of coastal county area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure 7.10—Proportion of 2008 per capita coastal county acres projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . 178

Figure 7.11—Acres of mountains per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

List of Figures

viii
Figure 7.12—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of mountains projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . 181

Figure 7.13—Acres of snow county area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 7.14—Proportion of 2008 per capita snow county acres projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . 184

Figure 7.15—Acres of specially designated Federal land per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . 186

Figure 7.16—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of specially designated Federal land projected for 2060, 

within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Figure 7.17—Number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . 189

Figure 7.18—Proportion of 2008 number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people projected for 2060, 

within the 75-mile distance zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

List of Figures

ix
Abstract

This report provides an overview of the public and private land and water resources 

of the United States. Described is use of natural and developed land as recreation 

resources with an emphasis on nature-based recreation. Also described is land 

protection through conservation organizations and public funding programs, 

with an emphasis on protecting private land through funding for purchase or 

for conservation easements. Outdoor recreation resources include land, water, 

snow and ice, scenery, developed sites, facilities, and user services. Protected 

land resources range from farm lands to remote wilderness, but mostly are the 

undeveloped lands in the United States with various forms of protection status.

The total U.S. land area is 2.43 billion acres, which contains 169 million acres of 

water, and consists of a diversity of land use and cover types. The United States 

loses about 2 million acres of forest, farm, and open space each year. In attempting 

to conserve such lands, land trusts and governments have instituted programs to 

obtain easements or purchase the land outright. The Federal Government holds in 

trust about 640 million acres of land (30 percent of the country’s total land area). 

This includes national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other 

Federal agency ownerships. These lands, along with State and local government 

lands are important recreation resources serving the public interest. Private lands 

and recreation businesses are also important recreation resources. Projections 

to 2060 of per capita area of public and private land and water show a steady 

downward trend across all regions of the United States.

Keywords: Land conservation, private land, public land, recreation resources, 

trends and forecasts.

x
Introduction

This assessment report is part of a series of national reports 

developed for the 2010 Renewable Resources Planning 

Act (RPA) National Assessment of Forest and Rangelands, 

hereafter referred to as the 2010 RPA Assessment. This 

report presents results of an analysis of outdoor recreation 

and protected land resources, both public and private, in the 

United States. 

As required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974, RPA assessments are 

completed every 10 years. Each RPA assessment reviews 

the status, current trends, and forecasts future trends of 

U.S. forests and rangelands on all ownerships. Each RPA 

assessment evaluates such renewable resources as fish, 

wildlife, water, forests, range, and wilderness, and assesses 

how well these resources support outdoor recreation 

opportunities, and since 1990, the effects of climate change 

on forest resources have been an additional focus of RPA 

assessment research. Results of RPA assessments are used 

by public and private land managers, nongovernmental 

organizations, and lawmakers to set a broad-scale context for 

evaluating future changes in renewable resources. 

This report begins with an overview of public and private 

land and water resources of the United States, including 

trends. The rest of the report describes the use of natural and 

developed land as recreation resources, both rural and urban 

lands, with an emphasis on nature-based recreation. The report 

also describes conservation organizations and public funding 

programs that protect natural land resources, with emphasis 

on protecting private land through funding for purchase or 

for conservation easements. For the purposes of this report, 

outdoor recreation resources include land, water, snow and ice, 

scenery, developed sites, facilities, and user services.

This first chapter outlines the objectives and background for 

this assessment of recreation and protected land resources. 

The next chapters are generally in the order of those 

objectives. Chapter 8 revisits key findings noted in the chapter 

summaries.

Objectives

In the following chapters, information is provided on outdoor 

recreation lands, facilities, and management, as well as updated 

information on land and inland water protection at all levels 

of government and by the private sector. Examining trends 

is an opportunity to highlight both progress and setbacks in 

providing recreation opportunities and in protecting natural 

land and water. To address the overall goals of this RPA 

assessment report, seven objectives were identified:

Objective 1—Define recreation resources such that their 

current status and trends can be examined (current chapter).

To achieve the first objective, measures of land, water, open 

space, services, and facilities are used consistent with previous 

RPA recreation assessments. These measures are expressed as 

total and per capita quantities summarized at the region and 

sub-region levels, with spatial analysis based on county-scale 

data. Reliable sources of quantitative data have been identified 

and documented. 

Objective 2—Provide an overview of the land and water 

resources of the United States (chapter 2).

An overview of land and water is given as a context for 

assessing recreation and protected land resources. This 

overview covers public and private lands, including farm/

agricultural lands, rangelands, and forest lands. The overview 

also looks at urban forests and water as key resources for 

outdoor recreation, as well as for protecting ecosystems.

Objective 3—Describe trends in private land protection and 

in protection through public ownership (chapter 3).

Chapter 3 examines the Nation’s systems of protected private 

and public land, including land trusts (from the National 

Land Trust Alliance), government-sponsored conservation 

easements and fee-simple acquisition, and the most highly 

protected Federal land systems, namely, the National Park 

System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (the chapter 

includes an analysis of ecosystem types protected by these 

Federal land systems). 

Objective 4—Analyze the status and trends of private sector 

recreation resources, including land, forests, businesses, and 

other resources (chapter 4).

Chapter 4 looks at the large role of privately owned and 

operated resources in outdoor recreation. The people of the 

United States use private lands for a wide variety of outdoor 

activities. Some of this private land, especially rural land, is 

forested and owned by individuals and families. Some of the 

rural private land is agricultural, but much of it is used for 

various forms of outdoor recreation. Increasingly, private land 

has been used for primary and second homes and as access 

to nearby or adjacent natural amenities (e.g., rivers, lakes, 

Chapter 1

Introduction
2

Introduction

and public land). In addition to land, private commercial 

businesses provide a huge array of information, services, 

and equipment for outdoor recreation. A number of private 

businesses operate under contracts or through joint venture 

agreements on public land.

Objective 5—Describe the status and trends of local, State, 

and Federal public lands as a recreation resource (chapter 5).

Local governments at municipal, county, and special district 

levels are among the most important providers of outdoor 

recreation resources such as parks, athletic fields, rivers and 

lakes, greenways, zoos, and a wide variety of other outdoor 

venues. Some local resources are not highly developed 

and share some of the same backcountry characteristics 

as State and Federal lands. Local facilities, by definition, 

tend to be located either within or very near urban and 

rural communities. State governments provide State parks, 

recreation areas, historic sites, wildlife management areas, 

and various other public sites. Many of these parks and areas 

emphasize conservation of the natural resource along with 

recreation. The Federal Government owns the most extensive 

system of land and water in the United States. Most of these 

public lands are in natural cover (forests, range, and desert). 

An important trend over the last 30 years has been a huge 

increase in the development of homes, resorts, and other 

facilities on private lands adjacent to the public lands.

Objective 6—Map and describe the geospatial distribution 

of selected recreation resources as percent of land area and per 

capita supplies for counties in the United States (chapter 6).

The geographic distribution of recreation resources relative 

to the distribution of population of the United States is a very 

important dimension of the supply of recreation opportunities. 

For this objective, we consider nine basic resources that form a 

foundation for outdoor recreation supply. Resources analyzed 

include Federal land and State parks, water area, non-Federal 

forest area, non-Federal open range and pasture, ocean and 

Great Lakes coasts, mountains, snow cover, designated 

Federal lands, and privately owned recreation businesses. 

These resources are summarized in tables by region of the 

country and per capita quantities. Maps of the lower 48 

States showing the distribution of these nine resources across 

all counties are also presented. An additional element of 

the analysis describes resources as they occur within three 

distance zones for each county. Resources are counted in 

zones including (1) within each “home” county, (2) within the 

home county along with all other counties within 75 miles, 

and (3) within counties that are 75 to 125 miles from each 

home county.

Objective 7—Tabulate and map projections of per capita 

future recreation resources for the 75-mile spatial zone 

(chapter 7).

An understanding of the possible future geographic 

distribution of recreation resources relative to the distribution 

of the population of the United States is needed to fully 

assess future outdoor recreation policy. With this objective, 

we consider forecasting per capita quantities of the nine 

categories of basic resources: Federal land and State parks, 

water, forest, open range and pasture, ocean and Great Lakes 

coasts, mountains, snow cover, specially designated Federal 

lands, and privately owned recreation businesses. Current 

and projected per capita quantities of the resources are 

summarized in tables by region and sub-region of the country. 

The expected proportional change in resources, which is 

measured as the ratio of the per capita quantity of resources 

in the projected year (2060) to that of the base year (2008) is 

included. Maps of the lower 48 States are presented, showing 

the distribution of these nine resources across all counties. 

These maps depict the amount of resource per capita only for 

the 75-mile distance zone, which is interpreted as the region 

within a 1- to 2-hour drive of an individual’s residence, where 

the large majority of day-trip recreation occurs.

Background

Each RPA assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. 

forest and rangeland conditions and trends on all ownerships, 

identifies drivers of change, and projects 50 years into the 

future. Analyses of the status and trends for recreation, 

water, timber, wildlife (biodiversity), urban forest, and range 

resources, as well as land use change and climate change, 

are included. The regions covered include the North, South, 

Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific Coast (see fig. 1.1). 

For much of the 2010 RPA Assessment, analyses were 

completed across three future scenarios to characterize the 

common demographic, socioeconomic, and technological 

driving forces underlying changes in resource conditions. 

This use of scenarios links underlying assumptions of the 

individual analyses and frames the future uncertainty in 

these driving forces within the integrated modeling and 

analysis framework of the 2010 RPA Assessment. These three 

scenarios are described below as context for the overall RPA 

Assessment, but only the A1B scenario is used for the analysis 

reported in this assessment document. 

Three scenarios, considered equally likely, were chosen for 

the Forest Service RPA Assessment such that they linked to 

globally consistent and well-documented scenarios used in the 

Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 
3

Introduction Figure 1.1—Regions and sub-regions for the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment of Forest and Rangeland Resources.

Intermountai

n

Grea

t

Plains

Nort

h

Central

Northeast

Southeas

t

Sout

h

Central

Pacifi

c

Southwes

t

Pacifi

c

Northwes

t

PACIFI

C

COAS

T

ROCKY

MOUNTAIN

S NORT

H

SOUT

H

Intermountai

n

Grea

t

Plains

Nort

h

Central

Northeast

Southe

Sout

h

Central

Pacifi

c

Southwes

t

Pacifi

c

Northwes

t

PACIFI

C

COAS

T

ROCK

Y

MOUNTAIN

S NORT

H

SOUT

H
4

Introduction

2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). 

The scenarios include a range of future global and U.S. 

socioeconomic conditions with associated climate projections 

that are likely to have different effects on future U.S. resource 

conditions and trends (USDA Forest Service, in press). The 

IPCC scenario names A1B, A2, and B2 have been maintained 

in the RPA Assessment documentation for continuity. The 

IPCC global data were scaled to the U.S. national and subnational levels to facilitate the resource analyses for the 2010 

RPA Assessment. U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and 

population projections used in IPCC analyses were updated, 

and the updated U.S. population and disposable personal 

income data were then downscaled to the U.S. county level 

(USDA Forest Service, in press; Zarnoch and others 2010). In 

addition, the associated climate projections from several global 

circulation models (GCM) were downscaled to the county level. 

As shown in figure 1.2, scenario A1B corresponds to midrange population growth, closely following the national 

projections of the U.S. Census Bureau. This scenario is the 

primary basis for projections presented in chapter 7 of this 

report. Under this IPCC scenario, the United States can expect 

to see a population of about 447 million people (370 million 

adults age 16 and older) by 2060. Scenario A2 projects the 

highest population growth, reaching more than 505 million 

people (418 million adults) by 2060. Scenario B2 projects the 

lowest population growth by 2060, predicting a population of 

397 million people (329 million adults).

In accordance with the assessment scenarios A1B, A2, and 

B2, projected land use changes to 2060 were developed 

by Wear (2011). In general, Wear’s projections indicate an 

increase in urban area and a decline in forest and cropland 

area. Wear also projects that about 90 percent of forecasted 

forest land losses are found in the eastern United States, with 

more than half of those losses in the South. Federal lands, 

water areas, weather conditions (snow days), and county 

elevations are assumed static throughout the projection period.

Recreation Resources Defined: A Land, 

Water, and Recreation Resources 

Framework

Natural resources in and of themselves do not guarantee 

that outdoor recreation will occur. Rather, resources are a 

critical “input” in the production of recreational use on both 

developed and undeveloped areas (Avery 1975). Natural 

resources in combination with management and user inputs 

determine the “supply” of outdoor recreation. Together, 

the decisions of managers (and/or policymakers) and the 

desires of users (constituents) determine whether a natural 

resource becomes a recreation resource. For example, the 

decision whether or not to open a particular area to public 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

A2 A1B (Census) B2 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

A2 A1B (Census) B2 

Figure 1.2—National population projections for the three scenarios used for the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. The 

current population trend is the A1B (Census) scenario. A high population scenario is A2, while a low population scenario is B2.
5

Introduction

use is a management input that may create a resource for 

recreational use. An area probably would not be opened 

to use, however, if there was no evidence of user demand 

for the site (i.e., user input). Jubenville (1978) cites these 

basic considerations of the resource/management/user 

interrelationship that help determine outdoor recreation 

supply: location and access, physical characteristics of the 

site, basic design considerations in proper planning for the 

anticipated recreational behavior, and good administration 

and maintenance of the site after development. 

We draw the distinction here between resources and supply 

because not all resources contribute to recreation supply and, 

generally speaking, it is much easier and more practical to 

assess the status of resources for outdoor recreation than it 

is to attempt to assess outdoor recreation supply. Supply is 

usually referred to as “supply of opportunities for activity 

x” (e.g., fresh water lakes in the South for warm freshwater 

fishing). To speak about outdoor recreation supply in 

general is ambiguous; it could refer to any type of recreation 

opportunity. But water resources are a necessary condition for 

the supply of fishing and many other types of opportunities, 

so there is no ambiguity with respect to their role in recreation 

supply. To be able to describe recreation “supply,” we would 

need information on the management and user inputs in 

combination with the resource inputs, which, obviously, is 

not practical for a national assessment. So, our description 

of the outdoor recreation resources in the United States is 

the rudiments or building blocks for a supply of recreation 

opportunities (see appendix table 1.1 for a list of the recreation 

resource datasets that were used in this assessment). The 

interaction of recreation supply with the demand for such 

opportunities results in recreational “use” (Avery 1975). In 

economic analysis, recreational use is identical to the quantity 

of the good or service consumed.

Previous Recreation Supply Assessments

National assessments of outdoor recreation are a relatively 

new phenomenon in the United States, at least compared 

to the whole of our Nation’s history. Marion Clawson, with 

Resources for the Future, was an early and significant leader in 

developing economic analyses of outdoor recreation. His early 

assessments noted four “fueling factors” that drove outdoor 

recreation demand (Clawson and Harrington 1991): rapid 

increases in population, per capita real incomes, leisure time, 

and mobility. Development of the interstate highway system 

and lower transportation costs for the average American were 

also important driving factors. In light of burgeoning demand 

for outdoor recreation in 1958, the Federal Government 

commenced a broad-based national assessment of the outdoor 

recreation situation with the goal of evaluating the current 

demand and supply situation and planning for future needs. 

The following is a brief description of the supply analyses 

associated with former national recreation assessments.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 

Commission —The 85th Congress of the United States 

established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 

Commission (ORRRC) in 1958 with the charge to determine 

Americans’ recreation wants and needs, the recreation resources 

available to satisfy those needs, and policies and programs that 

should be implemented. The ORRRC summary report, released 

in 1962 along with 29 related special study reports (Outdoor 

Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962), heightened 

public awareness and concern about outdoor recreation. This 

effort represented the first official acknowledgment that outdoor 

recreation was a legitimate concern of the Federal Government 

and it triggered unparalleled expansions of both public and 

private recreation resources (including Federal creation of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Trails 

System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and 

National Recreation Areas System, among others). Further, 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) of 1965 

was passed in order to provide dedicated funding for outdoor 

recreation. Most of the LWCF funding has been targeted for 

matching grants to States and local governments.

As a part of this effort, the ORRRC conducted a nationwide 

inventory of non-urban public designated recreation areas. 

Information was obtained from surveys of the administering 

Federal and State officials of nearly 5,000 public areas larger 

than 40 acres. Based on those data, the ORRRC recommended 

that all agencies administering outdoor recreation resources 

adopt a standardized system of classifying recreation lands, 

ranging from high-density urban areas to primitive areas and 

also including historic and cultural sites. 

The nationwide recreation plans—Another important 

outcome of the ORRRC was the passage of the Outdoor 

Recreation Act of 1963 (U.S. Public Law 88-29), which 

required that a nationwide outdoor recreation plan be 

presented to the Congress every 5 years. The purpose of 

the plan was to coordinate development of Federal outdoor 

recreation policy and programs; describe the public demands 

for outdoor recreation, and the current and future availability 

of resources to meet those needs; and identify outdoor 

recreation problems with suggested solutions and desirable 

actions. The Outdoor Recreation Act authorized the Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation (BOR), created by the ORRRC in 1962 to 

formulate and implement the comprehensive nationwide plan. 

The first nationwide plan, The Recreation Imperative, was 

completed in 1968 but never officially released; it was later 

published in draft form. The second plan was a reworking 

of the first plan and thus, the first official plan. Known as 

Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy For America and published in 
6

Introduction

1973, the second plan provided guidelines for coordinating 

actions of Federal and other public agencies and established 

roles for public and private sectors. 

The third plan, called Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation 

Plan, completed in 1979, focused on establishing a continuous 

planning process. In contrast to the first and second 

plans, the third plan sought broad public participation and 

addressed criticism that the earlier plans were unrealistic 

and hypothetical and that they tended to ignore non-Federal 

dimensions of recreation and park systems. By the time of the 

third plan, the BOR had been reorganized into the Heritage 

Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS), which was 

later abolished in 1981. Most of the duties and responsibilities 

formerly assigned to BOR and HCRS were transferred to 

the National Park Service (NPS). However, the nationwide 

outdoor recreation planning process failed to survive the 

transition. The NPS assumed the technical assistance and 

LWCF grant-assistance duties, but the Third Plan represented 

the final direct and lead involvement of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior in national recreation assessments and planning.

The Third Nationwide Plan’s Assessment (USDI Heritage 

Conservation and Recreation Service 1979) document was 

not geared as much as the previous plans toward presenting 

supply inventory statistics, but instead was careful to cover 

all aspects and providers of recreation supply. This was 

accomplished through three separate but related chapters: 

The Enablers; The Resource Base; and Facilities, Equipment, 

and Program Services. The Enablers chapter focused on the 

government and private institutions that act as providers of 

recreation opportunities and services. The Resource Base 

chapter examined all of the natural resources that become 

recreation resources for human leisure time use. The 

Facilities, Equipment, and Program Services chapter focused 

on recreation infrastructure, classifying recreation facilities 

into one of five basic categories and arranging them along a 

continuum from intensively developed to remotely located: 

neighborhood and/or private yard, community, citywide, 

regional, and dispersed facilities. A few of the most substantive 

findings in the Third Nationwide Plan with regard to outdoor 

recreation supply were (as directly quoted from the findings):

• The future of remaining open space in the United States is 

being rapidly determined.

• Recreation planning should be broadened from sitespecific planning to include continuous and comprehensive 

evaluation of all components of the recreation/conservation 

system and the development of an action plan.

• Systematic efforts should be made to inventory remaining 

natural, cultural, and recreation resources.

• The private sector should be more heavily relied upon 

to assist government both on and off public lands in the 

provision of recreation services.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors—

The Reagan administration effectively ended national outdoor 

recreation planning with the abolishment of the HCRS, 

but established the President’s Commission on Americans 

Outdoors (PCAO) by executive order in early 1985. The 

PCAO’s course of study was not nearly as extensive as the 

ORRRC’s, taking more of an issues-oriented and case study 

approach as opposed to quantitative analyses. The PCAO final 

report, issued in late 1986, is remembered for its call to “light 

a prairie fire of local action,” imploring grassroots groups to 

take the initiative to develop new recreation resources and not 

wait for Federal or even State financial assistance (President’s 

Commission on Americans Outdoors 1986). This charge had 

some notable influence, especially in the trails and greenways 

communities, where the stated goal was to one day have a 

trail located “within 15 minutes” of every American. The 

new unwritten Federal policy that emerged from the PCAO 

stressed the need for an outdoor recreation ethic, private 

property rights, landowner liability, cooperative partnerships, 

and environmental quality.

The PCAO held 18 public hearings to learn about 

Americans’ preferences as well as the kinds of recreation 

resources and environments that comprise recreation supply. 

Further, the PCAO commissioned the advice of 20 senior 

advisors, and accepted contributed papers from more than 

300 technical experts in addition to the work of its full-time 

staff and the 15 commission members. Seven key findings of 

the PCAO with respect to recreation supply are (as directly 

quoted from the findings):

• Outdoor recreation depends on healthy resources.

• Our greatest recreation needs are in urban areas, close to 

home.

• A vision for the future: a living network of greenways.

• We need initiatives to protect rivers all across America.

• We are losing wetlands and shorelines.

• We can enjoy scenic byways and thoroughfares.

• We must protect and enhance recreation opportunities on 

Federal lands and waters.

The Renewable Resources Planning Act—The Forest 

Service has been conducting assessments since Congress 

passed the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act (RPA) in 1974 (U.S. Public Law 93-378), which 

directed the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a renewable 

resources assessment by the end of 1975, with an update in 

1979 (the first full-fledged report, given the short time frame 

before the first) and every 10 years thereafter. RPA objectives 

have remained the same since the first assessment. Forest 

Service scientists have conducted each assessment with 

assistance from university and other cooperators. 
7

Introduction

The RPA national recreation assessment is the information 

base for Forest Service planning and policy. It was never 

intended to become a national recreation plan or to prescribe 

a coordinating role among Federal, State, or other recreation 

providers. Rather, the intent of each RPA assessment is to 

gather unbiased, scientifically based information and report 

it in a factual, descriptive manner. Information from the 

assessment is used as an input for Forest Service long-range 

strategic planning. The following are brief descriptions of the 

supply portions of the three most recent RPA assessments.

The 1979 report included a substantial section on the role of 

private lands in meeting recreation demand (USDA Forest 

Service 1980). Information describing private lands and their 

recreational potential were derived through a nationwide 

survey during 1977–1978 of private, corporate, and 

government landowners and managers. Description of public 

outdoor recreation resources is brief, and almost all of the 

coverage is devoted to Federal recreation areas. The authors 

acknowledged the difficulty of assessing the role of State 

and locally owned recreation resources. Some of the report’s 

findings about recreation supply are (as directly quoted from 

the findings):

• The greatest opportunity for realizing the recreation 

potential of lands already used for recreational purposes 

is the further development of such facilities as trails, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, and boat ramps.

• Equally important to providing new recreational 

developments is the provision for the proper maintenance of 

existing ones.

• Cooperative effort by government agencies, private 

interests, and individuals—whether in technical assistance 

or coordinated planning—is one means by which a greater 

abundance of recreational opportunities can be provided.

• Effective planning and rational decision-making regarding 

proper resource allocation and facility development is a 

necessity if the Nation’s demands for outdoor recreation are 

to be met.

The 1989 RPA Assessment represented the first time 

each individual resource area published a separate, standalone report as opposed to a chapter in an overall Forest 

Service report (USDA Forest Service 1990). An important 

development in the recreation assessment report was the use 

of a resource/use paradigm that evaluated recreational use 

and supply along a continuum within the three major resource 

categories of land, water, and snow/ice. The supply chapter 

was based on data and information compiled in a database 

called the National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information 

System (NORSIS). Data were acquired from a variety of 

Federal, State, local, and private sources and summarized by 

the county geographic unit. The local government and private 

sectors were considerably weaker in coverage than the Federal 

and State sectors. Recreation supply assessment findings 

included (as directly quoted from the findings):

• Despite increased wilderness designation, road 

developments on public lands have significantly reduced 

total remote backcountry acreage. New acreage made 

accessible by road developments has been offset by closures 

of private lands.

• The number and capacities of developed land resources such 

as picnic areas, campgrounds, resorts, nature centers, and 

golf courses have increased.

• Remote and wild water resources available for recreation 

have increased slightly in recent years. The number of 

intensively developed water sites has grown rapidly in recent 

years.

• Snow and ice resource changes parallel those for 

undeveloped land resources in general. Private land closure 

has especially limited resource availabilities for snow and 

ice recreation.

The fourth national outdoor recreation and wilderness 

assessment was published as a book in 1999 titled “Outdoor 

Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of 

Demand and Supply Trends” (Cordell 1999). In addition to 

the then-current situation, the book also considered recent 

trends and likely futures in outdoor recreation. The scale 

of the earlier outdoor recreation assessments was primarily 

national, with some regional comparisons where data was 

available. The 2000 assessment placed much more emphasis 

on identifying regional differences in demand and supply and, where possible, examined geographic patterns of 

recreation resources and uses at the county level. A number of 

agency, conservation, and recreation industry representatives 

contributed short papers, primarily in the chapters describing 

resources and participation. 

Federal, State, and local government recreation systems were 

covered in depth, and the private sector was represented 

by information on both commercial recreation enterprises 

and not-for-profit organizations. Data on private land 

accessibility for outdoor recreation, the focus of one of the 

assessment chapters, was reported from the Forest Servicesponsored 1995 National Private Land Owners Survey. The 

NORSIS database (begun for the 1989 RPA Assessment) was 

revised and updated, resulting in more than 400 separate 

measures of recreation opportunities. Findings from the 

2000 supply assessment include (as directly quoted from the 

findings):

• Growth in acreage of the Federal estate has been very 

limited, but special designations such as wilderness and 

national rivers have increased appreciably.

• State park systems grew significantly in the number of areas 

managed during the 1990s, but much slower in total acreage.
8

Introduction

• Local park and recreation systems continue to supply more 

sites, facilities, and programs than any other provider.

• About 14 percent of the Nation’s 1.3 billion acres of rural 

private land is available for public recreation under various 

conditions—permission, usage fees, leasing, or open access. 

The amount of available private land has decreased 35 

percent since 1985.

• Greenways, scenic byways, and “watchable wildlife” 

programs and sites have grown since the late 1980s, largely 

through public-private partnerships.

National reports on sustainable forests: 2003 and 

2010 (Montreal Process)—The Sustainable Forests reports, 

better known as the Montreal Process, originated in a 1992 

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

initiative to develop a standardized set of criteria and indicators 

(C&I) for nations worldwide to define and measure progress 

towards sustainable development of forests. A working group 

of member countries developed the internationally agreed 

upon set of C&I in 1994. Seven broad criteria for sustainability 

were further defined in terms of 65 identifiable and measurable 

indicators. Criterion number 6, “Maintenance and enhancement 

of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs 

of societies,” included three indicators that are directly related to 

outdoor recreation: 

• 6.35) Area and percent of forest land managed for general 

recreation and tourism, in relation to the total area of forest 

land 

• 6.36) Number and type of facilities available for general 

recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest 

area 

• 6.37) Number of visitor days attributed to recreation and 

tourism, in relation to population and forest area.

The indicators were renumbered for the 2010 report—6.35 

became 6.41—and the latter two were revised to: 

• 6.42) Number, type, and geographic distribution of visits 

attributed to recreation and tourism and related to facilities 

available 

• 6.43) Area and percent of forests managed primarily to 

protect the range of cultural, social, and spiritual needs and 

values.

Measurements and descriptions of these indicators appear 

in both reports as well as in two-page briefs produced by the 

Forest Service. Indicator 6.41 measures the extent to which 

forests are managed to provide opportunities for recreation 

and tourism as a specific objective in management plans of 

public agencies and private landowners. An important change 

since 2003 involved the reduction in the amount of private 

nonindustrial forest land made available to the public for 

recreation. In 1995, about 14.5 percent of owners permitted 

some general public access, compared to about 11 percent in 

2000-2001. Indicator 6.42 provides a measure of recreation 

and tourism use of forests. Since the 2003 report, the trend 

has been increased use (i.e., visits) to forest recreation sites, 

by about 4.4 percent in terms of number of participants and 

roughly 25 percent in total annual activity days summed 

across all participants. Indicator 6.43 measures the area of 

forest land managed primarily to protect cultural, social, 

and spiritual values. Since the 2003 report, there has been 

a considerable, though not precisely known, increase in the 

amount of forest lands protected in experimental forests 

through land trusts; other conservation easement programs, 

such as the Forest Legacy Program; as well as land protected 

by means of Federal, State, and local government ownership. 

The World Commission on Protected Areas classification 

system was used in the report to categorize the protected 

natural areas.

Outdoor Resources Review Group—In 2008, U.S. 

Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman convened 

(and served as honorary co-chair) of the Outdoor Resources 

Review Group (ORRG), a bipartisan, nongovernmental 

effort to assess conservation and recreation resources in 

the United States. The ORRG was designed to follow up 

on the work of the PCAO, the last independent national 

commission that studied outdoor recreation more than 20 

years earlier, and was also chaired by Alexander, thenGovernor of Tennessee. Further, the release of the ORRG 

report was scheduled to coincide with the first year of the new 

Presidential administration following the 2008 election with 

the intent of informing, if not influencing, the new president’s 

recreation and conservation policy. A major impetus behind 

formation of the ORRG was the continuing concern over 

the lack of consistent funding for the LWCF which has 

been the primary source of funding for recreation resource 

acquisitions by all levels of government since its passage in 

1964. Not coincidentally, a “consistent and reliable source of 

conservation funding” was a primary recommendation of the 

PCAO’s report in 1986.

Comprised of 17 conservation, recreation, and government 

leaders, the ORRG had professional support from scientists 

at the non-partisan research organization Resources For the 

Future (RFF), as well as contributions from the National 

Geographic Society. The objective of the ORRG was to assess 

the “priorities, challenges, and opportunities in outdoor 

resources” for the purpose of making recommendations 

that will keep “outdoor resources high on the national 

agenda.” Public input was sought in a series of meetings and 

workshops held in 2008 throughout the country. Many of 

the same issues which have informed public debate about 

recreation, conservation, and public health in recent years 

came to the forefront: national concerns about physical 

inactivity, obesity, convenient and affordable access to places 
9

Introduction

for recreation—especially in urban areas, the declining 

connection between youths and nature, time use pressures, 

decreasing leisure time, and others.

After its report in July 2009 (Outdoor Resources Review 

Group 2009), the ORRG followed up with a separate, 

but related final and more detailed report from RFF in 

September 2009 (Walls and others 2009). The RFF report 

was compiled from a series of 14 supporting documents that 

it calls “Backgrounders” and “Discussion Papers,” which 

can be accessed at http://www.rff.org/News/Features/Pages/

OutdoorResourcesReviewGroup-Pubs.aspx. The RFF report 

discussed two linked trends that emerged from the ORRG 

assessment process. First has been the shift away from 

Federal spending specifically for recreation purposes, and 

directed instead toward farmland, wetlands, and wildlife 

habitat conservation. Second was the trend toward private 

land conservation, especially the proliferation of land 

trusts and land protection through conservation easements, 

where public access is often limited. While these efforts 

are laudable, RFF comments that the extent to which these 

programs and initiatives connect American citizens to nature 

is debatable. 

The ORRG report offers eight recommendations toward 

its stated goal of “protecting and improving the country’s 

outdoor resources for the benefit of all Americans” (Outdoor 

Resources Review Group 2009) (as directly quoted from the 

recommendations):

• Congress should permanently dedicate funding for the 

LWCF at the highest historical authorized level ($900 

million a year) adjusted for inflation—that is, no less than 

$3.2 billion annually—with a share guaranteed to the States 

and, in turn, to urban areas.

• To overcome fragmentation among multiple programs 

at multiple levels, geospatial planning tools should be 

fully utilized to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and 

transparency with which the LWCF and other public and 

private funds are spent.

• Public and private organizations should aggressively 

promote recreation and nature education for America’s youth 

so as to engage them early in realizing the lifelong health 

and other benefits from participating in outdoor activities.

• Federal, State, and local agencies should continue to 

promote and support private-sector stewardship through 

public-private partnerships, joint funding, extended tax 

benefits for conservation easements, and other incentives.

• Federal and other public agencies, as the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management are doing, 

should elevate the priority for regional- or landscape-level 

conservation in their own initiatives and through partnerships 

across levels of government, and with land trusts, other 

nonprofit groups, and private landowners to conserve 

America’s treasured landscapes.

• A new nationwide network of Blueways and water trails 

along rivers and coastal waterways should be established 

through public-private partnerships among Federal, State, 

and local agencies, nonprofits and private landowners.

• Any national program to reduce greenhouse gases should 

include funding to adapt resource lands and waters to 

the ecological impacts of climate change. As climate 

change increases the pressure on the public lands to 

develop renewable and conventional energy resources 

and transmission capacity, funding also will be needed to 

reconcile growing conflicts over resource use and mitigate 

impacts where they cannot be avoided in project design.

• Current structures and funding for outdoor resources are 

insufficient to meet the needs of a growing population.

To make optimal use of limited financial resources, the 

ORRG further suggests “elevating the priority and promoting 

the value” of outdoor resources in the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, creating an interagency council to ensure 

coordination across Federal agencies, and finally, creating a 

new, independent Federal conservation trust fund at the level 

of $5 billion annually.

11

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

This chapter addresses objective 2 of this assessment report 

on outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to 

provide an overview of the land and water resources of the 

United States. This assessment report is part of a series of 

national reports developed for the 2010 RPA Assessment. As 

context for the chapters that follow it, this chapter describes 

public and private lands (including ownership and use 

of private lands in the invited paper by White, Alig, and 

Marzillo) as well as farm and agricultural lands, rangelands 

(in the invited paper by Reeves), forest lands, and urban land 

and urban forest.

Overview of the Land and Water Resources

Land, water, mountains, and other natural resources of the 

United States are essential resources for outdoor recreation, 

especially nature-based outdoor recreation. These same natural 

resources are critical for production of ecosystem and amenity 

services (e.g., water and scenery). The land area across the 50 

States covers approximately 2.3 billion acres (not including 

water area). Both private and public land is important as 

recreation resources and for ecosystem services. Sixty percent 

(1.4 billion acres) of U.S. land is in private ownership (see the 

paper by White and others in this chapter), 29 percent is in 

Federal ownership, 9 percent is State and local government 

owned, and 2 percent is in Indian reservations (Lubowski 

and others 2006). In 2002, about 20 percent of land area was 

cropland, 26 percent was permanent grassland, pasture, or 

rangeland, and 29 percent was forest. Approximately 3 percent 

of the Nation’s total land area in 2002 was urban land.

Water is especially important as a recreation and ecological 

resource. The recreational importance of water was clearly 

pointed out in 1960 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Review Commission (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 

Commission 1962). The ecological importance and the demand 

for water were pointed out by Brown (1999). According 

to the 2000 Census Typologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER) geographic data 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000), total water area of the United 

States is about 164 million acres, which is around 7 percent 

of total surface area of the country. Census water is classified 

as inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and territorial. Inland water 

includes rivers, streams, lakes, and impoundments. An update 

of the Census/TIGER data in 2008 showed a decrease of 3.6 

million land acres, but an increase in water area of about 4.8 

million making the 2008 total about 169 million acres (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010a), which is a gain of just under 3 percent 

(table 2.1). Most of this growth was due to additions of inland 

water area, which increased nearly 10 percent nationally.

Not only is the primary use of land important to recreation, 

but also important is the type of land cover (e.g., whether 

it is forest, wetlands, or other cover). The National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD) is the product of a group of Federal 

agencies working collaboratively through the Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium (www.mrlc.gov/). Results 

from the 2001 data describing the cover characteristics of the 

surface area of the United States are presented in table 2.2. 

The NLCD estimate of total water cover area is almost 180 

million acres (table 2.2). Wetlands cover over 124 million 

Chapter 2

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Table 2.1—U.S. land and water area by RPA region, 2008, and percent change from 2000

Type of resource 2008

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Area

Percent 

Change Area

Percent 

Change Area

Percent 

Change Area

Percent 

Change Area

Percent 

Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Land area 412,621 -0.2 532,887 -0.3 741,872 0.0 572,987 -0.2 2,260,367 -0.2

Total water area 57,649 1.4 30,868 5.4 7,572 3.9 72,955 3.0 169,044 2.9

Inland water 12,692 8.4 18,641 9.7 7,572 3.9 16,396 13.6 55,301 9.7

Coastal water 3,676 0.2 4,125 -2.5 0 na 19,836 3.7 27,637 2.3

Great Lakes 38,373 -0.5 0 na 0 na 0 na 38,373 -0.5

Territorial water 2,907 0.2 8,100 0.6 0 na 36,722 -1.5 47,729 -1.1

Total land and water area 470,269 0.0 563,753 0.0 749,443 0.0 645,941 0.2 2,429,406 0.0

na = Not applicable; RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2010a).
12

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

acres, almost half of which are in the South. Land with natural 

cover makes up the greatest national area, composed of forest, 

shrublands, and grasslands (herbaceous vegetation). Forest 

and shrublands together compose almost 1.2 billion acres. 

The North, South, and Pacific Coast regions have the greatest 

areas of forest at between 161 and 169 million acres each (table 

2.2). The Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coast regions have 

the greatest areas of shrubland, 254 and 242 million acres, 

respectively. The Rocky Mountains lead all other regions in 

grassland cover by a wide margin with almost 64 percent 

of the Nation’s total. Planted and cultivated area is the third 

highest land cover with almost 450 million acres nationally. 

The highest regional area of planted and cultivated land is in 

the North; the lowest area is in the Pacific Coast region. 

Figure 2.1 shows the geospatial pattern of land cover across 

the United States. Large areas classified as cultivated crops 

include the Midwest, the massive wheat fields of southwest 

Washington, the extensive agriculture of the central valley 

of California, and farming down the Mississippi valley. 

Deciduous forests are most evident in the eastern half of the 

country, whereas coniferous (evergreen) forests are most 

evident in the West. Open water is found in the Great Lakes, 

The Great Salt Lake, and in coastal waters where there are 

bays and estuaries. Shrublands (shrub/scrub) are abundant 

The highlands of the Big Island in Hawaii. (Photograph by Ken Cordell 2010)

Table 2.2—General land cover classes and area in each class across the United States by RPA region

Land cover class

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent Totals

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Water areas 52,778 29.4 29,116 16.2 8,525 4.7 89,374 49.7 179,793

Developed areas 38,200 36.7 38,595 37.1 15,782 15.2 11,446 11.0 104,023

Barren land 1,197 2.1 2,399 4.2 13,925 24.2 39,963 69.5 57,484

Forest 161,207 26.3 169,216 27.7 116,996 19.1 164,560 26.9 611,979

Shrubland 4,936 0.8 82,639 14.2 253,717 43.5 241,725 41.5 583,016

Herbaceous vegetation 8,498 2.7 59,466 18.6 204,171 63.9 47,358 14.8 319,492

Planted or cultivated areas 174,186 38.8 127,318 28.3 126,176 28.1 21,574 4.8 449,254

Wetlands 29,223 23.5 55,005 44.2 10,152 8.2 29,943 24.1 124,323

Total land and water area 470,224 19.4 563,755 23.2 749,444 30.8 645,942 26.6 2,429,365

RPA = Resources Planning Act. 

Note: There are differences in class definitions between Census TIGER and National Land Cover Data (NLCD), for example, water. Thus, estimates 

of total acres differ somewhat between these sources. Percents sum across to 100. 

Source: Barnes (2010).
13

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States Open water Perennial ice/snow Developed, open space Developed, low intensity Developed, medium intensity Developed, high intensity Barren land (rock/sand/clay) Deciduous forest Evergreen forest Mixed forest Scrub/shrub Grasslands/herbaceous Pasture/hay Cultivated crops Woody wetlands Emergent herbaceous wetlands

(03) 2.1

Figure 2.1—The geospatial pattern of land cover across the surface area of the United States, 2001. Source: Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001).
14

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

in the Southwest from Texas to western Oregon. Wetlands 

(woody wetlands) are easily recognizable along the Gulf 

Coast, along the Atlantic Coast, and in the upper portions of 

the Lakes States.

Public Lands in the United States

Public lands held in trust by local, State, and Federal 

Governments are critical resources for nature-based outdoor 

recreation and as a means to conserve open land. Below 

are brief descriptions of these public lands. More detail is 

provided in chapter 3, which covers protection of private lands 

and the most protected of Federal lands.

Local government lands—Approximately 9,000 local 

government units in the United States provide recreation and 

park areas and services. While the total land area owned by 

local governments is modest relative to State and Federal 

Governments, these local lands are highly important because 

they are close to and sometimes a part of local neighborhoods. 

Across local governments, parks and recreation departments are 

most prevalent in county governments (41 percent of counties), 

followed by municipalities, townships, and special districts. For 

all jurisdictions, the region with the highest proportion of local 

governments providing recreation services and parks was the 

South and the lowest was the Rocky Mountains (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2007a—see chapter 7 for more detail.) 

State lands—Every State has one or more divisions or 

agencies responsible for management of State-owned land 

and water resources. A prime example is the State park 

systems, which are managed for both resident and tourist use. 

Two other categories of State agencies that are charged with 

management of substantial land systems are State forestry and 

State wildlife and fish divisions or commissions. A fourth type 

of State government lands are those called State trust lands, 

which are limited to the States west of the Mississippi River.

State park systems encompass a total of 6,548 individual park, 

recreation, historic, or other areas covering nearly 14 million 

acres (table 2.3). This total represents a 16 percent increase 

in number of areas and a 6 percent increase in total acreage 

between 2002 and 2009. Regional statistics from the 2006 

National Association of State Foresters reported that there are 

approximately 66.4 million acres of State-owned forest land, 

25.3 million acres of which are managed by State forestry 

agencies. The amount of State-owned forest increased almost 

8 percent between 2002 and 2006.

The Wildlife Management Institute (1997)—the most recent 

report available—reported that 30.3 million acres of land 

was either owned or managed by the 50 State wildlife and 

fish agencies. About 11.5 million of these acres (38 percent) 

were leased from other owners. Leasing is a practical means 

of managing wildlife and fish resources whose habitats are 

not contained within jurisdictional boundaries. In addition 

to State wildlife and fish agency management, almost 57 

million acres nationwide are available for public use under 

cooperative agreements with other State and Federal agencies, 

industry, or individual landowners. Nationwide, State wildlife 

and fish agencies manage or cooperatively manage more than 

3 million lake acres and nearly 4,000 river miles.

State trust lands were granted by Congress following the 

Revolutionary War to support public institutions in Western 

States entering the Union. Each State was left to decide how 

to use or sell their State trust lands. Most States have chosen 

to sell these lands into private ownership. The remaining 48 

million acres of these trust lands include forests, grasslands, 

and arid desert lands of the Southwest. The 23 States which 

still have some trust lands include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, 

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North 

Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In the lower 48 States, 

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming together still own almost 

40 million acres.

Federal land—There are almost 640 million acres of 

Federal land in the United States, which is about 28 percent 

of the total U.S. land area (fig. 2.2). These lands are managed 

by seven different Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 

Federal entities. With the exception of some national wildlife 

refuges, areas reserved for science and research, and other 

Table 2.3—Number and acres of State park system units by type of area, 2009

State Parks

Recreation 

Areas Natural Areas

Historic 

Sites Other Areas All Areas

% change,

2002–09

State # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres

U.S. Total 2,156 8,894,131 786 1,213,286 711 1,118,574 609 116,018 2,286 2,642,064 6,548 13,973,344 15.8 6.2

Source: National Association of State Park Directors. 2009 Annual Information Exchange. The 2009 AIX reports data from July 1, 2008, to June 

30, 2009. Percent change is from Annual Information Exchange for the period July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002. Natural areas include environmental 

education sites and areas classified as scientific sites. Other areas include forests, fish and wildlife areas, and other miscellaneous State park 

system sites.
15

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Park Service All others Tennessee Valley Authority Bureau of Indian Affairs Hawaii Alaska

(04) 2.2

Figure 2.2—Federal lands and Indian reservations in the United States. Source: U.S. Geological Service (2005a, 2005b).
16

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

administrative and operational sites such as dams, nearly all 

Federal land is open and available to the public for recreation.

More than 92 percent of U.S. Federal land is located in the West, 

36 percent in Alaska alone. Nearly 70 percent of all Federal land 

is either property of the Bureau of Land Management or the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Not counting 

Alaska, the proportion of Federal land that belongs to these two 

agencies rises to 84 percent. An additional 27 percent of Federal 

land in all 50 States is in the National Park Service and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. About 3 percent of Federal property 

is managed by water-resource agencies including the Bureau of 

Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Nearly all Bureau of Reclamation land is 

in the West, but all of the Tennessee Valley Authority land and 

about 70 percent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineer areas are in 

the East.

Private Lands in the United States

In the following invited paper, the authors use the results 

of existing research to examine current patterns of land 

ownership as well as past, current, and projected future 

patterns of private land use. First, the authors examine 

the spatial pattern of public and private ownership in the 

contiguous United States. Next, they describe the uses 

of private land within U.S. regions, with emphasis on the 

distribution of undeveloped rural land uses (i.e., forest, crop, 

and rangeland). Then, they identify trends in non-Federal rural 

land area and past transitions among rural land uses. Finally, 

the authors discuss past patterns of urbanization of rural lands 

and projections of conversion in the coming decades. 

Invited Paper

Private Lands in the United States—Their 

Ownership and Use 

Eric M. White, Ralph J. Alig, and Anita T. Morzillo1

The lands of the United States are a combination of differing 

ownerships and land uses. Generally, the uses (e.g., forests, 

development) and area of public land are stable with only 

minor changes over time. However, although the area of the 

private land base is also stable over time, both land use and 

1 Eric M. White, Faculty Research Associate, Department of Forest 

Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR 97331; Ralph J. Alig, Research Forester with the Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR 97331; 

Anita T. Morzillo, Assistant Professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and 

Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

the types of private ownership (e.g., commercially owned 

lands versus land owned by individuals) change frequently. 

From the private land base, society receives a variety of goods 

(e.g., food and timber) and services (e.g., clean water and 

recreation). Recognizing the dynamic nature of the private 

land base is important in considering the uses, policies, 

and management of forests, rangelands, and other natural 

resources on both private and public land.

Ownership patterns—The land area of the contiguous 

48 United States is approximately 1.9 billion acres. The 

Federal Government owns about 400 million of these acres. 

A mixture of private individuals, other private entities, 

State and local governments, and Native American tribal 

governments own the remaining 1.5 billion acres. Private 

lands account for the vast majority (about 85 percent) of the 

contiguous U.S. non-Federal land base (Lubowski and others 

2006). At the State level, private lands are most common in 

Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, and least common in Nevada 

and Arizona (table 2.4). On average across the country, private 

lands constitute about 77 percent of State land area.

Table 2.4—Percent of land area in private ownership 

by State for the 48 contiguous United States

State Percent State Percent

Alabama 97 Nebraska 98

Arizona 17 Nevada 13

Arkansas 90 New Hampshire 72

California 47 New Jersey 74

Colorado 57 New Mexico 44

Connecticut 87 New York 84

Delaware 90 North Carolina 90

Florida 74 North Dakota 89

Georgia 93 Ohio 96

Idaho 28 Oklahoma 94

Illinois 97 Oregon 44

Indiana 95 Pennsylvania 84

Iowa 98 Rhode Island 81

Kansas 99 South Carolina 91

Kentucky 94 South Dakota 69

Louisiana 92 Tennessee 92

Maine 82 Texas 96

Maryland 82 Utah 22

Massachusetts 81 Vermont 85

Michigan 78 Virginia 86

Minnesota 75 Washington 54

Mississippi 95 West Virginia 90

Missouri 93 Wisconsin 90

Montana 59 Wyoming 57

Source: National Association of State Park Directors. 2009 Annual 

Information Exchange. The 2009 AIX reports data from July 1, 2008, to 

June 30, 2009. Percent change is from Annual Information Exchange 

for the period July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002. Natural areas include 

environmental education sites and areas classified as scientific 

sites. Other areas include forests, fish and wildlife areas, and other 

miscellaneous State park system sites.
17

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States Private Federal, State, and local Native American

(05) 2.3

Figure 2.3—Land ownership in the contiguous United States. Data source: Protected lands of the continental U.S. (CUS_UPPT_100). Unpublished dataset, 2007. On file with D.M. Theobald, Forestry 245, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.
18

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Because of settlement patterns, Eastern U.S. lands are 

primarily privately owned (fig. 2.3). Publicly owned lands 

(primarily in Federal ownership) are a prominent fixture of 

the Western States. The contiguous Western States contain 

about 8.5 times the Federal land of the Eastern States (White 

and others 2010). The West also contains the majority of the 

American Indian tribal lands. Many of the western Federal 

lands are remnants of land settlements gained by treaty from 

foreign governments. The aggregate areas of land in both 

Federal and non-Federal ownership have remained stable since 

1982 (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2007). 

Private land use—Approximately 7 percent of the nonFederal land base of the United States is used for urban and 

developed land uses (USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2007). In this research, developed land includes 

large and small urban and built-up lands as well as rural 

transportation lands (USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory 

2000). Urban and developed lands are most common in the 

South and North regions—15 and 14 percent of non-Federal 

lands, respectively. New Jersey is the most developed State 

(42 percent of the non-Federal land base) and Montana is the 

least developed (2 percent of non-Federal land area). 

Although developed land is common, crops, rangeland, 

and forest account for the vast majority of non-Federal land 

area in each U.S. region. These undeveloped rural land uses 

are most common on non-Federal land in the Great Plains, 

Intermountain, and South Central regions (fig. 2.4). In the 

Great Plains and North Central regions, crop land is the most 

common land use. In the Intermountain region, rangeland is 

the most prevalent land use. In the Northeast and Southeast, 

the regions with the smallest non-Federal rural land base, the 

majority of undeveloped rural land is forest. 

Rural land use transitions—The national area of nonFederal rangeland and forest has remained relatively stable since 

1982 at a little more than 400 million acres each (fig. 2.5). Even 

though private forest area has increased in recent decades, that 

increase has been slight (Smith 2009). Since 1982, the area of 

crop and pasture land has declined from about 550 million to 

about 509 million acres in 2007. The decline in crop and pasture 

land has remained fairly steady. For the most recent periods for 

which we can quantify region-level trends in rural land area, the 

Southeast, Northeast, South Central, and North Central regions 

have experienced the greatest aggregate reductions in land in 

crops and pasture (table 2.5). The area of land in range declined 

most precipitously in the Great Plains and Intermountain 

regions. Forest area gained in aggregate in the North Central 

and South Central regions, but remained generally steady or 

declined elsewhere. 

Knowing the acreage of aggregate trends in rural land uses 

(e.g., fig. 2.5) is useful, but it masks underlying land use 

transitions involving forests, crop, pasture, and rangeland. For 

example, although total forest area has remained stable, some 

forest has been lost to urbanization, while some new forest 

has been gained from other rural land uses. These underlying 

transitions are important because many of the goods and 

services provided by rural lands are location specific. The 

addition of forest in one location may not offset the goods and 

services lost when forest in another location is converted to 

other land uses. In the Eastern States, between 1982 and 1997 

(the latest year for which sub-national land conversion data 

are available), nearly 3 percent of forest area was converted 

to developed land uses and about 1 percent of forest area was 

converted to pasture (White and others 2010). At the same 

time, new forests were added from former pasture and crop 

lands. In the Western States, about 3 percent of forest area 

was converted to rangeland, and 1 percent of forest area was 

converted to developed uses (White and others 2010). Forests 

in the Western United States gained some acreage from 

pasture land during the same time period. 

Loss of rural land to development—Between 1982 and 

2003, developed land in the contiguous United States increased 

by nearly 57 percent. This expansion resulted in the conversion 

of more than 40 million acres of undeveloped non-Federal 

rural lands to developed uses. Between 1982 and 2007, forests 

provided the greatest number of acres for new development 

with more than 17 million acres converted, followed by crops, 

pasture, and range land (fig. 2.6). More than one million acres of 

other rural lands, which includes farmsteads, barren land, and 

marshland, were converted to developed uses.

Projections of developed land area expansion—

The expansion of developed land is spurred in large part 

from demands for new housing and commercial space from 

increasing populations, from the desire of many to live in 

natural amenity-rich environments, and from many other 

factors. A projected population increase to more than 360 

million individuals by 2030 is projected to require about 44 

million more housing units (White and others 2009). Previous 

modeling efforts have estimated that each additional housing 

unit equates to about 1.2 acres of newly developed land for 

residential, commercial, transportation, and industrial purposes. 

Based on a simulation model of rural land development in the 

United States (White and others 2009), a projected 4 percent 

of the current non-Federal rural land base will be converted 

for developed uses by 2030. The Southeast region is projected 

to have the greatest percentage of non-Federal rural lands 

converted to developed uses, followed by the Northeast region 

(table 2.6). The Great Plains and Rocky Mountains regions are 

projected to have the smallest percentages of non-Federal 
19

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

400 

420 

440 

460 

480 

500 

520 

540 

560 

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 

Non-Federal land area (millions acres) 

Year 

Crop and Pasture Range Forest 

400 

420 

440 

460 

480 

500 

520 

540 

560 

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 

Non-Federal land area (millions acres) 

Year 

Crop and Pasture Range Forest 

Figure 2.5—Area of non-Federal rural land in crop and pasture, range, and forest land uses, 1982–2007. Note: Crop and pasture includes Conservation Reserve 

Program land. Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009). 

Figure 2.4—Undeveloped rural land use on non-Federal lands by U.S. region. Data source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2007). 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Southeast Northeast North 

Central 

South 

Central 

Pacific 

Coast 

Great 

Plains 

Rocky Mtn. 

Non-Federal land area (percent) 

Regions 

Not undeveloped rural 

Forest 

Range 

Crop and pasture 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Southeast Northeast North 

Central 

South 

Central 

Pacific 

Coast 

Great 

Plains 

Rocky Mtn. 

Non-Federal land area (percent) 

Regions 

Not undeveloped rural 

Forest 

Range 

Crop and pasture 
20

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Table 2.5—Acreage trends for non-Federal rural land by U.S. subregion, 1982-2007 (thousands of acres)

Region Year Cropland CRP land Pasture Range Forest 

Other 

rural 

land

Total 

rural 

land

Southeast 1982 23,830 na 13,666 4,388 77,195 5,453 124,533

1987 21,983 550 13,890 4,060 77,001 5,431 122,915

1992 20,113 1,210 13,967 3,524 76,333 5,420 120,567

1997 18,695 1,179 13,470 3,212 75,656 5,650 117,861

2002 18,106 719 12,604 2,881 75,381 5,637 115,327

2007 17,103 683 12,331 2,636 74,908 5,794 113,455

South Central 1982 82,892 na 51,178 112,766 103,613 7,556 358,005

1987 77,912 3,201 50,713 111,635 104,802 7,753 356,017

1992 71,052 7,689 51,056 110,906 105,506 7,809 354,016

1997 68,232 7,439 49,654 111,484 106,683 7,938 351,430

2002 65,010 7,226 49,175 111,748 107,330 8,041 348,528

2007 61,517 7,240 49,309 112,596 107,321 8,372 346,355

Northeast 1982 30,206 na 13,211 0 85,239 4,884 133,540

1987 29,498 95 11,938 0 85,759 4,965 132,255

1992 28,469 522 11,010 0 85,697 4,955 130,653

1997 27,592 517 9,637 0 85,712 4,825 128,283

2002 26,395 408 9,807 0 85,544 4,607 126,760

2007 25,523 364 9,923 0 85,242 4,662 125,713

North Central 1982 123,630 na 32,777 129 67,363 9,351 233,250

1987 121,530 3,120 30,334 92 67,999 9,269 232,344

1992 116,956 7,550 29,027 88 68,526 9,223 231,369

1997 116,836 6,975 27,240 78 69,497 9,173 229,797

2002 115,866 6,189 27,048 78 70,251 9,159 228,592

2007 114,423 5,955 27,566 83 70,258 9,315 227,600

Great Plains 1982 93,324 na 7,931 74,720 3,290 4,400 183,665

1987 93,023 2,109 7,481 73,221 3,309 4,396 183,538

1992 86,860 8,904 7,528 72,098 3,384 4,417 183,190

1997 87,669 8,581 7,185 71,592 3,385 4,467 182,879

2002 87,106 8,267 7,272 72,036 3,431 4,566 182,679

2007 85,878 8,917 7,556 72,103 3,500 4,591 182,544

Intermountain 1982 43,126 na 7,453 191,146 25,984 10,405 278,113

1987 40,240 3,762 7,561 189,299 25,843 10,523 277,228

1992 37,413 6,484 7,962 188,687 25,605 10,943 277,094

1997 37,069 6,328 8,323 187,677 25,794 11,157 276,348

2002 34,815 7,319 7,937 188,407 25,521 11,225 275,222

2007 33,023 7,631 8,197 188,862 25,465 11,205 274,382

Pacific Northwest 1982 12,108 na 3,324 15,619 25,843 1,403 58,296

1987 11,185 860 3,359 15,424 25,756 1,385 57,970

1992 10,513 1,556 3,355 15,340 25,619 1,390 57,772

1997 10,387 1,500 3,201 15,215 25,441 1,521 57,265

2002 10,229 1,689 2,783 15,302 25,398 1,563 56,965

2007 10,067 1,887 2,615 15,308 25,326 1,584 56,788

Pacific Southwest 1982 10,431 na 1,357 19,132 14,854 3,791 49,564

1987 10,174 118 1,447 18,843 14,867 3,822 49,270

1992 10,066 181 1,115 18,275 14,625 3,909 48,171

1997 9,659 173 1,072 18,285 14,428 4,018 47,635

2002 9,573 174 1,156 17,757 14,402 4,134 47,196

2007 9,489 174 1,120 17,532 14,390 4,118 46,823

na = Not available.

Note: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established by Congress in 1985. Because of methodological differences, the forest area 

estimates in this table after 1997 may differ substantially from forest area estimated by another USDA source of data, the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009).
21

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Figure 2.6—Area of non-Federal rural land in the contiguous United States 

converted to developed uses, 1982–2007 (thousands of acres). Note: The 

land use subtotals do not add to the national total of converted acres because 

about 1.07 million acres of developed land in 1982 were converted to other 

uses. Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009).

Forest 

17,084 

Crop 

11,118 

Pasture 

6,845 

Range 

5,201 

Other 

1,107 

Total: 40,287 

Forest 

17,084 

Crop 

11,118 

Pasture 

6,845 

Range 

5,201 

Other 

1,107 

Total: 40,287 Table 2.6—Percent of rural land projected 

to be developed between 2000 and 2030 

by U.S. region 

Region Percent

Southeast 15.1

Northeast 6.3

North Central 3.6

South Central 4.5

Pacific Coast 2.9

Great Plains 0.5

Rocky Mountains 1.8

Contiguous United States 4.0

Source: White and others (2009).

Scattered new houses are visible as development begins on a mountain side as seen from the Raggeds Wilderness Area on the White River National Forest in

Colorado. (Photograph by Ken Cordell)
22

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

rural lands converted to developed uses. In the East, all else 

being equal, forest is projected to be the greatest provider of 

newly developed land. In the West, rangeland and cropland are 

projected to be the greatest providers of land for development. 

In addition to reducing the area of undeveloped rural land, 

increases in developed land area can place remaining natural 

resource lands under increased pressure for provision of 

goods and services, such as timber production and recreation 

opportunities. The Southeast and South Central regions are 

projected to experience the greatest percentage increases 

in developed land area (fig. 2.7). In the West, projected 

percentage increases in developed land area are greatest in 

the Rocky Mountains region. Large projected increases in 

developed area in many Western States reflect both significant 

projected increases in population and the small relative 

amounts of existing developed land area. 

End Invited Paper

Farm and Agricultural Land

Substantial acreages of rural land are privately owned and 

in use as farms and agricultural land (table 2.7). By the 

definitions used for the Census of Agriculture, agricultural 

land is that which is used mostly for crops, pasture, or grazing 

(USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007). 

Also included are associated woodlands and wastelands 

not actually in cultivation, pasture, or grazing, but part of a 

farm operation. All grazing land, except government land, is 

included. Recreational access to these properties is typically 

limited to owners, their families, friends, or lessees. Table 2.7 

shows that the number of farms has increased slightly since 

1990, but that the average acreage per farm and total farm 

acreage of the United States have decreased substantially.

One of the most important uses of farm land is growing 

crops—occupying about 39 percent of total farm land 

(USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009). 

Hillside strawberry farming in 2000 in Monterey County, CA. (Photograph by Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Table 2.7—Number and acreage of farms in 1990, 2000, and 2008

Item Unit 1990 2000 2008

Number of farms Thousands of farms 2,146 2,167 2,200

Land in farms Millions of acres 987 945 920

Average per farm Acres 460 436 418

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010b).
23

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States 20% or less 20.1 - 40% 40.1 - 60% 60.1 - 80% 80.1% or more Study regions Pacific Coast 31.1

Rocky Mountain

56.9 Great Plains

16.7 North Central

38.8

South Central

64.0

North East

93.3

Southeast

83.8

(9b) 2.7

Figure 2.7—Percentage increase in developed land area projected for States and regions, 2000 to 2030. Source: White and others (2009). 
24

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

According to the National Resources Inventory by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, cropland acreage has declined 

from about 420 million acres in 1982 to 357 million acres in 

2007. About half of this reduction is the result of enrollments 

of environmentally sensitive cropland in the Conservation 

Reserve Program of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 

Total land area in farms, based on the Census of Agriculture, 

is shown by region in table 2.8. The greatest acreage is in the 

Rocky Mountains, followed by the South and North regions. 

The Rocky Mountains region also has the greatest acreage 

of permanent pasture and rangeland, nearly 58 percent of the 

U.S. total. The North and Rocky Mountains regions each have 

about one third of the Nation’s cropland, and the South has 

about half of the Nation’s farm woodland.

Unlike cropland, virtually all (99 percent) of which is in private 

ownership, rangeland has a substantial presence on public 

lands, especially on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management lands. Almost 61 percent of “grassland pasture 

and range” is privately owned, with about one-fourth on 

Federal lands and the remainder on other public and American 

Indian lands (Lubowski and others 2006). The following 

invited paper by Reeves describes range land uses, ownership, 

ecosystem services, and benefits, among other concerns. 

Invited Paper

Rangelands 

Matt C. Reeves2

Rangelands are found in many ecoregions and are 

characterized by a diverse suite of vegetation. Shrublands; 

grasslands; alpine communities; oak, mesquite, and juniper 

woodlands; and deserts are all examples of rangeland. In 

general, rangelands are relatively remote areas where potential 

natural vegetation is comprised principally of grasses, forbs, 

grass-like plants, and shrubs, which are suitable for browsing 

or grazing, although the presence of herbivory is not a requisite 

for rangeland status. Though estimates vary, rangelands 

occupy approximately 662 million acres in the contiguous 

United States when defined using the Natural Resources 

Inventory definition (USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2009) (fig. 2.8) (Reeves and Mitchell, in press).

The majority of rangelands lie west of the 95th meridian (fig. 

2.8). In the contiguous United States, roughly 662 million acres 

of rangelands occupy approximately 50 percent of the vegetated 

area, with 224 million rangeland acres occurring on Federal 

lands (table 2.9). The Bureau of Land Management administers 

roughly 139 million acres, the majority of Federal rangelands 

(fig. 2.9). The majority of U.S. rangelands overall, however, are 

privately owned (table 2.9). The U.S. rangeland base is currently 

quite stable, though roughly 33 percent of the historic rangeland 

extent has been permanently modified by human influence 

2 Matt C. Reeves, Research Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station, Missoula, MT 59801.

Table 2.8—Acres of land in farms in the United States by type of agricultural use and RPA region, 2007 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Type of 

agricultural use Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Total Acres

Cropland 143,851,909 35.4 99,549,664 24.5 140,675,207 34.6 22,348,129 5.5 406,424,909

Woodland 22,606,724 30.1 37,523,483 50.0 9,858,854 13.1 5,109,542 6.8 75,098,603

Permanent pasture 

and rangeland 17,257,624 4.2 127,498,795 31.2 235,401,232 57.6 28,674,465 7.0 408,832,116

Farmsteads, 

buildings, livestock, 

ponds, roads, etc. 9,724,442 30.6 9,199,658 29.0 10,208,203 32.2 2,607,909 8.2 31,740,212

Total land in farms 193,440,699 21.0 273,771,600 29.7 396,143,496 43.0 58,740,045 6.4 922,095,840

RPA = Resources Planning Act. 

Note: Percentages sum across to 100.0. 

Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007). 
25

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States Afforested rangeland Agriculture or not rangeland Other Forest or woodland Rangeland Transitional rangeland Open water

95th meridian

(11) 2.9

Figure 2.8—Estimated distribution of rangelands occurring in the contiguous United States (Reeves and Mitchell, in press). The estimated distribution is based on the rangeland definition used by the Natural Resources Inventory (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009).
26

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

(Reeves and Mitchell, in press) (fig. 2.10). Between 1982 and 

2007, nearly 430,000 acres of non-Federal rangelands were lost 

annually to various land use changes, though the rate of loss 

over the last decade is less than in previous decades (USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009).

Though estimates vary, rangelands occupy approximately 47 

percent of the global land base, excluding Antarctica (Reeves 

and Mitchell, in press). These lands provide livelihood 

to millions of people (Papanastasis 2009) and provide a 

multitude of biological and social benefits. Cattle alone 

provide tens of billions of dollars to the world economy. In 

2009 the United States generated roughly $32 billion worth 

of beef cattle production. Since many beef cattle raised in the 

contiguous United States spend all or part of their grazing 

cycle on rangelands (i.e., where cattle are not dependent on 

feedlots or crop residues to provide sufficient daily forage 

intake), much of the revenue generated through sales of 

cattle is attributable to forage from rangelands. Though 

forage production is perhaps the most visible and ubiquitous 

rangeland resource, it is not, by any means, the only one. 

Public perception and associated issues with rangelands have 

undergone transformation in the last decade. Chief among 

these changes is an increased focus on ecosystem goods 

and services other than those associated with the production 

of red meat. The recent focus on ecosystems should help 

communicate the importance of not only extractable goods, 

but also tangible and intangible benefits from rangelands 

and their unique contributions to the Nation’s well-being. 

A comprehensive evaluation of goods and services derived 

from rangelands is beyond the scope of this paper. Here, 

only selected sets are mentioned as examples, though more 

complete works exist (e.g., Maczko and Hidinger 2008).

Rangelands offer significant prospects for the development 

of renewable energy (such as power generated from wind 

and solar sources) in addition to recreational opportunities, 

seeds and plant materials, and carbon sequestration. 

The juxtaposition and aridity of many rangelands enable 

reasonably consistent power generation potential. In 

addition, the remoteness, abundance of open space, and 

natural beauty of rangelands make them prime candidates 

for recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching, and 

hunting. A more recently recognized service is the ability of 

rangelands to sequester carbon. Even though rangelands store 

and process far less carbon than forests (Negra and others 

2008), nonetheless, they cumulatively have the potential to 

sequester a significant quantity of carbon because of their 

broad expanse. In addition, rangelands contain approximately 

10 percent of terrestrial biomass and 10 to 30 percent of 

soil organic carbon (Schlesinger 1997, Scurlock and Hall 

1998). Finally, the value of all goods and services derived 

from rangelands is not easily quantified. Despite this fact, 

Figure 2.9—Estimated rangeland area managed by Federal agencies (Reeves and Mitchell, in press). The total area 

managed by Federal agencies is approximately 224 million acres. The estimated area is based on the rangeland 

definition used by the National Resources Inventory (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009).

Forest	
  Service	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  50.48

Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  7.10

Na:onal	
  Park	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  11.24

Other 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  1.95

 - 

 20.00 

 40.00 

 60.00 

 80.00 

 100.00 

 120.00 

 140.00 

 160.00 

Federal Agency 

Federal rangeland area (millions of acres) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of Defense 

Forest Service 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Other 

Forest	
  Service	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  50.48

Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  7.10

Na:onal	
  Park	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  11.24

Other 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  1.95

 - 

 20.00 

 40.00 

 60.00 

 80.00 

 100.00 

 120.00 

 140.00 

 160.00 

Federal Agency 

Federal rangeland area (millions of acres) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of Defense 

Forest Service 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Other 

Department	
  of	
  Defense 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  13.12

Forest	
  Service	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  50.48

Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  7.10

Na:onal	
  Park	
  Service 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  11.24

Other 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  1.95

 - 

 20.00 

 40.00 

 60.00 

 80.00 

 100.00 

 120.00 

 140.00 

 160.00 

Federal Agency 

Federal rangeland area (millions of acres) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of Defense 

Forest Service 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Other 
27

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Table 2.9—Estimated area of rangelands in the contiguous United States under Federal and non-Federal 

jurisdictions

State and RPA

Assessment Region Rangeland area Vegetated areaa

Federal 

rangeland area

Proportion of

vegetated land that 

is rangeland

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - acres- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent

California 52,133,586 82,224,879 28,693,031 63

Oregon 27,374,132 54,309,410 16,152,613 50

Washington 9,620,070 32,447,736 1,966,833 30

Pacific Northwest total 89,127,788 168,982,025 46,812,477 53

Nevada 58,515,548 67,016,472 19,357,393 87

Arizona 57,110,317 69,509,330 24,435,602 82

New Mexico 55,754,605 74,455,901 48,364,457 75

Montana 47,850,531 74,044,430 9,902,821 65

Wyoming 46,267,568 59,056,765 20,727,210 78

Colorado 31,223,942 53,140,886 8,610,193 59

Nebraska 28,506,430 28,922,685 18,942,567 99

Utah 27,971,126 44,062,149 655,626 63

South Dakota 26,547,944 28,282,097 2,574,907 94

Idaho 23,414,143 44,713,552 16,116,770 52

Kansas 18,605,013 22,400,674 278,596 83

North Dakota 14,623,902 15,166,814 2,164,985 96

Rocky Mountains total 436,391,069 580,771,755 172,131,127 75

Minnesota 3,491,414 24,782,883 78,043 14

Wisconsin 3,431,506 19,063,093 207,035 18

Missouri 3,177,941 18,410,205 80,054 17

Iowa 1,602,247 3,952,303 11,454 41

Illinois 1,264,260 6,332,458 32,286 20

North total 12,967,368 72,540,942 408,872 18

Texas 90,805,931 125,375,997 1,930,404 72

Oklahoma 15,601,518 28,030,408 531,361 56

Florida 6,707,664 22,890,659 1,001,674 29

Louisiana 3,172,729 18,567,372 204,482 17

Georgia 1,348,008 26,579,024 130,189 5

South Carolina 1,321,778 14,112,990 162,904 9

North Carolina 1,317,001 20,690,943 161,548 6

South total 120,274,629 256,247,393 4,122,562 51

U.S. total 662,337,819 1,318,358,448 224,115,815 50

RPA = Resources Planning Act. 

aVegetated estimates include all land cover types except agriculture. Some States are missing, especially in the North and 

South Assessment regions, because they contain < 1 million acres of rangeland. U.S. totals given represent all area in all 

States, and is not limited to those States listed here.

Note: Rangeland area is expressed as a proportion of vegetated land that is classified as rangeland (Reeves and Mitchell, in 

press). 
28

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Human modified rangelands (County level [%])

1001< 100,000 ac. rangelands  [NRI perspective—Reeves and Mitchell, in press]

(12) 2.10

Figure 2.10—Estimated area of human modified rangeland expressed as a percent of historic rangeland area for the conterminous United States. This analysis is based on unpublished data. 
29

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

rangelands are a unique and valuable land type critical 

for the maintenance of ecological function and economic 

sustainability of the United States. 

End Invited Paper

Forest Lands

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program of the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, defines 

forest land as “...land at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre 

in size with at least 10 percent cover by live trees of any 

size” (Smith and others 2009). According to FIA program 

estimates, just over 33 percent of the Nation’s land area, 

about 751 million acres, is in forest cover meeting this 

definition. While about 300 million acres less than it was 

before European settlement in the early 1600s, the size of 

the Nation’s forest cover has been relatively stable for the 

last 100 years. The proportion of land in forest cover is for 

about the same among the North (42 percent), South (40 

percent), and Pacific Coast regions (without Alaska) 

(42 percent). With Alaska included, forest cover in the 

Pacific Coast region is somewhat less than the other 

regions, at 37 percent. The Rocky Mountains (20 percent) 

has about half as much forest land cover as the other three 

regions. The four Great Plains States of Kansas, Nebraska, 

South Dakota, and North Dakota have just under 3 percent 

of total land area in forest.

Almost 44 percent of the current U.S. forest land area is 

publicly owned (Federal, State, local), over 18 percent is 

owned by private corporations, and almost 38 percent is 

privately owned by non-corporate entities (fig. 2.11) (Smith 

and others 2009). Of the non-corporate private forest land, 

over 92 percent is family or individually owned.

The national distribution of forest lands shows that eastern 

forests are predominantly in private ownership, while western 

forests are predominantly public (fig. 2.12). Industrial forests 

are concentrated in Maine, the Lake States, the lower South, 

and the Pacific Northwest regions.

Private forest lands include forest-industry lands, other 

corporation forest lands, individual and family lands, and 

other non-corporation private lands. Over half of the forest 

industry forests are in the South. Large portions of corporation 

lands not owned by the forest industry are located in the 

Pacific Coast and South regions. Almost half of the family 

and individually owned private forest land is in the South 

region; nearly 36 percent is in the North region. The National 

Woodland Ownership Survey estimated that about 54 percent 

of family forest land was open only to family or friends for 

recreational uses (Butler 2008).

Figure 2.11—Percent of forest land in the United States by ownership, 2007 (1000s of acres, percentages sum to 100s). 

(Reproduced from 2010 United States Sustainable Forest Management Report.)

Federal	
  

33%	
  

State	
  

9%	
   Local	
  

Corporate	
  	
   1%	
  

forest	
  industry	
  

7%	
  

Other	
  	
  

corporate	
  

12%	
  

Family/individual	
  

35%	
  

Other	
  non-­‐corporate	
  

3%	
  

Federal	
  

33%	
  

State	
  

9%	
   Local	
  

Corporate	
  	
   1%	
  

forest	
  industry	
  

7%	
  

Other	
  	
  

corporate	
  

12%	
  

Family/individual	
  

35%	
  

Other	
  non-­‐corporate	
  

3%	
  
30

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Forest ownership

Public

Percent private corporate

81 - 100 61 - 80 41 - 60 21 - 40 20 or less No data

(14) 2.12

Figure 2.12—Public and private forest land in the United States and percent of private forest that is industrial. Source: USDA Forest Service (2010)
31

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

Ownership has a profound effect on forest management policies 

and allowed uses. Federal forest lands include those on national 

forests, national parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, 

wildlife refuges, and any other Federally managed public land. 

State forest lands mostly occur on State forestry commission 

areas, in State parks, and in other State management areas. 

Local forests include municipal watersheds, local parks, local 

forest preserves, greenways, and other local government 

forests. Some public lands have heightened protection status. 

An estimated 106 million acres of these protected lands are 

forested, representing 14 percent of all forest land.

Urban Land

Urban land in the contiguous United States increased from 

2.5 percent of the Nation’s total land area in 1990 to 3.1 percent 

in 2000. This expansion of total urban land area is approximately 

equal to the combined acreage of Vermont and New Hampshire 

(Nowak and others 2005). Figure 2.13 highlights counties 

across the country classified by the Census Bureau as urban 

(500 or more people per square mile). Most of these more 

heavily populated counties are along the coast of the Atlantic, 

in Florida, along the Piedmont Crescent (from Virginia to 

Alabama), in the upper Great Lakes, up through the northern 

Mississippi River Valley and along the Pacific Coast.

As table 2.10 indicates, average of total surface area that 

is in non-Federal forest cover across urban counties of the 

United States is just over 17 percent. The average percent of 

urban county area that is forest is greatest in the Pacific Coast 

region, at almost 23 percent, followed by about 18 in the North 

and 16 percent in the South. Mean county area that is in forest 

cover is greatest for counties with a population density of 50 to 

249 people per square mile. 

Table 2.10—Mean percent of county total surface area that is non-Federal forest, by population density and 

RPA region, 2010

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Persons per square mile 

Mean 

percent n

Mean

percent n

Mean

percent n

Mean

percent n

Mean

percent n

< 50 31.6 419 37.7 628 3.7 534 24.6 66 24.6 1,647

50-99 32.5 230 44.2 306 4.1 30 33.7 19 37.2 585

100-249 30.9 185 39.6 212 8.0 9 21.1 19 34.3 425

250-499 30.3 97 33.1 87 4.8 14 24.8 12 29.4 210

500+ (urban) 17.6 104 16.4 73 8.4 9 22.9 16 17.2 202

RPA = Resources Planning Act. Note: The “n” columns are the number of counties in the population density by region cells. Non-Federal forest land

forecasts were not completed for Alaska and Hawaii or these cities/counties: Washington, DC; Denver, CO; Baltimore (city), MD; St. Louis (city), MO. 

Source: Wear (2011).
32

An Overview of Land and Water Resources in the United States

By county population density, 2008

< 5050 - 9999.1 - 249249.1 - 499> 500

(15) 2.13

Figure 2.13—Counties of the United States by level of population density, 2008. (A density equal to or greater than 500 persons per square mile meets the U.S. Bureau of Census definition of “urban.”) 
33

Protecting Rural Land

This chapter addresses objective 3 of this assessment report 

on outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to 

describe trends in natural land protection. The importance 

of protecting rural land is underscored in invited papers 

that examine pressures to develop private forest land and 

private land near designated Federal wilderness. This chapter 

examines the land protection systems in place across the 

country, including the land trusts, conservation easements, 

fee simple acquisition (an invited paper from duMoulin 

and Alford of The Trust for Public Land), and Federal land 

protection including the National Park System, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The results from a Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) spatial analysis of the location of 

these protected Federal lands are presented to show which 

types of ecosystems are being protected. 

An Overview of Protected Lands 

in the United States

Increasingly important in continuing efforts to protect land 

and water systems are programs such as the Protected Areas 

Database, PAD (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/data/padusdata/). PAD-US data covers the Nation’s protected areas 

with standardized spatial geometry and resource attributes 

including ownership, management, and conservation status 

(based on U.S. national GAP and International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) codings). Included 

is voluntarily protected, fee simple private land. Types 

of conservation measures employed to protect ecological 

functions and natural, recreational, and cultural uses are 

encoded. Underpinning the PAD-US effort is the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) GAP Program, which assesses the 

conservation status of native vertebrate species and natural 

land cover types. The primary objective of the GAP Program 

is to help assure adequate representation of common species 

on conservation lands. 

According to the PAD-US, the current national total 

acreage of land protected is approximately 715 million 

acres, including Federal, State, and local government 

ownerships, as well protected lands owned (in fee simple) 

by nongovernmental organizations. This number is roughly 

one-third of all U.S. land area. Not included in this 715 

million is around 40 million acres of private land protected 

through easements.

The map in figure 3.1 shows public and fee simple privately 

owned protected lands included in the current PAD database. 

Some of the protected public lands in the East are obvious, 

such as the Everglades National Park, the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge, the Nantahala National Forest in 

the Southern Appalachian Mountains, and U.S. protected 

areas bordering the Great Lakes (such as the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area). Overall, protected lands in the East are 

not as extensive as in the West. For example, there are nearly 

600 million Federal acres in the West compared to 

< 50 million in the East.

Development Pressures on Rural 

Land Resources

Protection of natural lands, such as forest and range, public 

and private, has increased in importance in recent decades 

as pressures for residential, tourism, commercial, industrial, 

agricultural, and other development have grown. About 

1.5 billion acres of the land area of the contiguous United 

States are non-Federal and owned by private individuals and 

other private entities, or by State and local governments, or 

tribal governments. Approximately 7 percent of this nonFederal land base is already in urban and other developed 

uses (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2007). Private lands account for the large majority (about 85 

percent) of the U.S. non-Federal land base (Lubowski and 

others 2006).

The two papers that follow are designed to help the reader 

better understand the rising pressures for development on both 

private and public lands. The first paper, by Stein and others, 

describes development pressures on private forest lands. 

Similar pressures are occurring on rangelands, croplands, 

and other rural lands. The second paper, by Ginn and others, 

presents an analysis of development pressures on private lands 

near designated Federal wilderness.

Chapter 3

Protecting Rural Land
34

Protecting Rural Land

GAP status code

1 Permanent Protection – disturbance events allowed to proceed 2 Permanent Protection – disturbance events suppressed 3 Permanent Protection – subject to extractive uses such as mining or logging 4 Private lands – no known mandate for protection

Hawaii & 

Pacific Islands

Puerto Rico &

U.S. Virgin Islands

Alaska

(16) 3.1

Figure 3.1—Map based on PAD-US data showing location of public and private protected land and water in the United States by GAP level of protection http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gallery/. Note: Explanation of GAP levels: Status 1—lands managed solely for biodiversity conservation in perpetuity; Status 2—lands managed primarily for biodiversity conservation, but with some management, (e.g., suppression of wildfire or activities designed to mimic natural disturbances); Status 3— lands having permanent protection, but subject to extractive uses (e.g., logging or mining) or motorized recreation (Duarte 2010).
35

Protecting Rural Land

Invited Paper

Development Pressures on the Private 

Forests

Susan Stein, Ronald E. McRoberts, Lisa G. Mahal, 

and Sara Comas1

More than 420 million acres (56 percent) of U.S. forests are 

privately owned (Smith and others 2009) and provide critical 

benefits and services to people, as well as to wildlife and 

ecosystems. Most of our private forests are in the eastern United 

States—up to 85 percent of some watersheds in the East are 

covered by private forest (fig. 3.2). Private forests in the West 

also play many important roles, including providing critical 

wildlife habitat (Robles and others 2008). Benefits and services 

from forests include a diverse array of recreational activities 

including fishing, hunting, hiking, and biking; habitat for over 

60 percent of at-risk wildlife species in the United States (Robles 

and others 2008) in addition to deer, pheasants, squirrels, and 

many other animal and plant species not at-risk; the provision of 

clean air and water; timber; and carbon sequestration.

As urban development expands into rural places, and as 

more people choose to live near our national forests and other 

beautiful, rural places, housing density will likely continue to 

increase on nearby private forests. And, it is possible that, as 

current landowners become older, more private forest lands 

will be available for development. Currently, about 

264 million acres of private forest land are owned by people 

age 55 or older (Butler 2008). Additionally, many private 

industrial timberlands have been sold over the past decade, 

including 23 million acres between 2000 and 2004 (Clutter 

and others 2005). While the majority of these lands are 

retained for timber management purposes, some are sold for 

development (Weinberg and Larsen 2008).

Impacts of housing development and other 

pressures on private forests—Many factors can 

affect the health of private forests and, hence, the benefits 

and services they provide. Factors range from the clearing, 

fragmentation, and disturbance that accompany the 

development of new homes and associated infrastructure; to 

the damage to roots, leaves, and stems caused by an associated 

influx of native and exotic pests and diseases; and to the soil 

erosion and tree mortality that follows intense wildfires. Each 

1 Forests on the Edge Coordinator, Cooperative Forestry Staff, State 

and Private Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington, DC 20250; Mathematical Statistician, Northern Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, St. Paul, MN 

55108; Computer Systems Analyst, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 

55104; and Natural Resource Specialist, Cooperative Forestry Staff, State 

and Private Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington, DC 20250 .

of these pressures can increase the potential for or exacerbate 

the impacts of the others.

To understand where private forests in the United States 

provide the greatest benefits and where these benefits are 

most likely to decrease due to increased housing density, 

fire, or insect pests and diseases, the Forests on the Edge 

project of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

undertook an assessment, based on readily available, 

nationally consistent GIS data. This paper provides a snapshot 

of the assessment as it pertains to housing density, fire, and 

insect pests and diseases. A complete overview of the study is 

presented in Stein and others (2009).

Increased housing density in rural forest lands—

An assessment of projected future increases in housing 

density can help to understand where in the United States 

private forest might change as a result of future housing 

development. Although recent economic conditions may 

have led to a downturn in the housing market, given that the 

U.S. population is expected to increase by another 80 million 

people between 2000 and 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a), 

it is likely that housing density will continue to increase in 

many areas, including private forests across the country and 

especially in the Southeast. 

Private forest factoids

• There are 423 million acres (56 percent) privately 

owned forests in the United States (Smith and 

others 2009).

• More than 60 percent of private forest landowners 

are at least 55 years old (Butler 2008).

• Between 2000 and 2004, there were 23 million 

acres of private industrial timberland sold in the 

United States (Clutter and others 2005).

• About 53 percent of U.S. water supplies originate 

on forest land, and more than half of this water 

supply comes from land on private forests (Brown 

and others 2005).

• Private forests supplied 91 percent of all timber 

harvested in the United States in 2007 (Smith and 

others 2009).

• About 60 percent of all at-risk animal and plant 

species are associated with private forests 

(Robles and others 2008).

• More than 57 million acres of rural private forest 

is projected to experience a substantial increase 

in housing density between 2000 and 2030; 

more than 70 percent of private forests in some 

watersheds could experience this change (Stein 

and others 2009).
36

Protecting Rural Land

Public forestPrivate forestNonforestUrban areasWater

(17) 3.2

Figure 3.2—Ownership of forest lands in the United States, 2007 (Stein and others 2009).
37

Protecting Rural Land

A broad range of impacts has been associated with increased 

housing density and increased urbanization in and around 

forests (Stein and others 2009). These include decreased water 

quality and quantity, as well as increased volume and peak rate 

of runoff (Im and others 2003), higher rates of soil erosion and 

water pollution (Houlahan and Findlay 2004, Stein and Butler 

2004), reduced carbon sequestration, and an increase in fire 

risk (Syphard and others 2007). Impacts to wildlife include 

the loss and degradation of habitat, an increase in predation, 

parasitism, and reproductive failures (Stein and others 2009). 

Studies in some areas of the country have noted that, as housing 

density increases, landowners are less likely to invest in timber 

production and active forest management (Munn and others 

2002, Thorne and Sundquist 2001, Wear and others 1999).

Areas where private, rural forest lands might be most affected 

by substantial increases in housing density were identified 

by combining several GIS data layers, summarizing the 

results by eight-digit hydrological unit code, or watershed, 

and ranking each watershed by the resulting value. Layers 

used for this analysis included data on projected future 

housing density, forest cover, and land ownership. Forests 

were projected to experience a substantial increase in 

housing density if they were projected to shift from one of the 

following three categories into a higher-density category:

Rural I: fewer than 16 housing units per square mile

Rural II: 16 to 64 housing units per square mile

Exurban/urban: more than 64 housing units per square mile.

A detailed methodological description for these analyses can 

be found in Stein and others (2009).

As depicted in figure 3.3, up to 72 percent of private forests 

in some watersheds are estimated to experience a substantial 

increase in housing density between 2000 and 2030. 

Watersheds in the 90th percentile are found throughout the 

East as well as parts of the West. Many high-ranking eastern 

watersheds are located in or near coastal areas as well as 

along the Appalachian Mountain range, and include much of 

North Carolina and Florida, as well as an area surrounding 

Atlanta. High-ranking watersheds are also found in Michigan, 

the California Sierra Nevada Mountain range, along the 

Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountain range, and near 

major population centers in the Southwest. 

Insect pests and diseases—Both native and exotic forest 

insects and diseases have caused substantial damage to U.S. 

forests. Tree defoliation and damage to roots and stems have 

resulted in decreased tree growth and mortality (Tkacz and 

others 2007). Over 5 million acres of tree mortality was caused 

by insects and diseases in 2006 (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Data collected and analyzed by the Forest Health Monitoring 

Program of the Forest Service (Krist and others 2007), when 

combined with data on forest ownership, allows identification 

of watersheds where future damage from insect pests and 

diseases is likely to affect tree growth on private forests. 

Damage by forest insects and diseases can result in decreased 

growth, as measured by basal area (the cross section of a tree 

stem in square feet, commonly measured at breast height). 

Watersheds in the 90th percentile, as depicted in figure 3.4, 

contain private forest that could potentially experience, on 

average, from 16 percent to as high as 41 percent basal area 

loss due to forest insects and diseases. These watersheds are 

most numerous in western Oregon and Washington, along 

California’s northern Sierra Nevada range, as well as in the 

Southwest, the vicinity of the Great Lakes, and along a section 

of the Appalachian highlands running from Pennsylvania 

through Virginia. 

Wildfire—Uncontrolled, intense wildfires can threaten 

forests as well as the increasing number of people and 

structures in forested areas. Wildfire impacts can include 

increased soil erosion; reduced carbon sequestration; death or 

displacement of wildlife; alterations to stream temperature, 

chemistry, and sediment levels; and increased activity by offroad vehicles (Carr 2005, Donovan and Brown 2007, Hurteau 

and others 2009, Kalabokidis 2000). Economic repercussions 

of wildfire include high suppression expenditures (wildfire 

expenditures by the Federal Government surpassed $1 billion 

for the first time ever, in 2000), the loss of timberland, and a 

loss of tourism revenues. 

Data on wildland fire potential collected by the Fire Modeling 

Institute of the Forest Service (http:www.fs.fed.us/fmi) 

were combined with data on forest ownership to identify 

watersheds across the country with the greatest risk of private 

forest damage due to wildfire under extreme conditions 

(Menakis 2008). As displayed in figure 3.5, up to 100 percent 

of the private forests located in watersheds in the 90th 

percentile have a high wildfire potential. A large proportion of 

the western watersheds included in this analysis are found in 

the 90th percentile category, including most of the watersheds 

in Arizona and New Mexico as well as watersheds in southern 

Colorado, northern California, and southwestern Montana. 

The watersheds with the highest wildland fire potential in the 

eastern half of the United States are all located in the South, 

including a band of watersheds stretching from southern 

Virginia through Georgia, as well as watersheds in Florida, 

along the border of Mississippi and Arkansas, in Texas, and in 

southeastern Oklahoma.

End Invited Paper
38

Protecting Rural Land

Figure 3.3—Watersheds by percentage of private forest projected to experience increased housing density.
39

Protecting Rural LandFigure 3.4—Watersheds by potential for basal area loss due to insect pests and diseases.
40

Protecting Rural Land

Figure 3.5—Watersheds by susceptibility and vulnerability of private forests to wildfire.
41

Protecting Rural Land

Invited Paper

Threatened Wilderness Areas in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System

Allison Ginn Barnes, Gary T. Green, 

Nathan P. Nibbelink, and H. Ken Cordell2

Continued residential development in the United States 

threatens the boundaries of most of America’s valuable public 

lands (Radeloff and others 2010, see sidebar). Many Americans 

are relocating to wilderness areas or retiring to areas high 

in natural or recreational amenities in a movement referred 

to as “amenity migration” (Cordell and others, 2012; Price 

and others 1997). The term “backcountry sprawl” describes 

housing development increases within and near national forests 

and parks. Population growth between 1970 and 1988 near 

Federal public land (23 percent) was more than double the 

average growth nationwide (11 percent). However, national 

parks and forests are not the only protected lands at risk from 

development along their borders. It is also highly likely that 

housing density will increase significantly in and around 

Federal Wilderness Areas (Cordell and Overdevest 2001). 

Federal Wilderness Areas are particularly vulnerable to 

exurban and rural sprawl. The land within areas designated as 

Wilderness is meant to be protected in its natural state, thus 

land development is highly inconsistent with this protection 

designation and with the associated values ascribed by the 

public (Cordell and others 2005). The pressures of human 

development and private land ownership around and within 

protected Wilderness landscapes create challenging issues for 

managers as they strive to protect natural and cultural assets 

and maintain access for recreation. Development within and 

around protected lands can significantly affect their ecological 

condition by increasing habitat fragmentation and reducing air 

and water quality. This development can also reduce recreational 

opportunities through denial of access. Even though most of it 

is low-density and residential, development nonetheless poses a 

threat to these sensitive and uniquely valuable wild lands which 

are defined by law as Wilderness Areas.

Problem statement—Being able to monitor and perhaps 

predict increases of housing density near Wilderness 

boundaries is essential if there is to be early detection of 

threats. Without this capability, land managers cannot 

effectively plan for and implement appropriate management 

2 Outdoor Recreation Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Newcastle and Buffalo Field Offices, WY 82834; 

Associate Professor, University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and 

Natural Resources, Athens, GA 30602; Associate Professor, University 

of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Athens, 

GA 30602; and Pioneering Scientist, Southern Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA 30602.

In a study of protected Federal lands, Radeloff and 

others (2010) found that designated wilderness 

encountered greater growth (366 percent) between 

1940 and 2000 in development of housing units 

in surrounding areas within 50 km of boundaries 

than either that of national parks or national forests. 

Growth of housing units was even greater within 

1 kilometer of wilderness boundaries (474 percent 

between 1940 and 2000). As well, housing unit 

growth within 1 kilometer was projected to be 

faster near wilderness (64 percent) than near either 

national parks or forests from 2000 to 2030. This 

research pointed out that housing units within or near 

administrative boundaries can greatly influence the 

condition of protected areas (e.g., habitat disruption, 

noise and light pollution, and increased pressure 

on wildlife from pets). From as far away as 50 

km, housing development can result in increased 

recreational pressures from residents, most of whom 

are within a 1-hour drive of the protected land.

Number and growth in housing units (in millions) within 50 

kilometers of U.S. protected areas from 1940 to 2000, with 

projections to 2030, by type of protected area

Note: Numbers of housing units are not additive because many 

wilderness areas are embedded in a national forest or national 

park, and similarly, many national forests are adjacent to each 

other, which would result in double-counting. Percent growth is 

based on unrounded numbers of housing units. Source: Radeloff 

and others (2010).

Wilderness Na+onal	
  ParkNa+onal	
  Forest

Percent	
  growth,	
  2000–30 45 45 46

2030	
  housing	
  units 30.5 9.6 50.8

Percent	
  growth,	
  1940-­‐2000 366 340 289

2000	
  housing	
  units 20.5 6.6 34.8

1940	
  housing	
  units 4.4 1.5 9

45	
  

30.5	
  

366	
  

20.5	
  

4.4	
  

45	
  

9.6	
  

340	
  

6.6	
  

1.5	
  

46	
  

50.8	
  

289	
  

34.8	
  

9	
  

Percent	
  growth,	
  2000–30	
  

2030	
  housing	
  units	
  

Percent	
  growth,	
  

1940-­‐2000	
  

2000	
  housing	
  units	
  

1940	
  housing	
  units	
  

Na+onal	
  Forest	
   Na+onal	
  Park	
   Wilderness	
  
42

Protecting Rural Land

options. Similarly, overall management of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) will not be as 

effective if a general assessment of development pressure is 

not provided. Though research regarding amenity migration, 

exurban sprawl, human use impact, and the wildland-urban 

interface is plentiful, research examining nearby rural and 

exurban land development is, for the most part, lacking.

Purpose statement—This research assumes a close 

correlation between the likelihood of nearby development, 

and the proximity of Wilderness to urban areas, areas of high 

road density, and private land. By employing this assumption 

of correlation, this study will attempt to identify how many 

and which NWPS Areas are most likely to face development 

pressures nearby and within their boundaries. This research 

was done to provide the Forest Service with a report on 

the development pressures facing the National Wilderness 

Preservation System for inclusion in the 2010 Renewable 

Resources Planning Act Assessment.

Selecting areas for the study—At the time of this study, 

the NWPS consisted of nearly 800 Federal designated areas. 

Of these, our study was limited to screening the 600 that had 

geographic data (boundary files) in order to identify those 

meeting development potential criteria (described below). At 

the time of this study, the only areas that had the necessary 

boundary data were those that were more than 640 acres in 

size and were designated prior to 2004. From this pool of 600 

designated areas, 71 met the selection criteria of proximity to 

urban areas, road systems, and private land.

Methodology—In examining the 71 selected areas, several 

buffer distances were chosen to mimic the approach used in 

a similar study quantifying development risks surrounding 

national forests (Stein and others 2005). These buffers were 

based on the fundamental assumption that impacts to public 

lands and their natural characteristics vary depending on the 

distance of existing development and human settlement from 

those lands. The analysis was focused on the land within 

individual Wilderness Areas and the development potential 

within three buffers ranging from zero to one-half, one-half 

to three, and three to ten miles from the borders of each 

selected Wilderness Area. These buffers represent straightline distances perpendicular to the NWPS borders and are 

analogous to a circular radius if Areas were a perfect circle. 

NWPS Areas are not circular but irregularly shaped. Thus, 

the buffers represent an outward expansion of this irregular 

shape. An additional buffer zone was analyzed consisting of 

all land within 10 miles of NWPS Area boundaries. As earlier 

described, Wilderness Areas with the greatest likelihood of 

development pressures are predicted to be positively related 

to existing exurban housing densities, the presence of nearby 

private land, and proximity to roads and metropolitan areas.

Table 3.1 specifies the calculation method for each of six 

metrics used to compare and rank the selected 71 Wilderness 

Areas by likelihood or potential for development. This 

comparison identified which Wilderness Areas were most 

likely to experience housing density increases along or near 

their borders. Metrics used included the following:

• Percent of nearby land protected by Wilderness managing 

agencies

• Percent of land protected by other Federal, tribal, State or 

local entities

• Housing density

• Distance to the nearest road

• The transformed value of the sum of passengers boarding at 

airports within 50 miles of the NWPS unit

• Area of water features within each buffer distance.

Each metric in table 3.1 was normalized to a zero-to-one 

scale, assigning a zero to the minimum value in the range and 

a one to the maximum value for each metric in each buffer 

distance zone. Thus, for each metric, a zero indicates the least 

likelihood of contributing to development, whereas a value 

of one indicates the highest likelihood of contributing to a 

housing density increase. 

Current literature does not quantify the relative degree to 

which each of the above comparison metrics contributes to 

likelihood of development. Thus, an index was created that 

Table 3.1—Calculation method for six metrics used to assess likelihood of nearby development

Metric Unit Calculation method

Non-Protected Land Tier 1 Percent ((Area of Buffer—Area of Land Protected by BLM, FS, FWS, or NPS)/Area of Buffer)*100

Non-Protected Land Tier 2 Percent ((Area of Buffer—Area of Land Protected by any entity)/Area of Buffer)*100

Housing density Units/square mile Housing Units/Total Land Area for Buffer

Mean distance to roads Mile Distance to Nearest Road for 30-meter Cell

Enplanements for airports 

within 50 miles Persons Sum of Number of Boarded Passengers for All Airports Intersecting a 50-Mile Buffer of NWPS

Presence of water features Square mile Area of all Lakes, Reservoirs, or Oceans Within Each Buffer Zone
43

Protecting Rural Land

assumes that the six metrics affect development equally. The 

values across metrics were averaged for each Wilderness 

Area, resulting in a comprehensive index score for comparison 

across the selected 71 NWPS units for each of the buffer 

zones. For each Wilderness Area, this comprehensive index 

score for each of three buffer zones (zero to half, half to three, 

and three to ten miles) was used to rank order Areas. Rank 

was then multiplied by the total distance to the outer perimeter 

of each particular buffer zone, then divided by that result by 

the number of zones included in the analysis. A lower score 

indicated a higher propensity for development.

By use of a comprehensive index score (i.e., Composite 

Potential Development Index = PDIc), Wilderness Areas were 

rank ordered to show relative risk of development for each 

buffer zone. This method assigns each Wilderness Area a 

rank that denotes its risk of exurban development relative to 

the other 70 units at the same buffer distance. In addition, to 

test the relative sensitivity of the PDIc to each metric, scores 

for each metric were doubled, then the composite score was 

re-calculated and Wilderness Areas were re-ranked.

Results—The weighted mean rank indicated which 

Wilderness Areas face the highest risk of borderland 

development (see table 3.2). The sensitivity analysis indicated 

that at least 8 of the 10 Wilderness Areas remained in the top 

10 for risk of borderland development, despite a doubling of 

each metric (table 3.2). These results indicate that the PDIc 

is relatively robust, and assuming that the metrics chosen 

are in fact predicting risk of development, as the literature 

suggested, the Wilderness Areas remaining at the top of 

the list are priorities for further investigation into potential 

development risks.

Discussion and conclusions—This research represents 

a national analysis of development risk to designated Federal 

Wilderness. Based on available geographic data, this study 

identified that 71 of 600 Wilderness Areas are likely to face 

significant development threats near their borders. Wilderness 

has usually been thought of as remote lands located within 

a landscape of other natural lands. This increasingly is not 

the case. In selecting and ranking Wilderness Areas for 

this national study, metrics more sensitive at the local or 

regional levels may have been overlooked. Ultimately, it may 

be desirable to expand use of the PDIc approach to enable 

comparison of NWPS units across multiple spatial and 

temporal scales. 

Spatial or temporal patterns may exist for Wilderness Areas 

experiencing a relatively high risk of development. More than 

one-third of the top 25 most threatened Wilderness Areas are 

located in the Pacific Coast region (table 3.2), a region often 

characterized as the interface of wild lands and urban areas. 

Future research may shed further light on these patterns and 

quantify threshold values for each metric that prove useful 

in refining projections of the risk of future housing density 

increases. Future research may also lead to differential weighting 

of metrics for computing the development potential index.

The methods used in this research have provided a solid 

advancement of methods for identifying areas with relatively 

high or low risk at various local scales. However, more 

translation of the data, methodology, and results is needed before 

using index scores for establishing conservation goals. Inclusion 

of other disciplines, such as landscape ecology, is encouraged. 

The ability to link or connect Wilderness Areas with critical fish 

or wildlife habitat is also needed. Identification of stakeholders 

in land preservation, such as nongovernment organizations, 

and State and local governments, as well as programs such as 

the Conservation Reserve Program will increase the ability to 

plan for and execute landscape level protection of the NWPS. 

Nonprofit organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Sierra 

Club, and the Campaign for America’s Wilderness may find this 

study of use in prioritizing lands for conservation, or acquisition 

of buffer lands adjoining Wilderness.

End Invited Paper

Private Land Conservation 

Land trusts—Increasingly important to private land 

conservation throughout the United States are conservation 

easements. Conservation easements keep land in private 

ownership, but with development restrictions. The incentive 

is lower taxes to landowners. Conservation easements are 

most often administered through a land trust, which is a 

special type of private, nonprofit organization with a mission 

to preserve undeveloped land. Land trusts may be national 

or regional organizations, but they are noted for being active 

at the local or community level. Land trusts have emerged 

as one of the more popular and successful of conservation 

movements in the country.

The Land Trust Census—The Land Trust Alliance 

conducts a census of land trust organizations at 5-year 

intervals. As estimated in its 2005 Land Trust Census, the 

United States loses about 2 million acres of farm, forest, 

and open space land each year (Land Trust Alliance 2006). 

Thus, conservation of private land through trusts or other 

mechanisms is of growing importance.

As noted in the executive summary of the 2005 Land Trust 

Census, rural landscapes are increasingly being converted to 

developed uses including shopping malls, subdivisions, and 

highways. These conversions impact more than 100,000 acres 

of wetlands each year. Such conversion of wetlands leads to 

degradation of water quality and unnatural flooding.
44

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.2—National Wilderness Preservation System units as ranked by the Composite Potential Development Index 

(PDIc), followed by the ranking of each unit using the PDI for each buffer alone and then the ranking of the PDIc for a 

doubling of each contributing variable 

Name Agency State

PDIc 

Rank

0–0.5 

Rank

0.5–3 

Rank

3–10 

Rank LO1x2 LO2x2 H2Ox2 MRDx2 ENPx2

Juniper Dunes BLM WA 1 9 4 1 1 1 2 1 1

Mingo FWS MO 2 15 3 2 4 4 4 3 6

Ishi BLM/FS CA 3 6 5 3 2 2 3 2 3

Soldier Creek FS NE 4 2 1 6 3 3 5 4 8

Kisatchie Hills FS LA 5 5 9 4 5 5 6 5 5

Hells Canyon BLM AZ 6 1 8 5 6 6 7 7 2

Table Rock BLM OR 7 4 2 7 7 7 9 6 4

Blackbeard Island FWS GA 8 3 6 9 24 22 8 40 14

Greenhorn Mountain FS CO 9 34 14 8 8 8 10 8 15

Glacier View FS WA 10 18 10 12 15 12 17 17 7

Wambaw Creek FS SC 11 30 16 11 14 17 13 12 9

Mount Sneffels FS CO 12 27 12 13 10 10 12 10 11

Devils Backbone FS MO 13 14 17 15 9 9 16 9 43

Swanquarter FWS NC 14 10 11 18 19 16 1 26 10

Mountain Lakes BLM/FS NV 15 22 18 17 28 25 11 13 17

Sylvania FS MI 16 8 7 22 20 14 14 11 18

Badlands NPS SD 17 24 23 16 11 15 15 14 12

Menagerie FS OR 18 11 21 19 23 20 18 15 16

Jacumba BLM CA 19 17 19 21 18 23 25 25 28

Chanchelulla FS CA 20 12 15 23 21 18 21 16 20

Mill Creek FS OR 21 45 53 10 26 26 23 18 19

Juniper Mesa FS AZ 22 13 22 25 17 13 20 20 27

Capitan Mountains FS NM 23 55 45 14 12 19 19 19 26

Black Mountain BLM CA 24 7 13 31 22 24 24 21 22

Tamarac FWS MN 25 16 24 28 13 41 22 23 24

Hell Hole Bay FS SC 26 39 34 24 31 29 31 22 21

North Maricopa Mountains BLM AZ 27 31 20 30 34 30 29 29 13

Caribou-Speckled Mountain FS ME 28 62 42 20 25 21 26 28 38

Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel BLM/FS CA 29 58 28 26 29 27 27 24 23

Welcome Creek FS MT 30 49 36 29 32 28 32 36 25

Seney FWS MI 31 21 35 33 16 11 30 27 54

Sky Lakes FS OR 32 54 47 27 39 37 28 30 29

Upper Kiamichi River FS OK 33 29 38 32 35 32 34 31 30

Cache La Poudre FS CO 34 33 30 37 36 35 39 37 35

East Fork FS AR 35 37 39 34 33 31 36 33 41

Trinity Alps BLM/FS CA 36 44 32 36 40 40 33 32 31

Rodman Mountains BLM CA 37 26 25 40 30 33 35 34 33

Strawberry Crater FS AZ 38 32 31 41 37 34 38 35 36

Lizard Head FS CO 39 46 26 43 44 39 40 42 34

continued
45

Protecting Rural Land

Name Agency State

PDIc 

Rank

0–0.5 

Rank

0.5–3 

Rank

3–10 

Rank LO1x2 LO2x2 H2Ox2 MRDx2 ENPx2

Laurel Fork South FS WV 40 23 27 45 47 42 41 38 42

Uncompahgre BLM/FS CO 41 41 33 42 42 36 42 41 32

Big Island Lake FS MI 42 38 56 35 48 44 44 39 45

Fish Creek Mountains BLM CA 43 20 29 46 27 46 37 45 39

Apache Creek FS AZ 44 47 50 38 41 38 43 44 48

San Pedro Parks FS NM 45 48 48 44 51 49 46 43 47

Trigo Mountain BLM AZ 46 42 37 51 46 50 47 53 44

Coyote Mountains BLM CA 47 40 41 50 45 57 54 54 51

Anaconda Pintler FS MT 48 68 67 39 43 45 45 48 40

Strawberry Mountain FS OR 49 50 46 49 49 43 51 47 67

Cebolla BLM NM 50 28 57 48 38 48 50 49 65

Mount Jefferson FS OR 51 53 44 52 52 51 48 46 46

Mount Skokomish FS WA 52 25 40 56 58 55 56 65 37

Cloud Peak FS WY 53 64 62 47 56 54 52 50 52

Goat Rocks FS WA 54 51 49 55 54 53 53 52 50

Bosque del Apache FWS NM 55 56 55 53 50 47 55 51 66

Imperial Refuge FWS AZ/CA 56 35 43 59 53 52 49 56 49

Riverside Mountains BLM CA 57 43 51 58 55 59 57 55 58

Picacho Peak BLM CA 58 36 54 60 60 60 60 58 53

William O. Douglas FS WA 59 59 59 57 59 58 61 59 55

Salmo-Priest FS WA 60 66 68 54 57 56 62 57 69

Glacier Peak FS WA 61 70 58 61 63 63 59 67 57

Swansea BLM AZ 62 19 52 67 61 62 63 61 60

Lake Chelan-Sawtooth FS WA 63 52 65 63 62 61 58 62 56

Rice Valley BLM CA 64 60 61 64 66 65 66 60 64

Death Valley NPS CA/NV 65 65 60 65 65 67 67 66 62

Bob Marshall FS MT 66 69 70 62 64 64 68 71 61

Salome FS AZ 67 63 66 66 69 69 65 64 68

East Cactus Plain BLM AZ 68 61 64 68 67 66 64 63 63

Jennie Lakes FS CA 69 57 63 69 68 68 69 69 59

Sierra Ancha FS AZ 70 67 71 70 70 70 70 68 70

Tatoosh FS WA 71 71 69 71 71 71 71 70 71

LO1 and LO2 = Land Ownership Tiers; H2O = Area of Water Features; MRD = Mean Road Distance; ENP = Enplanements; BLM = 

Bureau of Land Management; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FS = U.S. Forest Service; NPS = National Park Service.

Table 3.2—(continued) National Wilderness Preservation System units as ranked by the Composite Potential Development 

Index (PDIc), followed by the ranking of each unit using the PDI for each buffer alone and then the ranking of the PDIc 

for a doubling of each contributing variable 
46

Protecting Rural Land

As of the 2005 Land Trust Census, there had been a 

promising wave of growth in land conservation through land 

trusts. At the time of that Census, there were 1,667 private 

land conservation trusts across the country. Lands being 

protected through trusts included, for example, ranches, urban 

undeveloped lands, wetlands, forests, riparian areas, and 

mountainous sites. Land trusts rely heavily on volunteer labor 

and on land owners’ participation with their organization. 

Trusts work with land owners to conserve land through 

acquisition of conservation easements, and will sometimes 

manage the conserved land and/or the associated easement. 

Results from the 2005 National Land Trust Census 

report—The 2005 Census (released November 30, 2006) 

described national trends in private land conservation over the 

last several decades. Each 5-year interval showed dramatically 

more land protected than during the preceding interval. The 

following key findings were highlighted in the report (Land 

Trust Alliance 2006): 

• Total acreage conserved through private means in 2005 was 

37 million acres, a 54 percent increase from the previous 

24-million-acre level in 2000. This included local, State, and 

large national land conservation groups such as The Nature 

Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, The Conservation Fund, 

and The Trust for Public Land.

• The pace of private land conservation by local and State land 

trusts had tripled. From 1995 to 2000, land trusts conserved 

an average of 337,937 acres per year. That pace rose to 

1,166,697 acres on average per year from 2000 to 2005.

• Land trusts moved to enhance their professionalism and 

their numbers grew from 1,263 in 2000 to 1,667 in 2005.

• Acres conserved by local and State land trusts doubled to 

11.9 million acres in 2005—an area twice the size of the 

State of New Hampshire. This was an increase of 5.8 million 

acres since 2000.

• The States with the highest total acres conserved through 

land trusts were California, Maine, Colorado, Montana, 

Virginia, New York, Vermont, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, 

and Massachusetts. At that time, only Colorado and Virginia 

were offering State tax incentives for conservation.

• Local and State land trusts increased the acres under 

conservation easements by 148 percent. These private, 

voluntary agreements saved 6,245,969 acres as of 2005, 

versus 2,514,566 in 2000.

• Easements, on the rise for more than a decade, allow 

landowners to take advantage of Internal Revenue Serviceapproved tax incentives. Easements are sometimes the only 

way family farmers can afford to conserve their working 

farm, ranch, or timber lands.

• The land type reported as being the primary focus of land 

trust efforts was protecting natural areas and wildlife habitat 

(39 percent), followed by open space (38 percent), and water 

resources (26 percent), especially wetlands. Other protected 

areas include farms, coastal shores, prairies, deserts, urban 

gardens, and local parks.

• The West was the fastest growing region in both the 

number of acres conserved and in the number of land trusts, 

especially for protection of rangeland in many Western 

States. The second fastest growing region, by percentage of 

acres conserved, is the Southeast, an area that historically 

has had fewer land trusts.

• The highest number of land trusts is found in California 

(198), followed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, 

Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine. The large number of 

land trusts in the Northeast reflects the birth of land trusts 

there over 100 years ago.

• Land trusts numbers and financial status have grown 

strongly over the last 5 years. Land trusts grew 32 percent in 

number and by over $1 billion in endowments for long-term 

stewardship of protected land.

• Rangeland protection is rising. As of December 31, 2005, 

the Partnership of Rangeland Trusts held 786 conservation 

easements on 1,061,969 acres in the States of California, 

Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Montana, Kansas, and 

Wyoming.

In addition to land trusts, which are nonprofit, 

nongovernmental organizations, another strategy to achieve 

private land conservation is to pursue ballot measures. Local 

and State governments may bring conservation issues to their 

citizens via referendum votes, typically to fund land and water 

conservation programs or grants to be administered by those 

governing bodies. The use of this democracy-in-action tactic 

for conservation purposes is promoted and monitored closely 

by The Trust for Public Land.

Invited Paper

State and Local Government Financing for 

Land Conservation

Andrew du Moulin and Mary Bruce Alford3

Between 1998 and 2005 State governments demonstrated 

significant commitments to support land conservation. During 

this period, State governments conserved 8.6 million acres 

and spent $13 billion to protect land from development. The 

East outspent other regions of the country.

Over the past two decades voters approved more than 

75 percent of conservation ballot measures put before them, 

with approval rates in some States topping the 80–90 percent 

3 Director, Center for Conservation Finance Research, The Trust for Public 

Land, Boston, MA 02108; and Senior Research Associate, Conservation 

Finance Program, The Trust for Public Land, Jackson, MS 39201.
47

Protecting Rural Land

level. This support cuts across political parties and regions and 

is evidence that land and water conservation is a core value 

of the citizenry. Between 1990 and 2010, counties passed 343 

ballot measures involving general obligation bonds, sales taxes, 

and property taxes. This represents over $17 billion for open 

space, parks, watersheds, recreational lands, wildlife preserves, 

forests, and farmlands. In some States, local governments 

have been the primary and occasionally the only source of 

conservation funding. Voting results from 2010 confirmed 

that this trend of support is continuing, as voters in 19 States 

approved local conservation finance ballot measures of almost 

$424 million to protect open space. Furthermore, voters in 

4 States approved statewide conservation finance ballot 

measures in 2010 for almost $2 billion to protect open space. 

The Trust for Public Land has developed two primary data 

sources to track funding for land conservation in the United 

States, LandVote (www.landvote.org) and the Conservation 

Almanac (www.conservationalmanac.org). In the 2009 Trust 

for Public Land annual report, the recession was listed as a 

contributing factor to a decrease in contributions for land 

and water conservation. However, at the same time, new 

opportunities arose because of falling land prices for prime 

woodlands, waterfronts, and urban lands. Illustrating the 

overall effort of conservation organizations and State and 

local governments, The Trust for Public Land completed over 

200 conservation transactions in 2009, adding 312,000 new 

acres under protection. 

The LandVote database reported 2009 and 2010 as very good 

years for State and local government conservation funding. 

In 2009, the State of Minnesota approved $5.5 billion, the 

Nation’s largest ever single State or local conservation finance 

measure. In 2010, voters across the country approved a variety 

of measures for land conservation, generating over $2 billion, 

including statewide financing measures in Oregon, Rhode 

Island, Maine, and Iowa.

Trends in State spending on land conservation: 

National activity and trends—Between 1998 and 2005, 

8.6 million acres of land were conserved in the United States 

by State governments. Well over half (61 percent) of these 

acres were purchased in fee title, while the remainder was 

protected through conservation easements. States spent 

more than $13 billion to protect these lands, or an average of 

$1.6 billion annually. The average cost was $1,500 per acre. 

Spending peaked in 2003, outpacing other years, largely due 

to a spike in Florida, which accounted for approximately 

one-third of State conservation spending nationally that year 

(fig. 3.6). The Conservation Almanac, The Trust for Public 

Land online database, covers conservation activity across 

the United States. This activity involves removing lands 

from the inventory of lands that can be developed or used for 

commercial and/or other intensive uses.

Between 1998 and 2005 States had, on average, protected 

1.1 million acres per year, the most in 2002 (1.3 million acres) 

and the least in 1998 (816,000 acres) (fig. 3.7).

Trends summarized by region—There have been 

significantly different levels of spending between the North and 

South regions and those of the West. Several Eastern States—

notably New Jersey and Massachusetts—adopted new enabling 

authority during this period which resulted in several hundred 

local governments adopting new ballot measures. Table 3.3 

shows higher spending in the South and North regions relative 

to the Pacific and Rocky Mountains regions between 1998 and 

2005. On a per-capita basis, States in the Pacific Coast region 

outspent the rest of the country at $8 per capita annually. The 

North followed at $6 per capita per year, then the South ($4 per 

capita), and then the Rocky Mountains ($2 per capita).

During 1998–2005, for which spending data are available, 

some trends can be noted. The South outspent other regions 

in 5 of 8 years (fig. 3.8). Much of this regional difference 

(70 percent) was attributable to Florida’s State program, 

Florida Forever. On average, the South spent $644 million 

per year. The North consistently spent the next highest amount 

with an average of $568 million per year. Following next 

was the Pacific region ($381 million) and then the Rocky 

Mountains region ($86 million).

Levels of funding for States across the United States are 

illustrated in figure 3.9. States with the greatest funding include 

Florida, California, North Carolina, and New Jersey (see also 

table 3.4). Each of these States spent over $800 million, which is 

a result of voter and legislative approval of long-term dedicated 

funding for conservation. The next highest spending levels were 

by the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Colorado, 

Ohio, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, 

Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The average across all States was 

approximately $268 million.

As a result of State financing for land conservation, an average 

of nearly 172,000 acres per State were protected between 1998 

and 2005. States conserving the most acreage (greater than 

250,000 acres) included California, Colorado, Minnesota, 

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 

North Carolina, and Florida (fig. 3.10 and also table 3.4). 

Next highest States (between 99,000 and 250,000 acres) were 

Washington, Montana, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, and Alabama.4

Local and State government ballot measures—

Voters have continued to support conservation funding 

measures, even during the current economic recession. 

4 The Trust for Public Land Conservation Almanac, www.

conservationalmanac.org. Data includes conservation activity from 1998 to 

2005.
48

Protecting Rural Land

Figure 3.7—Total acres protected using State government funding in the United States, 1998–2005. Source: The Trust for Public Land (2010).

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Acres 

Year 

Figure 3.6—Trend in land conservation spending using State government funding by year, 1998–2005. Source: The Trust for Public Land 

(2010). Note: The acreage and cost data included in the Conservation Almanac is through the end of 2005. The Trust for Public Land is 

currently in the process of updating the Conservation Almanac data through 2008. As of December 2010, almost half the country was 

completed or in the process of being updated, and the Almanac also includes conservation information at the local level of government as 

well as spatial data. 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

U.S. Dollars (millions) 

Year 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

U.S. Dollars (millions) 

Year 
49

Protecting Rural Land

Figure 3.8—Trend in total State funds spent by region and year, 1998–2005. Source: The Trust for Public Land (2010).

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

U.S. Dollars (millions) 

Year 

North 

South 

Pacific 

Rocky Mountain 

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

U.S. Dollars (millions) 

Year 

North 

South 

Pacific 

Rocky Mountain 

Table 3.3—Total State funds spent for conservation per capita spending and 

acres protected from 1998 to 2005a

Region

Dollars 

spent 

(in millions)

Annual average 

dollars 

per capita

Average 

acres per year

Total acres 

acquired

Pacific $3,050 $8 38,208 1,528,332

North $4,561 $6 19,738 3,158,157

South $5,152 $4 27,096 2,817,953

Rocky Mountains $753 $2 1,223 117,454

a Data represents land conservation conducted through State programs and agencies. 

Source: Trust For Public Land’s Conservation Almanac (2010).
50

Protecting Rural Land

State spending on land conservation, 1998–2005

< 20 20.1–50.0 50.1–199.0 199.1–499.9 500+

TX

OK

AR

LA

MS

TN

AL

KY

GA

SC

FL

VA

NC

MN

IA

MO

WI

MI

IL IN

OH

WV

PA

NY

MD DE

NJ

CT RI

MA

VT

NH

ME

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ

NM

CO

ND

SD

NE

KS

WA

OR

CA

AK

Pacific Coast

HI

Rocky Mountains

North

South

(24) 3.9

Figure 3.9—Conservation funding level (millions of dollars) by State for the period 1998–2005.
51

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.4—List of State government dollars spent, annual average dollars per 

capita, and acres acquired from 1998 to 2005

U.S. State Land Conservation Activity 1998–2005

State State dollars spent

Annual average 

dollars spent 

per capita Acres acquired

1 Florida $3,567,559,516 $24.33 1,671,784.29

2 California $2,552,568,280 $8.68 1,221,303.85

3 North Carolina $851,733,148 $11.54 467,492.18

4 New Jersey $821,390,608 $11.83 251,822.12

5 New York $742,645,658 $4.76 432,253.34

6 Pennsylvania $454,806,480 $4.57 372,082.25

7 Maryland $413,048,657 $9.16 370,329.18

8 Colorado $409,099,361 $10.35 658,511.76

9 Ohio $354,926,417 $3.86 76,881.39

10 Washington $325,041,643 $6.20 132,934.96

11 Massachusetts $308,132,263 $5.93 145,297.00

12 Virginia $285,041,067 $4.59 259,472.44

13 Connecticut $263,885,427 $9.42 64,573.62

14 Wisconsin $235,781,026 $5.24 216,499.44

15 Minnesota $221,668,874 $5.31 440,481.15

16 Delaware $204,374,534 $29.26 80,405.89

17 Georgia $163,470,548 $2.11 68,211.87

18 Michigan $163,320,671 $2.04 96,085.69

19 Alaska $133,056,808 $24.23 132,315.90

20 Illinois $122,091,450 $1.18 27,395.38

21 Arizona $101,382,607 $1.95 41,797.18

22 Alabama $61,604,202 $1.65 104,661.43

23 Tennessee $60,085,004 $1.21 42,782.55

24 South Carolina $51,792,018 $1.45 40,305.30

25 Indiana $50,000,000 $0.98 64,940.81

26 Maine $40,294,050 $3.83 117,751.30

27 New Hampshire $39,948,752 $3.80 215,029.01

28 Montana $38,891,863 $5.03 165,952.00

29 Vermont $37,201,772 $7.49 68,844.70

30 Missouri $35,456,930 $0.75 42,078.39

31 Kentucky $33,145,796 $0.97 38,927.61

32 Utah $29,023,991 $1.33 79,776.28

33 Rhode Island $26,257,273 $3.12 10,406.81

34 Oregon $25,469,490 $0.84 41,451.66

35 Arkansas $23,966,049 $1.05 29,299.37

36 New Mexico $23,041,501 $1.45 6,965.10

37 Nebraska $22,203,269 $1.56 62,512.18

38 Louisiana $19,657,931 $0.56 21,714.07

39 Nevada $19,247,614 $0.93 14,194.06

40 Mississippi $17,849,115 $0.76 12,084.52

41 Iowa $17,357,650 $0.72 23,997.30

42 Texas $13,486,362 $0.07 56,132.33

43 Hawaii $13,450,000 $1.31 325.25

44 South Dakota $11,997,287 $1.86 27,376.04

45 Idaho $9,268,002 $0.76 12,980.45

46 West Virginia $8,378,518 $0.58 41,002.31

47 Kansas $4,806,085 $0.21 6,247.34

48 Oklahoma $2,764,892 $0.09 5,084.61

49 Wyoming $383,000 $0.09 1,799.35

50 North Dakota $12,000 $0.00 80

U.S. average $268,641,309 $4.62 171,652.66

Source: The Trust for Public Land (2010).
52

Protecting Rural Land

State financed acres conserved, 1998–2005

< 10 10.1–39.039.1–99.0 99.1–249.9 > 250.0

TX

OK

AR

LA

MS AL GA

SC

TN

KY

VA

NC

FL

MO

IA

MN

WI

IL IN

MI

OH

WV

PA

NY

MD

VT

NH

ME

MA

CT

NJ

DE

RI

ID

NV

MT

WY

UT

AZ

NM

CO

ND

SD

NE

KS

WA

OR

CA

AK

Pacific Coast

HI

Rocky Mountains

North

South

(25) 3.10

Figure 3.10—Acres of land protected (1,000 acres) through State financing of conservation easements or fee simple purchase, 1998–2005. Source: Trust for Public Land, 2010.
53

Protecting Rural Land

Local governments (county and municipal) in particular 

have had sustained support for public funding of land 

conservation. This includes traditionally supportive States 

such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as less 

traditionally supportive States, such as Iowa, Idaho, and 

Montana. Figure 3.11 shows the percentage of successfully 

approved voter ballots by level of government since 1990. 

By far, municipal governments have been most successful, 

accounting for 74 percent of approved measures. State 

governments, however, represent the highest percentage 

of total funds approved at 47 percent, followed by county 

governments (31 percent) and then municipal governments 

at 20 percent (fig. 3.11). 

County conservation finance—Between 1990 and 2010, 

172 counties in 30 States passed a total of 343 ballot measures 

for land conservation. In a number of counties, there have 

been multiple measures. These measures, supported primarily 

by general obligation bonds, property taxes, and sales taxes (as 

well as real estate transfer taxes and income taxes in selected 

States), generated over $17 billion for open space, parks, 

watersheds, recreational lands, wildlife preserves, forests, and 

farmland. Almost 75 percent of all county conservation ballot 

measures in the last two decades have won voter approval. 

Dozens of counties, particularly in Maryland, Virginia, 

Pennsylvania, and New York, have approved county programs 

for land conservation through the legislative process. State 

constitutions and statutes do not always provide enabling 

legislation to allow residents to vote on conservation 

funding. Instead, it is often left to local officials to decide on 

conservation funding. 

The North region has the best passage rate at 79 percent, 

and this region generated the most funding for open space, 

farmland, forest land, wildlife habitat, and other natural areas 

at over $7 billion. Nationally, over $1 billion was generated 

through county ballot measures where forest land conservation 

was among the prime purposes (table 3.5). Leading States for 

county conservation measures that included funding for forest 

land were Arizona, Illinois, Georgia, and Florida. Almost $5 

billion were approved where farmland was among the prime 

purposes of the conservation finance measure. The counties 

most successful were in the States of New Jersey, New York, 

Figure 3.11—Successful ballot measures for land conservation and conservation funds approved by level of government, 1990–2010.

3% 2% 

74% 

20% 

19% 

31% 

3% 

47% 

State 

County 

Municipal 

Special districts 

Successful measures 

100% = 1,740 

Conservation funds approved 

100% = $56.38 

3% 2% 

74% 

20% 

19% 

31% 

3% 

47% 

State 

County 

Municipal 

Special districts 

Successful measures 

100% = 1,740 

Conservation funds approved 

100% = $56.38 
54

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.5—Forest related county ballot measures, 1990–2010

State

Total ballot 

measures

Total funds 

approved

Conservation funds 

approved

Measures 

passed

Passage 

rate

number - - - - - -dollars- - - - - - - - number percent

AZ 2 207,300,000 194,100,000 2 100

FL 1 55,000,000 55,000,000 1 100

GA 1 100,000,000 71,400,000 1 100

IA 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 1 100

IL 10 625,000,000 615,000,000 10 100

KY 1 0 0 0 0

MT 2 10,000,000 10,000,000 1 50

OH 4 37,000,000 8,325,000 2 50

SC 2 5,000,000 5,000,000 1 50

VA 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 1 100

WI 1 30,000,000 30,000,000 1 100

Total 26 1,109,300,000 1,028,825,000 21 81

Table 3.6—Number of ballot measures proposed, funds approved, conservation funds 

approved, measures passed, and passage rate through county ballot initiatives for 

farmland conservation, 1990–2010

State

Total ballot 

measures

Total funds 

approved

Conservation funds 

approved

Measures 

passed Passage rate

number - - - - - - dollars - - - - - - number percent

CA 5 611,000,000 611,000,000 2 40

CO 8 232,880,000 224,380,000 4 50

FL 2 150,000,000 150,000,000 1 50

IA 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 1 100

ID 1 0 0 0 0

MD 5 78,000,000 78,000,000 5 100

MI 5 35,563,230 35,563,230 2 40

MN 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 1 100

MT 4 30,000,000 30,000,000 3 75

NC 1 0 0 0 0

NJ 35 2,850,510,223 2,614,789,763 32 91

NV 1 0 0 0 0

NY 4 732,000,000 729,400,000 3 75

OH 4 0 0 1 25

PA 6 312,500,000 275,000,000 6 100

SC 2 50,000,000 50,000,000 1 50

UT 1 0 0 0 0

VA 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 1 100

WA 2 5,000,000 5,000,000 1 50

WI 1 0 0 0 0

Total 90 5,147,453,453 4,863,132,993 64 71
55

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.7—Approved county ballot measures by region, 1990–2010

Region

Total ballot 

measures

Total funds

approved

Conservation 

funds approved

Measures 

passed

Passage 

rate

number - - - - - - dollars - - - - - - number percent

North 151 7,882,226,375 6,807,050,082 118 78

Pacific Coast 41 32,870,334,820 2,759,944,820 20 49

Rocky Mountains 84 2,458,116,303 2,357,159,511 63 75

South 157 13,124,771,220 4,969,651,280 120 76

Total 433 56,335,448,718 16,893,805,693 321 74

Figure 3.12—Trends in local government spending by level of government from 1990 to 2010.

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 

1990 

1992 

1994 

1996 

1998 

2000 

2002 

2004 

2006 

2008 

2010 

Conservation funds approved (in millions) 

Year 

County Municipal Special District 
56

Protecting Rural Land

California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, South 

Carolina, and Michigan (table 3.6).

Table 3.7 shows county ballot measures for each of the 

four regions of the United States defined by the Renewable 

Resources Planning Act (RPA) National Assessment of the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Leading 

counties in the North region were in the States of Illinois, 

New Jersey (where all 21 counties have passed a dedicated 

funding source for conservation), and New York (where 

funding initiatives were passed primarily in Suffolk and 

Nassau counties). Total conservation funds approved for the 

North region were just over $7 billion. For counties in the 

Pacific Coast region, far and away California led, accounting 

for 88 percent of that region’s conservation funds. Alaska had 

no funds approved. In the Rocky Mountains region, counties 

in Colorado accounted for over 79 percent of the region’s 

conservation funds. In the South, Florida stood out from the 

other States accounting for almost 59 percent of conservation 

funds. Georgia followed as a distant second.

The growth of local conservation funding—Figure 3.12 

illustrates the trend of local government (county and municipal) 

conservation funding over the past two decades. In some cases, 

local funding has been either the largest or the only source 

of conservation funding in many States. Across the country, 

local government is the fastest growing source of government 

funding (see New Jersey case example in side bar on the 

following page). This may be due to a number of reasons:

• Greater public confidence in local governments

• Funds can be used to manage land use, a local government role

• There are opportunities to leverage funds from other sources

• There is opportunity for a “domino effect” whereby other 

local governments act to create new conservation funding 

sources as well.

Ballot measures in 2010—On Election Day 2010, voters 

across the United States once again demonstrated their 

commitment to supporting public investments in parks and 

natural areas. Voters in 23 States approved conservation 

finance ballot measures that will generate almost $2.2 billion 

to protect open space. Of the 49 measures on the ballot, 

84 percent were successful. As documented in the LandVote 

database (www.landvote.org), since 1988 voters have 

approved more than 1,700 measures yielding more than 

$56 billion in conservation funding. This support has 

remained strong even during prior economic slowdowns. 

The 2010 results confirm that conservation remains a cause 

voters will support. 

•In Iowa, voters gave 63 percent approval to an amendment 

to the State constitution creating a permanent trust fund to 

protect and restore the State’s natural resources. 

Pololu coast line on the north side of the Big Island in Hawaii. Most of the land in the Pololu Valley area is privately owned. (Photograph by Ken Cordell 2010)
57

Protecting Rural Land

•In Oregon, 69 percent of voters approved a measure 

that will indefinitely set aside 15 percent of revenue 

generated by the Oregon Lottery for protection of water, 

parks, and wildlife habitat in the State. The provision has 

generated more than $800 million in the past decade for 

conservation.

•In Maine, voters gave 59 percent approval to a statewide 

bond providing for investments in land conservation, the 

preservation of working waterfronts, and State parks.

• Voters in Dorchester County, SC, gave 71–29 percent 

approval to issuing $5 million in bonds to buy parkland, 

trails, and wildlife habitat.

The economic arguments for land conservation are likely 

to increase in importance in future years. As highlighted 

in a January 1, 2010, front-page article in The New York 

Times, the current economic downturn also has led to a new 

window of opportunity for land conservation—sometimes 

referred to as the recession’s “green lining.” Because of the 

decline in the real estate market, conservation has become 

a more attractive alternative to development for some 

landowners. This has made many properties more affordable 

and provided once-in-a-generation opportunities to conserve 

land once destined for development. 

End Invited Paper

Federal Financing

There are a number of Federal programs aimed at land and 

water conservation. Some of these specifically focus on 

conservation easements or fee simple purchase of land and 

water areas. Perhaps most prominent among these is the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the 

National Park Service and the Conservation Reserve Program 

administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Selected Federal conservation programs are highlighted below 

to represent Federal land conservation incentive programs.

Land and Water Conservation Fund—The Federal Land 

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established by 

law in 1965 to use revenues from offshore oil and gas leasing 

for financing U.S. land and water conservation. Often, these 

finances have been used to purchase land and easements, some 

of which had been originally acquired by land trusts.

Though the LWCF receives $900 million a year from energy 

royalties, Congress has not authorized spending all of those 

funds on an annual basis. The current Administration seems 

to be moving to increase LWCF funding from $172 million 

in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and $318 million in FY2010, to a 

proposed $432 million for FY2011. Authorization for FY2011 

and beyond is very much uncertain at this time.

The Federal portion of the LWCF is used to purchase lands 

significant to the management of national parks, refuges, 

forests, and BLM lands (http://wilderness.org/content/lwcfprojects-2010). As human activities have increased, it has 

become more important to connect land and water ecosystems 

and habitats to better assure their long-term ecological health. 

LWCF funding for Federal acquisition of inholdings, buffer 

areas, and wildlife migration corridors by agency in FY2010 is 

listed below:

Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 24,650,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 86,340,000

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 86,266,000

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 63,522,000

Forest Legacy Program—There are a number of Federal 

conservation fund programs in addition to LWCF, such as the 

Forest Legacy Program, a voluntary program of the Forest 

Service. This program provides grants to States through their 

forestry agencies for the purchase of conservation easements 

and fee simple purchase of sensitive or threatened forest 

lands. The Forest Legacy Program provides an alternative 

to selling forest land by allowing voluntary conservation to 

private owners. In FY2010, Forest Legacy Program funding 

was projected to grow by 60 percent to nearly $80 million. 

As of November 2010, the program passed the milestone 

of 2 million acres protected (http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/

New Jersey land conservation facts

• Municipal open space taxes brought in over $94.5 

million in 2009

• County open space taxes brought in over $261 

million in 2009

• Since 1998, in New Jersey, 316 out of 411 municipal 

open space measures have passed. The 316 

measures passed in New Jersey represented 

almost one-third of all municipal open space ballot 

successes nationally over the past decade.

• Over $1.1 billion in municipal conservation funds 

were generated during the decade from 2000 to 

2010.

• During the period from 1998 to 2009, some 

240 different municipalities went to the ballot to 

establish, renew, or increase their open space tax.

• Since 1998, 27 of 30 county measures have 

passed, generating over $2.2 billion—the highest 

conservation dollar amount generated by any 

county in the Nation.

• New Jersey is one of only two States to have all 

counties approve dedicated conservation funding. 

Hawaii is the other. 
58

Protecting Rural Land

programs/loa/flp.shtml). These protected lands are located in 

42 States and Territories (fig. 3.13). Currently 48 States and 

Territories are enrolled in the program. For FY2012, a total of 

$87 million has been proposed in the President’s budget.

Federal Highway Bill Funding—The 2005 Federal 

Highway Bill provides funding for scenic and historic 

conservation such as conversion of abandoned railway corridors 

to trails and environmental mitigation of highway projects. In 

2009 a total of $370 million was provided for recreational trails 

for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, non-motorized snow, and 

off-road motorized vehicle activities. The same year, additional 

funding was granted for land purchase or leasing. The Federal 

Highway Bill funded $175 million in 2009 for scenic byways 

programs involving highways with outstanding scenic, historic, 

cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 

The Federal Highway Bill also funds national historic covered 

bridge preservation for those eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Often an easement or purchase of 

associated land is a part of these projects. A new program to 

fund pilot projects aimed at creating a network of non-motorized 

transportation modes was started in 2009 to demonstrate the 

benefits of walking and bicycling transportation.

State Wildlife Grants—The Federal State Wildlife 

Grants Program is aimed at protecting wildlife. It requires 

participating States to develop wildlife action plans and then 

provides annual funding for implementation of these plans. 

Many States place some of these funds with partners such as 

land trusts. The wildlife action plans themselves are a useful 

tool for land trusts to prioritize acquisition and stewardship 

decisions. This program is administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Conservation Reserve Program—The Conservation 

Reserve Program was established to provide technical 

and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers for the 

conservation of soil, water, and other natural resources. The 

program assists farmers and ranchers with Federal, State, 

and other environmental laws and provides incentives for 

environmental protection. The Conservation Reserve Program 

is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, which evaluates assistance eligibility and manages 

assistance financing.

The Conservation Reserve Program is aimed at addressing 

soil erosion, managing land for food and fiber production, 

reducing sedimentation in streams and lakes, improving water 

quality, assuring habitat for wildlife, and protecting forest and 

wetland resources. The program encourages landowners to 

manage vegetative cover, such as grasses, wildlife plantings, 

trees, or riparian buffers, on erodible land. Farmers who 

sign the multi-year contract are paid to establish and sustain 

vegetative cover.

Between 1990 and 2008, the program enrolled an average of 

about 33 million acres per year, with a high of 36.8 million 

acres in 2007 (fig. 3.14) (Hellerstein 2010). After a period 

of relative stability in acreage enrolled in the program, 

the Conservation Reserve Program seems to be declining, 

possibly due to the 2008 Farm Bill which reduced the 

maximum enrollment to 32 million acres. As of February 

2010, the program enrollment was at 31.2 million acres.

Protected Federal Land

Federal lands are covered in this chapter and also later in 

chapter 5. Federal lands are included in both chapters for 

different reasons. In this chapter, the emphasis is on Federal 

lands designated primarily to protect their natural condition. In 

chapter 5, the emphasis is on Federal properties as recreation 

resources, where access and facilities are the key attributes.

The Federal Government holds about 640 million acres in 

trust. This is about 30 percent of the country’s total land area. 

Federally owned and managed public lands include national 

parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other 

Federal agency ownerships. Each Federal agency is charged 

through specific laws to manage their lands responsibly and 

to enhance their contributions to the national economy. The 

primary land-management agencies include the Bureau of 

Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority. 

Resource protection is the primary mission of two of these 

agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The National Wilderness Preservation 

System is a specially designated Federal system established 

to preserve natural resource character. Four agencies share in 

management of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Provided below are descriptions of these three systems.5 

Following these descriptions, we provide an overview of the 

ecosystem representation provided by these three Federal land 

protection systems.

The National Park System—National parks and other 

categories of protected areas within the National Park System 

are among the most protected of lands in the United States. 

As figure 3.15 later shows, units of the National Park System 

protect a number of natural ecosystems across the country. 

5 The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are not included 

here because those agencies manage for multiple uses. Also not covered in 

this section are the other Federal agencies—the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Tennessee Valley Authority—

that manage natural resources primarily for flood control, navigation, and 

hydropower production.
59

Protecting Rural Land Forest legacy area Active Planning in progress

Forest Legacy Program Status Forest Legacy Program Status

Completed tracts

Alaska

Hawaii

Virgin Islands Puerto 

Rico

Not participating

American

Samoa

Guam

Federated States of MicronesiaKosrae Island

Completed Tracts as of 9/30/11

Key

State status

Figure 3.13—State enrollment status, Legacy areas, and completed tracts in the USDA Forest Service Forest Legacy Program, 2010.
60

Protecting Rural Land

The origin of national parks, large-scale natural land areas 

for public enjoyment, is traced to artist George Catlin, who 

traveled throughout the Western United States in the early 

1830s. Thirty years after his travels, Federal land in Yosemite 

Valley was ceded to the State of California to “...be used and 

preserved for the benefit of mankind.” In 1872, the same 

preservation motives resulted in the establishment of the 

Yellowstone region as a public park. However, since it was 

located in two territories that were not yet States, Yellowstone 

was kept under Federal control. It was another 44 years until 

the 1916 Organic Act established the National Park Service, 

placing all existing parks, including Yellowstone, within the 

Department of the Interior and under National Park Service 

management. The act also included historic, prehistoric, and 

other structures and landmarks of scientific interest, known 

as “national monuments,” that were protected under the 

Antiquities Act of 1906. 

The protection purposes of the National Park Organic Act are 

well-known: “...to conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means 

as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” Later, in 1933, all Federal Government parks, 

monuments, battlefields, and memorials were placed under the 

National Park Service’s jurisdiction.

The National Park Service ultimately grew into the system 

we know today. It includes an array of different types of areas 

having somewhat different purposes. Designations include 

parks, monuments, battlefields, military parks, historical 

parks, historic sites, lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, 

scenic rivers, and trails. As of December 2008, the National 

Park Service was comprised of 388 areas or units covering 

nearly 79 million acres. The types of areas which protect large 

acreages of intact natural lands are shown in table 3.8.

Alaska dominates the National Park Service system total 

acreage, especially since the 1980 passage of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Excluding Alaska, 

the National Park Service is much more balanced in terms 

of regional distribution of protected acreage. The North has 

by far the least protected land of any region. Not counting 

national preserves, which are almost entirely in Alaska, 

national recreation areas (3.4 million acres) and national 

monuments (2.3 million acres) are a distant second and third, 

respectively, to national parks (almost 50 million acres) in 

total area nationally. There are 59 national parks in the United 

States, 14 of which are in the East. By contrast, the two 

eastern regions lead the west by a wide margin in both acreage 

and units of the following NPS designated areas: National 

Seashore, National River, National Scenic Trail, National 

Wild and Scenic River, Parkways, and National Lakeshore. 

In terms of wilderness protection on NPS lands, 43.9 million 

of the 78.8 million acres (56 percent) are part of the National 

Figure 3.14—Long-term trend in acreage enrolled and program costs, 1986–2008 (Hellerstein 2010).

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

U.S. Dollars (billions) 

Acres (millions) 

Year 

Total CRP acres 

Yearly program spending 

Continuous CRP acres 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

U.S. Dollars (billions) 

Acres (millions) 

Year 

Total CRP acres 

Yearly program spending 

Continuous CRP acres 
61

Protecting Rural Land

Units of the National Park Service 

Bailey’s Ecosystem Division

Hot Continental DivisionHot Continental Regime MountainsMarine DivisionMarine Regime MountainsMediterranean DivisionMediterranean Regime MountainsPrairie DivisionRainforest Regime MountainsSavanna Division

Savanna Regime MountainsSubarctic DivisionSubarctic Regime MountainsSubtropical DivisionSubtropical Regime MountainsTemperate Desert DivisionTemperate Desert Regime MountainsTemperate Steppe Division

Temperate Steppe Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Desert DivisionTropical/Subtropical Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Steppe DivisionTundra DivisionTundra Regime MountainsWarm Continental DivisionWarm Continental Regime Mountains

(30) 3.15

Figure 3.15—National Park System coverage of ecosystem types in the contiguous United States.
62

Protecting Rural Land

Wilderness Preservation System, most of which is in Alaska. 

Excluding Alaska, about 10.9 million acres are protected as 

Federal wilderness, about 84 percent of which is in the two 

western regions. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System—The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service was formally created in 1940 as the “Fish 

and Wildlife Service” when the Bureaus of Fisheries and of 

Biological Survey were merged after their respective moves to 

the Department of the Interior. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 established a comprehensive national policy for wildlife 

and fish, as well as reorganizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service into the bureaus of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and 

Commercial Fisheries. It also added “U.S.” to the agency’s 

name. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife included the 

Division of Wildlife Refuges and is still a part of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

became the National Marine Fisheries Service and was 

transferred to the Commerce Department in 1970. 

The Federal role in wildlife protection began much earlier 

than these administrative and legislative actions of the mid20th century. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt established 

Florida’s Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge by executive 

order in 1903, which was the beginning of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Much like the National Park System, the 

origins of Federal wildlife protection date back to the mid-19th 

century with actions to safeguard the Yosemite Valley and 

Greater Yellowstone areas, as well as legislation in 1869 to set 

aside the Pribilof Islands in Alaska as a reserve for the northern 

fur seal. Despite the enabling Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and 

the Refuge Recreation Act of l962, which authorized limited 

recreational use of refuges, directives for management of the 

refuge system were not put into place until the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of l966. This law defined 

a standard of “compatibility” between the defined purposes of 

individual refuges and their actual uses.

Some have observed that a true organic act for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service did not exist until the passage of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. This law strengthened the compatibility standard and 

clarified which wildlife-dependent recreational uses are 

appropriate. This law also directed that the refuge system 

be managed as a national system based on the biological 

integrity of ecosystems and the conservation of wildlife. 

The Improvement Act recognized six compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses, which included wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national 

wildlife refuges generally are “...special places where the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners restore, protect, 

and manage habitat for America’s wildlife.” Included are 

Waterfowl Production Areas, small natural wetlands, and 

associated uplands in the Prairie Pothole region of the United 

States, especially the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Montana. 

By September 2008, the refuge system totaled 94.5 million acres 

in 530 national wildlife refuges and 206 waterfowl production 

areas (table 3.9). A number of natural ecosystems are protected 

Tale 3.8—Number and acres of National Park Service (NPS) natural land protected type of designation and 

RPA region, 2008

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

NPS designation Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres

thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand

National Park 4 738.5 10 3,378.6 23 6,751.6 22 39,052.0 59 49,920.8

National Preserve 0 0.0 5 763.3 0 0.0 11 20,835.4 16 21,598.7

National Recreation Area 4 81.4 4 117.1 4 2,820.6 6 394.4 18 3,413.4

National Monument 10 3.9 12 33.4 43 1,413.1 9 814.0 74 2,264.4

National Seashore 3 41.1 7 373.2 0 0.0 1 65.1 11 479.4

National River 4 114.6 1 116.3 1 0.2 0 0.0 6 231.1

National Scenic Trail 2 110.6 2 60.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 171.2

National Wild and Scenic River 5 43.6 3 95.5 1 0.0 1 28.4 10 167.6

Parkways 1 2.8 3 140.3 1 23.8 0 0.0 5 166.9

National Lakeshore 4 146.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 146.1

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: USDI National Park Service (2008).
63

Protecting Rural Land

by refuge designation as shown later by figure 3.16. About 

96 percent of the system is in national wildlife refuges, 

dominated by the West region, especially by Alaska. Excluding 

Alaska, the system is much more balanced regionally. Nevada, 

Arizona, Montana, and the Dakotas account for a large 

proportion of the Rocky Mountains region habitat acreage, which 

is more than 1.5 times that of the East. Refuges are also located 

in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and in American Samoa, 

Guam, and some U.S. minor outlying islands in the Pacific.

In January 2009, the George W. Bush Administration added 

over 50 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System by 

creating three island refuges in the Pacific Ocean for protection 

under the Antiquities Act. More than 95 percent of this territory 

is in the Mariana Trench National Wildlife Refuge.

About 20.7 million acres (22 percent of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System) are protected as Federal designated 

wilderness. This area, which represents nearly 19 percent of 

all Federal wilderness, is administered in more than 

70 separate units in 26 States. Approximately 90 percent 

of refuge system wilderness is in Alaska, with most of the 

remaining being in Arizona, Florida, and the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia.

The National Wilderness Preservation System—The 

National Wilderness Preservation System consists of specially 

designated Federal lands identified by an act of Congress 

to protect wild character as outlined in the Wilderness Act 

of 1964. The National Wilderness Preservation System 

represents the most pristine and protected of Federal natural 

Waterfowl flying over wetland on Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia. (Photograph courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Table 3.9—Number of acres and areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

by RPA region, 2008

National Wildlife 

Refuges

Waterfowl 

Production Areas 

Total 

system

Region Number Acres Number Acres Acres

thousand thousand thousand

North 110 1,388.8 87 322.0 1,710.9

South 162 4,356.9 0 0.0 4,356.9

Rocky Mountains 154 6,843.1 119 3,049.4 9,892.5

Pacific Coast 104 78,544.1 0 0.0 78,544.1

Total 530 91,133.0 206 3,371.4 94,504.4

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009).
64

Protecting Rural Land

Units of Wildlife Refuges 

Bailey’s Ecosystem Division

Hot Continental DivisionHot Continental Regime MountainsMarine DivisionMarine Regime MountainsMediterranean DivisionMediterranean Regime MountainsPrairie DivisionRainforest Regime MountainsSavanna Division

Savanna Regime MountainsSubarctic DivisionSubarctic Regime MountainsSubtropical DivisionSubtropical Regime MountainsTemperate Desert DivisionTemperate Desert Regime MountainsTemperate Steppe Division

Temperate Steppe Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Desert DivisionTropical/Subtropical Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Steppe DivisionTundra DivisionTundra Regime MountainsWarm Continental DivisionWarm Continental Regime Mountains

(31) 3.16

Figure 3.16—National Wildlife Refuge System coverage of ecosystem types in the continental United States.
65

Protecting Rural Land

lands that include over 109 million acres.6 Four Federal 

agencies share administration of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System: the National Park Service (U.S. 

Department of the Interior), the Bureau of Land Management 

(U.S. Department of the Interior), and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), and the 

U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture). The 

National Wilderness Preservation System is predominately 

in the western regions, particularly in Alaska, which alone 

contains more than 52 percent of Wilderness acreage which is 

largely managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Including Alaska, about 96 percent of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System is located in the 

West. Without Alaska, the proportion drops only slightly to 

92 percent of total area. 

The invited papers that follow below cover a number of 

important aspects of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The first was written by two of the world’s foremost 

experts on wilderness as the premier land protection system 

in the United States. One section of this paper that focuses on 

wilderness recreation opportunities is included in chapter 5. 

A second paper emphasizes the broad public appeal of 

wilderness resource protection based on the values people 

see and appreciate in it. There are numerous dimensions of 

wilderness values. These values are the reasons for protection 

of Wilderness Areas.

Invited Paper

The National Wilderness Preservation 

System and Its Stewardship

Chad P. Dawson and John C. Hendee7

Humans are thought to have deep historical and cultural 

connections with “wild nature.” These connections can come 

about through direct experiences in wilderness, through art 

and photography, or through reading about the adventures 

of others. While there is widespread public support for 

wilderness, there are divergent and polarized viewpoints 

on how to define it. These viewpoints range from extreme 

6 The Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana maintains 

www.wilderness.net, which includes a database of National Wilderness 

Preservation System statistics. Congress designates land from four Federal 

agencies for inclusion in the NWPS, with those designated areas staying 

within the home agency, but with altered management priorities. 

7 Professor, Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, 

College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New 

York, Syracuse, NY 13210. Professor Emeritus, Resource, Recreation and 

Tourism, and former Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of 

Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 .

protectionists who believe that humans have no place in 

wilderness to utilitarian interests who view wilderness as a 

backdrop for economic development and for recreation and 

tourism activities.

The United States has a legal definition of wilderness. This 

legal definition is in the form of legislation passed in 1964 

to create the National Wilderness Preservation System (U.S. 

Public Law 88-577). Based on this legal definition, by 2010, 

the National Wilderness Preservation System included over 

790 management units and more than 109 million acres of 

public lands managed by four Federal agencies. 

The term wilderness was historically used to describe places 

that were untamed and not under the control of humans. Areas 

of civilization that were cultivated and heavily influenced 

by human activities often bordered or were surrounded by 

areas that had little human influence. As the population 

has grown and the majority of land area has come under 

human influence, wilderness has now become scarce. There 

are few places that are not now, or have not been at one 

time, under human control, habitation, cultivation, or other 

direct influence. A gradient of human influence and impact 

exists from wilderness to urban centers and rural areas with 

population growth, road building, food production, power 

generation, industrialization, and human habitation.

The early history of the United States (and of the rest of the 

world) during European immigration was one of cultivating 

and “taming” the wild places and taking dominion over the 

land. Wilderness was seen as a place for exploration, and was 

often feared and avoided. As the amount of land with wild 

conditions began to diminish, it became more appreciated. 

The public’s interest in wild places grew larger as wild 

places became scarcer. Special places were first set aside as 

national parks, such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand 

Tetons. These areas were at first seen as park destinations 

for the development of recreation and tourism, rather than as 

preserves.

After World War II, greater public interest began to emerge 

to save wild areas. Some of that concern was due to interest 

in wilderness recreation experiences, but also due to concern 

about rapid industrialization and population growth. Some 

would argue that there are few places in the world that are 

wilderness in the strictest sense of the word. Thus, the more 

common usage of the term wilderness is in relation to our 

perception of areas that are little known or predominantly 

under the influence of natural forces. Although the term had 

been commonly applied to any large, remote area with natural 

characteristics, conditions, and processes, by 1964 it gained a 

new legal definition.
66

Protecting Rural Land

Wilderness legislation and policy in the United 

States—The Forest Service and the National Park Service 

did not begin to set Agency policies to protect primitive 

and roadless areas from development until the 1920s. 

During the following decades, roadless area inventories and 

administrative designations of wilderness occurred with 

increasing public interest. As recreational use and interest in 

these lands increased, concerns were raised by professionals 

in the agencies and the public that administrative regulation: 

(1) allowed too many development activities, such as mining, 

grazing, motorized access, and water resource development; 

(2) shifted boundaries or removed designation to permit 

resource development; (3) promulgated different regulations 

and management in different areas; and (4) had neither a clear 

policy for wilderness preservation nor a national system with 

coordinated management.

Eventually it became clear that legislative protection was 

needed to create a permanent and coordinated national system 

for wilderness preservation. From 1956 to 1964, more than 

50 wilderness bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress. 

These bills were heavily debated by different interest groups. 

Political compromises were necessary to finally get wilderness 

legislation, thus some human activities were permitted in 

some areas, even though they would not be consistent with 

the intent of the wilderness legislation. These included 

activities such as mining, grazing, aircraft landings, and water 

resources development.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress passed The Wilderness Act (U.S. 

Public Law 88-577), thus creating the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The Wilderness Act broadly states 

policy for designating Wilderness and recognizes the need to 

protect significant natural areas because of the rapid loss of 

such resources:

In order to assure that an increasing population, 

accompanied by expanding settlement and growing 

mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas 

within the United States and its possessions, leaving no 

lands designated for preservation and protection in their 

natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of 

the Congress to secure for the American people of present 

and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource 

of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a 

National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed 

of Federally owned areas designated by Congress as 

“wilderness areas,” and these shall be administered for the 

use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner 

as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment 

as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of 

these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, 

and for the gathering and dissemination of information 

regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. (U.S. 

Public Law 88-577, section 2a).

The language above is referred to as the “guiding management 

intent” because it specifically refers to “use and enjoyment,” 

provided that areas remain “unimpaired” and ensured 

“preservation of their wilderness character.”

Section 2c of The Wilderness Act includes an important and 

often-quoted definition of Wilderness:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man 

and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby 

recognized as an area where the earth and its community 

of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is 

a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness 

is further defined to mean...an area of underdeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, 

without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand 

acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

value (U.S. Public Law 88-577, section 2c).

This definition is an ideal tempered by four conditions to 

make it practical. One of those four conditions refers to 

“outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation,” a phrase often referred to as 

the guiding principle for recreation management. Certain 

types and amounts of recreation are permitted, provided the 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area is enjoyed by

many thousands of visitors each year while at the same time managed to

protect its wilderness character. (Photograph by Ken Cordell)
67

Protecting Rural Land

area is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions.” This principle is especially important regarding 

primitive facilities, trails, backcountry travel, recreational 

equipment (e.g., removable climbing gear, backpacking 

stoves), and management activities.

Creation of the National Wilderness Preservation System in 

1964 was just the beginning of legislative designations. By 

2009, there were more than 170 different laws passed by the 

U.S. Congress designating new areas or adding acreage to 

existing ones. The initial designation of 9.1 million acres was 

followed by congressional designations in 32 of the 45 years 

between 1964 and 2009 to add acres and units to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (table 3.10). The largest 

single increase was the addition of approximately 

56 million acres in Alaska under The Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (U.S. Public Law 96-487). 

Proposals for additional acreage are continuing to be brought 

before Congress and its committees.

Potential threats to Wilderness—Designating areas 

as Wilderness is just the first step and must be followed by 

stewardship to maintain those areas. Numerous types of 

internal and external conditions, influences, and changes 

threaten Wilderness resources and values, now and in the 

future.8 One example of a threat is that Wilderness Areas in 

many States are increasingly isolated remnants of historic 

ecosystems. As the surrounding landscape becomes more 

developed, Wilderness Areas become ecologic islands that 

can continue with various processes, provided they are large 

enough or are not disconnected from other natural areas. This 

concern is most pronounced in the Eastern United States, 

with its smaller Wilderness Areas. Most threats to Wilderness 

are projected to increase in the coming decades. Land 

managers will need to monitor potential threats and to prepare 

management plans to minimize, mitigate, or remove them.

Wilderness stewardship and management—Some 

level of Wilderness management is necessary because of 

increasing visitor use and changing uses of surrounding 

lands. The idea of management of an area intended to be free 

8 Dawson and Hendee (2009) identified 19 categories of internal and 

external threats as the change agents that affect wilderness conditions and 

values: Fragmentation and isolation of wilderness areas as ecologic islands; 

Impacts on threatened and endangered species; Increasing commercial 

and public recreation use; Permitted livestock grazing; Invasion of exotic 

and non-native species; Administrative access, facilities, and intrusive 

management; Adjacent land management and use; Private and public land 

inholdings within wilderness; Established mining claims; Wildland fire 

suppression activities; Reduced air quality; Reconstruction and maintenance 

of water projects and reduced water quality; Advanced communication and 

navigation technology that reduces solitude; Motorized and mechanical 

equipment trespass and legal use; Aircraft noise and air space reservations; 

Urbanization and encroaching development; Global climate change; 

Legislation designating new wilderness areas with compromised wilderness 

conditions; and Lack of political and financial support for wilderness 

protection and management.

of the influences of modern human activities may appear 

paradoxical. However, Wilderness management has evolved 

to become the control of human uses and of the internal and 

external influences to protect and preserve an area’s solitude 

and naturalness, including natural processes and conditions. 

Hendee and Dawson (2004) highlight the Wilderness 

stewardship philosophy for managers:

Wilderness management should not mold nature to suit 

people. Rather, it should manage human use and influences 

so as not to alter natural processes. Managers should do 

only what is necessary to meet wilderness objectives and 

use only the minimum tools, regulations, and enforcement 

required to meet those objectives. In wilderness, people 

adapt to nature, to naturalness and solitude, and that is the 

source of human benefits from wilderness experience, as 

well as the ecological and non-use benefits.

This stewardship philosophy is based on the Wilderness Act 

and is balanced between protection of Wilderness naturalness 

and human use and enjoyment. The stewardship philosophy 

favors the natural integrity, but allows accommodation of 

some primitive styles of recreation and opportunity for 

solitude. Wilderness should be managed as a pristine extreme 

in the landscape (over 4 percent of U.S. land area) to maintain 

the distinctive qualities that define and separate it from other 

land uses (over 95 percent of U.S. land area). Wilderness is 

managed from a biological perspective where environmental 

integrity and primeval conditions are the basis for human 

enjoyment, values, and benefits. Wilderness is managed as 

an ecosystem and not as a separate set of resource types (e.g., 

water, forests, or wildlife) since this focuses managers on a 

comprehensive perspective across resource types.

Table 3.10—Acreage of Wilderness designated in 1964 

at the creation of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System and in subsequent 5-year intervals through 2010

Year Acreage

1964 9,139,721

1966–70 1,153,382

1971–75 2,612,902

1976–80 68,027,642

1981–85 8,563,271

1986–90 5,560,032

1991–95 8,772,384

1996–2000 1,119,621

2001–05 1,353,607

2006–10 3,199,777

Total 109,502,248

Source: wilderness.net (N.d.).
68

Protecting Rural Land

If Wilderness is to be managed to maintain or improve 

natural conditions and not allow degradation at particular 

sites or across the area, then an understanding of the carrying 

capacity of the area is essential. One of the major components 

in managing Wilderness recreation is to manage in favor of 

activities that depend on natural conditions. This requires 

acknowledgment that there are other places for recreational 

experiences that do not require natural conditions. An 

implication of this management philosophy is that Wilderness 

is not primarily a place for recreation nor any associated 

activities. All management activities, including search and 

rescue operations, should have as light an impact on the 

land and on Wilderness experiences as possible. Required 

are minimum tools and regulations to allow naturalness 

and solitude. Examples are using hand tools instead of gaspowered tools in maintenance activities, using educational 

materials in place of direct trip management, or using minimal 

directional trail signs and not mileage markers.

Concluding remarks—The National Wilderness 

Preservation System is the ultimate in an attempt to protect 

natural land and preserve its natural functioning in perpetuity. 

Recreation is accommodated, but it should be compatible with 

the primary purpose of Wilderness, which is preservation of 

naturalness. In today’s world of increasing population and 

expanding development, preserving wild lands requires some 

level of management. While management and Wilderness may 

seem paradoxical, management and stewardship is essential. 

The Wilderness Act acknowledged that some areas of the 

United States should stay wild and provide solitude and wild 

land experiences. The long-term results are that the natural 

forces and processes that shaped and formed the lands in the 

NWPS will be evident in the Wilderness Areas that we leave 

for future generations.

End Invited Paper

Invited Paper

Values of the Urban Wilderness

Patricia L. Winter 9

Introduction—Wilderness is widely supported by the 

American public (Campaign for America’s Wilderness 

2003) and provides myriad ecosystem services and other 

benefits (Schuster and others 2005, Williams and Watson 

2007). Wilderness services and benefits deemed important 

to the public include use (such as recreation) and non-use 

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.

values (such as scenery appreciation) (Brown and Alessa 

2005). Protecting wilderness and its values as population and 

environmental changes evolve is a significant challenge (Hill 

1994). Wilderness Areas near urban places (urban-proximate 

wilderness) are under elevated threat from human impacts, 

including encroaching development and spillover of ambient 

air pollution (Cordell and others 2005). It is hoped that this 

discussion will help broaden recognition of environmental 

issues with wilderness beyond the traditional biospheric 

focus to incorporate other values (Schultz and Zelezny 2003). 

Recognizing the broader variety of values invites a holistic 

consideration of wilderness protection efforts.

This paper examines values through the experiences of 

visitors to urban-proximate wilderness areas. Experiences 

are grouped according to types of values, considering direct 

reports from visitors both during and after their wilderness 

visits. In each case, the discussion surrounds direct-use 

values (Schuster and others 2005). Some of these benefits 

extend beyond the immediate wilderness visit. Focusing on 

visitor experiences can inform management of wilderness 

(Cole 2004), help broaden the consideration of wilderness 

benefits, and facilitate wilderness preservation efforts (Hill 

1994). Findings may help illuminate the broad array of values 

represented in an urban-proximate wilderness, including the 

value of the recreational experience to a diverse urban public.

Methods—Through a series of four studies conducted by the 

author, experiences of the urban wilderness visitor are examined. 

These studies were oriented to urban-proximate wildernesses 

on the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests in southern 

California. Urban-proximate wildernesses in other geographic 

areas may demonstrate their own unique use and resource 

character and thus conclusions from this paper may not apply.

Results—Evidence is provided for wilderness values linked 

to the following: 

• physical (including exercise, physical challenge, and 

preparation for more challenging trips) 

• psychological and spiritual (such as solitude, self-definition, 

self-affirmation, and renewal of soul) 

• social (by fostering and maintaining social connections 

including spending time with family and/or friends, and 

serving as the basis of some relationships) 

• transactional by fostering connection to nature (including 

being close to nature, observing wildlife, visiting a natural 

and unspoiled area, fostering environmental identity, and 

enhancing personal environmental responsibility). 

Not all questions were worded in the same way across the four 

studies, presented in the same order, nor asked in the same 

wilderness areas. 
69

Protecting Rural Land

Physical Benefits—In studies two and four, respondents 

provided reasons for visiting wilderness areas. Among 

the top reasons were the physical benefits of wilderness 

visits. “I want to exercise” was indicated by 80.9 percent of 

respondents in study two, and 94.1 percent in study four. 

“I want to be physically challenged” was also a reason for 

wilderness visits (62.5 percent in study two and 82.4 percent 

in study four). Another physically oriented set of motivations 

involved preparation for more challenging back country 

trips (40.9 percent of respondents in study two and 58.8 

percent of respondents in study four). In keeping with the 

continuing emphasis on improvement of public health and on 

getting people into the outdoors, urban-proximate wilderness 

represents a place for activities that provide physical exercise 

and challenge.

Psychological and Spiritual Benefits—Psychological 

and spiritual benefits can be derived by any wilderness 

visitor, whether visiting alone, with others, or through 

a facilitated experience. Solitude is one element of such 

benefits. In study one, the importance of solitude varied 

for respondents based on which aspect of the visit was in 

question. Solitude was least important while picnicking, 

somewhat important while in camp. Evidence suggests that 

high-use wilderness areas offer solitude as individuals adjust 

their expectations (see Cole and Hall 2008 for a discussion of 

”adapters”). 

Study three explored a set of outcomes linked to wilderness 

hiking (derived from Shamir’s Leisure Identity Salience scale 

and an activity importance scale based on Schneider and 

Winter 1998). Results indicate that aspects of self-identity 

and self-affirmation may be expressed through the wilderness 

experience, with a larger effect for the more frequent 

wilderness hiker (see table).

Comparison of psychological benefits for study

three respondents (all t-tests significant at p < 0.01)

Benefit Lowc High Value of t

Says a lot about who 

I ama 3.56(n=107) 4.22(n=101) 5.03

Important for myself 

definitionb 4.12(n=106) 5.19(n=95) 4.94

Helps me realize my 

aspirationsb 4.11(n=106) 5.18(n=99) 4.90

One of the most 

satisfying things I doa 3.89(n=107) 4.39(n=101) 4.07

a Scale from 1 to 5; 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree. 

b Likert scale from 1 to 7; 1=not important, 7=important 

and 1=does not help, 7=helps.

c Low and high groups based on number of days hiked where low was 

equal to 10 or less days in the past year and high was more than 10 days.

Spiritual value was represented in two studies. In study two 

almost half (46.5 percent) and in study four the majority (61.8 

percent) indicated “I want to renew my soul” as a reason to visit 

wilderness (for further discussion see Clayton and Myers 2009).

Fostering and Maintaining Social Connections—

Social identity and social connections also seem to be 

associated with wilderness visits. For example, although most 

visitors in study one sought solitude in their visit, for most it 

was sought in the company of others. In both studies two 

(51.2 percent) and four (72.5 percent), the majority chose 

“I want to be with friends or family who also visit the 

wilderness” as reasons for visiting wilderness. Wilderness 

hiking is an opportunity to share and foster a common bond 

with others (see table), an effect stronger among more frequent 

hikers in study three compared to those who hiked less often.

Comparison of social benefits for study three respondents

(all t-tests significant at p < 0.01)

Benefit Lowb High Value of t

I talk frequently 

about this activity 

with my friendsa

3.18

(n=106)

3.81

(n=101) 4.95

I try to find other 

people who share 

my interest in 

this activitya

3.41

(n=106)

3.91

(n=101) 3.66

a Scale from 1 to 5; 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree.

b Low and high groups based on number of days hiked where low 

was equal to 10 or less days in the past year and high was more 

than 10 days.

The Vivian Creek Trail, San Gorgonio Wilderness, San Bernardino National

Forest. (Photo by Deanne McCollum)
70

Protecting Rural Land

Fostering a Connection to Nature—Wilderness visitors 

also appear to be drawn to connect with nature. In studies two 

and four, nature-based motives were high among reasons to visit 

wilderness. “To be close to nature” was chosen by 76.6 percent 

in study two and by 83.3 percent in study four. Along similar 

lines, most respondents in both studies chose “visit a natural, 

unspoiled area” (84.7 percent in study two and 93.1 percent in 

study four), and “observe wildlife” (67.6 percent in study two 

and 79.4 percent in study four) as reasons for visiting wilderness.

A measure of connection to nature was included in study four 

through Clayton’s environmental identity (EID) scale (Clayton 

2003). In this study the number of days spent in wilderness 

was associated with EID as well as attitudes about wilderness 

management. Those with low EID showed less support for 

environmental protection (for example protection of plants), 

while those with high EID believed more natural resource 

areas were needed for environmental protection. (For further 

discussion see Winter and Chavez 2008). 

Factors that Mitigate Value—The degree of wilderness 

experience (frequency and history of visitation) is an 

important consideration in weighing the values of a visit. As 

discussed earlier, frequent wilderness visitors report a greater 

level of values derived (examined through effects on identity 

and self) than less frequent visitors. In fact, it may be that 

more frequent visitors are gaining and recognizing benefits for 

reasons other than multiple visits. 

A number of other influences beyond degree of experience 

weigh into the benefits of a wilderness visit, for example overall 

receptivity to the experience (Schuster and others 2005). 

Discussion—This paper has presented four studies 

demonstrating mutual value of wilderness visits to nature 

and visitor. This mutual value goes beyond the immediate 

experience to include an array of benefits such as physical, 

psychological, spiritual, social, and transactive between the 

environment and individual. Physical, psychological, spiritual, 

and social benefits may represent important information in 

efforts to encourage outdoor activity and increase public health. 

Managers serve as stewards of a diverse range of opportunities. 

Considering a larger array of values will likely be helpful in 

the ongoing mission to protect wilderness, while providing for 

recreational experiences. Discovering that urban-proximate 

wilderness visitors report many of the same values expected 

in more remote wilderness areas is enlightening. It appears 

that expectations, such as for solitude, are also met by urbanproximate wilderness (Cole and Hall 2008). 

Management of wilderness can continue to benefit from 

knowing more about urban-proximate wilderness visitor 

perspectives. It might be valuable to continue to study 

whether and how the type of visitor and visitor values varies 

by trailhead and trails used. This may result in management 

strategies involving use limits and communication approaches 

that become place-specific. It might also be important to study 

visitors with longer visitation histories to capture their unique 

views on changing wilderness character over time. Values 

drawn from the wilderness experience may shift, or visitors 

may move to other “favorite” locations to preserve their 

wilderness recreation experience.

End Invited Paper

Ecosystems Represented in National Parks, 

Refuges, and Wilderness Areas

An analysis of ecosystem coverage was conducted across 

areas of the National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, and 

National Wilderness Preservation Systems. The analysis used 

digital spatial data to estimate land area coverage of different 

ecosystems at division levels (Bailey 1995). Results are shown 

using GIS-derived maps (figures 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17) to show 

the spatial distribution of units of these three protected Federal 

land systems relative to 25 ecosystem divisions across the 

continental United States. Alaska and Hawaii are not shown in 

these maps, but their ecosystem and protected land areas were 

included and are tabulated in tables 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13. 

Tables 3.11 through 3.13 show ecosystem area in acres, 

percentage of each Federal land system in each ecoregion 

division, and percentage of each division in the protected 

land system. Because Wilderness Areas are designated from 

other Federal land, the Wilderness System area table and 

map somewhat overlap with the maps and tables covering 

the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems. In 

other words, some of the land in these two systems has been 

designated as Wilderness, but it retains also its status with the 

original land management agency. Thus, some Wilderness 

System land statistics are also included in the National Park 

and National Refuge tables. Other agencies managing land 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System include the 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The 

Wilderness lands of these two agencies are represented in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System table.

As defined in the National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov), 

ecoregions are large-scale areas that share common climatic 

and vegetation characteristics. This four-level hierarchy 

originated from and was defined by Bailey (1995) to 

differentiate between types of ecoregions. The broadest 

classification is the domain, which is a grouping of areas with 

similar climates that are differentiated by precipitation and 

temperature. There are four domains in the United States: 

(1) polar, (2) humid temperate, (3) dry, and (4) humid tropical. 
71

Protecting Rural Land

Next in the hierarchy are divisions, which represent climates 

within domains with varying precipitation levels and patterns 

and temperatures. Divisions are subdivided into provinces 

based on vegetation or other natural land covers. Mountainous 

area provinces are differentiated by elevation, which is a 

primary determinant of vegetation and other natural cover. 

The finest level of ecosystem classification is a section, which 

is a subdivision of provinces that is based on terrain. This 

analysis focused on divisions.

The data and spatial analysis for generating the ecosystem 

maps, acreages, and percentages of area for National Parks, 

National Wildlife Refuges, and National Wilderness Areas 

relied on ecosystem boundary data. The Bailey’s Ecosystem 

(Bailey 1995) boundary data was downloaded from the U.S. 

Geological Survey Web site at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.

html#ecoregp. The Environmental Systems Research Institute 

(LESRI) ArcMap 9.2 was used to calculate the area covered by 

each ecoregion division. The general approach was to calculate 

the decimal degree total land area for each county in the United 

States. Next, the ESRI tool, Intersect Analysis, was used to 

find the Bailey’s Ecosystem Division (BED) decimal degree 

area within each county. Intersect computes the geometric 

intersection of features or portions of features. The percentage 

of each county’s area within each BED was then calculated and 

multiplied by the square mile area provided by ESRI for each 

county. This product was multiplied by 640 (acres per square 

mile) to derive acres of BED within each county. Acres were 

then summed across counties for each division.

National Park Service acres by Bailey’s Ecosystem 

Division—Federal lands boundary data were downloaded 

from the U.S. Geological Survey Web site at http://

nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html#fedlanp. The National Park 

System boundary data was isolated from all other Federal 

land boundary data. The ESRI tool, Intersect, was used to 

overlay the National Park System boundary files over the BED 

boundary files by within each county to define the portions 

of National Park System area within each BED by county. 

Next, the ESRI tool, calculate, was used to find the decimal 

degree area of each National Park System unit within BEDs 

by county. Transferring these data to an Excel spreadsheet, 

the decimal degree area of National Park System land by BED 

was divided by the county decimal degree area and multiplied 

by county total acres. National Park System acres were then 

summed for each division.

Figure 3.15 and table 3.11 show the location and tabulated 

acreages of protected national park lands over the ecosystem 

types (divisions) they protect through National Park Service 

management. Much of the National Park System acreage is in 

Alaska, which dominates the System’s national total acreage. 

This is especially true since the 1980 passage of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Excluding Alaska, 

the National Park System is much more balanced in terms of 

acreage across regions of the United States. The North has by 

far the least acreage but the most units of any region. This is 

largely due to the presence of national historic sites, historical 

parks, and memorials. Not counting national preserves (which 

are almost entirely in Alaska), national recreation areas 

(3.4 million acres) and national monuments (2.3 million acres) 

are a distant second and third, respectively, to national park 

land area (50 million acres).

As figure 3.15 shows, in terms of percentage of the National 

Park System, national parks are especially important in 

protecting the Tundra and Subarctic Mountain Divisions, 

which have 26 and 23 percent of the System acreage in these 

Alaska divisions, respectively. The next greatest national park 

coverage of ecosystems is in the Marine Regime Mountains of 

the Northwest, Tropical/Subtropical Division of the Southwest, 

and Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains of the Rocky 

Mountains. In terms of percentage of divisions protected 

as national parks, the Savanna Division of southern Florida 

has the highest percentage protected at 34 percent. Next 

highest percentages are the mountain divisions of Alaska, 

followed by the Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division of the 

Southwest. Special note should be made of Bailey Divisions 

not well represented in the National Park System as seen by 

the column labeled “percentage of division in National Parks” 

in table 3.11. Almost all divisions are represented with at 

least some acreage in the National Park System, though some 

divisions, such as Prairie, Subtropical, Subtropical Regime 

Mountains, Warm Continental, and Warm Continental 

Regime Mountains, each comprise < 1 percent of the system.

Wildlife Refuge acres by Bailey’s Ecosystem 

Division—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge 

boundary file was downloaded from http://www.fws.gov/GIS/

data/CadastralDB/index.htm. The ESRI tool, intersect, was 

used to lay refuge boundaries over the BED boundaries for 

each county to calculate proportions of Refuge area within 

each BED by county. Next, the ESRI tool, calculate, was used 

to find the decimal degree refuge area by BED by county. 

Transferring these data to an Excel spreadsheet, decimal 

degree area of refuge by BED was divided by the county 

decimal degree area and multiplied by the county total acres. 

Acres were then summed across counties of the United States 

for each division.

Figure 3.16 and table 3.12 describe ecosystem coverage by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. The units of the refuge 

system are much more widely distributed across the continental 

United States than those in the National Park Service. 

However, like the National Park System, well over one half of 

the refuge system acreage is in Alaska. The Arctic and Yukon 

Delta National Wildlife Refuges make up a large proportion of 

this Alaska area, each occupying more than 19 million acres, 
72

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.11—Acreage of U.S. surface area by ecosystem division, acres of the National Park System in each division, 

percentage of division in national parks, and percentage of the National Park System area in each division

Ecosystem division

Total surface acres in 

ecosystem division

National Park 

Service acres

Percentage 

of division in 

national parks

Percentage of 

National Park System 

acres in division

Temperate Desert Division 172,248,684.85 1,356,983.79 0.79 1.68

Temperate Desert Regime Mountains 27,947,708.91 351,801.87 1.26 0.44

Temperate Steppe Division 272,098,505.57 497,464.56 0.18 0.62

Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains 144,647,151.35 4,341,184.94 3.00 5.38

Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division 110,639,680.87 7,808,610.28 7.06 9.68

Tropical/Subtropical Mountains 32,098,786.00 216,528.98 0.67 0.27

Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division 162,959,706.07 2,827,337.05 1.73 3.51

Hot Continental Division 239,053,212.08 749,279.82 0.31 0.93

Hot Continental Regime Mountains 47,724,559.90 776,019.31 1.63 0.96

Marine Division 9,342,863.97 14,704.86 0.16 0.02

Marine Regime Mountains 73,362,234.04 10,019,581.86 13.66 12.43

Mediterranean Division 21,744,181.55 464,955.63 2.14 0.58

Mediterranean Regime Mountains 59,769,195.27 2,048,962.78 3.43 2.54

Prairie Division 191,037,877.41 56,482.41 0.03 0.07

Subtropical Division 262,963,235.27 367,575.18 0.14 0.46

Subtropical Regime Mountains 5,629,893.82 5,575.11 0.10 0.01

Warm Continental Division 93,922,951.74 565,484.92 0.60 0.70

Warm Continental Regime Mountains 28,035,272.84 638.62 0.00 0.00

Rainforest Regime Mountains 3,979,085.21 250,832.29 6.30 0.31

Savanna Division 5,019,943.39 1,721,136.44 34.29 2.13

Subarctic Division 53,796,334.71 3,112,716.89 5.79 3.86

Subarctic Regime Mountains 118,467,154.38 18,866,085.16 15.93 23.40

Tundra Division 55,724,043.44 3,506,394.12 6.29 4.35

Tundra Regime Mountains 99,859,410.16 20,705,332.22 20.73 25.68

Total 2,292,071,672.80 80,631,669.09 100.00

Note: Ecosystem divisions based on Bailey (1995). 
73

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.12—Acreage of U.S. surface area by ecosystem division, acres of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 

each division, percentage of division in national refuges, and percentage of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

area in each division

Ecosystem division

Total surface acres in 

ecosystem division

National Wildlife 

Refuge acres

Percentage 

of division 

in national 

refuges

Percentage of 

National Refuge 

acres in division

Temperate Desert Division 172,248,684.85 2,413,767.06 1.40 2.72

Temperate Desert Regime Mountains 27,947,708.91 39,762.33 0.14 0.04

Temperate Steppe Division 272,098,505.57 1,602,148.60 0.59 1.81

Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains 144,647,151.35 232,855.42 0.16 0.26

Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division 110,639,680.87 2,697,385.32 2.44 3.04

Tropical/Subtropical Regime Mountains 32,098,786.00 64,781.91 0.20 0.07

Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division 162,959,706.07 412,410.14 0.25 0.46

Hot Continental Division 239,053,212.08 735,195.77 0.31 0.83

Hot Continental Regime Mountains 47,724,559.90 21,293.34 0.04 0.02

Marine Division 9,342,863.97 21,374.50 0.23 0.02

Marine Regime Mountains 73,362,234.04 1,146,665.75 1.56 1.29

Mediterranean Division 21,744,181.55 114,052.36 0.52 0.13

Mediterranean Regime Mountains 59,769,195.27 147,638.64 0.25 0.17

Prairie Division 191,037,877.41 426,456.64 0.22 0.48

Subtropical Division 262,963,235.27 2,643,382.19 1.01 2.98

Subtropical Regime Mountains 5,629,893.82 0.00 0.00 0.00

Warm Continental Division 93,922,951.74 181,082.61 0.19 0.20

Warm Continental Regime Mountains 28,035,272.84 55,696.77 0.20 0.06

Rainforest Regime Mountains 3,979,085.21 43,924.59 1.10 0.05

Savanna Division 5,019,943.39 51,582.17 1.03 0.06

Subarctic Division 53,796,334.71 15,880,057.88 29.52 17.90

Subarctic Regime Mountains 118,467,154.38 15,372,370.59 12.98 17.33

Tundra Division 55,724,043.44 18,991,033.75 34.08 21.41

Tundra Regime Mountains 99,859,410.16 25,410,226.40 25.45 28.65

Total 2,292,071,672.80 88,705,144.73 100.00

Note: Ecosystem divisions based on Bailey (1995). 
74

Protecting Rural Land

Table 3.13—Acreage of U.S. surface area by ecosystem division, acres of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System in each division, percentage of division in National Wilderness Areas, and percentage of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System area in each division

Ecosystem division

Total surface acres in 

ecosystem division

National 

Wilderness Area 

acres

Percentage 

of division in 

Wilderness Areas

Percentage of 

National Wilderness 

acres in division

Temperate Desert Division 172,248,684.85 3,835,089.38 2.23 3.51

Temperate Desert Regime Mountains 27,947,708.91 1,181,970.32 4.23 1.08

Temperate Steppe Division 272,098,505.57 537,483.44 0.20 0.49

Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains 144,647,151.35 15,312,414.12 10.59 14.02

Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division 110,639,680.87 11,274,415.98 10.19 10.32

Tropical/Subtropical Regime Mountains 32,098,786.00 1,306,489.64 4.07 1.20

Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division 162,959,706.07 1,364,195.94 0.84 1.25

Hot Continental Division 239,053,212.08 194,845.72 0.08 0.18

Hot Continental Regime Mountains 47,724,559.90 642,125.14 1.35 0.59

Marine Division 9,342,863.97 53,407.47 0.57 0.05

Marine Regime Mountains 73,362,234.04 18,849,390.07 25.69 17.26

Mediterranean Division 21,744,181.55 311,088.51 1.43 0.28

Mediterranean Regime Mountains 59,769,195.27 7,398,887.11 12.38 6.77

Prairie Division 191,037,877.41 2,241.62 0.00 0.00

Subtropical Division 262,963,235.27 684,972.56 0.26 0.63

Subtropical Regime Mountains 5,629,893.82 47,986.71 0.85 0.04

Warm Continental Division 93,922,951.74 1,399,270.13 1.49 1.28

Warm Continental Regime Mountains 28,035,272.84 247,296.91 0.88 0.23

Rainforest Regime Mountains 3,979,085.21 155,779.09 3.91 0.14

Savanna Division 5,019,943.39 764,990.48 15.24 0.70

Subarctic Division 53,796,334.71 2,011,315.40 3.74 1.84

Subarctic Regime Mountains 118,467,154.38 12,372,708.01 10.44 11.33

Tundra Division 55,724,043.44 2,511,180.27 4.51 2.30

Tundra Regime Mountains 99,859,410.16 26,761,277.54 26.80 24.50

Total 2,292,071,672.80 109,220,821.56 100.00

Note: Ecosystem divisions based on Bailey (1995). 
75

Protecting Rural Land

which together make up more than 40 percent of the refuge 

system lands in the 50 States. The Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge was established in 1960 and added onto when Congress 

passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 

1980, which more than doubled its size. Within the 20 million 

acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (an area greater 

than the size of South Carolina) are three Wild Rivers and 8 

million acres of designated Wilderness. Created by the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), 

The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge consolidated 

existing refuges and added other lands. Thus over 85 percent 

of the refuge system is in the Subarctic and Tundra Divisions. 

The next largest refuge system acreages, though much smaller, 

are those in temperate and subtropical desert divisions. In 

terms of the percentage of ecosystem divisions represented in 

the refuge system, the picture is much the same as is the case 

with national parks. And, like national parks, it is important 

to note which Bailey’s Divisions are not represented in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. For example, the Tropical/

Subtropical Steppe, Hot Continental, Mediterranean, Prairie, 

Warm Continental, and Savanna each make up < 1 percent of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, though these proportions 

are skewed somewhat by the vast acreages in Alaska.

Wilderness acres by Bailey’s Ecosystem Division—

The Wilderness boundary file was downloaded from http://

www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=geography. 

As with National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, the ESRI tool, 

Intersect, was used to lay Wilderness Area boundaries over 

Bailey’s Ecosystem Division boundaries for each county to 

define the proportions of Wilderness within each BED by 

county. Next, the ESRI tool, calculate, was used to find the 

decimal degree area of each Wilderness within the BED by 

county. Transferring these data to an Excel spreadsheet, the 

decimal degree area of the Wilderness was divided by the 

county decimal degree area and multiplied by county total 

acreage to estimate number of acres of Wilderness in each 

BED. Acres were then summed nationally for each division.

Figure 3.17 and table 3.13 show ecosystem representation 

across areas in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The NWPS is found mostly in the western regions, 

particularly in Alaska. Alaska alone contains more than 

52 percent of the NWPS, most of which is under the 

management of the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Including Alaska, about 96 percent of the 

NWPS is located in the West; without Alaska, the proportion 

drops only to 92 percent.

In terms of percentage of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System among ecosystem divisions (table 

3.13), the greatest portions are Tundra Division and Subartic 

Division in Alaska, Marine Regime Mountains in Washington 

and Oregon, and Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains, 

mostly in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Also 

represented is the Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division of the 

Southwest. In terms of the percentage of divisions designated 

as Wilderness, Alaskan Tundra and Subarctic Divisions, 

Marine Division, Temperate Steppe Division, and Tropical/

Subtropical Desert are among the highest. As a percentage of 

divisions, significant percentages of the Savanna of southern 

Florida and the Mediterranean Mountains of California can 

be seen (fig. 3.17). Some of the Divisions not well represented 

include the Temperate Steppe, Tropical/Subtropical Steppe, 

Hot Continental, Marine (non-mountainous), Prairie, 

Subtropical, and Warm Continental Division.
76

Protecting Rural Land

Units of Wilderness 

Bailey’s Ecosystem Division

Hot Continental DivisionHot Continental Regime MountainsMarine DivisionMarine Regime MountainsMediterranean DivisionMediterranean Regime MountainsPrairie DivisionRainforest Regime MountainsSavanna Division

Savanna Regime MountainsSubarctic DivisionSubarctic Regime MountainsSubtropical DivisionSubtropical Regime MountainsTemperate Desert DivisionTemperate Desert Regime MountainsTemperate Steppe Division

Temperate Steppe Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Desert DivisionTropical/Subtropical Regime MountainsTropical/Subtropical Steppe DivisionTundra DivisionTundra Regime MountainsWarm Continental DivisionWarm Continental Regime Mountains

(32) 3.17

Figure 3.17—National Wilderness Preservation System coverage of ecosystem types in the continental United States.
77

Recreation Through the Private Sector

This chapter addresses objective 4 of this assessment report 

on outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to analyze 

the status and trends of private sector recreation resources 

including land, forests, businesses, and other resources. 

Covered are a number of dimensions of outdoor recreation 

through private ownerships and operations. Included are 

estimates of the number of recreation days supplied on private 

forest lands based on original data collected through the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 

Included also is an analysis of the relationship between public 

lands and the private properties adjacent to them, access 

to individual and family-owned private forest lands, the 

supply role of farm and agricultural lands, and the supply 

role of individuals and households in providing recreation 

opportunities for themselves through ownership of second 

or vacation homes. Finally, a description is provided of the 

number and types of private businesses which provide outdoor 

recreation services and of private business operations on 

public land (Federal and State). 

Recreational Access to Forest Lands

The NSRE is a random-digit-dial phone survey of people in 

the United States 16 years of age or older used to obtain data 

on outdoor recreation. Respondents were asked about their 

outdoor recreation activities and whether they had occurred 

primarily in forested settings. If activity had occurred in 

forested settings, the respondents were then asked if the 

land where they typically went for that activity was publicly 

or privately owned. NSRE respondents were also asked if 

they used public or private access facilities for a number of 

water activities, such as fishing. All the percentages and total 

annual days were calculated on the basis of what the activity 

participant understood about the settings and ownership of 

places where the recreation occurred.

Private lands, as referenced in the NSRE, included any 

privately owned forest lands. These could be corporation, 

nongovernmental organization, or family ownerships. For the 

six activity groups examined, the percentage of total annual 

activity days in the United States that were produced on 

private lands ranged from a low of 26 percent for backcountry 

activities to a high of 55 percent for hunting (table 4.1). Due 

to much larger population numbers in the East, the majority 

of activity days occur in this region, but the proportional 

difference between East and West days is much greater for 

hunting and motorized activities than for the other activity 

groups. Backcountry activities had the largest relative share 

of days produced on private lands in the West. 

Total days of forest land-based activities produced across 

the Nation at private recreation and historic sites (sites for 

family gatherings, picnicking, visiting historic or prehistoric 

remains, and camping) are relatively small compared with 

viewing and photographing nature (e.g., scenery, birds, and 

wildlife). Viewing and photographing nature dominates the 

other activity groups in terms of total annual days. Landbased activities making up viewing and photographing nature 

include viewing and photographing birds, natural scenery, 

other wildlife, wildflowers, and trees. About 43 percent of the 

nearly 36 billion total national activity days in this activity 

Chapter 4

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Table 4.1—Number and percent of annual recreation activity days produced on private properties by activity group and 

region, 2005–2009

Activity group

East West United States

Annual 

days Percent Annual days Percent

Total private 

annual days

Percent 

of all days All annual days 

millions millions millions millions

Visiting recreation and historic sites 834 28 262 9 1,096 37 2,960

Viewing/photographing nature 12,175 34 3,332 9 15,507 43 35,865

Backcountry activities 580 19 237 8 817 26 3,119

Motorized activities 488 43 91 8 579 51 1,126

Hunting 242 47 38 8 280 55 512

Cross-country skiing 11 30 4 10 14 40 36

Note: Days and percentages may not sum across exactly to national totals because of rounding. Cross-country skiing was the only winter activity 

with sufficient annual days data in forested settings. All annual days are the sum of days that occur on private and public lands. Source: USDA 

Forest Service (2009b).
78

Recreation Through the Private Sector

group were produced on private lands. (One reason this 

activity group is so large is because it consists of 4 activities, 

each of which is counted as a single day, so multiple counting 

can result if an individual participated in more than one of 

these activities per day.)

The total 3.1 billion backcountry activity days (backpacking, 

day hiking, horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, and 

visiting a wilderness or primitive area) were less than onetenth those of viewing and photographing nature. Nationally, 

just over one-fourth of the backcountry activity days occurred 

on private lands. 

Motorized land activities include off-road vehicle driving 

and snowmobiling. Nationally there is an estimated 

1.1 billion activity days of motorized land activities on public 

and private land. Just over one-half of these days occur on 

private land, the second highest proportion of any activity 

group. The large majority of private motorized land activities 

occurred in the East.

The hunting activity group estimate for activity days 

(big-game and small-game) is about 512 million, which is 

< 2 percent of the total number of activity days of viewing and 

photographing nature. About 55 percent of hunting days were 

produced on private land with the largest share of any activity 

(47 percent) occurring in the East.

Finally, cross-country skiing is quite small in number of 

activity days relative to other groups of activities. It was the 

only snow-based activity in the NSRE with sufficient data on 

forest settings and land ownership. But like most of the other 

activity groups, the estimated days of participation indicate 

the importance of private lands as a resource for recreation 

activity with 40 percent of total national days occurring there. 

Three out of four cross-country skiing days on private lands 

took place in the East. 

Nearby Private Land as Access 

to Public Land

Private lands have increasingly played an important role 

in enabling people to relocate near public lands that are 

rich in natural amenities such as whitewater rivers, natural 

scenery, snow areas, and mountains. In a study of net rural 

county migration, Santos (2010) examined the role of natural 

amenities as an influence on people’s choice of residence 

location. Findings pointed to a positive effect of the existence 

of Federal lands on net migration rates. This result confirmed 

Rudzitis and Johansen’s (1991) findings from a survey in the 

western United States that showed 53 percent of respondents 

felt that presence of designated wilderness was a motivation to 

relocate or remain in a county. The implication of this finding 

is that private residential lands are important in providing 

access to natural public lands. 

In a study by Radeloff and others (2010), U.S. Census data 

were analyzed to examine housing growth from 1940 to 2030 

within about 30 miles of wilderness areas, national parks, and 

national forests. It was found that between 1940 and 2000, 28 

million housing units were built within 50 km of these three 

categories of protected areas, and that another 940,000 were 

built within the proclamation boundaries of national forests. 

Housing growth rates during the 1990s within 1 km of these 

protected lands were 20 percent per decade, higher than the 

national average of 13 percent. With continuation of these 

trends, the authors project that another 17 million housing 

units will be built within 50 km by 2030. Development of 

these primary and secondary homes on nearby private land 

are a major means for gaining access to public lands, or at 

least enjoying the views those private lands afford.

The top frame of figure 4.1 shows the population density 

of U.S. counties with lands managed by four Federal 

agencies superimposed. Almost all residences (with the 

exception of military bases) are privately owned and are on 

private land. The Federal lands shown are highly important 

for outdoor recreation. For example, public lands in the 

Rocky Mountains are primary sources of opportunities for 

snowboarding and downhill skiing. In addition, residence 

locations near water, backcountry areas, and developed 

recreation sites are attractive to people locating in these 

communities. Often, access to public lands for recreation is 

near, which is one of the primary components of recreation 

supply. Close access reduces travel costs and provides more 

time for outdoor activities. While close access to Federal 

lands is only one of the factors determining population 

density patterns across the United States, it is clear that 

there is a relationship, as was found by Santos (2010). 

This relationship is seen in areas such as the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains, Front Range of the Rocky 

Mountains, Desert Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest.

Location of private residential communities and individual 

rural residences are also important in providing more 

convenient access to State parks (bottom frame of fig. 4.1). 

Residence locations throughout the East, especially in New 

England, Florida, and the Great Lakes, afford population 

access to a large number of State parks. Further, many private 

residence locations in Washington, Oregon, and California 

afford access to State parks. The importance of the role of 

private residence locations contributing to accessibility of 

Federal and State recreation lands is often overlooked.
79

Recreation Through the Private Sector

State parks by acres0 - 608.9609+

Population density by county, 2008

Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Park Service0.0391 - 11.908911.9090 - 31.617831.6179 - 61.378361.3784 - 154.1401154.1402 - 71203.8111

Population density by county, 2008

0.0391 - 11.908911.9090 - 31.617831.6179 - 61.378361.3784 - 154.1401154.1402 - 71203.8111

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

(33) 4.1

Figure 4.1—Federal lands (top frame) and State parks (bottom frame) superimposed on conterminous U.S. counties, showing different levels of population density (person per square mile) in 2008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), U.S. Geological Service (2005a), USDA Forest Service (2009b).
80

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Recreation on Individually and Family 

Owned Forest Lands

The 2006 National Woodland Owner Survey by the Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, drew a sample 

from an estimated 10 million family forest owners who were 

reported to hold 264 million acres (35 percent) of forest land in 

the United States. Individual owners account for an estimated 

10 of the 11 million private forest owners and 62 percent 

of private forest land (Butler 2008). Thirty-nine percent 

of individual and family forest owners across the country 

own more than 10 acres of forest land. Tract size is a factor 

determining the recreational importance of private forest land. 

Issues most commonly rated as major concerns by family 

forest owners are insects and plant diseases, keeping land 

intact for heirs, fire, trespassing, and property taxes.

Most of the private forest land is in the southern and 

northern regions (Butler 2008). Forty-four percent of the 

Nation’s private forest land and 44 percent of the private 

forest owners are in the South. The North has 30 percent of 

the Nation’s private forest land and 44 percent of the private 

forest owners. Nationally, the average size of family forest 

holdings is 25 acres with the average land tenure being 

26 years.

The reasons for owning forest land vary, but most have 

multiple objectives (fig. 4.2). Well over half of the land is 

owned primarily for its beauty and scenery, but also for nature 

protection, and other reasons. Among secondary reasons are 

for a vacation home or cabin and recreation, primarily for the 

landowner, their family, and friends. While only 15 percent of 

family forest land is open to the general public for recreation, 

all private forest land tracts may be considered available to be 

used by someone for recreation.

Recreation on Agricultural Lands

There were approximately 2.2 million U.S. farms totaling 

922 million acres in 2007, a slight increase in farms but a 

decline in farm land from 2002. Nearly 40 percent of farms are 

less than 50 acres but these properties account for < 2 percent 

of the total U.S. farm land area (table 4.2). Of the land in farms, 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Cultivate/collect NTFPs** 

Firewood production 

Timber production 

Other recreation 

Part of farm or ranch 

Hunting or fishing 

Land investment 

Part of home or cabin 

Nature protection 

Privacy 

Pass land on to heirs 

Beauty/scenery 

Percent 

Reason for owning* 

Owners 

Area 

* Includes owners who rated the specific objective as very important (rating=1) or important (rating=2) on a 

seven point Likert scale with one defined as very important and seven as not important. 

** Nontimber forest products 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Cultivate/collect NTFPs** 

Firewood production 

Timber production 

Other recreation 

Part of farm or ranch 

Hunting or fishing 

Land investment 

Part of home or cabin 

Nature protection 

Privacy 

Pass land on to heirs 

Beauty/scenery 

Percent 

Reason for owning* 

Owners 

Area 

* Includes owners who rated the specific objective as very important (rating=1) or important (rating=2) on a 

seven point Likert scale with one defined as very important and seven as not important. 

** Nontimber forest products 

Figure 4.2—Reasons for individual or family ownership of private forest. Note: Green bars represent the percent of total family forest 

area owned by respondents. Source: Butler (2008).
81

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Table 4.3—Acres of land in farms in the United States by type of agricultural use and RPA region, 2007 

Type of agricultural use North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres 

thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand

Cropland 143,852 35.4 99,550 24.5 140,675 34.6 22,348 5.5 406,425

Woodland 22,607 30.1 37,523 50.0 9,859 13.1 5,110 6.8 75,099

Permanent pasture and rangeland 17,258 4.2 127,499 31.2 235,401 57.6 28,674 7.0 408,832

Land in farmsteads, buildings, 

livestock facilities, ponds, roads, etc. 9,724 30.6 9,200 29.0 10,208 32.2 2,608 8.2 31,740

Total land in farms 193,441 21.0 273,772 29.7 396,143 43.0 58,740 6.4 922,096

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Percentages sum across to 100.0. 

Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007).

Table 4.2—Number and acreage by size of farms in the United States in 2002 and 2007

2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 Percent distribution, 2007

Size of farm Number of farms Land in farms Cropland harvested

Number of 

farms

All land in 

farms

Cropland 

harvested

thousand million acres million acres

Under 10 acres 179 233 0.8 1.1 0.2 0.3 10.6 0.1 0.1

10 to 49 acres 564 620 14.7 15.9 4.1 4.3 28.1 1.7 1.4

50 to 69 acres 152 154 8.8 8.9 2.5 2.5 7.0 1.0 0.8

50 to 69 acres 191 192 15.7 15.8 4.7 4.5 8.7 1.7 1.5

100 to 139 acres 175 175 20.2 20.3 6.1 5.8 7.9 2.2 1.9

140 to 179 acres 142 139 22.3 22.0 7.3 6.6 6.3 2.4 2.1

180 to 219 acres 91 88 18.0 17.3 6.2 5.6 4.0 1.9 1.8

220 to 259 acres 72 68 17.1 16.3 6.5 5.7 3.1 1.8 1.9

260 to 499 acres 226 213 80.6 75.9 34.1 30.4 9.6 8.2 9.8

500 to 999 acres 162 150 112.4 104.1 56.7 51.6 6.8 11.3 16.7

1,000 to 1,999 acres 99 93 135.7 127.6 72.8 69.8 4.2 13.8 22.6

2,000 acres or more 78 80 491.9 496.9 101.6 122.5 3.6 53.9 39.6

Total 2,129 2,205 938.3 922.1 302.7 309.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011).
82

Recreation Through the Private Sector

less than one-half, 406 million acres, is cropland (table 4.3). 

Just over 75 million farm acres are woodland and around 409 

million acres are permanent pasture and rangeland. Over twothirds of farm land is in farms of over 1,000 acres.

The greatest acreage of farmland is in the Rocky Mountains 

region (which includes the Great Plains), amounting to over 

396 million acres (table 4.3). Second highest is in the South 

followed by the North and Pacific Coast. Farm woodlands 

are important sources for outdoor recreation. The South has 

the greatest proportion of its farm land in woodland at 14 

percent with the North next highest at 12 percent. Almost 

exactly one-half of U.S. woodland is located in the South. 

Farm pasture and rangeland are also important as recreation 

resources and in table 4.3 it is shown that over 59 percent of 

Rocky Mountains region farm land is in pasture and range. 

Just under 58 percent of all U.S. pasture and range is located 

in the Rocky Mountains region.

Recreation is an important use of farm and agricultural land 

as is indicated by the income that it generates. Estimates from 

the Census of Agriculture, which includes only operations 

with annual incomes of $1,000 or more, revealed that in 2002 

just over 28 thousand farms earned a little over $200 million 

from “agritourism” and recreational services. Although the 

2007 Census showed a drop to somewhat over 23 thousand 

farms participating, the receipts from agritourism and 

recreation went up to almost $567 million. This income 

pertains to recreational services such as hunting, fishing, farm 

or wine tours, and hay rides.

In another study of U.S. farms based on the Agricultural 

Resources Management Survey (ARMS), Brown and Reeder 

(2007) reported that farm-based recreation, or agritourism,1

which includes hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and other 

on-farm activities, provided income to approximately 

52 thousand owners (2.5 percent of total U.S. farms) in 2004. 

Brown and Reeder defined agritourism to include a number of 

farm and farm-related activities:

• Outdoor recreation (fishing, hunting, wildlife study, 

horseback riding)

• Educational experiences (cannery tours, cooking classes, 

wine tasting, on-farm museums)

• Entertainment (harvest festivals, barn dances, “petting” 

farms)

• Hospitality services (overnight farm or ranch stays, guided 

tours)

• On-farm direct sales (“pick-your-own” operations, roadside 

stands, farmers’ markets).

1 Broadly defined as any agriculturally based operation or activity that brings 

visitors to a farm or ranch.

The farms providing agritourism earned approximately 

$955 million from providing recreation activities. (The 

ARMS estimate of the number of farms involved and their 

income from farm-based recreation is much higher than 

the numbers reported in the Census of Agriculture because 

it excludes smaller operations. The Census of Agriculture 

definition of agritourism was also less specific than the one 

used in the ARMS, thus possibly excluding some farm-based 

enterprises.) Significant variation was found between regions 

of the country with the South accounting for over half of all 

farms receiving recreational income followed by the Midwest, 

which accounted for about one-fourth. They found that more 

recreational farm operations were located in rural counties 

and that the economies in these counties were more dependent 

on recreation.

The 2004 ARMS indicated that around 60 percent of farms 

providing recreation services actually specialized in raising 

cattle, horses, ponies, or mules (Brown and Reeder 2007). 

Cattle and calf operations accounted for a smaller share of 

farms with recreation income than their share of all farms 

(fig. 4.3). Farms specializing in horses, ponies, and mules 

were found to be disproportionately better represented among 

recreation farms, accounting for more than one-fourth of all 

farms with recreation incomes (about 10 percent of all farms). 

Other farm types with significant recreation included those 

growing grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas.

In a study by Bastian and others (2002), the researchers 

reported that rural farm lands in Wyoming that provide 

wildlife habitat, angling opportunities, and scenic vistas were 

valued higher than lands that were largely in agricultural 

production. GIS data were used to quantify recreational and 

scenic amenities. Using a hedonic price model, the impact 

of amenity and agricultural production land characteristics 

on price per acre for a sample of Wyoming agricultural 

parcels was estimated. Both recreational amenities, as 

well as agricultural production attributes were important 

in explaining land values. Significant recreational amenity 

variables included scenic view, elk habitat, sport fishery 

productivity, and distance to town. The researchers concluded 

that demand for amenities, such as outdoor recreation, 

scenery, and open space is expected to grow in the future 

which increases competition for different uses of agricultural 

lands (Cordell 2008). The researchers saw these findings 

as important for consideration of policies for preserving 

environmental amenities and improving valuation of 

agricultural land for conservation easements.

A study by the Economic Research Service (Barry and 

Hellerstein 2004) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

estimated that American farms produced recreational 

experiences for 62.4 million people in 2001, nearly 30 percent 

of the U.S. population age 16 and older in that year. They 
83

Recreation Through the Private Sector

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

Recreation income farms All farms 

Percent 

Farm Type 

Cattle and calves 

Horses, ponies, and mules 

Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas 

All other farm types 

Figure 4.3—Percentage of recreation and of all farms by primary agricultural production. Source: Brown and Reeder (2007).

Table 4.4—Number and percentage for each reason for visiting farms

Reason for visiting a farm Important

Somewhat 

Important

Not at all 

Important

Don’t know/ 

refused

To enjoy the rural scenery around the farm 43,361

70%

9,899

16%

8,475

13%

401

1%

To visit family or friends 33,415

53%

6,697

10%

21,528

34%

1,510

3%

To learn about or to appreciate where our food comes from 32,506

53%

11,378

18%

17,736

29%

468

0.5%

To watch and participate in farm activities 25,537

39%

15,593

25%

20,467

33%

1,650

4%

To purchase agricultural products 19,126

28%

7,499

11%

34,895

51%

1,620

10%

To pick fruit or produce 18,100

29%

8,863

14%

34,392

55%

1,700

2%

To spend the night 13,897

27%

5,539

11%

30,396

60%

757

0.4%

To hunt or fish 10,904

18%

5,319

9%

45,250

72%

640

1%

Note: National estimates in thousands. Percent are percent of the row. Because a separate question is used for each reason, 

each respondent could report that all, or none, of these reasons were “Important.” Due to rounding, row totals may not sum to 62.4 

million. Differences have not been tested for statistical significance. 

Source: Barry and Hellerstein (2004).
84

Recreation Through the Private Sector

further estimated that nearly two-thirds of visitors had taken 

between one and five trips to a farm in the prior year.

Visits were made to farms for a number of reasons which 

varied in importance (table 4.4). Over 43 million Americans 

were estimated to place enjoyment of the rural scenery around 

the farm as important. About 34 million indicated that seeing 

family or friends at their farms also was important. An 

estimated 33 million indicated that learning about and better 

appreciating farms as a primary food source was important. 

Among farm visitors, about 86 percent rated “enjoying 

rural scenery” as important or somewhat important, and 39 

percent felt it was important to “watch and participate in farm 

activities.”

As shown in table 4.5, seeing woodlands, grazing animals, 

orchards and vineyards, pasture or range, and farmsteads 

were rated as desirable to the experience of visiting a farm. 

Between 85 and 88 percent of farm visitors indicated they 

would like to continue to see or see more of these landscape 

features during farm visits. Approximately 60 percent 

indicated they would like to see less non-farm business and 

residential development.

Second and Vacation Homes 

in the United States 

A highly important and growing resource supporting 

recreation is that of vacation homes. The U.S. Census of 

Housing defines vacation homes as “units that are classified as 

vacant for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use....” (http://

www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/vacation.

html). Included in this definition are homes ranging from 

“large summer estates on Long Island, time-sharing condos 

in Fort Lauderdale, or simple fishing cabins in northern 

Michigan.” The “occasional use” category was not used prior 

to the 1960 Census. Counts of seasonal and occasional use 

vacant units were provided separately from 1960 to 1980, but 

they were combined beginning in 1990 because respondents 

had difficulty determining the difference.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that Florida had the largest 

number of vacation homes over the last three U.S. censuses. 

Before 1980 New York had the greatest total number. Since 

the first housing census in 1940, Maine, New Hampshire, 

and Vermont led all States in percentage of the national total 

number of vacation homes. Figure 4.4 shows the spatial 

pattern of vacation housing across counties expressed as a 

percent of vacant housing units. It is clear that many vacation 

residences are in the cooler northern areas, along coasts, 

associated with mountains or water bodies, and are in dry 

western areas with significant public lands. 

Table 4.6 shows the trend in number of all housing units and 

of vacation (seasonal or occasional) units by decade from 1960 

to 2000. From the 1960 count of vacation homes, the number 

increased by almost 770 thousand, a 38 percent increase in 

20 years up to 1980. From 1980 to 2000, the number increased 

by another 785 thousand. The number of vacation homes 

in 2000 was 29 percent larger than in 1980 and 77 percent 

larger than in 1960. The 10 States with the largest number of 

vacation housing units (each with over 100 thousand) included 

Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Florida led 

all States in 2000 with almost 485 thousand.

Table 4.5—Number and percentage of farm visits by type of landscape feature desired along the way

Landscape feature

Like to see 

more

About the 

same

Like to see 

less

Don’t know/ 

refused

Woodlands 31,640

50%

23,440

38%

4,719

7%

2,843

5%

Grazing animals 30,605

49%

24,526

39%

4,188

7%

3,338

5%

Land in orchards and vines 30,540

48%

23,744

37%

4,835

8%

4,522

7%

Land in pasture or range 22,770

37%

32,185

51%

4,343

7%

3,351

5%

Farmsteads 21,945

35%

31,391

50%

6,006

10%

3,262

5%

Croplands 18,874

30%

33,777

54%

6,318

10%

3,638

6%

Nonfarm business and residential development 6,410

10%

15,839

25%

37,434

60%

2,925

5%

Note: National estimates in thousands. Percent are percent of the row. Because a separate question is used for each reason, 

each respondent could report that all, or none, of these features are in the “Like to see more” category. Due to rounding row

totals may not sum to 62.4 million. Differences have not been tested for statistical significance. 

Source: Barry and Hellerstein (2004).
85

Recreation Through the Private Sector Percent of vacant units that are seasonal 0.1–10 10.1–20 20.1–40 40.1–60 60.1–97.9

(36) 4.4

Figure 4.4—Percent of vacant housing units in counties in the United States that are seasonal or recreational, 2000.
86

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Based on original data collected by the authors in 2009 

through the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment, data were analyzed to estimate proportions 

of the U.S. population of adults owning a second home or 

condominium. Questions were limited to ownership for the 

purposes of enjoying natural scenery and accessing land 

for outdoor recreation. In addition, respondents indicating 

ownership were asked to estimate how many days during 

the past year they had spent at their second home or 

condominium. Results are reported in table 4.7. The base 

number of recreational second homes or condominiums used 

is the number estimated by the Census of Housing as shown 

in table 4.6.

The estimated proportions of second homes or condominiums 

nationally vary considerably across regions (table 4.7). The 

high is 44 percent in the North region and the low is 

11 percent in the Rocky Mountains region. The South had just 

over 30 percent while the Pacific Coast had almost 15 percent 

of the national total. There was a similar regional distribution 

of total days spent at privately owned recreation residences 

with the North and South regions leading with about 189 and 

126 million, respectively. There were about 66 million days in 

recreation residences in the Pacific Coast and under 55 million 

in the Rocky Mountains region. Mean number of days spent 

at recreation residences ranged from a low of just over 44 days 

(about 6 weeks) in the South to about 52 days (roughly 

71⁄2 weeks) in the Rocky Mountains region. It is anticipated 

Table 4.6—Estimated number and percent of vacation housing units (for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use) in the United States by type and year for 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000

All housing Seasonal, recreational,

or occasional use Seasonal use Occasional use

Year Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1960 58,326,357 2,024,381 3.5 1,742,465 3.0 281,916 0.5

1970 68,679,030 2,020,087 2.9 1,022,464 1.5 997,623 1.5

1980 88,411,263 2,794,054 3.2 1,718,440 1.9 1,075,614 1.2

1990 102,263,678 3,116,867 3.0

2000 115,904,641 3,604,216 3.1

Note: Counts of seasonal and occasional use units were separately provided from 1960 to 1980, but these categories were 

combined in 1990 (and the language “recreational use” was added) because responding households had difficulty determining 

the difference. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2004b).

Table 4.7—Estimated number of vacation housing units (for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use) and total and mean 

annual days of use by region in 2009

Homes or days

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Vacation homes 1,574,636 44.0 1,077,194 30.1 397,238 11.1 529,650 14.8 3,578,718

Total days used per year 188,866,730 43.2 125,826,268 28.8 54,678,339 12.5 66,390,727 15.2 437,021,079

Mean annual days 45.3 na 44.2 na 52.1 na 47.4 na 46.2

na = Not applicable.

Note: Region percentages sum across to 100. May not equal 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Estimates of number of second homes or 

condominiums by region and nationally were adjusted to sum to the 2000 Census estimate presented in table 4.6.The U.S. total does not match 

exactly because 25,498 housing units for migrant workers were included in table 4.6. Migratory units were classified as seasonal units before 1990. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009b).
87

Recreation Through the Private Sector

that the second home or condominium means of self-supply of 

outdoor recreation participation will continue to grow into the 

future. A key concern regarding this growth will be location 

relative to public lands and sensitive ecosystems.

Private Commercial Businesses 

Business enterprises are a major, and perhaps the most 

significant, provider and facilitator of outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Across the spectrum of public recreation 

interests, recreation-related businesses contribute by providing 

services, equipment, instruction, transportation, and 

frequently access to privately owned land and water. Most of 

the time, these goods and services are sold for profit, which 

sets private providers apart from the public sector. Private 

sector recreation operations occur in all types of recreation 

settings, from primitive, wilderness-like environments to the 

most developed, urbanized areas.

The diversity of recreation businesses makes their 

classification by economic sector difficult. Many provide a 

combination of instruction and leadership, equipment rentals 

and/or sales, and access to land and water resources. Data 

covering recreation businesses, especially trend data on a 

national scale is scarce because of the dynamic nature of the 

recreation and tourism industry. Multiple business start-ups 

and closures occur daily. Further, the competitive nature of 

business is an impediment to information sharing, especially 

for smaller businesses. The most reliable source for recreation 

business trends, though limited in extent, is the annual U.S. 

Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns (CBP).

Since 1998, the CBP has classified businesses according 

to the North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS). Not included in the economic information 

covered by the CBP are data on self-employed individuals, 

employees of private households, railroad employees, 

agricultural production employees, and most government 

employees. Many of the individual NAICS industries 

correspond directly to the former classification system, 

but for recreation-related business categories, most do 

not correspond closely enough to allow long-term trend 

comparisons. We limit the presentation of recreation 

business data in this report to the number of establishments 

and do not describe amounts and trends in sales revenues. 

An establishment is defined as “...a single physical location 

at which business is conducted or services or industrial 

operations are performed” (U.S. Census Bureau 2007b).

Table 4.8 lists the number of establishments for nine 

categories of outdoor recreation and tourism industries. These 

are listed in descending order according to the total number 

nationally. Golf courses and country clubs far outnumber all 

other categories, with almost 12,000 across the United States 

in 2007. The greatest proportion was in the North, followed by 

the South, together accounting for 80 percent of the national 

total, which had remained almost stable between 2002 and 

2007. Next in total national number were recreational vehicle 

(RV) parks and campgrounds, with more than 4,400. Together, 

the North and South accounted for almost two-thirds of the 

national number, which had grown over 8 percent since 2002. 

There were over 4,000 marinas in the United States in 2007, 

which represented a slight increase since 2002. Recreation and 

vacation camps (sometimes called group camps) numbered 

over 3,000 in 2007, representing a decline of over 6 percent 

since 2002. Almost one-half of the currently existing camps 

were in the North region. Privately operated historical sites, 

for example a restored Appalachian homestead, numbered 

over one thousand in 2007. Nearly 56 percent of these 

businesses were in the North and another 27 percent were 

in the South. Historic sites increased by almost 5 percent 

between 2002 and 2007.

Nature parks and similar institutions are private 

establishments primarily engaged in the preservation and 

exhibition of natural areas or settings. Nationally there were 

746 of these businesses, almost 70 percent of which were in 

the North and South regions, with an expansion of over 16 

percent between 2002 and 2007. Amusement and theme parks 

saw great expansion in the 1960s through the 1980s, but had 

declined almost 18 percent in the period 2002 to 2007, when 

there were 634 such establishments. There were 595 zoos 

and botanical gardens in 2007, representing 13 percent 

growth between 2002 and 2007. Skiing facilities include 

establishments operating downhill, cross-country, or related 

skiing areas and/or operating equipment, such as ski lifts and 

tows. These establishments sometimes also provide food and 

beverage, equipment rental, and ski instruction services (see 

description at the North American Industry Classification 

System 2007 Web site, http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/

NAICOD07.HTM, search for NAICS code 713920). The total 

of 402 skiing facilities in 2007 represented a 5-year growth 

rate of 6 percent. Fifty-two percent of these facilities were 

in the North region; almost 28 percent were in the Rocky 

Mountains.

When expressed as number of recreation business 

establishments per million people (table 4.9), a somewhat 

different trend is shown. Per million people, golf courses and 

country clubs, marinas, recreation and vacation camps, and 

amusement and theme parks decreased nationally between 

2002 and 2007. Greatest growth was in nature parks and in 

zoos and botanical gardens. Greatest per million population 

percentage declines regionally were in recreational and 

vacation camps and marinas in the Rocky Mountains, 

amusement and theme parks in the North and South, and in 

the limited number of skiing facilities in the South.
88

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Table 4.9—Number of selected private recreation business establishments per million population by region and percent 

change, 2002–2007

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Recreation business

Number

per 1

million

people,

2007

Percent 

change,

2002–

2007

Number

per 1

million

people,

2007

Percent 

change,

2002–

2007

Number

per 1

million

people,

2007

Percent 

change,

2002–

2007

Number

per 1

million

people,

2007

Percent 

change,

2002–2007

Number

per 1

million

people,

2007

Percent 

change,

2002–

2007

Golf courses and 

country clubs 47.6 -3.8 35.4 -5.9 44.3 -3.1 23.7 -1.6 39.3 -4.4

Recreational vehicle

(RV) parks and

campgrounds

13.8 6.2 11.5 5.0 26.6 -0.8 16.7 -0.5 14.7 3.8

Marinas 17.1 1.7 13.4 -7.6 5.6 -18.0 9.3 0.4 13.6 -3.0

Recreational and 

vacation camps (not 

campgrounds)

11.4 -10.6 6.7 -6.4 16.1 -18.8 9.9 -5.4 10.0 -10.3

Historical sites 4.7 -1.9 2.9 13.1 3.2 -3.6 1.8 -9.9 3.5 0.3

Nature parks and 

similar institutions 2.5 12.7 2.0 11.0 3.4 8.2 2.8 8.8 2.5 11.2

Amusement and 

theme parks 1.9 -27.5 2.3 -23.7 2.4 0.0 2.1 -11.4 2.1 -21.6

Zoos and botanical

gardens 1.9 6.1 1.9 6.6 1.9 14.8 2.3 12.9 2.0 8.2

Skiing facilities 1.7 7.6 0.2 -15.4 4.1 -1.9 1.2 -3.9 1.3 0.8

Note: U.S. population estimates are 287.73 million (2002) and 301.29 million (2007). 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2002, 2007b).

Table 4.8—Number of selected private recreation business establishments by region in 2007

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. total

Recreation business Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Percent 

change

2002–2007

Golf courses and country clubs 5,902 49.8 3,589 30.3 1,211 10.2 1,149 9.7 11,851 0.1

Recreational vehicle (RV) parks 

and campgrounds 1,714 38.8 1,162 26.3 726 16.5 811 18.4 4,413 8.6

Marinas 2,119 51.9 1,361 33.3 153 3.7 452 11.1 4,085 1.6

Recreational and vacation camps 

(not campgrounds) 1,417 46.9 684 22.6 440 14.6 480 15.9 3,021 -6.1

Historical sites 586 55.8 289 27.5 87 8.3 89 8.5 1,051 4.9

Nature parks and similar Institutions 309 41.4 205 27.5 94 12.6 138 18.5 746 16.2

Amusement and theme parks 238 37.5 228 36.0 66 10.4 102 16.1 634 -17.9

Zoos and botanical gardens 235 39.5 197 33.1 53 8.9 110 18.5 595 13.3

Skiing facilities 210 52.2 22 5.5 111 27.6 59 14.7 402 6.1

Note: Percentages sum across to 100. May not equal 100.0 exactly due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2002, 2007b).
89

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Private Concession Operations 

on Public Lands

The invited paper by Margaret Bailey, of CHM (Capital 

Hotel Management, LLC)–Government Services Division, 

focuses on concession operations on public lands using three 

Federal agencies as examples. Bailey, who specializes in 

advising public sector clients regarding recreational real estate 

holdings, has developed policy guidance and implementation 

support on concessions, pricing, and other operational 

practices for public land management agencies. Bailey advises 

municipal, State, and Federal land management agencies, 

including the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and 

State and municipal park and recreation agencies. 

Following Bailey’s paper is a short report on concession 

operations on Bureau of Land Management properties. 

This short report was written by Phil Walker, the National 

Recreation Concessions Program Manager, in the Business 

Practices and Visitor Services Branch of the Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington Office.

Invited Paper

Private Partnerships on Federal Lands

Margaret Bailey2

The private sector has been a partner with Federal agencies in 

planning and operation of visitor services on Federal lands for 

over a century. This tradition began at the time of founding 

the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service, and 

continued with water-based and other types of recreation 

opportunities, such as at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

projects. The following article provides an overview of the 

following:

• Scope of private sector operations on Federal land

• Overview of how contract structures, terms, and conditions 

have evolved over time between Federal agencies and 

private operators

• Discussion of the business elements important to enticing 

private sector operators to Federal lands 

• Outline of typical business structure elements included in 

visitor service contracts. 

The article concludes with observations about Federal land 

management and providing visitor services through private 

sector partners. 

2 Senior Vice President, Capital Hotel Management, LLC–Government 

Services, Beverly, MA 01915 .

Scope of private sector managed visitor services 

on Federal land—Gross revenue generated by private 

sector partners operating on Forest Service, National Park 

Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands equates to 

a multi-billion dollar industry. Private sector partners operate 

under permits, concession contracts, and leases. Currently, 

the primary categories of assets and activities provided by 

private sector partners include overnight accommodations 

(e.g., lodging, camping), food and beverage, retail, marina, 

transportation, day use activities (e.g., outfitting and guides), 

and ski areas. Each Federal agency has a different mix of these 

recreation opportunities based on the nature of their land and 

on how their private sector partner relationships have evolved 

over time. For example, many ski areas are located on Forest 

Service land while many of the Nation’s marina operations are 

located on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and National Park 

Service lakes. 

Evolution of public agency contract structures—

Forest Service—In 1897, the Organic Act was passed and 

provided the main statutory basis for management of forest 

reserves in the United States. In 1915, the Forest Service 

officially recognized recreation as a viable use of its land with 

a corresponding need to manage use through requirements 

of the Term Permit Act of 1915. This act authorized special 

permits for residences, stores, and resorts on national forest 

land. Recreation was further confirmed as a viable land use 

in 1960 with the development and approval of the Multiple 

Use and Sustained Yield Act. From 1915 until the 1950s, the 

Organic Act and Term Permit Act were the primary tools 

used to oversee private recreational use and development. 

During this period, the Forest Service developed recreational 

facilities without private sector operator involvement to 

include campgrounds, trails, and visitor centers. During 

the early 1970s, the Forest Service began to face a trend of 

decreasing appropriated funds, which materially affected 

operating budgets. This forced a different line of thinking 

about operating funding. In an effort to offset this trend, the 

Forest Service began to issue more special use permits for new 

development and outsourcing of management of several of 

their own facilities under the Grainger-Thye authority. 

The Granger-Thye authority allows private sector operators 

the use of government-owned buildings. It also allows use of 

a portion of the fees collected from recreational facilities for 

maintenance of facilities under special use permits. However, 

these fees cannot be used for management compensation 

or new development. In 1986, the Ski Area Permit Act was 

passed which provided for “a unified and modern permitting 

process for nordic and alpine ski areas on national forest 

lands; ski area permits more closely reflecting the acreage and 

other physical requirements of modern ski area development; 

and a permit system which will be more commensurate with 
90

Recreation Through the Private Sector

the long-term construction, financing, and operation needs 

of ski areas on national forest lands.” This act was designed 

to replace authorizations of ski areas operating under the 

Organic Act of 1897 or the Term Permit Act of 1915.

National Park Service—The National Park Service, established 

in 1916, recognized early the need for accommodating visitors. 

The National Park Service Act established the National Park 

Service and gave the Secretary of the Interior the responsibility 

to “grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for 

the accommodation of visitors....” Within the first decade of 

existence, leaders of the National Park Service pondered the 

best method for handling visitor facilities. In its early years, 

park service leadership seemed to consider it unrealistic to 

allocate funds for the development of visitor facilities. This 

led to a philosophy of “regulated monopoly” regarding facility 

development. As a result, most of the commercial recreational 

facilities in national parks were privately developed and 

managed. 

The National Park Service Act guided oversight on 

recreational asset development and operations until U.S. 

Public Law 89-249 was enacted in 1965. Congress established 

a Concession Program in the National Park Service through 

the passage of the 1965 Concession Policy Act (U.S. Public 

Law 89-249). On November 13, 1998, the Concessions Policy 

Act was reformed with the passage of the National Parks 

Omnibus Management Act of 1998, U.S. Public Law 105-391, 

Title IV. U.S. Public Law 105-391 provided a change in several 

key components of the 1965 law including, but not limited to 

the following:

• Creation of a new method of determining compensable 

private interest in real property; establishment of a 

maximum contract term length of 20 years

• Creation of new proposal selection factors focused on 

environmental stewardship

• Retention of franchise fees 

• Change in the preferential right of renewal from all existing 

concessioners to only those grossing no more than $500,000 

annually, and outfitters and guides. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers officially recognized recreation as part of its 

mission beginning in 1944, with the passage of the Flood 

Control Act. This act gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

authority to “construct, maintain, and operate public park 

and recreation facilities in reservoir areas under control of 

the Department of the Army and to permit the construction, 

maintenance, and operation of such facilities.” This act also 

allowed the Corps to facilitate commercial developments for 

public use via leases with concessionaires. 

In 1965, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (U.S. 

Public Law 89-72) required that the true potential of recreation 

be evaluated and developed, all other conditions considered. 

The law also required that, from 1965 forward, recreation 

assets could only be constructed if there was a non-Federal 

partner share in the project costs. Additionally, it was required 

that the non-Federal partner be responsible for the costs of 

facility operation and maintenance. This legislation further 

indicated that if a non-Federal partner could not be found then 

development of recreational facilities should be limited to the 

minimum facilities required for public health and safety. 

U.S. Public Law 102-575, passed in 1992, allowed the Corps 

to cost share with non-Federal agencies for operations, 

maintenance, and repair of recreation assets. However, 

based upon the complexity of operations, the requirement 

for maintenance and asset recapitalization, and the 

increasing pressure of the non-Federal agency to fund these 

requirements, the Corps developed policies and guidelines to 

better outline the requirements of the parties. Additionally, 

if non-Federal agencies are unable to maintain their facilities 

and wanted to return them to the Corps, Corps policy 

required the operator to shutter the facilities and return the 

land to its natural condition. Both this law and supporting 

Corps policies limit the methods that could be considered for 

new development, as well as operations, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of recreation facilities.

Business structure elements desired by private 

sector partners—Private sector investors operating on 

public land seek to the greatest degree possible the ability to 

create agreement structures that mirror those they are able 

to find in the private sector. Key elements desired are: 

• Predicable and manageable revenue streams

• Predicable and manageable expense profiles

• Opportunity to make investments that are additive to 

revenue and assist with managing expenses while still 

meeting internal return on investment expectations

• Opportunity to amortize investments over contract/lease/

permit term

• Qualifiable risk profile. 

As private sector operators consider entering into visitor 

service business relationships with public agencies, they 

evaluate their ability to achieve and manage each of these 

elements. Absence of an element (e.g., predictable and 

manageable expense profile) affects the overall risk profile of 

a particular opportunity. The risks and respective returns are 

constantly being compared to those that are available in the 

private sector. Ultimately, the business decisions of the private 

sector are based on which business opportunity is more 

financially attractive. 
91

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Each of the three agencies covered in this article have 

approaches for entering into relationships with private sector 

partners. The structures are guided by statutory, regulatory, 

and policy frameworks, and visitor service needs. In most 

cases, historical precedents or political priorities created the 

statutory foundations that continue to affect policies today. 

The business structure elements affect the private sector’s 

interest in each type of business opportunity. For many 

agencies the statutory frameworks upon which a contract 

or permits are structured have not changed for over half a 

decade. Yet, during this same period private sector real estate 

finance and development theory and practice have undergone 

enormous change. 

This article focuses on five key business elements that affect 

an agency and private operator partnership: contract term, rate 

administration, compensatory interest in real property, return 

to the Government, and oversight and management. Provided 

in the next section is an overview of each agency’s general 

business structure and details on each of these elements. 

The following is a description of business structures provided 

by public sector partners, specifically, the Forest Service, 

National Park Service, and the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. 

Business structures provided by public sector 

partners—

Forest Service—The Forest Service issues and administers 

special use permits for recreation uses that serve the public, 

promote public health and safety, and protect the environment. 

There are six categories of uses involved that include: 

(1) group use, (2) individual use, (3) lodging, (4) facilityrelated activities, (5) facility-related services, and (6) winter 

recreation. 

There are four categories of permit structures including (1) ski 

area permits, (2) other term permits (that include assets such 

as lodging, resorts, and marinas), (3) outfitter and guide (nonasset term) permits, and (4) Granger-Thye permits. The permit 

system for each of these structures varies. The following 

paragraphs begin with a discussion of the business elements 

of term and return to the Government for each of the four 

permit types. Then the elements of compensable interest, 

rate and oversight, and management will be discussed as they 

relate to all permit types.

Ski area permits—Terms: Currently, ski areas are authorized 

under either the Organic Act of 1897/ Term Permit Act of 1915, 

or the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (Ski Area 

Permit Act). Terms for ski areas can be up to 40 years long.

Return to the Government: The Government return on ski 

area permits is based on the Graduated Rental System and 

varies based on level of adjusted gross revenue generated by 

the operation. For ski areas, the schedule varies based on the 

authorizing document. If the permit was issued under the Ski 

Permit Act, the beginning rental fee is 1.5 percent of total 

revenue and the top rate is 4.0 percent of total revenue. As of 

fiscal year 2009, the thresholds were as follows: 1.5 percent for 

revenue up to $4.3 million, 2.5 percent for between $4.3 and 

$21.6 million, 2.75 percent for resort revenues between 21.6 and 

$72 million; and 4 percent for mega resorts over $72 million. 

Fees collected are sent directly to the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury for re-appropriation to the Forest Service.

Term permits: Term permits are typically limited to 20 

years; however, in special situations, regional foresters may 

approve a longer term not to exceed 30 years. These longer 

terms typically apply when the required private sector capital 

investment exceeds $1 million.

Return to the Government: Other term permits have their fees 

set according to the formula established within the Graduated 

Rate Fee System (GRFS). This system operates by applying 

a selected rate from an established schedule of rates applied 

to the concessioner’s gross sales. The rate, or rates, to be 

used are determined by the proportioned relationship of the 

concessioner’s sales to Gross Fixed Assets (GFA). As sales 

increase in relation to GFA, a higher rate from the schedule of 

graduated rates is applied to the higher increment of sales and 

the total fee increases. The calculation of the GRFS is based 

upon an analysis of the sales by business category, evaluation 

of break-even point by type of business, and then computation 

of a rate percentage based upon the amount of sales at various 

break even rates. The rate base for break-even sales ranges from 

0.75 percent for grocery businesses to 4.5 for rental services. 

The balance of sales rates (for revenue above break-even) range 

from 1.13 percent for grocery to 6.75 percent for rental and 

services. These fees are sent directly to the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury for re-appropriation to the Forest Service. Timberline Lodge, Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon. (Photograph

courtesy of Margaret Bailey)
92

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Outfitter and guide permits—Terms: Priority versus 

temporary use permits are authorized for up to 10 years. 

Return to the Government: The procedure for calculating 

return to the Government for outfitters and guides is based 

upon one of two options. Option A: The fee is based on an 

average client-day charge using a Forest Service schedule of 

rates. The minimum average client-day charge begins at $0.25 

per client for client fees up to $8 and increases to $10 per 

client for fees up to $400 per day. The Forest Service receives 

3 percent of the client fees if the fees are over $400 per day. 

Option B: The fee is 3 percent of the annual adjusted gross 

revenue, minus any applicable adjustment for use of National 

Forest System lands. These fees are retained at the forest level 

based upon the recent passage of the Federal Land Recreation 

Enhancement Act, which allows for outfitter and guide fees to 

be retained at the site where they are generated. 

Granger-Thye permits—Terms: Terms for Granger-Thye 

permits are 5 years with the option of a 5-year extension at the 

discretion of the authorizing officer. If the permit is going to 

include reconstruction or other improvements costing more 

than $250,000, then 10-year initial terms are possible.

Return to the Government: The fee for a Granger-Thye permit 

should represent the full value of the use, consisting of a 

fee for the land use plus a fee for the use of Federal-owned 

improvements (buildings). The land use fee is determined 

based upon Forest Service policy, and the appropriate fee 

for the use of Government-owned improvements is set at 6 

percent of the value of the improvements. With the exception 

of the maintenance fee offsets (agreed to within each permit), 

the remainder of the fee is sent directly to the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury for re-appropriation to the Forest Service.

Compensatory interest in real property: For all term permits 

(excluding Granger-Thye permits, which include the 

management and operation of government improvements), the 

permit holder typically creates the improvements. The permit 

creates an obligation against the United States by requiring 

the United States to pay for any improvements authorized by 

permits which the Forest Service revokes for reasons other 

than breach of contract prior to the end of the term. However, 

when a term permit expires, the United States is not obligated 

to pay for the holder’s improvements or to issue a new 

contract. If a decision is made not to issue a new contract, the 

holder is responsible for removing improvements according to 

the provisions of the permit. 

Rate approval: Term permits include language indicating 

“prices and services may be regulated by the [Forest Service] 

provided that the holder shall not be required to charge prices 

significantly different than those charged by comparable or 

competing enterprises.” This is similar to language within the 

Granger-Thye Permit. 

Oversight and management: The preponderance of day-to-day 

special use permit administration occurs at the district level 

of the Forest Service. The district ranger is responsible for 

all special use activities within the district. Except for those 

responsibilities specifically reserved by the forest supervisor, 

it is the responsibility of the district ranger to ensure quality 

on-the-ground administration of the special-uses program, 

including, but not limited to:

• Maintaining communication with local individuals and 

organizations with interest in the special-uses program

• Monitoring and evaluating special-use activities to 

determine the effects on other resources and ensure 

compliance with the forest land and resource management 

plans

• Evaluating special-uses applications under the district 

ranger’s authority

• Completing appropriate environmental documentation prior 

to issuing these authorizations.

Information on the scope and scale of the Forest Service’s 

Special Use program is managed through multiple databases 

in a decentralized manner. As such, global data on the 

number of authorizations by type and total revenue are not 

readily available. Data on the fees collected under the Federal 

Land Recreation Enhancement Act, as well as term permit 

authorities, is provided in the following table 4.10. 

Over the last 5 years, the most immediate direct impact 

on the Forest Service has been the ability to retain at the 

forest level the special recreation permit fees. As seen in the 

Table 4.10—U.S. Forest Service 5-year trend of special 

recreation permit fees from 2006 through 2010

Year Special recreation permitsa Recreation special usesb

2006 $9,700,000 $48,740,000

2007 $10,000,000 $48,570,000

2008 $10,005,000 $51,700,000

2009 $9,359,200 na

2010 na $53,319,000

na = Not available.

a Special use permits for recreation events, outfitting and guides, and 

miscellaneous recreation uses have terms of < 10 years. 

b Special use permits fees for ski areas, resorts, marinas, and 

concession campground fees in excess of fee-offset. Fees sent directly 

to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Source: Bailey (2011a).
93

Recreation Through the Private Sector

exhibit above this has resulted in approximately $10 million 

being generated and retained. If more outfitter and guiding 

businesses are authorized, the opportunities for additional 

fees to be generated and retained would increase. Recreation 

special use revenue is not directly retained at the site level, 

rather it is sent directly to the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

for re-appropriation. Special use fees have been increasing 

over the last 5 years. 

National Park Service—Chapter 10 of the National Park 

Service management policies frames the key elements of 

the National Park Service Commercial Services Program. 

The two methods that commercial visitor services are 

authorized are concession contracts or commercial use 

authorizations. The guiding agreement outlining specific 

terms and conditions associated with the operation of 

concession services is a concession contract. A commercial 

use authorization (CUA) is a permit that authorizes certain 

commercial services within park areas to support visitor 

access but is limited in scope with specific conditions and is 

not considered a concession contract. CUAs may be issued 

only for commercial operations with annual gross receipts of 

not more than $25,000, resulting from services originating 

and provided solely within a unit of the National Park System, 

with a requirement that the commercial operation that 

provides the service must originate and terminate outside 

the boundaries of the park unit. The following paragraphs 

provide an overview of the five business structure elements of 

a National Park Service concession contract.

Term: National Park Service management policy states that 

the term of a concession contract will generally be 10 years or 

less. However, the director of the National Park Service may 

award a contract for a term of up to 20 years if it is determined 

that the contract’s terms and conditions, including the required 

construction of capital improvements, warrant a longer term. 

Rate administration: The National Park Service must approve 

all rates charged by concessioners. The reasonableness of a 

concessioner’s rates and charges to the public will, unless 

otherwise provided in the contract, be judged primarily on 

the basis of comparison with current rates and charges for 

facilities and services of comparable character under similar 

conditions. 

Compensatory interest in real property: All buildings under 

concession contract are National Park Service-owned 

structures. The title remains with the Federal Government. 

Depending on the contract, the concessioner may have a 

contractual right of compensation in the form of a leasehold 

surrender interest or possessory interest in one, some, or all 

of the buildings. Possessory interest (PI) was the term used 

in concession contracts issued under the previous concession 

law, U.S. Public Law 89-249, to provide a contractual right 

of compensation to park concessioners for improvements 

to facilities they acquired or constructed for use by their 

businesses. U.S. Public Law 105-391 introduced the concept 

of leasehold surrender interest (LSI) to provide a contractual 

right of compensation for capital improvements made by 

concessioners under a concessions contract. The value of LSI 

in a capital improvement is the amount equal to the initial 

value of the construction cost of the capital improvement, 

adjusted by changes in the Consumer Price Index, minus 

depreciation of the capital improvement. U.S. Public Law 

105-391 also provided that a concessioner that obtained a PI 

under the terms of a concessions contract is entitled to receive 

compensation for such PI improvements as provided in the 

concessions contract. This amount carries over into a new 

concession contract as the initial value of such LSI. 

Return to the Government: Franchise fees provide the 

mechanism by which concession contracts return fair revenue 

to the Federal Government. U.S. Public Law 105-391 states 

that franchise fees shall be based on the “probable value 

of the contract.” Probable value is defined as “a reasonable 

opportunity for net profit in relation to the capital invested and 

the obligations of the contract.” National Park Service policy 

has outlined for contracts with gross receipts below $250,000 

that the franchise fee will be 3 percent. For contracts between 

$250,000 and $500,000, the franchise fee can range between 

3 and 5 percent. The National Park Service requires a franchise 

fee analysis be conducted for those contracts with gross 

revenue over $500,000. A franchise fee analysis considers 

the historical operations, evaluates the future financial 

performance, recognizes the potential investments that are 

being considered, and then estimates a reasonable return on 

invested capital and operations for the operator. The excess 

El Tovar Hotel, Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. (Photograph

courtesy of Margaret Bailey)
94

Recreation Through the Private Sector

return above and beyond the operator’s reasonable return is 

provided as the return to the Government and is paid out as a 

franchise fee and can also include a maintenance reserve. This 

analysis is conducted by either the National Park Service or an 

external business advisor if the gross revenues are above 

$3 million. Eighty percent of all franchise fees are retained at 

the park level and 20 percent are retained by the national office 

of the National Park Service’s Commercial Services Program. 

Oversight and management: The National Park Service’s 

Commercial Services Program oversees approximately 560 

concession contracts in over 123 national parks. The program’s 

key functional responsibilities include contract development, 

contract management, facility asset management, and financial 

management. Currently this program area is managed by 

approximately 300 National Park Service employees, of 

whom approximately 50 percent are collateral duty. The scope 

and scale of the National Park Service concession program 

from 2005 to 2009, the most recent period for which data is 

available, is presented in table 4.11. 

As this exhibit illustrates, franchise fees have increased over 

the period from 2001 to 2006. This is a combination of both 

increases in gross revenue as well as a revised approach to 

analyzing the probable value of each business opportunity. 

The distribution of National Park Service concession revenue 

by category for the most recent year of available data is 

provided in figure 4.5. With nominal changes in business 

opportunities in the parks, these ratios have remained 

relatively stable over the last 5-year period for which data was 

available. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers enters into leases with private sector operators for 

commercial concession purposes.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a standard lease for all 

commercial services. Key elements of these leases include:

Term: Lease terms can be up to 25 years. There is no direct 

preference for renewal but leases have been renewed based 

upon satisfactory performance. In those situations where 

leases are extended, the terms of extension are subject to 

review and discussions with each respective district real estate 

division. 

Rate administration: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

requests in their leases that the “rates and prices charged 

by the Lessee or its sub-lessees shall be reasonable and 

comparable to rates charged for similar goods and services by 

others in the area.” Additionally, “the District Engineer shall 

have the right to review such rates and prices and require an 

increase or reduction when it is determined that this objective 

has been violated.”

Compensatory interest in real property: Under U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers leases, the development and maintenance 

of structures are the responsibility of the lessee. All structures 

and equipment furnished by the lessee shall be and remain the 

property of the lessee. Therefore, all title to structures remains 

with the lessee. At the end of the lease term, the lease states 

that the lessee “shall vacate the premises, remove the property 

there from, and restore the premises to a condition satisfactory 

to the District Engineer.” Depending on the decision of the 

district engineer, the property could remain, but the lessee 

receives no compensatory interest from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. Leases can be sold but approval for transfer is 

subject to the district real estate division. 

Return to the Government: Compensation to the 

Government is based upon a graduated revenue fee system, 

Hide Away Cover Marina, Lake Sidney Lanier in Georgia. (Photograph

courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Table 4.11—National Park Service 5-year trend of 

commercial services franchise fees from 2005 through 

2009

Year Gross revenue Franchise fee

Franchise fee as 

a percent of 

gross revenue

2005 $885,236,076 $30,510,367 3.4

2006 $908,950,212 $35,859,989 3.9

2007 $963,922,228 $41,195,093 4.3

2008 $1,039,064,735 $55,698,954 5.4

2009 $1,007,631,889 $67,654,944 6.7

Source: Bailey (2011b).
95

Recreation Through the Private Sector

which starts at 2 percent for operations that generate revenue 

below $50,000, increasing to 2.1 percent for revenue between 

$50,000 and $200,000 and then increases at 0.1 percent 

for each $200,000 dollar increase in revenue up to a cap of 

4.6 percent for revenue above $5 million. Currently, only 

25 percent of the concessionaire revenue is returned to the 

Treasury for reallocation back to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in the form of appropriated funding, while 

75 percent is retained by the local counties in which the lake 

is located. This payment is meant to be in lieu of taxes. No 

fees are available at the unit level. 

Oversight and management: On U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers projects, the lake manager has day-to-day 

oversight responsibility for both concession and government 

facilities at the site level. The lake manager does not have 

responsibility for determining the structure or terms of leases 

for concessionaires on his lake. This responsibility lies at the 

district level under the real estate division. Should problems 

with the concessionaire occur, it is the district real estate 

personnel who have direct oversight responsibility. The real 

estate division at the district reports to the deputy chief of staff 

for real estate at the headquarters level. 

The scope and scale of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

program is presented in table 4.12. Over the last decade, the 

number of leases on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land has 

remained relatively stable, but the distribution of leases has 

shifted more to private concessionaires from quasi-public 

agencies. Comparative Lease Revenue information was not 

available. 

Observations—

The business structure of each Federal agency reviewed above 

varies. Following is a comparison of each key business structure 

element across these agencies. Overall, the review presented 

above of private partnerships with these three land management 

agencies provides an informative picture of private concession 

trends in the Federal sector.

Terms—The terms for business structures range from 5 to 

40 years. In most cases, the terms match the elements of the 

business structures. Those involving capital investments and 

lack of guaranteed compensatory interest are longer in term, 

and those that require less capital investment and/or are more 

operational in nature (e.g., Forest Service Granger-Thye) provide 

for shorter terms. Both the Forest Service and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers provide the potential for term extensions 

based upon satisfactory performance or plans for additional 

capital investment. The Forest Service has term limits on 

Granger-Thye and outfitter and guide permits, and the National 

Park Service also has a limit on their terms. All permits require 

the use of a competitive bid process. The private sector will 

always seek to gain a longer contract term for business security 

reasons and to provide a suitable period to amortize capital 

investments in real property assets. Public agencies must 

carefully evaluate capital investment requirements and investor 

return expectations as each contract term is considered. Capital 

investment requirement and investor return expectations relate 

closely to the potential success of a business opportunity.

Compensatory interest in real property—The only agency 

that provides compensatory interest in real property is the 

National Park Service. The Forest Service provides a level 

of compensation if the Forest Service terminates the permit 

for their interests. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operator 

agreements do not provide for a compensable interest in 

real property improvements. Both the Forest Service and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require the private sector 

partner to remove real property at the end of the term if the 

business use is no longer desired by the Agency. While the 

National Park Service’s compensatory interest would be 

a desirable term to a concessioner, there are other ways to 

satisfy private sector operators. If the term of the concession 

allows for an amortization of the desired/required investment, 

the opportunity for sale and transfer of the asset, and a clear 

understanding of compensation terms, the private sector can 

appropriately consider and evaluate the risk of the business 

opportunity. 

Return to the Government—The process and methods for 

evaluating and establishing the appropriate return to the 

Government vary greatly between Federal agencies. Return to 

Merchandise & retail 

21% 

Lodging 

20% 

Food & beverage 

19% 

Marina 

12% 

Transportation 

11% 

Recreation 

10% 

Fuel/Auto 

3% 

Other 

4% 

Merchandise & retail 

21% 

Lodging 

20% 

Food & beverage 

19% 

Marina 

12% 

Transportation 

11% 

Recreation 

10% 

Fuel/Auto 

3% 

Other 

4% 

Figure 4.5—National Park System commercial services program 

distribution of revenue by business category. Source: Bailey (2011b).
96

Recreation Through the Private Sector

the Government is a topical area that comes under great 

scrutiny by Congress. Past Congressional and Office of 

Inspector General reports have focused on the issue of 

attaining a fair return to the Government for the opportunity 

it affords private partners to profit from the use of Federal 

lands. Recognizing the diversity of approaches and results 

between the agencies as well as the opportunities offered it is 

a reasonable area for review. 

At one end of the spectrum is the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, which has a standard lease rate that is applied to 

adjusted gross revenue thresholds regardless of the business 

type. No feasibility analysis is conducted to determine if there 

is excess return available to the Government. This is similar to 

the process used by the Forest Service for their ski permit fee 

estimates with the exception of the revenue threshold, to which 

the fee is applied, being adjusted upward by the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI). A CPI adjustment is not contemplated within 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers leases. The Forest Service term 

permit fee process does evaluate a business’s break-even point 

in their multi-step calculation. However, the analysis does not 

include an assessment of return on capital invested. The Forest 

Service Granger-Thye permit requires that a return to the 

Government is based on a process that recognizes the use of 

the Government’s land and its associated improvements. The 

Forest Service outfitter and guide permits have estimated an 

invested capital return based upon the price the client is charged 

by the operator and the share of that price for which the Forest 

Service should benefit. The most comprehensive analysis for 

returns on capital invested is undertaken by the National Park 

Service. The National Park Service has established standard 

franchise fees for smaller contracts below $250,000 and a 

franchise fee range up to 5 percent for contracts that generate 

gross receipts between $250,000 and $500,000. Above this 

dollar threshold, in-depth financial analysis is conducted 

to determine the franchise fee. Depending on the scale and 

scope of the operation, in-depth financial analysis would be 

the recommended approach for determining the return to the 

Government, and only the National Park Service is using this 

approach. 

While the business structure terms can vary by agency, 

fundamental to each is the private sector’s expectations 

for return. This can and should be evaluated for each deal 

structure prior to the setting of the return to the Government. 

A combination of authorities, tradition, policies, and lack 

of skilled personnel in real estate finance and contract 

structuring has in many agencies impacted the successful 

use of best real estate investment practices. This is an area of 

specific reform within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

the Forest Service. 

Oversight and management—While the business structures for 

private sector partners are based on statute and regulation, the 

contract oversight and management of these complex hospitality 

and recreation assets cannot be overlooked. Of particular 

importance is the host agency’s knowledge of resource 

stewardship as well as hospitality and recreation operations 

and finance. A background and base of knowledge in both of 

these areas increases the ability of the host agency to interact 

with private sector operators in a meaningful and collegial way, 

while also measuring business decisions against any potential 

impact to the resource. All parties need to have a vested interest 

in maintaining the value of the hospitality and recreation assets 

in alignment with the mission of each respective agency. In 

essence, each respective agency and their staff are “stewards” of 

our Nation’s visitor service assets. 

With the exception of the National Park Service, which 

has onsite concession specialists at its largest concessions 

supported by regional and Washington office staff, the 

other Federal agencies discussed in this article do not have 

dedicated staff for oversight and management of private sector 

hospitality and recreation visitor services. Many have adjunct 

or collateral duty staff to assist with day-to-day oversight and 

regional or district support from a real estate or special use 

division. While this model allows staff to confer with internal 

agency real estate advisors, it does not necessarily lead to a 

robust oversight of business operations. This can be to the 

detriment of both the agency and the private sector operator. 

Without concession specialists, the agency is not in a good 

position to monitor operations in order to understand how 

their potential returns are being affected, nor does it provide 

the operator the opportunity to share with the agency issues 

that may be affecting their operation. In the long run, this 

impacts visitor services, financial returns to all parties, and 

the condition of real property assets. 

End Invited Paper

Table 4.12—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scope of lease 

program and trend data on leases (exhibit 1) in 1999 and 

2008

1999 2008

Leasing entity Leases Leases

number number

Concessionaires 172 364

State 593 571

Local 600 593

Quasi public 421 284

Federal 67 53

Total 1,853 1,865 

Source: Bailey (2011c)
97

Recreation Through the Private Sector

Invited Paper

Concession Operations on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands

Phil Walker3

In a memorandum from the Washington Office of the Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, dated 

April 6, 2010, and addressing the subject of “Evaluating the 

Potential of Expanding the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Recreation Concession Management Program,” the following 

description of the Bureau of Land Management’s Concessions 

program was given:

Recreation concession leases/agreements are authorized 

under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 

1976 and managed under policies as outlined in BLM 

Manual Section (M-2930). The BLM [Bureau of Land 

Management] currently manages 16 recreation concession 

agreements along the Lower Colorado River District in 

California and Arizona and one Commercial Lease in 

Idaho along the Snake River. Recreation concessioners 

currently provide the BLM with approximately $600,000 

in lease/franchise fees each year of which 100 percent is 

reinvested onsite.

Recreation concession agreements may be offered ... 

where compatible with resource management objectives 

and applicable planning documents. Concessions 

opportunities are also encouraged where they forward 

the purposes of any special area or unit designation. 

In expanding and invigorating the BLM Recreation 

Concession’s program, maintenance costs can be reduced, 

revenues increased, opportunities for small businesses in 

local communities can be provided, and the improvement 

of associated visitor service and recreation opportunities 

will be enhanced.

As joint partners with the BLM, concessioners provide 

a safe, quality recreational experience for an evergrowing segment of the recreating public by providing 

developed recreational and retail facilities. Some potential 

concession opportunities and funding sources may be 

linked to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(stimulus), youth initiatives, and renewable energy 

projects. Recreation concession facilities have grown in 

local communities along with visitor demands brought 

about by the designation of special management areas, 

and cooperatively, the concessions have contributed 

3 Manager, National Recreation Concessions Program, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20250.

to the local, State, and regional economic long-term 

development. The relationship of the BLM’s recreation 

concession program to community growth, and the 

resultant needs of local tourism-related business, 

contributes toward the health of gateway communities and 

provides a fair market value return to the public....

The majority of the Bureau of Land Management’s concession 

program in the Colorado River corridor is administered 

by Yuma and Lake Havasu Field Offices. There are 16 

concessioner operations consisting of camping, lodging 

and hospitality, restaurants, swimming pools, marinas, golf 

courses, boat ramps, miniature golf, and storage along the 

lower Colorado River. Another concessioner is located on 

the Snake River in Idaho with similar amenities. In total, the 

Bureau of Land Management has 17 current concessioner run 

operations covering three States: California, Arizona, and 

Idaho. Recently, the Bureau of Land Management sent a data 

call to the field requesting concession opportunities.

A handful of potential results were gathered from 160 field 

offices. Several opportunities will be selected to begin a pilot 

agreement, as well as revamping the current Bureau of Land 

Management concession policy. An internal working group 

began reviewing this process the week of December 6–10, 

2010, in Phoenix. The following concession opportunities 

have been proposed as potentially viable: 

• Recreational hospitality opportunities, including food 

and beverage, photo service, overnight accommodations, 

recreational/trailer parks, merchandising

• Recreational visitor service opportunities, including 

marina, river shuttle or boat launch facilities or services, 

campgrounds/day use, visitor center, winter sports, biking, 

off-highway vehicle (OHV)

• Other specialized recreational opportunities, including 

horse or bike rides or tours, OHV/recreational vehicle/boat 

equipment storage, shooting ranges, and long-distance trail 

or Yurt systems.

End Invited Paper

Concessions and State Park Systems

Data from the annual information exchange—

Private-sector concessions have played a significant role 

in the delivery of visitor services within the 50 State park 

systems in the United States for decades. Among other 

aspects, the Annual Information Exchange (AIX) monitors 

concession operations across all the States. AIX is a project 

of the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD). 

A major section of the AIX is “Revenue,” which covers a 

number of financial topics such as operating expenses, capital 
98

Recreation Through the Private Sector

expenditures, budgets, fees and charges, and State taxes 

dedicated to parks and recreation. One of those sections is 

“Sources of Revenue,” which lists the various categories of 

State park system revenues. Over the year from July 1, 2008 

to June 30, 2009, the 50 State park systems raised more than 

$950 million in revenue from 10 different sources (table 

4.13). Camping fees accounted for nearly 30 percent of these 

revenues, followed by entrance fees, and the miscellaneous 

“other” category. Together, these three categories accounted 

for just slightly more than two-thirds of all revenues.

A limitation of the AIX is that State-owned and private 

concession-owned revenue sources are not differentiated 

in the data. This masks the revenue role of concessions in 

State park systems in dollar terms. But, with the exception of 

entrance fees, we know that private concessions contribute at 

some level to generating revenue in all other categories listed 

in table 4.13. Concession operations are especially significant 

in the provision of State park lodges and restaurants. (The 

“Concessions” group in table 4.13 does not refer to private 

concessions in general, but rather to operations providing 

food and related items such as snacks and drinks and other 

items sold in State park camp stores or refreshment stands. 

No description of what constitutes the “other” category is 

included in the AIX report.)

One issue that makes revenue comparisons across States 

difficult, and a likely contributing factor why private 

concessions are not distinguished, is lack of standard 

definitions for the revenue categories. This is a recognized 

need by the NASPD leadership and the university cooperators 

who conduct the AIX. Phil McKnelly, President of NASPD, 

commented in personal communication that the revenue 

sources in table 4.13 are most likely a mix of in-house (Stateowned) and concession operations, though the majority of 

revenue is probably from the State-owned resources. The 

AIX also reports that 31 States charge a licensing fee for 

concession operations. McKnelly indicated that some States 

with concession operations generate revenue as a percentage 

of the private partner’s income without charging a concession 

license fee as such.

National Association of State Park Directors survey 

on land leases—In a special survey conducted jointly in 

2008 with the National Association of State Park Directors 

and that organization’s executive director, Phil McKnelly, a 

questionnaire was sent to State park directors to gain insight 

into concession and leasing policies for State parks. Results 

from the survey are summarized below.

Of the responding 15 State park systems, all have some type 

of agreement with private sector operators. Some receive 

payments from private concession operators as a total annual 

dollar amount, while a number of others receive payments 

as a price per acre where a land lease is involved. All receive 

payments also in the form of a percentage of revenues 

received from the private partner. These percentages range 

from a low of 2–4 percent in North Dakota to 11–20 percent in 

Kansas. Where land leases are involved, the amount per acre 

leased is typically a few hundred dollars per year. In some 

cases, the services provided by private partners can provide 

substantial revenues back to the State park system. In Florida, 

for example, the State realized concession revenues of over 

$5.5 million in the July 2007–June 2008 fiscal year.

Private partners working with State park systems or other 

public land managers can cover a wide variety of services. For 

example, in Michigan, the State’s park and recreation areas 

have leases, contracts, and rental agreements covering food 

concessions, outdoor centers, dry hydrants, boating access 

sites, ski hills, equestrian trails, model aircraft flying fields, 

and canoe or kayak liveries. For these types of services, fees 

are based on competitive bidding, fair market value of the 

land under lease, or on cost savings to the State. In North 

Dakota, the State leases facilities and the right to provide such 

provisions as docks, slips, concession items, and boat fuel. 

Private concession operations of public lands such as State 

parks are a highly important means for meeting a wide range 

of recreation visitor service demands. 

Table 4.13—Dollars and percent of revenue generated by 

source in U.S. State park systems, 2008–2009

Revenue source U.S. dollars Percent

Entrance fees 204,555,729 21.4

Camping fees 282,585,302 29.6

Cabins/cottages 77,775,008 8.1

Lodges 56,428,274 5.9

Group facilities 4,083,720 0.4

Restaurants 49,347,869 5.2

Concessions 64,590,808 6.8

Beaches/pools 6,719,803 0.7

Golf courses 51,204,550 5.4

Other 158,902,072 16.6

Total operations 954,657,346 100.1

Note: Revenue sources do not sum to 100.0 percent exactly because 

of rounding. Source: Leung and others (2010).
99

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

This chapter addresses objective 5 of this assessment report on 

outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to describe 

the status and trends of local, State, and Federal public 

lands and associated properties as recreation resources. This 

chapter examines the recreation opportunities provided by 

government and public lands (local, State, Federal), and the 

access to these resources through facilities (e.g., trails) and 

services (e.g., maps and information) they usually provide.

Publicly-owned parks, forests, reserves, refuges, and other 

recreation resources help define the culture of the United States. 

Public resources (land, water, and facilities) have traditionally 

been available to outdoor users at either nominal or no direct 

cost. Though user fees have become more prevalent in recent 

decades, these fees still typically represent a small fraction of 

the cost to visit a natural area or developed recreation site. Very 

often, individuals have deeply-held personal attachments to 

public lands as particular, special places. Many of these sites are 

highly scenic and sometimes sacred. 

Like the private sector, the public sector plays an essential 

role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities, especially 

nature-based opportunities. Local governments—which 

include counties, townships, municipalities (cities and towns), 

school districts, library districts, and other special districts or 

authorities—are among the more important providers. Their 

resources include parks, athletic courts and fields, river access, 

lakes, greenways, zoos, and other outdoor resources. Such 

local outdoor facilities are especially significant because they 

tend to be located within or very near to the urban and rural 

communities they serve. 

State governments provide a little different resource in the 

form of State parks, recreation areas, historic sites, wildlife 

management areas, and various other public sites that are 

often located at a special geographic or cultural feature 

(e.g., an old covered bridge or a lake). These State areas are 

there to serve citizens statewide and often visitors from 

other States and countries. Many of the State facilities also 

emphasize conservation of natural or cultural resources, 

along with recreation, and tend to be less developed than local 

government areas. 

The Federal Government holds the most extensive system 

of land and water in the United States, with a long history of 

land and water conservation. Most of the Federal lands are 

natural (forests, range, desert, mountains, and sea coasts) 

and the sites and facilities developed on these lands tend to 

feature their natural character. An important trend associated 

with all public lands is the enormous proliferation of homes, 

resorts, and accommodations near, adjacent to, or within the 

boundaries of public lands. 

The map below is from an earlier national assessment of 

outdoor recreation, one conducted through the late 1930s 

and published in 1941 (USDI National Park Service 1941). 

The map, produced by hand, illustrates the keen interest 

Americans and national leaders have held over the decades 

in the conservation and availability of outdoor recreation 

resources for the United States (see photo). 

The recreation resource information in this chapter is 

presented for each level of government from local to State 

to Federal. National statistics are presented, as are statistics 

for the four regions defined for the 2010 RPA Assessment— 

North, South, Rocky Mountains (which includes the Great 

Plains), and Pacific Coast. For each level of government we 

also present, where possible, recent trends in the amount and 

distribution of those resources. Some of the trend information 

is not straightforward because of changes in resource 

definitions, measurement standards, and methods over time.

Local Government as a Recreation Provider

Every national assessment of outdoor recreation in the 

United States, dating back to the 1930s Department of 

the Interior study and the Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Review Commission (ORRRC) report in 1962, has stressed 

the need for local recreation opportunities where people 

live, i.e., “close-to-home” recreation. Local governments 

Chapter 5

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States. 1941.

Chapter 2, Aspects of Recreation Planning, Figure 17. USDI National Park

Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. (http://www.

cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/parks_america/images/photo17.jpg).
100

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

have traditionally been the major providers of community 

recreation opportunities. The Federal and State governments 

are also involved in providing close-to-home recreation 

through urban parks and recreation areas, but not nearly to 

the extent or reach of local government recreation and park 

systems. The private sector also plays a significant role in 

providing recreation in urbanized areas, but by virtue of 

being private can exclude some people through pricing or 

membership requirements.

A historic study by the National Park Service in 1935 reported 

the following:

[A] national study of Municipal and County Parks in the 

United States, 1935, made by the National Park Service 

in cooperation with the National Recreation Association, 

gave the following figures on city park acreages: Of 

1,425 cities reporting, 1,216 reported one or more parks, 

with a total acreage of 388,867. It may be fairly assumed 

that this comes very close to representing the total extent 

of city parks as of that date. Three hundred and forty-one 

cities reported no parks of less than an acre of park for 

each 2,000 of population, and in all probability most of the 

cities which failed to report belonged in this group.

For the same study, 77 counties reported a total of 

159,261.7 acres of park land. Most of the large county 

systems are found in metropolitan regions and of the 

77 systems reported in the county classification, four 

are Ohio metropolitan park districts, one is the East Bay 

District in California, located in and serving principally 

two counties, and one is the Boston Metropolitan Park 

District, located in and serving several counties. (USDI 

National Park Service 1941).

The U.S. Census Bureau describes the structure of local 

government in the United States to “include, in addition to 

the Federal Government and the States, thousands of local 

governments—counties, municipalities, townships, school 

districts, and many ‘special districts’.” In 2007, 76,425 local 

governments were identified by the Census of Governments, 

not counting school districts. 

As defined by this Census, governmental units include 

all agencies or bodies having an organized existence, 

governmental character, and substantial autonomy. While 

most of these governments can impose taxes, many of 

the special districts—such as independent public housing 

authorities and local irrigation, power, conservation, 

and other types of districts—are financed from rentals, 

charges for services, benefit assessments, grants from 

other governments, and other nontax sources. The count 

of governments excludes semi-autonomous agencies 

through which States, cities, and counties sometimes 

provide for certain functions—for example, “dependent” 

school systems, State institutions of higher education, and 

certain other “authorities” and special agencies which are 

under the administrative or fiscal control of an established 

governmental unit. (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a).

A local government park and recreation agency can range 

from a part-time, one-person staff that administers sports or 

other programming in facilities shared with other agencies 

or schools to a major urban department such as those in 

New York City or Los Angeles that employ several thousand 

people, professionals, and specialists, full-time and part-time. 

One professional employee is the minimum standard we 

have adopted to delineate a local government provider as a 

department or agency. Included in this chapter is an invited 

paper by Peter Harnik and others that describes the largest 

city systems.

A wide variety of facilities, programs, and outdoor areas 

are offered by local government park and recreation 

departments in the United States. Some smaller departments 

emphasize programming more than park land acquisition and 

development. Much more indoor recreation is provided by 

local governments than by State or Federal-supplied resources. 

In any event, nearly all local government recreation agencies 

will include some public land for public use, even if it’s shared 

with another government agency or school district. The best 

source of information about local government recreation and 

park agencies in the United States is the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Census of Governments.

Local Government Recreation and 

Park Agencies

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the Census of Governments 

every 5 years (years ending in “2” or “7,” the first occurring in 

1957), which includes government organization, employment, 

and finances. In this section, we examine the organization of 

local government units and public employment with respect 

to parks and recreation. A listing of local governmental units 

organized by type (county, municipal and township, and 

special district governments) is provided. In addition, data 

on full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employment 

by type of government and function is given. Overseeing 

parks and recreation is one of more than two dozen different 

functions performed by local governments. This report 

examines trends in recreation and park employment since 

the 1997 Census of Governments as an indicator of trends in 

recreation resources provided by local governments.

The number of local governments increased a modest 

3.3 percent between 2002 and 2007 (table 5.1), mainly due to 

the increase in the number of special district governments, 
101

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.1—Number of local government units in the United States and percent change, from 1997 to 2007, by 

type of government

Type of government unit 1997 2002

Percent change

1997–2002 2007

Percent change

2002–2007

County 3,043 3,034 -0.3 3,033 0.0

Municipal 19,372 19,429 0.3 19,492 0.3

Town or township 16,629 16,504 -0.8 16,519 0.1

Special district 34,683 35,052 1.1 37,381 6.6

U.S. total 73,727 74,019 0.4 76,425 3.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).

Table 5.2—Number and percent of local government units in the United States that provide parks and recreation services 

by type of government and region in 2007

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. total

Type of 

government unit

Parks 

& Rec.

All 

govts.

% of 

reg.

Parks 

& Rec.

All 

govts.

% of 

reg.

Parks 

& Rec.

All 

govts.

% of 

reg.

Parks 

& Rec.

All 

govts.

% of 

reg.

Parks 

& Rec.

All 

govts.

% of 

nat.

County 429 1,006 42.6 577 1,286 44.9 139 592 23.5 106 149 71.1 1,251 3,033 41.2

Municipal 2,280 9,250 24.6 1,902 6,119 31.1 805 2,973 27.1 678 1,150 59.0 5,665 19,492 29.1

Town or 

township 1,166 12,476 9.3 0 0 0.0 4 4,043 0.1 0 0 0.0 1,170 16,519 7.1

Special District 398 14,473 2.7 73 8,269 0.9 131 9,581 1.4 164 5,058 3.2 766 37,381 2.0

All local units 4,273 37,205 11.5 2,552 15,674 16.3 1,079 17,189 6.3 948 6,357 14.9 8,852 76,425 11.6

Note: “Parks & Rec.” = Parks and Recreation, “All govts.” = All governments, “% of reg.” = Percent of region, “% of nat.” = Percent of Nation. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).

Table 5.3—Number of people employed in local government parks and recreation agencies and percent change, 

from 1997 to 2007, by region 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. total

1997 2007

Percent 

change 1997 2007

Percent 

change 1997 2007

Percent 

change 1997 2007

Percent 

change 1997 2007

Percent 

change

Full-time employees

53,490 57,585 7.7 47,817 56,964 19.1 13,495 18,771 39.1 27,572 32,212 16.8 142,374 165,532 16.3

Part-time employees

62,960 87,502 39.0 31,818 42,239 32.8 22,497 30,162 34.1 31,067 41,813 34.6 148,342 201,716 36.0

Full-time equivalent employees

74,972 85,452 14.0 60,313 74,925 24.2 20,725 28,420 37.1 39,447 48,194 22.2 195,457 236,991 21.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).
102

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

which grew at a rate of 6.6 percent. Special districts 

are authorized by State legislatures to perform a single 

function or a limited number of functions, including but 

not limited to, water-sewer districts, irrigation districts, fire 

districts, school districts, community college districts, and 

hospital districts. Park and recreation services are included 

among these, sometimes as a sole purpose, and in other 

cases as one of many purposes, such as in conservancy or 

water-sewer districts. Necessary characteristics of special 

district governments are: existence as an organized entity, 

governmental character which includes the power to levy 

taxes, and substantial autonomy. A small proportion of U.S. 

special districts are engaged in providing park and recreation 

services; however, such districts are a primary local 

government provider in several States. About 12 percent—

more than 8,800—of the Nation’s local government units 

provide recreation and park services (table 5.2). These 

services are most prevalent in county governments 

(41 percent of counties), followed by municipal, township, 

and special districts. For all jurisdictions, the region with the 

highest proportion of local governments providing recreation 

and park services was the South (16 percent) and the lowest 

was the Rocky Mountains (6 percent).

The North region had 48 percent of the total number of 

local government units providing parks and recreation 

(fig. 5.1) with virtually all the township recreation departments 

and the largest number of municipal government recreation 

departments (nearly 2,300). County recreation and park 

departments were most numerous in the South, but the 

highest proportion of all counties that provide recreation 

was the Pacific Coast, with more than 71 percent of county 

governments (table 5.2). More than half of all special district 

recreation and park departments were in the North, but 

the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains had the highest 

proportions of all recreation departments that were provided 

by special districts. 

In terms of number of departments per capita, the Rocky 

Mountains led all regions with nearly 40 departments per 

1 million residents, followed by the North (34), South (25), and 

Pacific Coast (20) (fig. 5.2 and Web site appendix table A5.1). 

All regions had increased in number of departments per capita 

since 1997, though the Pacific Coast grew only slightly. 

These data on the number of local government parks and 

recreation departments are one indicator of recreation 

resources provided at the local level of government in the 

United States; however, as mentioned, they do not include 

any information on the amount or type of resources managed. 

Figure 5.3 shows the delivery of local government recreation 

and park services by county across the United States for 

the three types of local governments: county, municipal/

township combined, and special district. The delivery of local 

government recreation services varies by State with respect to 

the three types of local governments. For example, township 

governments provide parks and recreation only in 20 Midwest 

and Northeastern States; special recreation districts are absent 

in many States but prevalent in others. (See Web site appendix 

tables A5.2 to A5.5 for detailed local government parks and 

recreation statistics by type and State.) 

Another indicator of level of local outdoor recreation 

opportunities is the level of employment in parks and 

recreation departments. The definition chosen to indicate 

a local government recreation and parks department was 

simply the presence of one or more full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees. There were nearly 237,000 FTE 

0	
   1,000	
   2,000	
   3,000	
   4,000	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Government	
  units	
  

Region	
  

Municipal	
  or	
  Township	
   County	
   Special	
  Districts	
  

0	
   1,000	
   2,000	
   3,000	
   4,000	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Government	
  units	
  

Region	
  

Municipal	
  or	
  Township	
   County	
   Special	
  Districts	
  

Figure 5.1—Number of local government units that provide parks and 

recreation services by type of government and region, 2007. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).

Pacific	
  Coast 19.1 19.5

Rocky	
  Mountains 34.4 39.5

South 21.4 25.2

North 30.3 34.5

To	
  resize	
  chart	
  data	
  range,	
  drag	
  lower	
  right	
  corner	
  of	
  range.

0 20 40 60 

Pacific Coast 

Rocky Mountains 

South 

North 

Departments 

Region 

2007 1997 

Figure 5.2—Number of local government parks and recreation departments 

per million people by region, 1997 and 2007. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).
103

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Number of special district 

governments providing 

recreation/park services 

per 50,000 residents

0

0.01 - 0.33 

0.34 - 2.17 

2.18 - 6.0 

>6.0

Number of municipal/

township recreation/park 

depts. per 50,000 residents

0

0.01- 1.62 

1.63 - 3.72 

3.73 - 7.69 

>7.69

U.S. counties with a county 

government recreation/

parks department, 2007

Yes 

No

(40) 5.3

Figure 5.3—Distribution of three types of local government recreation and park agencies by county in the conterminous United States, 2007. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007c). 
104

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

employees working in local government parks and recreation 

departments in the United States in 2007 (table 5.3). About 

165,000 of these individuals were full-time workers.

Employment is shown by full-time and part-time status to 

indicate how much local government agencies rely on parttime employment. Part-time employees grew at a much 

higher rate (36 percent) between 1997 and 2007 than fulltime employees. The Rocky Mountains region grew much 

faster in full-time employees than the other regions. On a per 

capita basis, the two western regions each had about 10 FTE 

employees per 10,000 population compared to about seven 

in the two eastern regions (fig. 5.4). Every region’s parks and 

recreation employment kept pace with population growth 

since 1997, with the Rocky Mountains region registering the 

largest percentage increase (Web site appendix table A5.6).

While a single staff person does not necessarily make a 

“department,” per se, it indicates a financial commitment 

to provide park and recreation services. A limitation of 

using employment as an indicator, though, is that it does not 

differentiate level of services provided between outdoor and 

indoor facilities and sites. For example, staffing of an indoor 

aquatic center could not be counted as an outdoor recreation 

resource, but staffing for a public outdoor swimming pool 

would. We make the assumption that public spending for any 

type of parks and recreation employee is positively related 

to the provision of outdoor recreation resources by the local 

government. Local government outdoor recreation resources 

require management by employees, even if a local agency 

manages only a single municipal park or playground. 

invited paper

Parks for City People: Greenspace in the 

Metropolis

Peter Harnik, Ben Welle, and Coleen Gentles1

The total area covered by urban parkland in the United States 

exceeds 1 million acres, with parks ranging in size from 

the jewel-like 1.7-acre Post Office Square in Boston to the 

gargantuan 490,125-acre Chugach State Park in Anchorage. 

The total number is not known, although a study by The Trust 

for Public Land’s Center for City Park Excellence identified 

20,705 parks in the Nation’s 77 most populous cities.

City parks provide playfields, teach ecology, offer exercise 

trails, mitigate flood waters, host concerts, provide beauty, 

protect wildlife, supply space for gardens, give a respite 

from commotion, and do much more. Some parks, such 

as Washington Square in New York City, are celebrated 

in books, songs, and films; others operate in obscurity, 

frequented and beloved only by those who live in the 

vicinity. They were our first parks, dating back to the 17th 

century in Boston, the 16th century in St. Augustine, FL, 

and to prehistory in the large Native American cities of 

the past. Their usage dwarfs that of the national parks—

New York City’s Central Park gets about 25 million visits 

annually, more than five times as many as the Grand 

Canyon.

With the general decline of cities and their parks in the second 

half of the 20th century, followed by the economic rebound 

beginning in the late 1990s, there came renewed interest in 

understanding more precisely the relationship between cities 

and the open space inside them.

Historical perspective—Beginning in 1859, when 

Frederick Law Olmsted, Calvert Vaux, and more than 

3,000 laborers created Central Park, a wave of enthusiasm 

for urban “pleasure grounds” swept the Nation. Thousands of 

parks were constructed and millions of words were written 

about their features and attributes. Over the next eight 

decades, the purpose and design of parks metamorphosed, but 

parks remained so important to cities that, even during the 

depths of the Great Depression, many park systems received 

large influxes of money and attention through the Federal 

Government’s relief and conservation programs.

During the height of the city park movement, from about 1870 to 

1940, great efforts were made to plan for parkland, understand 

the relationship between parks and surrounding neighborhoods, 

1 Director, former Assistant Director, and Director of Marketing of the 

Center for City Park Excellence at The Trust for Public Land (www.TPL.

org), Washington, DC 20250, respectively.

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Recrea&on	
  employees	
  per	
  10,000	
  people	
  

Region	
  

1997	
  

2007	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Recrea&on	
  employees	
  per	
  10,000	
  people	
  

Region	
  

1997	
  

2007	
  

Figure 5.4—Number of local government parks and recreation full-time 

equivalent employees per 10,000 people by region, 1997 and 2007. Source: 

U.S. Census Bureau (2007c).
105

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

and measure the impact of parks. Leaders in Boston, Buffalo, 

Seattle, Portland, Denver, Baltimore, and elsewhere proudly and 

competitively labored to convert their cities from drab, polluted 

industrial cores into beautiful, culturally uplifting centers. These 

leaders believed a well designed and maintained park system 

was integral to their mission.

Inspired by boulevard systems in Minneapolis and Kansas 

City and by Olmsted’s “Emerald Necklace” in Boston, 

many cities sketched out interconnected greenways linking 

neighborhoods, parks, and natural areas. The Emerald 

Necklace is a chain of parks about 1,100-acre in total that links 

parkways and waterways in Boston. Careful measurements 

were made of the location of parks and the travel distance (by 

foot, generally) for each neighborhood and resident. Through 

the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, the Federal 

Government provided funding for collection, research, 

analysis, and dissemination of data on parks.

After World War II, the Nation’s attention turned toward 

the development of suburbs, and the commitment to the 

urban public domain began to wane. There was even a naïve 

assumption that private, suburban backyards could replace 

most of the services provided by public city parks. Many 

of the ideas regarding the roles of parks in city plans and 

community socialization were lost. More important, ideas 

about measuring park success, assuring equity, and meeting 

the needs of changing users languished.

Over the next half century, the vast urban park system fell on 

hard times. Few cities provided adequate maintenance, staffing, 

and budgets, and most cities deferred critically needed capital 

investment. Many parks suffered from overuse—trampled 

plants and grass, deteriorated equipment, erosion, and loss of 

soil resiliency and health. Others declined from underuse—

graffiti, vandalism, invasion of noxious weeds, theft of plant 

resources, and crime. The decline was camouflaged. In the older 

northern cities, general urban deterioration grabbed headlines 

and made parks seem of secondary importance. In the new 

cities of the South and West, low-density development made 

parks seem superfluous. Intellectual inquiry into city “green 

space” dwindled to almost nothing (with the single exception of 

the new ecological “urban natural area”).

But every pendulum, it seems, eventually swings back. The 

effort to revive city park systems slowly gained momentum. 

When The Trust for Public Land was founded in 1972, it was 

the first national conservation organization with an explicit 

urban component to its work. At the same time, fledgling 

neighborhood groups began forming to save particular parks, 

either through private fundraising or public political action. 

There arose a new appreciation of the genius of Frederick 

Law Olmsted, and in 1980 the Central Park Conservancy was 

founded. In that same year, pioneering research by William 

H. Whyte resulted in the publication of “The Social Life of 

Small Urban Spaces” and the formation of the Project for 

Public Spaces. The rise of the urban community gardening 

Fitness zones are easy-to-use, accessible outdoor gyms designed to promote general health within a park experience, creating a supportive social context for

getting fit. (Photo courtesy of richreidphotography.com).
106

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

movement and the spread of park activism to other cities led 

in 1994 to a $12 million commitment by the Lila WallaceReader’s Digest Foundation and the creation of the Urban 

Parks Institute and the City Parks Alliance. Meanwhile, city 

park directors formed their own loose network within the 

National Recreation and Park Association.

Beginning in 1995, many older cities, such as Chicago, 

Boston, Washington, Atlanta, Denver, and New York, started 

bouncing back from years of population loss and fiscal 

decline. With new residents and a greater sense of optimism, 

they began seeking a competitive edge by combining their 

strong geographies and histories with their newfound 

economies. Elsewhere, in fast-growing, lower-density places 

such as Charlotte, NC, Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, planners 

were belatedly trying to establish true urbanism through 

vibrant downtowns and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. In 

both old cities and new, there was rising interest in the use of 

parks to help shape vitality.

Acreage and facilities—According to “2009 City Park 

Facts,” produced by the Center for City Park Excellence, the 

77 largest cities have 184 different agencies providing parks, 

including city, county, metro, State or Federal entities, as 

well as port authorities, water districts, and conservancies. 

Together, they operate more than 1.3 million acres of 

parkland. These systems range from almost 40 percent of 

a city’s land area down to 1.6 percent, with a median of 8.6 

percent. Measured per capita, they provide from 1,794 acres 

per 1,000 residents down to only 1 acre per 1,000, with a 

median of 12.9 acres. 

There are several ways to compare cities with regard to 

their parkland. As a percentage of total city area, New York 

City, San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, Raleigh,NC, and 

Austin,TX are among the leaders. But very crowded cities, 

of course, cannot provide as much parkland on a per-capita 

basis; under that alternative measure, Jacksonville, FL, 

Albuquerque, El Paso, Virginia Beach, and Kansas City, MO, 

do particularly well. (The city that offers the most parkland is 

sprawling Anchorage, thanks to having Chugach State Park 

inside its municipal borders.) Older, more densely-populated 

cities that still provide residents with relatively big swaths of 

green space include St. Paul, Minneapolis, Washington, DC, 

and Seattle (table 5.4).

City parks vary not only in size but also by type. Some are 

natural areas—usually pristine wetlands, forests, or deserts—

left largely undisturbed and managed for their conservation 

and ecological values. In some cases, they are formerly used 

areas that have been left to return to nature. While they may 

have trails and occasional benches, they are not developed 

for recreation much beyond walking. Designed areas, on the 

other hand, are parklands that have been created, constructed, 

planted, and managed primarily for human use. They 

include playgrounds, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, picnic 

San Pedro Springs Park in San Antonio, TX, is the tenth oldest city park in the country, was created from naturally occurring springs, and dates from 1729,

although the modern lake/pool was built in 2003. (Photo courtesy of San Antonio Parks & Recreation Department, San Antonio, TX)
107

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

meadows, sports fields, plazas, boulevards, and all areas 

served by roadways, parking lots, and service buildings and 

facilities. Most cities have also reserved land for future parks 

that are not yet open to the public. While the ratio of natural to 

developed parkland varies greatly city to city, in the aggregate 

the total among the Nation’s 77 largest cities comes to an 

almost perfect 50-50 split.2

In 2009, big-city park departments offered their 56 million 

urban residents myriad recreational opportunities: 12,712 

basketball hoops, 10,419 playgrounds, 9,078 tennis courts, 

8,575 ball diamonds, 2,362 recreation centers, 1,290 

swimming pools, 386 golf courses, 243 beaches, 183 nature/

environment centers, 146 ice skating rinks, and 3,957 miles of 

bikeways. In addition to these more traditional opportunities, 

there are newer types of facilities and opportunities now being 

provided: 466 dog parks, 198 skateboard parks, and 12,988 

community garden plots. (For hungry park-goers, there are 

also 268 restaurants and kiosks.)

In addition to land, park departments naturally need sufficient 

public revenue for land management and programs. This entails 

both an adequate operating budget and a regular infusion 

of capital funds for major construction, repairs, and land 

acquisition. A detailed survey of the 77 biggest cities showed 

that, in fiscal year 2007, the “adjusted park budget”—the amount 

spent by each city on parks operations and capital combined—

came to $5.7 billion, or an average of $99 per resident.3

Naturally, the average masks considerable variation. The 

best funded major city park and recreation departments in 

2007 were in San Francisco ($300 per resident), Chandler, 

AZ ($279), Washington, DC ($277), Seattle ($259), and 

Minneapolis ($214). On the other hand, several cities spent 

less than $50 per resident. On average, the per-resident 

spending broke out at $71 on operational costs and $28 on 

capital improvements and land acquisition in that fiscal year.

Another critical asset to public parks is an effective, 

complementary private fundraising effort—one that serves 

not only signature parks but also the whole system. Although 

private efforts must never be designed to let the local 

government off the hook, they can be valuable in undertaking 

monumental projects or in raising work to levels of beauty 

and extravagance that government on its own could not 

afford. Private campaigns are also effective in mobilizing 

the generosity of wealthy individuals, corporations, and 

foundations that would not contribute to government agencies.

2 This data refers only to the principal park agencies in each city; subsidiary 

agencies, including Federal, State, county, and regional agencies with urban 

parkland were not tabulated as to natural and developed.

3 In order to maintain a “level playing field” between cities, such nonstandard big-ticket items as park department-owned stadiums, zoos, 

museums, aquariums, and cemeteries were not tabulated.

Table 5.4—Park acres per 1,000 persons in selected U.S. 

cities, grouped by city population density levels, 2009

City Population Park acres

Acres per 1,000 

persons

High density cities

Washington, DC 588,292 7,617 12.9

Philadelphia 1,449,634 10,886 7.5

Los Angeles 3,834,340 23,761 6.2

New York 8,310,212 38,229 4.6

Miami 424,662 1,359 3.2

Intermediate-high density cities

St. Paul, MN 277,251 4,976 17.9

Oakland 401,489 5,217 13.0

Seattle 594,210 6,170 10.4

Cleveland 438,042 3,127 7.1

Anaheim, CA 333,249 864 2.6

Intermediate-low density cities

San Diego 1,266,731 45,492 35.9

Phoenix 1,552,259 41,980 27.0

San Antonio 1,328,984 19,620 14.8

Atlanta 519,145 3,846 7.4

Mesa, AZ 452,933 2,619 5.8

Low density cities

Jacksonville 805,605 103,760 128.8

Albuquerque 518,271 34,630 66.8

Austin 743,074 26,271 35.4

Tulsa 384,037 7,336 19.1

Tucson 525,529 3,658 7.0

Source: The Trust for Public Land (2009).
108

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

What makes city parks work?—Cities are economic 

entities made up of structures entwined with open space. In 

successful cities, private and public spaces complement each 

other with the sum greatly surpassing the parts. Thus, the 

value of a park system extends beyond the boundaries of the 

parks themselves. In fact, a well done city park system is a 

form of “natural infrastructure” that provides many services 

for the city as a whole including:

• cleaner air, as trees and vegetation filter out pollutants by 

day and produce oxygen by night

• cleaner water, as roots trap silt and contaminants before they 

flow into streams, rivers, and lakes

•reduced health costs from sedentary syndromes such as 

obesity and diabetes, thanks to walking and running trails, 

sports fields, recreation centers, bikeways, golf courses, and 

other opportunities for physical fitness

•improved learning opportunities from “outdoor classrooms” 

in forests, meadows, wetlands, and even recovering 

brownfields and greyfields (previously used tracts)

•increased urban tourism based on attractive, successful 

parks, with resulting increased commerce and sales tax 

revenue

•increased business vitality based on employer and employee 

attraction to quality parks

• natural beauty and respite from traffic and noise.

Taken collectively, well designed and managed parks have 

been shown not only to increase the property value of nearby 

residences, but to be so valuable that they routinely generate 

far more economic value than they cost to maintain. 

Proximity—With 83 percent of Americans living in 

metropolitan areas, the actual location of parks may be 

more important than the amount of acreage or the number of 

facilities. The general philosophy behind city park systems 

is that they are to be accessible to everyone regardless of 

residence, physical abilities, or financial resources. 

Large unspoiled natural areas, of course, cannot be 

equidistant from all city residents since they are predicated 

on topography, such as mountains, wetlands, canyons, and 

stream valleys, and on availability of space. But created 

parks—squares, plazas, playgrounds, neighborhood parks, 

ball fields, linear greenways—can usually be sited in such a 

way that every neighborhood and every resident is served. 

Preferably, people and parks are no farther than 10 minutes 

apart by foot in dense areas or 10 minutes apart by bicycle 

in spread-out sections. These standards take into account 

such significant physical barriers as uncrossable highways, 

streams, and railroad corridors, or heavily-trafficked roads. 

Numerous modern studies show that modern Americans 

are rarely willing to walk a mile or more on foot. Some are 

physically incapable of that distance; others are scared to cross 

neighborhood boundaries; others simply do not have the time. 

When seniors, children and pets are taken into consideration, 

the time or capability equations become even more complex. 

Not every city has a resident distance goal, but some do. These 

range from one-tenth of a mile to a mini park in Chicago, 

to a quarter-mile to a neighborhood park in Detroit, Miami, 

St. Paul, and Seattle, and to 2 miles to a community park in 

Atlanta and Charlotte, NC.

Parks and transportation—Many people, of course, 

are so far from a park that they are forced to skip the trip or 

else must drive. But driving brings its own issues: knowing 

few if any of the people when you arrive, getting younger 

children and teens to the park and back again, finding places 

to park a vehicle, impacting the surrounding neighborhood 

with a flood of cars, and devoting more of the park’s surface 

area to parking. In addition, without the walk the fitness and 

health values go down. According to a 2004 study on obesity, 

community design, and physical activity, every additional hour 

per day spent in a car is associated with a 6 percent increase in 

the likelihood of obesity. Conversely, each additional kilometer 

walked per day is associated with a 4.8 percent reduction 

in the likelihood of obesity (Frank and others 2004). The 

National Household Transportation Survey also shows a nearly 

identical level of growth between miles driven in cars and the 

percentage of Americans classified as overweight.

Parks surrounded by low-density housing with little or 

no mass transportation are only accessible to those with 

automobiles. Parks can serve a wider range of residents when 

Children take over the road with bicycles and scooters in Piedmont Park.

Atlanta’s most visited park receives upwards of 3 million users per year.

(Photo courtesy of Piedmont Park Conservancy, Atlanta, GA)
109

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

the parks are close to where many people live or work and 

when the parks are easily reachable by a range of good transit 

options. Most of the high-population-density cities rely on 

residents to walk, use mass transit, or ride bikes to visit parks. 

It is the mid-density and low-density cities that often have 

problems with too many cars.

Eight of the 11 most heavily used parks in American cities 

have subway or light-rail access within one-quarter of a mile 

of the park, and all of these parks have bus service that comes 

even closer than a quarter of a mile of the park. Outside of 

New York City (whose parks almost invariably have subway 

service), examples of parks best-served by rail are the Boston 

Common, Forest Park in St. Louis, Hermann Park in Houston, 

Millennium Park in Chicago, and the National Mall in 

Washington, DC.

Naturally, instituting transit service, especially rail, to major 

parks is expensive. But another way to increase access, 

bringing the parks to the people, is to use trails and greenways 

as fingers into outlying neighborhoods. Greenways along 

creeks and waterfronts, as well as trails along abandoned rail 

corridors, serve as slender parks on their own and also allow 

users to walk, run, bike, and rollerblade to major parks along 

the route. In Washington, DC, the Capital Crescent Trail 

(built on a former railroad) enables thousands of residents and 

suburbanites to access both Rock Creek Park and the National 

Mall, neither of which provide more than minimal space for 

auto storage. The more people living within walking distance 

of a park, the fewer who need to drive and deal with their cars 

when they get there. 

Parks and revitalization—Parks can play a role in urban 

renewal. While new or expanding cities form parks mostly 

through conservation (saving virgin lands like forests, farms, 

and ranches), in built-out cities, it’s just the opposite: parks 

themselves are a type of development—and they often serve 

as the anchor for the old and new buildings around them. 

From Boston to San Francisco, even cities that are considered 

“built out” have used redevelopment to increase parkland. 

Outmoded facilities like closed shipyards, underutilized rail 

depots, abandoned factories, decommissioned military bases 

and filled landfills have been converted to parks, and sunken 

highways and railroad tracks have been decked over with 

parkland. Denver de-paved its old Stapleton Airport, restoring 

the original land contours and transforming it into a 

4,700-acre “walkable,” mixed-use community with 1,100 

acres of parks. 

In New York City, the New York City Department of 

Parks and Recreation collaborated with the New York City 

Department of Transportation to convert 2,008 asphalt traffic 

triangles and paved medians into “greenstreets”—pocket 

parks and tree-lined malls that are maintained by community 

residents and businesspersons. In other cities, school systems 

and park departments have broken down historic bureaucratic 

barriers and signed joint use agreements to make schoolyard 

fields available for neighborhood use after school hours.

City parks do not exist in a vacuum. Every city is a complex 

and intricate interplay between the private space of homes 

and offices; the semi-public spaces of shops, stores, and 

restaurants; and the fully public space of parks, plazas, streets, 

preserves, and natural areas. When cities apply the principles 

of smart growth—affordable housing, increased density, green 

buildings, mixed-use areas, “walkability,” better transit—with 

increased green infrastructure such as parks, a vision of park 

systems enriching cities will reciprocate with cities nourishing 

their parks. Carefully considered growth has the potential to 

convert cities from sprawl, vacant property or disinvestment 

into lively, beautiful neighborhoods with parks, plazas, 

and bike lanes supporting jobs, retail, housing, and other 

amenities. This is the vision and the reality of urban parks in 

21st century America. 

End Invited Paper

Baltimore residents attend a festival near the famous Pagoda in Patterson

Park. The city’s oldest park, Patterson was created in 1827. (Photo courtesy

of Friends of Patterson Park)
110

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

State Government as a Recreation Provider 

Origins of the State park systems and of the role of States in 

providing outdoor recreation opportunities were expressed in 

an anthology to the 1930 National Conference on State Parks 

written by Herbert Evison (1930): 

It was not until automobiles became fairly numerous, and 

sufficient good or fair roads had been built to permit ready 

access to areas at a distance from centers of population, 

that the State-park movement may be said to have been 

fairly launched. Such State parks as had been established 

in the meantime had generally been created to preserve 

some outstandingly scenic area, such as the Niagara 

Reservation in New York or the Yosemite Valley in 

California, and resulted from a strong public opinion that 

was concerned as a rule only with a single project, and 

that had little or no vision of a day when most of our States 

would be building up systems of State parks.

Outdoor recreation resources provided by the 50 State 

governments occupy a sort-of middle ground between the 

heavily natural-land dependent Federal agencies and the much 

more facility and development-oriented local governments. 

The late well-known recreation economist Marion Clawson 

and others chose the term “intermediate” as the best descriptor 

of State government recreation resources. But that is really 

just a generic description of the resources that fall somewhere 

between city parks and recreation areas and the Federal 

wilderness system and other primitive backcountry resources.

State government recreation resources defy easy 

categorization because they cover the full spectrum from 

highly developed urban recreation areas to wild and remote 

land and water areas. Though not nearly to the extent of 

the Federal Government, State governments provide some 

backcountry opportunities, mainly for hiking and scenery 

appreciation. A key feature of most State resources is 

their proximity to populated areas and, thus, users. This is 

especially true in the Eastern United States, where State parks 

and other State resources play a much more significant role in 

providing outdoor recreation opportunities than in the West, 

where Federal land dominates.

Every State has a division or agency dedicated to providing 

outdoor recreation and educational opportunities: the State 

park system. A “system” is the correct terminology, given that 

these organizations are comprised of much more that just State 

parks alone. Most of the State park systems have received 

considerable investments in facilities and services from 

their State legislatures—though some States lag far behind 

others—and are managed specifically not only to provide 

outdoor recreation opportunities for State residents but also to 

attract tourists and their associated spending. 

The two other State agencies that provide resources for 

outdoor recreation do so as a by-product of their primary 

missions: State forests and State wildlife and fish areas. 

These resources are not managed directly for recreation, but 

recreation is an allowable use on many, if not most, of the 

properties. In some States, these properties are not really 

promoted or advertised as public use areas, at least not nearly 

to the degree that State park systems are. Almost all of the 

State forest and wildlife and fish areas are lightly developed 

in terms of facilities, providing the kinds of backcountry and 

primitive recreational experiences that are not available in 

some State parks. Some States do not even have a recognized 

recreation program within their State forestry and wildlife 

divisions, but recreation occurs on those areas nonetheless. 

A fourth State government recreation resource that warrants 

mentioning is the State trust land. Though limited to the 

States west of the Mississippi River, the State trust or school 

lands play an important role in providing undeveloped, natural 

land and water, mostly for the traditional pursuits of hunting 

and fishing. Perhaps just as important, they often provide 

access to other public lands through leases or use agreements 

with other State agencies. Recreation-related data about these 

other State agencies are limited, so the main focus of the State 

government section of this report is the State park systems, 

supplemented by brief sections on State forests, State wildlife 

and fish areas, and State trust lands. 

State Park Systems

In 1938, the National Park Service prepared a report for 

the Land Planning Committee of the National Resources 

Board on Recreational Use of the Land in the United States. 

That report concluded that: 

[T]oday [in 1938], 46 of the 48 States possess State 

parks or areas differently named, but set aside wholly or 

primarily for recreational use—Colorado and Montana 

being the exceptions. Their holdings total approximately 

3,755,985.49 acres. Accurate figures on attendance are not 

procurable, since few States take them, but in 1930 the 

National Conference on State Parks estimated, on the basis 

of reports received from nearly all of the States, that it was 

approximately 45,000,000 in that year. Figures submitted 

to the National Resources Board in August of this year 

indicate a 1933 attendance of approximately 61,297,683 

persons. In addition, it is estimated that State forests and 

game and fish properties in 23 States have approximately 

5,000,000 visitors each year. 

State parks have expanded over the years and have become a 

major source of outdoor recreation opportunity.
111

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

We use two principal sources of State park systems data in 

this section. First is the National Association of State Park 

Directors (NASPD), an organization founded in 1962, which 

lists first among its five goals “to provide a common forum 

for the exchange of information about State park programs.” 

This goal is a major focus of NASPD and is accomplished 

through the organization’s Annual Information Exchange 

(AIX) which is managed in partnership with the Department 

of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management at North 

Carolina State University. AIX data covering the period July 

1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, are presented in this chapter. 

Each year the AIX compiles basic statistical information about 

the systems in each State covering inventory (land and water), 

facilities, visitation and use, capital expenses, financing, 

personnel, and park support groups. We present here only the 

inventory and facilities portions of the AIX, except for a short 

analysis of concessions data in chapter 4. 

Despite relatively good control over the data collection process 

by the NASPD and its academic partners, there are still 

nuances and caveats about making data trend comparisons. 

This is true for three basic reasons. First, the AIX relies on 

each individual State to complete and return the standardized 

questionnaire; however, some States simply do not respond 

or submit an incomplete form. The second issue is that 

consistency of record-keeping within a State is sometimes 

not maintained due to staff turnovers, changes in department 

operating procedures, database systems, and the like. A third 

problem is that management responsibilities within State 

natural resource departments occasionally change too, such 

as a State parks system site being reclassified, transferred 

out of the department, or shut down. All of these are reasons 

that hamper consistent data collection and comparability. 

Despite these concerns about consistency, they are not serious 

enough to preclude a discussion of trends for some of the basic 

statistics of State park system inventory and facilities.

A second source of data is an individual park area inventory 

across the 50 States conducted during 2009 by the Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (specifically, the 

Southern Research Station research work unit in Athens, 

GA) and the University of Georgia. Basic data about the 

size (acreage), location (latitude/longitude), and site type 

or classification were collected on every State park system 

unit based on available information from State government 

Web sites, printed materials, and email queries. This is the 

only source of data available at the individual State park 

resolution level.

Recreation resources in the State Park Systems—

States manage more than 6,500 individual parks and other 

categories of areas covering nearly 14 million acres (table 5.5), 

representing a 16 percent increase in areas and a 6 percent 

increase in total acreage since 2002. An area is any managed 

entity that is summarized in one of five system categories: 

State parks, recreation areas, historic sites, natural areas, and 

other areas. State parks, the flagship category, are always 

identified and named as such and typically provide a level 

of visitor facilities and services that indicates a significant 

investment from the State. Across all States, parks are most 

consistently and easily categorized for reporting purposes. 

Most of the growth in both State park system areas and 

acreage occurred in the historic site, natural areas, and other 

areas categories. While some real growth in the number 

of areas undoubtedly occurred, much of the 16 percent 

increase can be explained by either re-classifications within 

State properties or by more complete reporting by the State 

agencies. This is undoubtedly the case in the North region. 

“Other areas” is a miscellaneous category that may include 

State forests, fish and wildlife areas, and such. Some of the 

“new” properties may have simply been transferred from 

another State entity such as a State forestry agency.

State parks represent one-third of all State park system units 

in the United States and nearly two-thirds of the total acreage 

(fig. 5.5). State recreation areas appear most frequently in 

the Pacific Coast region with more than half of the total 

U.S. acreage in this classification (table 5.5). Excluding 

Alaska, however, this percentage drops to about 37 percent. 

Nearly half of State historic sites are located in the North, 

but the South and Pacific Coast each trail the North closely 

in historic site acreage indicating larger sites on average in 

those regions. Nationwide, historic sites comprise 9 percent 

of all State park system units, but they make up < 1 percent 

of the total acreage. In many States, however, historic sites 

are administered through travel and tourism divisions, 

departments of cultural resources, or other agencies rather 

than through the State park system.

About 57 percent of all State park system units in the Nation 

are located in the North, which has twice as many areas 

Keyhole State Park near Moorcroft, WY. (Photograph courtesy of Wyoming

State Parks)
112

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

as any other region. This number is skewed somewhat by 

New York, which reported more than 1,000 State forests 

and fish and wildlife areas that are managed by the State’s 

Department of Environmental Conservation. The North and 

Pacific Coast regions lead with a near-identical 5.2 million 

acres, each having about 37 percent of the total U.S. system 

(fig. 5.6). Almost 70 percent of all U.S. State park system 

areas and slightly more than half of all acreage are in the 

two eastern regions. Alaska has the most acreage of any 

State, more than twice that of the State with the next largest, 

California. With Alaska and its huge parks excluded, the 

eastern proportion of acreage rises to nearly 70 percent, with 

almost 49 percent of the 10.6 million non-Alaskan acreage in 

the North region. 

Though the total amount of State park system acreage is just 

a fraction, about 2 percent, of the amount of Federal land in 

the United States, the key to its effectiveness is location and 

accessibility. First and foremost, unlike Federal land, State 

park land is not heavily concentrated in the Western States. 

State park system units exist in all 50 States and are generally 

evenly distributed geographically within each State (fig. 5.7). 

Moreover, a great number of State park units are located in 

close proximity to counties with high population density, 

especially the highest population concentrations of more than 

500 people per square mile. A few examples from figure 5.7 

are the numerous parks around the greater New York City 

area, in New England, and surrounding the metropolitan areas 

of southern California and northern California’s Bay Area. 

The large number of urban-proximate parks is complemented 

by an equally large number of State park units in more rural 

and remote areas, where their contributions to local and 

regional economic developments are significant.

Another indicator of the extent of State park systems in the 

United States is acreage by county (fig. 5.8). Noteworthy is not 

only the large number (a majority) of U.S. counties that have 

State park acreage, but also the extensive acreages of 7,000 

acres or more in some counties. New England States, Florida, 

Minnesota, and California are examples. Further, State 

parks are distributed throughout the 14 ecosystem divisions 

as identified by Forest Service geographer Robert G. Bailey 

(Bailey 1995) (fig. 5.9). About one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. 

land area is protected in State park systems (table 5.6). Six of 

the 14 divisions have more than 1.0 percent of their area thus 

protected, six have < 0.5 percent, and two divisions equal 

the national percentage of 0.5 percent. The Savanna, Marine, 

Tundra, and Mediterranean divisions are the leading divisions 

in terms of proportion protected in State parks, however, 

Savanna and Marine are two of the three smallest divisions in 

total area. Temperate Steppe and Tropical/Subtropical Steppe 

have the smallest percentage protected with 0.1 percent. 

Temperate Steppe has by far the largest land area of any 

division with nearly one-fourth of the total U.S. land area.

One difficulty with the AIX data is with those units which 

are not classified as State parks, recreation areas, or historic 

sites. (The Southern Research Station database was limited 

to these classes with very few miscellaneous sites included.) 

These three categories are mostly straightforward across 

all States. The other two classifications, “natural areas” and 

“other areas,” are considerably less standardized from State 

to State. The natural areas class may include environmental 

education and scientific units, in addition to State natural 

areas and preserves. Natural areas are by far most prevalent 

in the South, with more than half of the Nation’s 1.1 million 

acres of State natural areas. The generic “other areas” 

category may include forests, fish and wildlife areas, and 

various other miscellaneous State park system sites that vary 

by State. These unclassified sites are particularly numerous 

in the North region. They comprise more than one-fourth of 

all State park system units nationwide and about 18 percent 

of the acreage. 

Though State parks are not exactly an “equalizer” for the 

relative lack of Federal land in the East region, their greater 

presence in the East gives them a more prominent role in 

public sector recreation opportunities than in the West Region. 

Still, given the lower population in most of the West, there 

are more State park system acres per capita in the West 

than in the Eastern States (table 5.7). Nationally, there are 

46 State park system acres for every 1,000 residents, which 

represent an increase of < 1 percent since 2002. This limited 

growth was due primarily to reclassification of other areas to 

State park status in the North while the other three regions 

showed declines in State park system acres between 2002 

and 2009. Further, nationwide per capita increases in historic 

sites, natural areas, and other areas masked the decline in 

State parks and recreation areas, the two classes used most 

frequently for outdoor recreation. State park acres per capita 

decreased in every region and recreation area acres per capita 

dropped in all but the North. (See Web site appendix table 

A5.7 and A5.8, respectively, for State park system acreage and 

per capita statistics by State.)

State recreation areas, which are frequently characterized 

by smaller acreage and more concentrated uses, are most 

prevalent in the Pacific Coast region, with about 54 percent of 

the Nation’s total acres (table 5.5). Acreage in State recreation 

areas has contracted slightly since 2002, either through 

reclassifications or closures. Although frequently the urban 

units of many State systems are designated as “recreation 

areas” (as opposed to State parks), many if not most of the 

State recreation areas on the West Coast are State beaches and 

Pacific Ocean access sites. Almost three-fourths of historic 

sites are located in the eastern regions, but the proportion of 

acreage is lower due to the presence of some large historic 

site properties in the West, particularly in California. 

Massachusetts ranks second in historic site acreage. Land 
113

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.5—Number and acres of State park system units by type of unit and region in 2009

Type of

State park

system area Units North Percent South Percent

Rocky

Mountains Percent

Pacific 

Coast Percent

United 

States

Percent 

change,

2002–

2009

State parks

No. 1,128 52.3 462 21.4 279 12.9 287 13.3 2,156 7.9

Acres 2,203,943 24.8 1,487,408 16.7 903,049 10.2 4,299,731 48.3 8,894,131 1.9

Recreation

areas

No. 227 28.9 94 12.0 138 17.6 327 41.6 786 -2.8

Acres 282,216 23.3 81,155 6.7 191,155 15.8 658,760 54.3 1,213,286 2.7

Historic sites

No. 302 49.6 143 23.5 60 9.9 104 17.1 609 18.9

Acres 36,104 31.1 32,387 27.9 16,885 14.6 30,642 26.4 116,018 33.2

Natural areas

No. 428 60.2 76 10.7 149 21.0 58 8.2 711 16.7

Acres 189,366 16.9 556,948 49.8 230,547 20.6 141,713 12.7 1,118,574 16.1

Other areas

No. 1,669 73.0 29 1.3 423 18.5 165 7.2 2,286 33.0

Acres 2,472,222 93.6 59,555 2.3 54,177 2.1 56,110 2.1 2,642,064 19.9

All areas

No. 3,754 57.3 804 12.3 1,049 16.0 941 14.4 6,548 15.8

Acres 5,183,851 37.1 2,217,453 15.9 1,395,813 10.0 5,176,228 37.0 13,973,344 6.2

Change is measured from Annual Information Exchange data collected during the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. 

Note: Region percentages sum across to 100; may not equal 100 exactly due to rounding. Natural areas include environmental education sites 

and areas classified as scientific sites. Other areas include forests, fish and wildlife areas, and other miscellaneous State park system sites. 

Source: Leung and others (2010).

State Parks 

33% 

Recreation areas 

12% 

Historic sites 

9% 

Natural areas 

11% 

Other areas 

35% 

Total	
  units	
  =	
  6,548	
  areas	
  

Figure 5.5—Percent of State park system units and acres in the United States by type of system area, 2009. Note: Natural areas include environmental education 

sites and areas classified as scientific sites. Other areas include forests, fish and wildlife areas, and other miscellaneous State park system sites. Source: Leung 

and others (2010).

State Parks 

63% 

Recreation areas 

9% 

Historic sites 

1% 

Natural areas 

8% 

Other areas 

19% 

Total	
  acres	
  =	
  13,973,344	
  
114

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

0	
   1,000	
   2,000	
   3,000	
   4,000	
   5,000	
   6,000	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Number	
  	
  (thousands)	
  

Region	
  

State	
  Parks	
   Recrea>on	
  areas	
   Historic	
  sites	
   Natural	
  areas	
   Other	
  areas	
  

0	
   1,000	
   2,000	
   3,000	
   4,000	
   5,000	
   6,000	
  

Pacific	
  

Coast	
  

Rocky	
  

Mountains	
  

South	
  

North	
  

Number	
  	
  (thousands)	
  

Region	
  

State	
  Parks	
   Recrea>on	
  areas	
   Historic	
  sites	
   Natural	
  areas	
   Other	
  areas	
  

Figure 5.6—Acres in State park systems by type of area and region, 2009. Source: Leung and others (2010).

Table 5.6—State park system acres by Bailey’s ecosystem division and percent of division protected in 

State park systems in 2009

Ecosystem division State park systems

Code Name

Acres 

(thousands)

Percent 

of total 

U.S. area Acres

Percent of 

total State 

park area

Percent protected in 

State park systems

120 Tundra 90,816.0 4.2 1,500.0 12.7 1.7

130 Subarctic 92,864.0 4.3 438.0 3.7 0.5

210 Warm Continental 122,176.0 5.6 1,493.0 12.7 1.2

220 Hot Continental 239,680.0 11.0 2,430.0 20.6 1.0

230 Subtropical 268,736.0 12.4 1,043.0 8.9 0.4

240 Marine 43,712.0 2.0 1,064.0 9.0 2.4

250 Prairie 190,912.0 8.8 527.0 4.5 0.3

260 Mediterranean 87,808.0 4.0 1,468.0 12.5 1.7

310 Tropical/Subtropical Steppe 162,432.0 7.5 158.0 1.3 0.1

320 Tropical/Subtropical Desert 142,784.0 6.6 541.0 4.6 0.4

330 Temperate Steppe 520,512.0 24.0 588.0 5.0 0.1

340 Temperate Desert 198,272.0 9.1 325.0 2.8 0.2

410 Savanna 4,992.0 0.2 173.0 1.5 3.5

420 Rainforest 4,160.0 0.2 22.0 0.2 0.5

All divisions 2,169,856.0 99.9 11,770.0 100.0 0.5

Note: Total State park system acres in this database does not match total acres in Leung and others (2010) because 

their database includes ‘other areas’ that consist of some State forests, fish and wildlife areas, and other miscellaneous 

State park system sites. 

Sources: U.S. Geological Service (2004), USDA Forest Service (2009a).
115

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

! !!

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!

! !!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!! ! !!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!

!

! !! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !!!

!

!

! !

!! !

!

!

! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !!! !!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!!

! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

" "

"

"

"

"

!!

State Parks

OpenClosed

County population density per square mile, 2008

< 5050–99 99.1–249 249.1–499 > 500

(44) 5.7

Figure 5.7—State park system units in the contiguous United States (2009) and county population density (persons per square mile), 2008. Source: USDA Forest Service (2009a). 
116

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Figure 5.8—State park system acres by county in the contiguous United States, 2009. Source: USDA Forest Service (2009a).

State Park Acres by County

0.0000000.1 - 397.6397.7 - 1144.01144.01 - 2704.52704.6 - 7028.17028.2 - 697039.5
117

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources State Parks availability Open Closed Bailey’s Ecosystem Divisions Hot Continental Division Hot Continental Regime Mountains Marine Division Marine Regime Mountains Mediterranean Division Mediterranean Regime Mountains Prairie Division Rainforest Regime Mountains Savanna Division Savanna Regime Mountains Subarctic Division Subarctic Regime Mountains Subtropical Division Subtropical Regime Mountains Temperate Desert Division Temperate Desert Regime Mountains Temperate Steppe Division Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division Tropical/Subtropical Regime Mountains Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division Tundra Division Tundra Regime Mountains Warm Continental Division Warm Continental Regime Mountains

!!

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!!((

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!!((

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!!((!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!( !( !(!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(!(!( !(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(!( !( !( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!((!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!( !!((

!( !( !(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !(!(

!(!(!( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!!((

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(!!((!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!!((

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(!(!(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!!((

!( !(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!!(( !(

!!((

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(!(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!!((

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(

!!((!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!!((!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!((

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!!((

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(!( !(

!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!!((!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(!(!(!(!!((

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!( !(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !!((

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!!((!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!( !( !(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!!((!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!(!( !(!(

!(

!(!!((

!!((!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(!(!!((

!( !( !(!!(!(( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!!((!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!( !(

!(!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!((

!(!(!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!( !(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!!((

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!!((

!(!!((!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !( !(!(

!(!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!!((

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!!((!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!!(( !(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

(46) 5.9

Figure 5.9—State park system units overlaid on Bailey ecosystem divisions. Sources: USGS (2004) and USDA Forest Service (2009a).
118

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

area in historic sites grew significantly nationwide since 2002, 

more than 33 percent. However, this growth partly reflects the 

small base number of historic site acres which are by far the 

least of any category. 

Natural areas, which include environmental education and other 

areas classified as “scientific” sites, are far more common in the 

East with 71 percent of sites and 67 percent of acreage. Areas 

classified as “natural areas” increased 16 percent since 2002. 

Florida and Colorado lead in natural area acreage by a wide 

margin. All totaled, the distribution of land and water in the 

State park systems is much more aligned to the U.S. population 

distribution than are the Federal resources, but their much 

smaller total area implies much greater use pressures too.

Facilities—Most State park system units, State parks, and 

State recreation areas in particular, have outdoor facilities 

designed to serve a variety of recreation activities. In addition, 

most parks and recreation areas are large enough to have 

significant undeveloped areas, some largely undeveloped, 

such as Baxter State Park in Maine. In parks that do not allow 

backcountry camping and backpacking, there are usually 

opportunities to experience nature on hiking, canoe, or other 

trails. At the other end of the spectrum there are a number 

of State units which specifically cater to the tourist market, 

which means full services and amenities. Frequently these 

State parks have the word “resort” in their name. A few 

States specialize in tourism with the objective of contributing 

to regional economic development. Table 5.8 lists the 2009 

AIX count of selected recreational facilities across the State 

park systems by region (see Web site appendix table A5.9 for 

the same information by State). Figure 5.10 shows the same 

information broken out by region.

Campsites and trails are staples among State park recreation 

facilities. Most State parks offer camping facilities as a primary 

attraction and even more have trails, ranging from very short, 

highly interpreted nature trails to extensive backcountry trail 

systems. The 2009 AIX reports a total of nearly 5,900 separate 

trails in State park systems totaling almost 43,000 miles 

(table 5.8). The numbers represent increases of 22 percent 

in miles and almost 43 percent in the number of trails since 

2002. The number of trails increased particularly fast in the 

Pacific Coast region. These numbers undoubtedly reflect many 

newly classified or re-classified trails, in addition to some 

newly developed ones. Trail reporting across States is difficult 

because of lack of standardized data collection and recordkeeping procedures. (Three States reported no trails or trail 

mileage in the 2009 AIX.) 

Total trail mileage managed by State park systems is just 

less than one-third of the approximately 133,000 trail miles 

provided by the National Forest System, yet the total State park 

system acreage is just 7 percent that of the U.S. Forest Service’s 

total land area. Similarly, State parks provide almost three 

times the 14,900 miles of National Park Service trails in about 

one-sixth the land area. These statistics indicate the importance 

of State park systems in providing hiking and other trail 

opportunities. About 42 percent of trails and just under half 

of the trail mileage are in the two eastern regions. The Rocky 

Mountains region has the most trail mileage (although the 

North nearly equals it) but fewest trails, indicating the presence 

of long backcountry trails in mountain areas. Trails and trail 

mileage were among the largest facility increases per capita 

in the United States since 2002 (table 5.9) (fig. 5.11). Some of 

those gains are undoubtedly due to reclassifications or simply 

additions of existing trails to the State reports. 

Campsites are classified as one of two types: (1) “improved” sites 

that typically have electric hook-ups, tent pads, picnic tables, 

and other improvements, and (2) “primitive” sites which have 

either very minimal or no developed facilities beyond being 

marked as a designated campsite. There are 151 more improved 

camping areas than primitive areas in State park systems, but the 

individual improved campsites outnumber primitive campsites 

more than threefold (table 5.8). The number of State park areas 

offering primitive camping increased more than 30 percent 

since 2002, although the total number of primitive campsites 

increased < 3 percent. Further, there is a rather large regional 

difference in the provision of improved and primitive camping 

areas and individual campsites. The eastern regions have nearly 

twice the number of improved camping areas than the western 

regions and more than three times the number of individual 

improved campsites. The West has approximately 60 percent 

of the primitive camping areas and campsites, with the Rocky 

Mountains region alone having almost 44 percent of primitive 

campsites, reflecting the presence of numerous backcountry 

settings in the mountain States. While areas that provide 

primitive camping on a per capita basis grew significantly since 

2002, the number of campsites per 1 million residents declined 

by 3 percent. Improved campsites decreased 4 percent per capita 

nationally in that same period, with particularly sharp drops in 

the Pacific Coast region.

All of the other State park system recreation facilities that 

appear in table 5.8, i.e., cabins/cottages, golf courses, marinas, 

swimming pools, and stables, are also more likely to be 

located in the eastern regions than in the West. About 73 

percent of State park areas with cabins or cottages, more than 

80 percent of the total number of cabins/cottages and stables, 

more than 90 percent of State park golf courses (and holes), 

and more than 94 percent of the areas with swimming pools 

are located in the North and South regions. The total number 

of cabins or cottages in State parks grew about 10 percent, 

swimming pools grew about 12 percent, stables and marinas 

increased just slightly, and the number of golf courses and 

holes in State park units posted the largest growth, about 

14 and 22 percent, respectively.
119

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.7—Per capita acres of State park system units by type of area and region, and percent change from 2002 to 2009

Type of

State park

system area

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Acres/

1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres/

1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acre/

1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres/

1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres/

1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

State Parks 17.7 -6.3 14.5 -2.9 32.5 -3.6 87.6 -2.7 29.3 -3.6

Recreation areas 2.3 5.6 0.8 -13.2 6.9 -11.6 13.4 -2.8 4.0 -2.9

Historic sites 0.3 141.7 0.3 -11.1 0.6 -19.7 0.6 44.2 0.4 26.7

Natural areas 1.5 7.8 5.4 2.3 8.3 8.5 2.9 32.0 3.7 9.9

Other areas 19.9 28.8 0.6 16.0 2.0 20.4 1.1 -77.5 8.7 13.4

All areas 41.7 9.6 21.6 -1.8 50.2 -2.5 105.5 -5.4 46.0 0.5

Note: Natural areas include environmental education sites and areas classified as scientific sites. Other areas include forests, fish and wildlife 

areas, and other miscellaneous State park system sites. U.S. population estimates are 287.73 million (2002) and 304.06 million (2008). 

Source: Leung and others (2010).

Table 5.8—Number of State park system areas with selected recreation facilities and total number of facilities by region in 

2009

Facility

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Trails: number 1,173 20.0 1,312 22.3 931 15.8 2,460 41.9 5,876 42.8

Trails: number of miles 15,447 35.9 5,941 13.8 15,858 36.9 5,735 13.3 42,980 22.0

Improved campsites:

number of areas 713 40.6 439 25.0 409 23.3 194 11.1 1,755 5.2

Improved campsites:

total number 87,034 53.3 36,327 22.2 24,971 15.3 15,109 9.2 163,441 1.3

Primitive campsites:

number of areas 302 18.8 315 19.6 760 47.4 227 14.2 1,604 30.9

Primitive campsites:

total number 12,411 24.9 8,178 16.4 21,795 43.8 7,387 14.8 49,771 2.6

Cabins: number of areas 331 44.5 208 28.0 116 15.6 88 11.8 743 27.0

Cabins: total number 3,327 45.7 2,708 37.2 724 9.9 524 7.2 7,283 9.8

Golf courses: total number 62 45.6 63 46.3 7 5.1 4 2.9 136 14.3

Golf holes: total number 1,035 46.0 1,026 45.6 144 6.4 45 2.0 2,250 21.8

Marinas: total number 135 47.2 75 26.2 61 21.3 15 5.2 286 -0.3

Swimming pools:

total number 154 52.4 123 41.8 11 3.7 6 2.0 294 11.8

Stables: total number 33 33.3 54 54.5 11 11.1 1 1.0 99 2.1

Note: Also includes Annual Information Exchange data for the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Region percentages sum across to 100; 

may not equal 100 exactly due to rounding. 

Source: Leung and others (2010).
120

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.9—State park system facilities per capita by region and percent change from 2002 to 2009

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Facility

Number

per 1

million

people,

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Number

per 1

million

people,

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Number

per 1

million

people,

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Number

per 1

million

people,

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Number

per 1

million

people,

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Number of trails 9.4 23.6 12.8 2.9 33.5 91.5 50.1 47.5 19.3 35.2

Trails: number of miles 124.2 22.1 57.8 -0.7 570.1 -3.1 116.9 101.7 141.4 15.5

Improved campsites: 

number of areas 5.7 2.9 4.3 -6.6 14.7 8.2 4.0 -16.0 5.8 -0.5

Improved campsites: 

total number 699.8 0.1 353.4 0.7 897.7 8.7 307.9 -36.2 537.5 -4.2

Primitive campsites: 

number of areas 2.4 -15.9 3.1 -6.7 27.3 103.0 4.6 -5.9 5.3 23.9

Primitive campsites: 

total number 99.8 2.2 79.6 1.8 783.6 -8.2 150.5 -12.5 163.7 -2.9

Cabins: number of areas 2.7 30.4 2.0 12.2 4.2 6.9 1.8 20.1 2.4 20.2

Cabins: total number 26.8 9.6 26.3 -3.1 26.0 17.5 10.7 -7.5 24.0 3.9

Golf courses: total number 0.5 47.1 0.6 -9.0 0.3 -10.7 0.1 -52.9 0.5 9.8

Golf holes: total number 8.3 34.2 10.0 0.4 5.2 58.9 0.9 -40.6 7.4 15.3

Marinas: total number 1.1 -1.8 0.7 -7.6 2.2 -12.0 0.3 3.3 0.9 -6.0

Swimming pools: 

total number 1.2 26.5 1.2 -13.7 0.4 11.1 0.1 33.3 1.0 6.6

Stables: total number 0.3 -20.6 0.5 35.9 0.4 -33.3 0.0 -66.7 0.3 -2.9

Note: Also includes Annual Information Exchange data for the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. U.S. population estimates are 287.73 million 

(2002) and 304.06 million (2008). Source: Leung and others (2010).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Total number cabins 

Areas with cabins 

Primitive campsites 

Primitive camping areas 

Improved campsites 

Improved camping areas 

Trail miles 

Trails 

Recreation facilities 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Total number cabins 

Areas with cabins 

Primitive campsites 

Primitive camping areas 

Improved campsites 

Improved camping areas 

Trail miles 

Trails 

Recreation facilities 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast 

Figure 5.10—Percent of State park system areas with selected recreation facilities and total number of facilities by region, 2008. 

Source: Leung and others (2010).
121

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

State Forests

State forests provide a complement to the recreation 

opportunities found in State park systems in nearly every State, 

both through formal recreation programs and informal public 

access to the State-owned forests. Interestingly, many State 

parks began as parts of State forests in the first half of the last 

century. State forests tend to be less well known as recreation 

opportunities in that recreation is not a primary part of their 

modern mission. In most States, the State forestry agencies 

exist primarily to provide forest management assistance to 

private landowners, forest fire prevention and suppression, 

and related forest health, protection, planning, conservation, 

and education outreach. Urban forestry assistance is also an 

emphasis of many State forestry departments.

Many States manage a system of State forests and some 

demonstration forests that frequently are available for public 

recreational use. Principles of multiple-use management 

are often an emphasis in the State-owned forests, where 

recreation needs are balanced with other resource demands 

such as timber, water, wildlife habitat, and forage. Because 

recreational facility development is often minimal, State 

forests are especially suitable for more dispersed forms of 

recreation, such as wildlife observation, fishing, nature study, 

and horseback riding. States that have a formal recreation 

program within their State forest system are most likely to 

have developed facilities for intensive recreation use.

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is 

a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of 

the State forest agency directors on forestry policy issues 

and legislation. One of the NASF’s services is to collect 

information about the State forestry agencies every other 

year and publish the online report “State Forestry Statistics” 

(available through NASF or the NASF Web site: www.

stateforesters.org). The latest report available is for 2006. Of 

interest to this assessment report are two sections entitled, 

“Resource Base” and “Programs/Personnel.” Statistics from 

the 2006 NASF report are shown in table 5.10 for regions. 

Nationally, there are 66.35 million acres of State-owned 

forest land with only about 25.3 million acres managed by 

State forestry agencies. The amount of State-owned forest 

has increased almost 8 percent since 2002. State forestry 

agency land area was not collected for the 2002 report, but 

State-owned forest data were taken from reports by the Forest 

Inventory and Analysis Program of the Forest Service, and 

include any State-owned forested land. The majority of these 

forest lands are managed through State departments of natural 

resources. Nationally, about 9 percent of all public or private 

forest land is State-owned. This proportion is highest in the 

Pacific Coast and North regions (about 13 percent) and lowest 

in the South. Land administered specifically by State forestry 

agencies makes up 3.4 percent of the Nation’s forest resources. 

The proportion of forest land that is managed by State forest 

agencies is greatest among regions in the North (9.5 percent) 

and smallest in the South (< 1 percent). 

The total national recreation spending by State forestry 

agencies was $23.1 million, 83 percent of which was by the 

North region who also had by far the largest proportion of the 

total budget spent on recreation at 5.2 percent. The increase in 

total recreation spending nationwide was $1.2 million 

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Total number of cabins 

Areas with cabins 

Primitive campsites 

Primitive camping areas 

Improved campsites 

Improved camping areas 

Trail miles 

Trails 

Percent 

Recreation facilities 

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Total number of cabins 

Areas with cabins 

Primitive campsites 

Primitive camping areas 

Improved campsites 

Improved camping areas 

Trail miles 

Trails 

Percent 

Recreation facilities 

Figure 5.11—Percent change in number of State park system recreation facilities per 1 million people, 2002–2009. 

Source: Leung and others (2010).
122

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

(not adjusted for inflation), a 5 percent increase from the 

$21.9 million in 2002. Forest recreation accounts for just over 

1 percent of the total State forest agency spending. Similar 

to State parks, the lack of reporting by some States hampers 

trend comparisons. Figure 5.12 shows how the proportions of 

State-owned forest land, forest area managed by State forestry 

agencies, total expenditures by State forestry agencies, and 

State forestry agency budgets for recreation are distributed 

across the four RPA regions. The North dominates in the 

amount of forest managed by State forestry agencies and in 

forest recreation budgets, while the Pacific Coast States are 

most prominent in total State-owned forest area and State 

forestry expenditures. The relative amounts of these indicators, 

except for forestry expenditures, are shown in figure 5.13 

which emphasizes the significantly larger role of State forests 

as a provider of outdoor recreation in the North region.

State forestry statistics by State are listed in the Web appendix 

table A5.10 and appear in descending order of the proportion of 

their total State forest land that is in State forests. Minnesota, 

New Jersey, and Michigan manage more than 20 percent of their 

total State forest area as State forests. Pennsylvania, Washington, 

Wisconsin, Florida, Idaho, and Alaska have more than 1 million 

acres of land in State forests. Twenty States reported having 

a formal forest recreation program located within their State 

forestry agency, up from 19 States in 2002. The proportion of a 

State’s total budget spent on recreation ranged from highs of 19 

percent in Michigan, 15 percent in Indiana, and 13 percent in 

Missouri to several States with < 1 percent.

State Wildlife and Fish Areas

State wildlife and fish agencies are the third major type 

of State government provider of outdoor recreation 

opportunities. In many States they are sister agencies to the 

State park and State forestry agencies, all located within 

departments of natural resources or conservation. However, 

in an equal number of States, State wildlife and fish agencies 

are independent agencies that report directly to the governor 

or to a commission appointed by the governor. These agencies 

represent a diversity of opportunities for outdoor recreation 

with somewhat different policies, regulations, and resources, 

but the differences are not large. 

One noticeable difference between State wildlife and fish 

systems and State park and forestry systems is the large amount 

of leased and cooperatively managed land and water with which 

they carry out their missions. State park and forest systems tend 

to own almost all of their properties. But much of the land and 

water managed by State wildlife and fish agencies is not “owned” 

by the State per se, and frequently the recreation management 

responsibilities belong to the partner or lessee. In any event, 

the regulation of wildlife and fish resources for recreation such 

as seasons, bag limits, and other rules is the administrative 

responsibility of the State wildlife and fish agencies.

The Wildlife Management Institute, a Washington, DCbased educational and scientific nonprofit organization, has 

Table 5.10—Characteristics of State forestry agencies by region, in 2006 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

State forestry 

characteristic Units Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

All forest land 1,000 

acres 170,587 23.0 208,317 28.1 148,200 20.0 213,980 28.9 741,084.0 0.2

State-owned 

forest land

1,000 

acres 22,582 34.0 6,337 9.6 8,300 12.5 29,136 43.9 66,355.0 7.8

Forest land managed by 

State forestry agency

1,000 

acres 16,235 64.3 1,498 5.9 2,503 9.9 5,033 19.9 25,268.7 na

Forest recreation 

budget

$1,000 

(2006 $) 19,309 83.4 939 4.1 119 0.5 2,779 12.0 23,145.6 5.4

State forestry total 

expenditures

$1,000 

(2006 $) 369,757 18.2 528,214 26.1 185,102 9.1 944,380 46.6 2,027,452.0 8.0

na = Not available

Note: Region percentages for acreages and budgets/expenditures sum across to 100; may not equal 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Illinois and 

Louisiana did not respond to the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) survey that provided these statistics. Forest land area for Alaska, 

Louisiana, and Illinois are from the 2004 NASF report. Eleven States did not provide program expenditure information; five States did not respond 

to the question about a forest recreation program in the State forestry agency. Forest land managed by the State forestry agency was not asked in 

2002. Change in the final column for the two percentage characteristics is absolute change in percent from 2002 to 2006. 

Source: National Association of State Foresters (2006).
123

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Forest recreation 

budget 

State forestry 

total expenditures 

Forest managed by 

State forestry agency 

State-owned 

forest land 

Characteristic 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Forest recreation 

budget 

State forestry 

total expenditures 

Forest managed by 

State forestry agency 

State-owned 

forest land 

Characteristic 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast 

Figure 5.12—Percent of selected State forestry agency characteristics by region, 2006. Source: National 

Association of State Foresters (2006).

0% 5% 10% 15% 

State forestry budget 

for recreation 

Forest in State 

forestry agencies 

Forest that is 

State-owned 

North 

South 

Rocky Mountains 

Pacific Coast 

0% 5% 10% 15% 

State forestry budget 

for recreation 

Forest in State 

forestry agencies 

Forest that is 

State-owned 

North 

South 

Rocky Mountains 

Pacific Coast 

Figure 5.13—Percent of forest that is State-owned and in State forestry agencies, and percent of State forestry 

budgets for recreation by region, 2006.Source: National Association of State Foresters (2006).
124

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

in the past compiled information about the 50 State wildlife 

and fish agencies. The most recent of their reports (Wildlife 

Management Institute 1997) described the total land area 

either owned or managed by State fish and wildlife agencies in 

the United States. Reported was the sum of owned properties 

(“purchased” and “donated”) and managed properties (“leased” 

and “easements”). Of the 30.3 million total land acres, about 

11.5 million acres (38 percent) were managed rather than owned 

by the States. Nearly all of the managed properties, with the 

exception of a small fraction of land in easement, were leased 

from other owners. Another 57 million acres nationwide—

nearly twice the amount owned or managed by States—was 

under cooperative agreements with other State or Federal 

Government agencies, industry, or with individual private 

landowners. Similar to State forests, the North region led other 

regions with just under half (49 percent) of all State wildlife and 

fish land and water that they either directly owned or managed. 

Unfortunately, no more recent summarized data for State 

wildlife and fish agencies exists since 1997.

Federal Land as a Recreation Resource

As described in chapter 3, there are almost 640 million 

acres of Federal land in the United States, about 28 percent 

of the total U.S. land area (table 5.11), not including U.S. 

Department of Defense properties, Indian tribal lands, and 

other miscellaneous Federal real estate. These lands are 

managed by seven different Federal land-managing agencies 

and provide valuable resources for outdoor recreation.

With the exception of some national wildlife refuges, areas 

reserved for science and research, and other administrative 

and operational sites, such as dams, nearly all Federal land is 

open and available to the public for recreation. In some cases, 

access to Federal lands is inhibited by inholdings (private land 

within proclamation boundaries), closed adjacent private land, 

and ownership fragmentation. About 97 percent of Federal 

land is under the jurisdiction of four agencies—Bureau of 

Land Management, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Park Service (fig. 5.14). 

Nearly 70 percent of all Federal land is either Bureau of 

Land Management or Forest Service property; however, 

not counting Alaska, this proportion rises to 84 percent. 

More than 92 percent of Federal land is located in the 

Western United States, where essentially all Bureau of Land 

Management land is located. Even excluding Alaska—which 

has about 228.5 million Federal acres or 36 percent of the 

national total—Federal land is still predominantly western at 

88 percent. Considering just the four largest land-managing 

agencies, the two western regions comprise 94 percent of 

the national acreage. However, considering the three water 

resource agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau 

of Reclamation, and Tennessee Valley Authority), Federal 

acreage is almost evenly split between the West and East. 

Excluding water acres, about 37 percent of this land area is in 

the South and 12 percent in the North (fig. 5.15).Total Federal 

acreage changes very little over time, < 0.2 percent since 

2002 (table 5.11) which amounts to a net decrease of about 

1.4 million acres sold or transferred to other public and 

private entities. All of these transferred properties came from 

the Bureau of Land Management, most of it occurring in 

Alaska. Except for Alaska, there was actually a 1.5 percent 

increase in Federal land since 2002. \The large increase in 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acreage since 2002 is most 

likely the result of the change in that agency’s data reporting 

systems whose Natural Resources Management System 

ceased operation in 1999. 

Per capita acres of Federal land have decreased significantly, 

both nationally and by region. This is for the most part the 

result of national and regional population increases. In 2008, 

there were 2,105 acres per 1,000 U.S. residents (or about 

2.1 acres per person). This represented a 5.6 percent 

decrease from the per capita amount in 2002 (fig. 5.16; and 

see Web appendix table A5.11 for per capita statistics by 

agency and region). This decline was largest in the Rocky 

Mountains and Pacific Coast regions, reflecting greater 

population growth in the West, but more modest in the 

eastern regions due to slower population increases. The 

decline in per capita Federal acres since 1995 was even more 

pronounced, mirroring the 14 percent population increase 

since then. These figures hint that there may be increasing 

congestion and sometimes competition for Federal recreation 

opportunities as population grows and the finite Federal land 

base remains about constant.

Recreation Management of Federal Lands

Management of Federal lands has always been and likely 

always will be a challenging proposition. As presented in 

chapter 4, development of nearby private land, increasing 

extractive use pressures from a variety of sources, and 

shrinking management budgets add to the challenge. 

Summaries of two papers invited for this chapter are added 

to address some of significant aspects of the challenge of 

managing recreation on Federal lands. The first of these 

papers, by Winter and others, describes opinions from 

managers concerning sustainable recreation management. 

The second paper, by Winter and Czetkovich, discusses trust 

between the public and a land management agency. Both 

sustainability and trust are keys to long-term management 

effectiveness. Only brief summaries of these papers are 

included here; the full texts are included in the Appendix 

located with the electronic version of this document at http://
125

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Figure 5.14—Percent of Federal land by agency, including Alaska, 2008. Sources: USDA 

Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

(2009), USDI Bureau of Reclamation (2008), USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008a), 

Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006).

0 5 10 15 20 25 

United States 

Pacific Coast 

Rocky Mountains 

South 

North 

Percent 

Region 

Since 2002 

Since 1995 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

United States 

Pacific Coast 

Rocky Mountains 

South 

North 

Percent 

Region 

Since 2002 

Since 1995 

Figure 5.16—Percent decrease in per capita acres of Federal land, including Alaska, 1995 and 

2002–2008. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), USDI Bureau of Reclamation (2008), USDI Bureau of Land 

Management (2008a), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006).

Figure 5.15—Percent of Federal land in the three waterresource agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority), by region, 

2008. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National 

Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation (2008), USDI Bureau of Land 

Management (2008a), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2006).

Table 5.11—Acres of Federal land by agency and region in 2008

United States

Federal agency North South

Rocky 

Mountains Pacific Coast Total

Percent 

Change

- - - - - - acres (thousands) - - - - - -

U.S. Forest Service 12,240 13,320 99,419 67,734 192,713 0.1

National Park Service 1,349 5,195 11,080 61,201 78,825 0.1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1,711 4,357 9,893 78,544 94,504 4.5

Bureau of Reclamation 0 197 5,470 854 6,522 0.0

Bureau of Land Management 4 44 142,962 110,356 253,367 -3.1

Tennessee Valley Authority 0 248 0 0 248 0.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2,557 7,104 3,540 545 13,746 18.5

All Federal agencies 17,862 30,466 272,364 319,234 639,926 -0.2

Note: Beginning year in the percent change column is 2003 for the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2002 for the USDI National Park Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, and 1999 for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Earlier data were not available for the USDI Bureau of Reclamation 

and Tennessee Valley Authority. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), USDI Bureau of Reclamation (2008), USDI Bureau of Land Management 

(2008a), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006).
126

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Sustainability in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

There are many threats to nature-based recreation and tourism. Addressing threats such as land development or loss 

of access can in part be facilitated through application of a sustainability framework. Sustainability with regard to any 

natural land use must consider three dimensions: (1) economic, (2) social, and (3) environmental. These dimensions 

are interdependent and balance between them is essential to sustainability (United Nations Environment Programme 

and World Tourism Organization 2005). To help better understand this interdependence as it applies to management 

of recreation on Federal lands, a study was conducted of Forest Service personnel to gain insight into current 

perceptions, barriers, facilitators, and other concerns related to sustainable recreation on national forest lands.

Methods—This study was conducted in 2009 as a Web-based survey of Forest Service personnel with recreation 

management duties. Survey items were derived from a sustainable operations survey completed by the first author 

(Winter 2008), from concepts explored by Cottrell and others (see Cottrell and Vaske 2006; Cottrell and others 2007), 

and from items of particular interest, such as perceived impacts and responses to global climate change. We gathered 

names from directories, email lists, and direct contact through phone and email to verify appropriate personnel to 

include in our study.1 Some examples of responses to sustainability questions are provided here. The full paper is 

published in this General Technical Report as an appendix (go to http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ and search for 

this publication. The full paper is available there.).

Summary of primary findings—The majority of Forest 

Service respondents strongly agreed that they have 

a professional responsibility to practice sustainable 

business practices while also reducing environmental 

footprints (72.4 percent), that sustainability is important to 

the area they manage (71.1 percent), and that it warrants 

additional investment (62.5 percent). Respondents 

were in less agreement that sustainability is a Forest 

Service priority (47.5 percent agreed). Ratings of items 

important to sustainability reflect an understanding of 

the broader components of sustainability. For example, 

the majority rated environmental impacts (97.4 percent), 

increased environmental appreciation (95.0 percent), 

economic impacts (91.4 percent), increased appreciation 

of surrounding communities (80.1 percent), and improved 

health for the recreating public (77.1 percent) as important 

in sustainability. Issues that were of greatest concern included a lack of resources (especially funding and personnel), 

unmanaged use, increased use, and Agency relationship with the public. Inclusion of global climate change as a 

sustainability concern was given mixed responses.

Discussion—Sustainability was viewed as a shared concern and responsibility by respondents. Global climate 

change received a mixed response, with only a slight majority expecting impacts on recreation and tourism. Most 

Agency respondents did not think sustainability is an Agency priority as reflected in opinions that personnel and 

funding are inadequate. Many responding managers felt it important to have the Forest Service become a role model 

for sustainable management, including enhanced educational efforts. As part of being a role model, Forest Service 

respondents indicated that a broader perspective of benefits might be considered to include direct ecosystem or 

cultural enhancement benefits. Cultural enhancement could include partnering with community groups, volunteers, 

organizations, and local businesses.

1We aimed for a census of managers with primary recreation management duties at the regional, forest, and district level. Temporary and seasonal 

personnel were excluded, as were most classified as recreation technicians. Each employee was sent up to three emails requesting their participation 

in an online survey. We contacted 872 employees by email and received 433 usable surveys, giving us a 50.5 percent response rate. (Some of the 

employees were dropped from the response rate calculation because of an incorrect address, they were no longer in a recreation management position, 

or email inboxes that were not accepting messages through the duration of the study). Response rate, though varied by forest and district, was similar 

across the United States when examining Forest Service regions involved.

Educating the future. (Photo by Nate and Kelly Bricker).
127

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Trust and Recreation Management 

(The full text of this paper is included in the Web appendix to this chapter.

Trust has been presented as an essential component of land management because it greatly influences how 

public citizens and agency managers interact. Drawing from a series of studies they conducted over the last 

few years, Winter and Cvetkovich summarize in their invited paper findings about the role of trust in outdoor 

recreation resource management. Each study they summarize approached trust through the “salient values 

similarity model,” which suggests that perception of similarity of values between self and another helps predict 

existence of trust. 

Across studies Winter and Cvetkovich have summarized, a common set of findings emerged. One such finding 

was that people tend to weigh agency actions in light of their own values regarding resource management 

(Cvetkovich and Winter 2003). Another finding was that perception of value similarity may exist if the public 

believes that agency staff personally share their values, even though in their agency role the staff may not 

be able to do what the public prefers. Perceived similarity of values is important because it is significantly 

associated with trust which is often associated with approval of management decisions. For example, the 

authors found that trust and similarity of values was significant in the predicting approval of management to 

protect threatened and endangered species such that recreation had to be banned in sensitive areas. 

Some recent explorations of variations by gender within 

communities of color revealed a pattern of distrust 

among groups with typically greater social advantage 

(White and Asian males). This is an important finding 

because it challenges the predominate view that 

disadvantaged populations are more likely to distrust 

managing agencies. Across a number of studies the 

authors found a tendency towards trust rather than 

distrust in the Forest Service related to a number of 

management issues. 

The authors’ research has lent some important 

insights to help better understand trust or distrust 

between the public and agencies. It has pointed to 

the importance of similar values in trust, and thus 

the importance for agencies to clearly understand 

public values and to communicate their own core 

values underlying decisions. Once values are clearly 

outlined and similarities identified, an agency can 

benefit by considering and perhaps aligning with public 

values where possible. If an agency must take action 

deemed inconsistent with core values, it is beneficial 

to all concerned to communicate the reasons for 

that inconsistency. The authors’ research points to 

the importance of paying attention to value-action 

consistency and to seeking legitimacy for inconsistency 

through clear communication of reasons for such 

decisions.

Archival photograph in 1957 of entrance sign to the Tonto National

Forest (from the TNF website). The sign is on the “Apache Trail”

highway, near Mesa, AZ. The Superstition Mountains are in the

background. (Photo by D.O. Todd)
128

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ for the paper by Winter and others 

and for the paper by Winter and Czetkovich .

Congressionally Designated Federal Areas

Designated Wilderness—Federal land protected in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System has increased 

3.3 percent since 2003 to a total of more than 109 million 

acres. This includes additions from the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 which was signed into law on March 

30, 2009. Fifty-two new wilderness areas were established, 

and acreage was added to 26 existing areas, for a total addition 

of over 2 million acres, mostly Bureau of Land Management 

land. Given that the Bureau of Land Management started with 

a smaller amount of wilderness prior to 2004, its additions 

represent an increase of almost one-third to its current total 

of 8.7 million acres. Forest Service and National Park Service 

acreage in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

increased about 2.5 and 1.1 percent, respectively, since 2003. 

Combined, these two agencies manage about 73 percent of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.

As with Federal land in general, the National Wilderness 

Preservation System is dominated by the western regions, 

in particular Alaska. More than 52 percent of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System is in Alaska, the large 

majority managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (fig. 5.17). Including Alaska, about 96 

percent of the NWPS is located in the West. Without Alaska, 

the proportion drops only slightly, to about 92 percent (Web 

site appendix table A5.12). Although the physical size of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System has increased 

recently, it has decreased 1.4 percent overall in per capita acres 

since 2003 as a result of declines in the South and Pacific 

Coast (table 5.12). Additions to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and slower population growth in the 

North resulted in the largest per capita increase. 

National Recreation Areas—In addition to special 

designation of selected Federal lands as wilderness areas, 

there are three other special Federal recreation systems. 

These are typically referred to collectively as Congressionally 

designated areas and include the National Recreation Areas, 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Recreation 

Trails. Each system traces its origins to the influence and 

recommendations of the 1958–1962 Outdoor Recreation 

Resources Review Commission. 

The criteria for establishing national recreation areas were 

issued by the President’s Recreation Advisory Committee 

in 1963, stipulating that all designations would be made by 

Congress. While other uses are allowed, outdoor recreation is 

the dominant purpose and accessibility to population centers 

is an important criteria. There are 41 national recreation areas, 

which together cover more than 7.4 million acres (table 5.13). 

National recreation areas are managed primarily by the 

National Park Service and the Forest Service. There is a single 

Bureau of Land Management national recreation area in 

Alaska. More than 40 percent of the national recreation areas 

are located in the two eastern regions, but they account for just 

10 percent of total acreage.

National Wild and Scenic River System—The National 

Wild and Scenic River System was established by Congress 

through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Qualifying 

rivers or river sections were to be identified and designated 

as having one or more outstanding values classified as scenic, 

wild, or recreational. Rather than mandatory conservation 

measures, the Act is known more for helping to preserve 

the character of the designated rivers. There were more 

than 12,500 miles of designated wild and scenic rivers in 

the United States as of June, 2009 (table 5.14). Designated 

mileage in the Nation increased 11 percent since 2000, led 

by the Rocky Mountains and South regions, which grew 

by 50 and 31 percent, respectively. The Rocky Mountains 

led all regions in adding river mileage in each of the three 

value categories, particularly in the wild rivers class, which 

increased 87 percent. Nationally, additions to the wild and 

scenic categories far outpaced those rivers classified as 

recreational.

National Trails System—A National Trails System was 

created by the National Trails System Act of 1968, to include 

national scenic trails, national historic trails, and national 

recreation trails. Though scenic and historic trails have much 

recreational and tourism value, especially for long-distance 

hiking and trekking, only national recreation trails are covered 

in this report. National recreation trails may be managed by 

any government agency at the Federal, State, or local level, or 

may be privately owned as long as they are available for public 

use. The National Park Service oversees administration of the 

National Trails System, and the nongovernmental organization 

American Trails maintains a database of all the national 

recreation trails in the system. A goal of the Trails Act is to 

create a “national network of trails” with a stated objective 

for national recreation trails of being “reasonably accessible” 

to urban populations. National recreation trails may be 

designated and approved administratively every year and do 

not require Congressional designation.

After many years of limited activity, the national recreation 

trails program was revitalized in 2000. The number and miles 

of trails have continued to grow, reaching more than 

1,000 national recreation trails and over 20,000 miles 

nationally in 2009 (table 5.15). These figures represent an 

increase of 20 percent in the number of trails and 52 percent 

in trail mileage in the previous 5 years. The increase in 

both number and miles of national recreation trails has been 
129

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.12—Per capita acres (per 1,000 people) of National Wilderness Preservation System by agency and region, and 

percent change from 2003 to 2009

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Federal agency

Acres 

per 1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres 

per 1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres 

per 1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres 

per 1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Acres 

per 1,000 

people

2009

Percent 

change

‘02–’09

Bureau of Land Management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 165.6 54.8 84.0 2.1 28.7 27.0

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0.5 0.0 4.6 -6.1 52.7 -9.1 381.1 -4.5 68.1 -4.5

U.S. Forest Service 11.5 4.5 7.3 -3.9 654.6 -8.0 321.4 -1.1 118.9 -2.1

National Park Service 1.4 27.3 14.5 -6.5 48.3 25.8 833.1 -4.4 144.3 -3.6

U.S. total 13.4 5.5 26.4 -6.0 921.1 0.7 1,619.6 -3.5 360.1 -1.4

Note: U.S. population estimates are 290.21 million (2003) and 304.06 million (2008). 

Source: Wilderness Institute (2009).

0 20 40 60 

North 

South 

Pacific Coast 

Rocky Mountains 

Alaska 

Acres (millions) 

Location 

NPS USFS USFWS BLM 

0 20 40 60 

North 

South 

Pacific Coast 

Rocky Mountains 

Alaska 

Acres (millions) 

Location 

NPS USFS USFWS BLM 

Figure 5.17—Acres of land in the National Wilderness Preservation System, by region (Alaska separate) and agency, 2009. 

Source: Wilderness Institute (2009). 

Table 5.13—Number and acres of National Recreation Areas by agency and RPA region in 2008

National Park Service U.S. Forest Service

Bureau of Land 

Management Total

RPA region Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres

North 4 81,373 5 146,769 0 0 9 228,142

South 4 117,076 4 377,875 0 0 8 494,951

Rocky Mountains 4 2,820,555 7 1,513,219 0 0 11 4,333,774

Pacific Coast 6 394,396 6 952,689 1 998,702 13 2,345,787

United States 18 3,413,400 22 2,990,552 1 998,702 41 7,402,654

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008a).
130

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

significantly higher in the two eastern regions since 2004, 

with mileage increasing more than 75 percent in both the 

North and South.

National Scenic Byways Program—Driving for pleasure 

and sightseeing are two of the most popular outdoor recreation 

activities in the United States. They reflect dependence and 

affection by Americans for the automobile. Most scenic 

roads are two-lane rather than four-lane highways. In 1992 

the Federal Highway Administration in the U.S. Department 

of Transportation established the National Scenic Byways 

Program in response to demand for scenic driving roads and 

regional economic development through tourism.

The National Scenic Byways Program does not fund new 

construction of highways, but instead works with local and 

regional grass-roots organizations and State governments 

to recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads with one 

or more of the following intrinsic qualities: scenic, historic, 

cultural, archeological, recreational, and natural. The program 

does include grant monies for which managing organizations 

may apply, in eligible categories such as corridor management 

plans, safety improvements, byway facilities, and access to 

recreation. Since 1992, 2,832 projects have been funded for 

State and nationally designated byway routes in all 50 States, 

and the District of Columbia.

Scenic byways are designated by the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation as either All-American Roads or National Scenic 

Byways based on one or more of the six intrinsic qualities. The 

first designations occurred in 1996. To receive National Scenic 

Byway designation a road or highway must have at least one of 

the qualities while All-American Roads must possess at least 

two of the six qualities. These roads are generally considered the 

most scenic highways in the Nation with features that do not exist 

elsewhere. The latest additions to the National Scenic Byways 

system occurred in 2009 with the addition of five All-American 

Roads and 37 National Scenic Byways in 26 States. Overall, 46 

States are represented in the system. As of November 2010, there 

are a grand total of 150 byways in the system, 31 of which are 

All-American Roads (fig. 5.18). The All-American Roads along 

with their State(s) and year of designation are listed in table 5.16.

In addition to the Federal Highway Administration’s National 

Scenic Byways Program, two other Federal agencies have 

their own scenic byways programs. The Forest Service’s 

“National Forest Scenic Byways” and the Bureau of Land 

Management “Back Country Byways” include many roads that 

are also designated by the National Scenic Byways Program. 

Further, most individual States have their own scenic byway 

programs apart from the National Scenic Byways Program. 

These programs are usually administered through the State 

Department of Transportation or Division of Tourism offices 

or some combination of State agencies. The State programs 

Table 5.14—Miles of National Wild and Scenic Rivers by river classification and RPA region in 2000 and 2009

Wild Scenic Recreational Total

RPA region 2000 2009

Percent 

Change 2000 2009

Percent 

Change 2000 2009

Percent 

Change 2000 2009

Percent 

Change

North 172 174 1.5 935 1,014 8.5 964 1,007 4.4 2,070 2,195 6.0

South 187 284 51.8 318 414 30.2 112 112 0.0 617 810 31.3

Rocky Mountains 710 1,328 87.1 288 380 31.9 532 587 10.5 1,530 2,295 50.0

Pacific Coast 4,280 4,370 2.1 911 936 2.7 1,886 1,946 3.2 7,077 7,252 2.5

United States 5,349 6,156 15.1 2,452 2,743 11.9 3,493 3,652 4.6 11,294 12,552 11.1

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council (2009).

Table 5.15—Number and miles of National Recreation Trails by RPA region, 2004 and 2009

Number Miles

RPA region 2004 2009 Percent change 2004 2009 Percent change

North 226 312 38.1 4,119 7,319 77.7

South 220 264 20.0 3,578 6,577 83.8

Rocky Mountains 254 292 15.0 2,969 3,380 13.8

Pacific Coast 198 209 5.6 2,622 2,944 12.3

United States 898 1,077 19.9 13,288 20,220 52.2

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: American Trails (2009).
131

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

MT

ID

NV

CA

AZ

AK

HI

PR

NM

CO UT

WY

WA

OR

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK

TX

MO

AR

LA

IA

MN

WI

MI

IL

KY

TN

MS

AL GA

SC

FL

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

VTNHMARICT

NJ

DEMD WV

OH IN

not to scalenot to scalenot to scale

All-American roadsNational Scenic byways

America’s byways

Figure 5.18—Highways in the National Scenic Byways Program by designation, 2010. Note: Byways receive a symbol on the map for each State where they are located. Source: National Scenic Byways Program (2010).
132

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

recognize the National Scenic Byways roads as part of their 

systems but also have additional State-designated highways and 

roads which have not applied for or received the National Scenic 

Byway or All-American Roads designations. 

Federal recreation facilities—The Recreation OneStop Initiative is a Federal program coordinated by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior that provides a customer-friendly 

Internet information portal (www.recreation.gov) about 

recreation opportunities on Federal lands, across all agencies. 

The Initiative provides information about Federal recreation 

areas using standardized definitions across agencies presented 

in a consistent format. The Recreation Information Data 

Base (RIDB), created for the rec.gov Web site, has more than 

9,000 records in its facilities database. A “facility” is defined 

as a specific recreation site as opposed to a larger recreation 

“area,” such as a national forest, that encompasses a number 

of facilities. The database is a binary (yes/no) format with data 

across 22 different recreation activities and/or facilities. Nearly 

96 percent of the 9,000-plus Federal recreation facilities provide 

campgrounds (table 5.17). Hiking and fishing opportunities are 

a distant second and third at around 34 percent of the national 

sites. Figure 5.19 shows the top 10 facilities/activities at Federal 

sites and their distribution by region. As expected, the large 

majority (73 percent) of all sites are located in the Western 

United States, although this proportion is much smaller than 

the 92 percent of Federal land in the two western regions. This 

reflects a higher concentration of Federal recreation facilities 

per land area in the East where the majority of the Nation’s 

population resides. Interpretive programs and visitor centers are 

particularly highly represented in the North region and boating 

facilities stand out in the South, although there are not as many 

boating facilities as in the western regions.

Federal recreation facilities on a per capita basis (per 1 million 

people) are shown in table 5.18. The more than 9,000 Federal 

facilities translate to just under 30 such facilities per 1 million 

people in the United States, or about 1 per 33,500 people. 

These ratios are much higher in the West, as expected. The 

Rocky Mountains region has more than 10 times the number 

of available Federal facilities per capita than both the North 

and South and nearly twice as many as the Pacific Coast. This 

disparity in per capita provision of facilities demonstrates not 

only the abundance of western facilities but also the much 

larger population in the East that is being served. 

Trend data are not available for the RIDB since it is a fairly 

new database that originated in the early 2000s. Moreover, it 

is an evolving source of information which is populated by 

the Federal agencies with varying levels of completeness and 

comprehensiveness. It does appear to be comprehensive for 

the most highly developed Federal recreation sites such as 

campgrounds. However, some of the data appear incomplete, 

e.g., the North and South regions have just 10 sites each that 

Table 5.16—All-American Roads in the National Scenic 

Byways Program with State(s) and year of designation, 

2010 

Acadia All-American Road (ME - 2009)

Alaska’s Marine Highway (AK - 2005)

Beartooth Highway (MT - 2002, WY - 2000)

Blue Ridge Parkway (VA - 2005, NC - 1996)

Chinook Scenic Byway (WA - 1998)

Colonial Parkway (VA - 2005)

Creole Nature Trail (LA - 2002)

Florida Keys Scenic Highway (FL - 2009)

George Washington Memorial Parkway (VA - 2005)

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway (MD - 2009)

Hells Canyon Scenic Byway (OR - 2000)

Historic Columbia River Highway (OR - 1998)

Historic National Road 

(MD - 2002, WV - 2002, IN - 2002, PA - 2002, IL - 2002, OH - 2002)

Historic Route 66 (AZ - 2009)

International Selkirk Loop (ID - 2005, WA - 2005)

Lakes to Locks Passage (NY - 2002)

Las Vegas Strip (NV - 2000)

Natchez Trace Parkway (AL - 1996, MS - 1996, TN - 1996)

North Shore Scenic Drive (MN - 2002)

Northwest Passage Scenic Byway (ID - 2005)

Pacific Coast Scenic Byway - Oregon (OR - 2002)

Red Rock Scenic Byway (AZ - 2005)

Route 1 - Big Sur Coast Highway (CA - 1996)

Route 1 - San Luis Obispo North Coast Byway (CA - 2002)

San Juan Skyway (CO - 1996)

Scenic Byway 12 (UT - 2002)

Selma to Montgomery March Byway (AL - 1996)

Seward Highway (AK - 2000)

Trail Ridge Road/Beaver Meadow Road (CO - 1996)

Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway (OR - 1998, CA - 2002)

Woodward Avenue (M-1)–Automotive Heritage Trail (MI - 2009)

Note: Some All-American Roads received designations in more than 

one State in different years. 

Source: National Scenic Byways Program (2010).
133

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

Table 5.17—Number of Federal recreation facilities by activity availability (or type of facility) and region, 2009 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Activity or facility Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Percent 

of total

Camping 1,030 11.9 1,147 13.2 3,374 38.9 3,131 36.1 8,682 95.7

Hiking 181 5.7 184 5.8 1,826 57.7 975 30.8 3,166 34.9

Fishing 166 5.4 248 8.0 1,779 57.5 900 29.1 3,093 34.1

Boating 232 12.9 437 24.2 632 35.1 502 27.8 1,803 19.9

Picnicking 10 0.6 10 0.6 1,214 71.8 456 27.0 1,690 18.6

Recreational vehicles 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,056 64.7 575 35.3 1,631 18.0

Biking 50 3.9 37 2.9 901 70.9 282 22.2 1,270 14.0

Horseback riding 17 1.6 44 4.2 764 72.5 229 21.7 1,054 11.6

Hunting 49 4.8 78 7.6 689 67.3 208 20.3 1,024 11.3

Wildlife viewing 16 1.7 12 1.3 559 58.6 367 38.5 954 10.5

Auto touring 1 0.2 5 1.0 374 74.9 119 23.8 499 5.5

Water sports 0 0.0 1 0.3 179 48.1 192 51.6 372 4.1

Interpretive programs 102 27.9 68 18.6 130 35.5 66 18.0 366 4.0

Visitor center 118 32.6 78 21.5 110 30.4 56 15.5 362 4.0

Off highway vehicle 0 0.0 0 0.0 258 81.1 60 18.9 318 3.5

Wilderness 0 0.0 0 0.0 167 59.2 115 40.8 282 3.1

Winter sports 3 1.4 0 0.0 175 81.4 37 17.2 215 2.4

Swimming site 0 0.0 1 0.5 60 30.6 135 68.9 196 2.2

Historic and cultural site 21 13.3 4 2.5 110 69.6 23 14.6 158 1.7

Fish hatchery 17 25.8 16 24.2 20 30.3 13 19.7 66 0.7

Day use area 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 65.0 21 35.0 60 0.7

Climbing 0 0.0 0 0.0 42 82.4 9 17.6 51 0.6

All facilities 1,183 13.0 1,240 13.7 3,454 38.1 3,198 35.2 9,075 100.0

Note: The number of facilities do not sum down to the total (“All facilities”) because more than one facility/activity may occur at a given 

recreation site. Region percentages sum across to 100.Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (2009). 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 

Wildlife viewing 

Boating 

Hunting 

Horseback riding 

Biking 

Recreational vehicles 

Picnicking 

Fishing 

Hiking 

Camping 

Number of facilities 

Activities 

Rocky Mountains 

Pacific Coast 

South 

North 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 

Wildlife viewing 

Boating 

Hunting 

Horseback riding 

Biking 

Recreational vehicles 

Picnicking 

Fishing 

Hiking 

Camping 

Number of facilities 

Activities 

Rocky Mountains 

Pacific Coast 

South 

North 

Figure 5.19—Number of Federal recreation facilities by activity availability (or type of facility) and region, 2009. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (2009).
134

Public Outdoor Recreation Resources

offer picnicking and no sites offering recreation vehicle sites. 

More likely, almost every one of the camping sites also offers 

picnicking and some surely provide recreational vehicle 

camping. Despite these shortcomings, the RIDB is the best 

single source of Federal recreation facilities data.

Table 5.18—Federal recreation facilities per capita by activity availability (or type of 

facility) and region, 2009

Activity or facility North South

Rocky 

Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Camping 8.3 11.2 121.3 63.8 28.6

Hiking 1.5 1.8 65.6 19.9 10.4

Fishing 1.3 2.4 64.0 18.3 10.2

Boating 1.9 4.3 22.7 10.2 5.9

Picnicking 0.1 0.1 43.6 9.3 5.6

Recreational vehicles 0.0 0.0 38.0 11.7 5.4

Biking 0.4 0.4 32.4 5.7 4.2

Horseback riding 0.1 0.4 27.5 4.7 3.5

Hunting 0.4 0.8 24.8 4.2 3.4

Wildlife viewing 0.1 0.1 20.1 7.5 3.1

Auto touring 0.0 0.0 13.4 2.4 1.6

Water sports 0.0 0.0 6.4 3.9 1.2

Interpretive programs 0.8 0.7 4.7 1.3 1.2

Visitor center 0.9 0.8 4.0 1.1 1.2

Off highway vehicle 0.0 0.0 9.3 1.2 1.0

Wilderness 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.3 0.9

Winter sports 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.8 0.7

Swimming site 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.8 0.6

Historic and cultural site 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.5 0.5

Fish hatchery 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.2

Day use area 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.2

Climbing 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.2

All facilities 9.5 12.1 124.2 65.2 29.8

Note: Based on 2008 U.S. population estimate of 304.06 million. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (2009).
135

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

This chapter addresses objective 6 of this assessment report on 

outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to map and 

describe the geospatial distribution of selected recreation and 

protected land resources as percent of total land area and per 

capita for counties in the United States. The primary focus in 

this chapter is on the geographic distribution of recreation and 

land resources by region and sub-region of the country and 

comparatively across counties. We take a broad perspective to 

include land, water, facilities, and services, just as was done 

in previous chapters. People tend to select recreation activities 

in part because of the availability of appropriate or highly 

desirable land, water, facilities, and services. 

Availability is an important attribute of resources that 

fundamentally defines whether a resource is or is not a 

recreation resource. As referenced in this assessment, 

availability is largely a function of location relative to 

potential recreation users, that is, where the population 

resides. Generally, the closer a site or facility is to a populated 

area, the lower the transportation costs and the greater the 

probability of use. Thus, the spatial aspect of recreation 

resources is very important in determining the patterns of 

people’s recreation participation across different activities. For 

this chapter, we spatially consider nine basic resources that 

form the foundation for nature-based outdoor recreation:

• Federal and State park land

• Water

• Non-Federal forest

• Non-Federal open range and pasture

• Ocean and Great Lakes coast

• Mountains

• Snow cover

• Specially designated Federal lands

• Private recreation businesses 

Data and Methods

Resource data were compiled for every county in the 

United States. Eight of the nine resources are summarized 

in tables showing the following statistics for the Nation, 

for each of four major RPA regions, and for each of eight 

sub-regions: acres occupied by the resource, per capita 

quantity, percent of the total surface area represented by 

the resource, and average county percentage. The ninth 

resource, private recreation businesses, lists the total 

number of businesses and the number per 10,000 people. In 

addition, spatial patterns of relative abundance (or scarcity) 

of these resources across individual counties of the lower 

48 States are mapped. 

Population and total surface acres for each sub-region, 

region, and the Nation are shown in table 6.1. The two eastern 

regions—North and South—had just under three-fourths 

of the Nation’s 304 million people as of 2008, and about 

43 percent of its land area. Conversely, the two western 

regions—Rocky Mountains (including Great Plains) and 

Pacific Coast (including Alaska and Hawaii)—had just over 

one-fourth of the Nation’s population, but about 58 percent of 

the land area. Alaska alone accounts for almost 18 percent of 

the U.S. land area. Discounting Alaska, the East and West are 

very close in size, with the East slightly larger.

Relative proximity is an important attribute to choosing 

places for outdoor recreation by a county’s residents. Thus, an 

additional element of the spatial mapping analysis describes 

resources as they occur within three distance zones for each 

county. These zones roughly represent local trip, day trip, and 

overnight trip and are defined as:

• Home county—Quantity of the resource within the 

boundaries of each U.S. county. Resource statistics for each 

home county are simply (a) the percent of the county’s land 

surface area occupied by that resource and (b) the per-capita 

area.

• 75 mile zone—Resources within the home county and in 

nearby counties whose centroids (geographic center) are 

within 75 miles of the home county centroid. Resource 

statistics are expressed as (a) the percent of total land 

area of the counties included within the 75-mile zone 

occupied by that resource and (b) the per-capita area for 

the population within the combined counties. Recreation 

opportunities represented by resources within 75 miles can 

be roughly considered to be within a 2-hour drive, which 

would capture the large majority of the outdoor recreation 

day trips.

• 75-125 mile zone—Quantity of resource added across 

counties whose centroids are between 75 and 125 miles 

from each home county centroid. This zone forms an outer 

ring or “donut” and can be considered as resources within 

a 2- to 4-hour drive. This distance would capture most 

overnight trips which are taken for the purpose of outdoor 

recreation and not include longer, extended vacations. 

Quantities are expressed as the percent of total land area 

occupied by the resource across counties in the donut and 

per-capita total quantity for the population within the donut 

counties combined. 

Chapter 6

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources
136

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Maps were developed to show the pattern of the nine resources 

across counties of the contiguous United States. Three maps 

in sequence were developed, one for each of the three distance 

zones, to show how apparent access to resources compares 

based on distances from home county center.

Results

The following tables summarize the nine categories of 

resources important for outdoor recreation for each region 

and sub-region of the United States, as well as for the Nation 

as a whole. The maps that follow the tables focus on two 

different metrics related to spatial availability of recreation 

resources. The first metric is percent of total land area of 

each home county, of the counties in the 75-mile zone, and 

of the counties in the 75-125 mile zone that is composed of a 

particular recreation resource. The second is the quantity of 

that particular recreation resource per capita.

Federal and State Park Land

Federal and State park land represents what people often 

believe is the “Great Outdoors,” i.e., larger tracts of mostly 

undeveloped and wild or backcountry land and water. Federal 

land includes all property in the six major land-managing 

agencies: National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee 

Valley Authority, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The 

Bureau of Reclamation is not included because most of its 

areas are cooperatively managed by other agencies.) Federal 

land especially is composed of many vast, wild, and primitive 

landscapes, including designated wilderness. These resources 

stand in contrast to the more highly developed local parks. 

However, many Federal recreation areas and almost all State 

parks do have significant investments in developed facilities 

and services for visitors. Federal and State park land combined 

account for more than 627 million acres, about one-fourth of 

the Nation’s land and water base (table 6.2). State park land 

includes all areas managed by State park agencies regardless 

of whether they are classified formally as a park. In addition to 

State parks, most State park systems include State recreation 

areas, sometimes State forests, and many also manage 

State historic sites, natural areas, and other scientific and 

environmental education sites. 

State park areas comprise only about 2 percent of the combined 

Federal and State park system land, with more State park land 

in the East than in the West. So the dominant influence of the 

western Federal lands is apparent with nearly 50 percent of 

Pacific Coast land area and 35 percent of the Rocky Mountains 

Table 6.1—Total population and total surface acres by RPA sub-region and region, 2008 

Total population Total surface area 

Sub-region and region Number Percent Number Percent

thousand acres (thousand)

Northeast 63,245.9 20.8 141,088.1 5.8

North Central 61,122.0 20.1 329,186.6 13.6

North total 124,368.0 40.9 470,274.6 19.4

Southeast 49,485.4 16.3 162,425.1 6.7

South Central 53,320.2 17.5 401,215.2 16.5

South total 102,805.6 33.8 563,640.3 23.2

Great Plains 6,031.2 2.0 196,766.0 8.1

Intermountain 21,729.6 7.1 552,682.9 22.8

Rocky Mountains total 27,760.9 9.1 749,448.9 30.9

Alaska 683.2 0.2 424,491.0 17.5

Pacific Northwest 10,339.3 3.4 108,595.4 4.5

Pacific Southwest 38,044.9 12.5 111,761.0 4.6

Pacific Coast total 49,067.4 16.1 644,847.4 26.6

U.S. total 304,001.8 100.0 2,428,211.3 100.0

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2008).
137

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

region in Federal and State park land (table 6.2). Those 

proportions are just 5 and 4 percent, respectively, for the North 

and South regions. Further, while the average county nationally 

is about 9 percent Federal and State park system land, those 

numbers are much higher in the Pacific Coast (31 percent) 

and Rocky Mountains (20 percent). The real disparity in East 

and West is seen in per capita area of Federal and State park 

land. The combination of larger population and much smaller 

resource areas in the East results in fewer than 0.3 acres per 

capita for both eastern regions. In the West, the per capita 

amounts are 9.4 acres per person in the Rocky Mountains and 

6.5 in the Pacific Coast. The Intermountain Sub-region, with its 

large Federal land base and relatively smaller population, has 

more than twice the per capita area of Federal and State park 

system land than any other sub-region, excluding Alaska.

The widespread availability of the Federal and State park 

lands in the West is evident in the county pattern maps for 

both percent of area and acres per capita. In percent of area, 

most of the West is covered in the darkest shades, not only for 

the home county, but with very little change over the other 

two distance zones (fig. 6.1). Many counties in the lower Great 

Plains and scattered counties in the Southeast and Midwest 

have no Federal and State park land as is evident from the 

home county zone. Every U.S. county has at least some 

Federal and State park land within the two distance zones 

(75 mile and 75-125 mile zones), although a large band of 

Great Plains counties has < 1 percent in both. The same is 

true for sections of the lower Great Lakes States and upstate 

New York. The two distance zone maps highlight the extent of 

Federal and State park lands surrounding the Appalachian and 

Ozark/Ouachita Mountains, as well as the upper Great Lakes 

States, New England, and Florida.

The county distribution of Federal and State park land per 

capita looks quite similar to the pattern for percent of area 

for the home county (fig. 6.2). In the two distance zones, 

there are fewer western counties in the darkest shade 

(> 19.4 acres per capita), which reflects the presence of the 

western metropolitan areas. In both distance zones in the East, 

a band of the lightest shade (< 0.08 acres per capita) runs from 

roughly the Chicago metropolitan area eastward to the coast. 

Another large group of these counties is in Texas. Most of the 

eastern counties occupy the middle category of between 0.08 

to 1.39 acres per capita.

Water Area

Water is a highly valued recreation resource. Frequently 

referred to as a “magnet” for outdoor recreation, water 

resources include streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, oceans, and 

Table 6.2—Total and per capita acres of Federal and State park land, percent of total surface area, and 

mean county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Federal and State park land

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres 

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 5,519.6 0.09 3.9 4.0

North Central 14,395.8 0.24 4.4 3.1

North total 19,915.4 0.16 4.2 3.3

Southeast 12,043.0 0.24 7.4 5.9

South Central 16,231.2 0.30 4.0 4.4

South total 28,274.2 0.28 5.0 4.9

Great Plains 6,666.5 1.11 3.4 2.4

Intermountain 252,976.2 11.64 45.8 39.9

Rocky Mountains total 259,642.7 9.35 34.6 20.0

Alaska 231,739.8 339.18 54.6 43.8

Pacific Northwest 41,449.4 4.01 38.2 27.0

Pacific Southwest 46,297.7 1.22 41.4 29.6

Pacific Coast Total 319,486.9 6.51 49.5 30.7

U.S. total 627,319.2 2.06 25.8 8.6

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Federal and State park land is the sum of Federal land-managing agency area and State park system areas. See table 

6.1 for population and total surface area acreage. 

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b); USDI National Park Service (2008); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009); 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b); Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006).
138

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land 

area that is Federal or 

State park land

0 

< 0.01–0.86 

0.87–7.28 

7.29–37.04 

> 37.04

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(57) 6.1

Figure 6.1— Percent of total land area that is Federal and State park land, 2008, within home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006).
139

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of Federal and 

State land per capita 

by county, 2008

0 

< 0.01–0.07 

0.08–1.39 

1.40–19.40 

> 19.40

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(58) 6.2

Figure 6.2—Acres of Federal and State park land per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006). 
140

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

bays, i.e., any running or body of water that is suitable for 

water-based recreational activities. An ideal database for a 

recreation assessment analysis would include not only the 

surface area of available water, but also the management 

and site attributes that are conducive to recreational use. 

Management inputs would include facilities such as boat 

ramps, rafting and kayaking launching spots, marinas 

and boat slips, and other similar boating facilities. For 

swimming, the primary management inputs would be 

managed beach areas and associated bathhouse facilities. 

Two primary physical site attributes for water-based 

recreation are water quality and attractiveness of the water 

resource, which is closely associated with quality. Scenic 

attributes, for example, mountain settings are also highly 

desirable. Finally, managed facilities such as campgrounds 

and picnic grounds are not water-based facilities per se, but 

can be greatly enhanced and more attractive to users in the 

presence of water. Such a comprehensive database of all 

these management inputs and water resource attributes is not 

available, however, so this assessment uses a straightforward 

measure of water surface area. 

The Census Bureau’s Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing system (TIGER) database is the 

source of basic water area coverage, summed to county totals 

for this assessment. The Census Bureau classifies water as one 

of four types—inland, coastal, territorial, and Great Lakes—

however, only the sum total of these are included in this 

report. Nationwide there are more than 164 million surface 

acres of water, about 7 percent of the total area (table 6.3). The 

West accounts for about 78 million acres (48 percent of the 

national total), however, 58 million acres of this (75 percent) 

are in Alaska. Excluding Alaska, water resources are much 

more disproportionately located in the Eastern United States, 

which has more than 81 percent of the non-Alaska water area. 

Three of the four eastern sub-regions exceed 9 percent of their 

total area in water resources, whereas in the West only the 

Pacific Southwest (excluding Alaska) has at least 7 percent 

total water area and this is heavily influenced by the waters 

surrounding Hawaii. On a per capita basis, the North region 

at 0.46 is close to the national average of 0.54 surface acres of 

water per person. All western sub-regions except Alaska are 

below the national per capita amount. In the Pacific Coast, the 

water acres per capita would drop to about 0.25 if Alaska were 

not considered.

The influence of the coastal and Great Lakes waters is 

evident in the county pattern maps that show percent of 

total surface area that is water for the three distance zones, 

particularly for the home county (fig. 6.3). Nearly every 

U.S. home coastal county is in the darkest shade category 

(> 11.24 percent) with the only additional counties in that 

Table 6.3—Total and per capita acres of total water area, percent of total surface area, and mean 

county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Water area

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres 

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 14,328.5 0.23 10.2 9.3

North Central 42,505.3 0.70 12.9 6.0

North total 56,833.8 0.46 12.1 6.9

Southeast 15,068.8 0.30 9.3 6.1

South Central 14,213.4 0.27 3.5 3.1

South total 29,282.1 0.28 5.2 4.2

Great Plains 2,495.3 0.41 1.3 1.1

Intermountain 4,793.4 0.22 0.9 1.1

Rocky Mountains total 7,288.8 0.26 1.0 1.1

Alaska 58,442.2 85.54 13.8 22.3

Pacific Northwest 4,569.2 0.44 4.2 6.5

Pacific Southwest 7,836.5 0.21 7.0 11.3

Pacific Coast total 70,848.0 1.44 11.0 10.9

U.S. total 164,252.7 0.54 6.8 4.9

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Census Bureau water is classified as one of four types: inland, coastal, territorial, and Great Lakes. See table 6.1 for 

population and total surface area acreage. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
141

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total surface 

area that is water

0 

< 0.01–0.51 

0.52–2.28 

2.29–11.24 

> 11.24

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(59) 6.3

Figure 6.3—Percent of total surface area that is water, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
142

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of total water area 

per capita by county, 2008

0 

< 0.01–0.06 

0.07–0.40 

0.41–2.24 

> 2.24

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(60) 6.4

Figure 6.4—Acres of total water area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
143

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

class limited to a few in Minnesota and the Great Salt Lake 

region. For the two distance zones the Great Lakes, Gulf of 

Mexico, Florida below the panhandle, and the upper Atlantic 

counties have the most relative amount of total water area. 

The least-water category (< 0.51 percent) for home counties 

is quite evenly distributed throughout the country but the 

arid and semi-arid regions of the Great Plains and West 

dominate this category in the two distance zones. The 

medium-dark shade category is dominant in the distance 

zones near the lakes in Minnesota and the Dakotas, the 

Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers, and much of east 

Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.

Counties with the largest relative amount of water per capita 

are not clustered along the coasts, but rather are much more 

scattered, especially in the low population counties of the 

West and northern Great Plains (fig. 6.4). Some coastal 

counties, especially along the Gulf of Mexico, also appear 

in the highest category for home counties (> 2.24 acres per 

capita), but as the analysis shifts to the two distance zones, 

the counties with most availability are almost exclusively in 

the west and upper Midwest, with the only exception being 

northern Maine. A large swath of counties in the two distance 

zones with the lowest availability (lightest shade, < 0.07 acres 

per capita) exists from Pennsylvania south to the Carolinas 

and Georgia (broken up only by the Tennessee Valley 

counties) and as far west as eastern Illinois.

Non-Federal Forest

Forests are a major land cover in the United States, providing 

the setting for numerous “nature-based” outdoor recreation 

activities, ranging from camping, backpacking, and picnicking 

to hiking, hunting, mountain biking, and nature study. Forests 

are also frequently a setting of choice for people participating 

in water-based activities, whether on reservoirs, alpine lakes, 

rivers, or streams. Forests cover approximately 29 percent of 

the surface area of the United States with the North, South, and 

Pacific Coast regions being between 26 and 28 percent forest 

and the more arid Rocky Mountains region 19 percent forest. 

The focus of this section is on non-Federal forest land, which 

consist primarily of privately owned and State and local 

government forests, accounting for 386 million acres (19 

percent of the total land area in the lower 48 States) (table 6.4). 

(Non-Federal forest data were not available for Alaska and 

Hawaii.) Estimates of non-Federal forest are included in the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

National Resources Inventory which was used by Forest 

Service research scientist David Wear (2011) to develop 

estimates of non-Federal forest land in 2010. More than 30 

percent of the land area in both eastern regions is non-Federal 

forest while that in the Rocky Mountains is only 4 percent 

and the Pacific Coast is 17 percent. Although the East has 

nearly 83 percent of the contiguous States’ non-Federal forest 

Table 6.4—Total and per capita acres of non-Federal forest land, percent of total surface area, and 

mean county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2010

Non-Federal forest land

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 74,844.6 1.18 53.0 47.4

North Central 72,917.0 1.20 22.2 19.9

North total 147,761.6 1.19 31.4 27.8

Southeast 69,499.7 1.40 42.8 46.6

South Central 102,310.2 1.90 25.5 31.3

South total 171,809.9 1.66 30.5 36.8

Great Plains 3,280.3 0.54 1.7 2.1

Intermountain 25,205.6 1.16 4.6 5.8

Rocky Mountains total 28,485.9 1.02 3.8 3.8

Pacific Northwest 24,300.1 2.31 22.4 27.4

Pacific Southwest 13,435.5 0.36 12.0 17.0

Pacific Coast total 37,735.6 0.79 17.1 22.9

U.S. total 385,793.0 1.27 19.3 26.8

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Non-Federal forest land projections were not done for Alaska and Hawaii. 

See table 6.1 for population and total surface area acreage. 

Source: Wear (2011).
144

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land

that is non-Federal forest 

0

< 0.01–13.26 

13.27–47.00 

47.01–67.02 

> 67.02

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(61) 6.5

Figure 6.5—Percent of total land area that is non-Federal forest, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Wear (2011).
145

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of total non-federal 

forest land area per capita 

by county, 2010

0 

< 0.01–1.33 

1.34–5.98 

5.99–16.10 

> 16.10

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(62) 6.6

Figure 6.6—Acres of total non-Federal forest land area per capita, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Wear (2011).
146

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

land, the per capita amounts of non-Federal forest are not 

considerably larger than in the West. The South leads all 

regions with almost 1.7 acres of non-Federal forest per capita 

while the Pacific Coast trails the other regions with less than 

0.8 acres per person.

The eastern dominance of non-Federal forest is apparent in the 

county pattern maps (fig. 6.5). The East contains every county 

with the darkest shade (> 67 percent), except for one Oregon 

county. A majority of counties in the Great Plains and many 

in the Intermountain West have no non-Federal forest land in 

the home county zone while much of Texas has no forest even 

within the two distance zones. The 75 mile zone and 

75-125 mile zone each have large regions of non-Federal 

forest in the lightest shade (< 13.26 percent, not counting 

0) that extends west from eastern Texas and Oklahoma, 

Missouri, and most of Minnesota all the way to Northern 

California and the Pacific Northwest along with much of 

Illinois, Indiana, and northwest Ohio.

There is not a regional disparity in non-Federal forest acres 

per capita (fig. 6.6). The highest category (darkest shade, 

> 16.1 acres per capita) is distributed throughout all regions 

with the exception of the Great Plains and lower Great 

Lakes States. In the two distance zones there is a more even 

distribution of non-Federal forest, with larger concentrations 

of counties in the middle shade and above (> 1.34 acres per 

capita) in the Southeast, the upper Great Lakes States, along 

the Appalachian Mountains up through New England, and in 

much of the Rocky Mountains west and Pacific Coast regions.

Non-Federal Open Range and Pasture

Open non-forested lands are very extensive in the contiguous 

United States, covering 514 million acres, slightly more than 

one-fourth of the total area of the 48 States (table 6.5). These 

non-Federal open lands consist of range and pasture as measured 

by the USDA-NRCS National Resources Inventory (NRI), and 

estimated for 2010 by Forest Service research scientist David 

Wear (2011). The NRI defines range as primarily native grasses, 

grass-like plants, and forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and 

browsing. These would include grasslands, savannas, many 

wetlands, some deserts, and tundra. Pasture, according to the 

NRI, is land that is usually but not necessarily managed for 

livestock grazing. It has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, 

and/or forbs, regardless of whether or not it is being grazed by 

livestock. Pasture does not include cultivated agricultural lands. 

While much of range is publicly owned, most pasture is 

privately owned. Recreation occurs on almost all these acres in 

one form or another, though most likely not to the extent that it 

does in forested environments. Nevertheless, open range and 

pasture provide many opportunities for nature-based recreation, 

especially nature viewing and learning activities, off-highway 

vehicle driving, and other activities. The West has just under 

60 percent of the 514 million non-Federal range and pasture 

acres while nearly all of the eastern range and pasture is in the 

South Central sub-region (mainly Texas and Oklahoma). Per 

capita acres of open range and pasture are by far the largest in 

the Rocky Mountains, which at almost 10 acres per person is 

more than five times that of any other region.

Table 6.5—Total and per capita acres of open range and pasture, percent of total surface area, and 

mean county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2010

Open range and pasture

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 7,185.9 0.11 5.1 5.7

North Central 28,438.5 0.47 8.6 9.9

North total 35,624.4 0.29 7.6 8.7

Southeast 15,632.7 0.32 9.6 9.1

South Central 155,780.2 2.90 38.8 31.8

South total 171,412.9 1.66 30.4 23.7

Great Plains 77,639.2 12.82 39.5 34.7

Intermountain 192,921.0 8.88 34.9 34.8

Rocky Mountains total 270,560.2 9.74 36.1 34.7

Pacific Northwest 17,918.7 1.70 16.5 15.1

Pacific Southwest 18,493.3 0.50 16.5 18.9

Pacific Coast total 36,412.0 0.77 16.5 16.7

U.S. total 514,009.5 1.70 25.7 20.5

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Open range and pasture projections were not done for Alaska and Hawaii. Does not include cultivated agricultural 

lands. See table 6.1 for population and total surface area acreage. Source: Wear (2011).
147

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total open range 

and pasture land area

0 

< 0.10–7.52 

7.53–23.60 

23.61–54.80 

> 54.80

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(63) 6.7

Figure 6.7—Percent of total land area that is open range and pasture, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Wear (2011).
148

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of open range and pasture 

area per capita by county, 2010

0 

< 0.01–0.72 

0.73–4.65 

4.66–51.85 

> 51.85

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(64) 6.8

Figure 6.8—Acres of total open range and pasture area per capita, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Wear (2011).
149

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Except for a few counties in Florida and Arkansas, the county 

pattern maps of the percent of open range and pasture land 

show that all other eastern counties with the darkest shade 

(> 54.8 percent) are located in either Texas or Oklahoma 

(fig. 6.7). All other high percentage range and pasture land 

are in the West. Expanding out to the two distance zones, 

a number of high percentage counties remain throughout 

Texas, New Mexico, and the high plains areas of Nebraska, 

Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana. Areas with the 

lowest percentages (lightest shade, < 7.53 percent) for the 

two distance zones follow a band from the Great Lakes to 

the eastern seaboard to northern Florida. The three county 

maps showing acres per capita look very similar to the area 

percentage maps with the relatively high shadings (nearly 

52 acres per person) primarily in the West and low shadings 

(< 0.73 acres per capita) in the East (fig. 6.8).

Ocean and Great Lakes Coast

The coastal counties of the United States make up 17 percent 

of the U.S. contiguous land area and contain more than half of 

the country’s population. With Alaska and Hawaii included, 

the percentage jumps to 29 percent, or about 710 million acres 

(table 6.6). There are 673 U.S. coastal counties which are 

made up of a wide variety of landscapes from mountainous 

to flat tidewater areas. This considers both ocean coastal 

and Great Lakes coastal counties. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines a coastal county 

as not only those which are physically about the coast but also 

those counties which have at least 15 percent of their total 

land area located within the coastal watershed. NOAA also 

classifies as “coastal” some counties which do not meet the 

15 percent watershed criterion but have a large land area 

located within the coastal watershed. Excluding Alaska’s 

300 million acres, coastal area in the East outpaces that in 

the West by a factor of more than three to one. The Rocky 

Mountains region obviously has no coastal acres. Excluding 

Alaska, coastal acres per capita are higher in the West 

(particularly Pacific Northwest sub-region) than in the East. 

The tremendously high beach visitation throughout the 

United States only begins to describe the popularity of 

coastal environments as a recreation resource. Besides the 

attractiveness of beaches for family outings and vacations 

(swimming, diving, and surfing activities), coastal settings 

also attract saltwater fishers, a variety of boaters, and nature 

lovers who appreciate the scenery, birds, and wildlife found 

in marine and other coastal settings. In addition, may people 

visit the National Wildlife Refuges, the majority of which 

were established in flyways in the Nation’s coastal and 

estuarine areas.

The home county map in figure 6.9 shows coastal counties 

in the lower 48 States as defined by NOAA. An interesting 

aspect of the two distance zone maps is the large number of 

U.S. counties that are located within both 75 miles and 75-125 

miles from the coast. All of Michigan and most Northeastern 

States lie within these two distance zones. The proportion 

of the Nation’s population living in all of those counties 

is considerably over one-half because more than one-half 

live in the coastal counties alone. Coastal acres per capita 

in the home county are highest (black shade, > 44.3 acres 

per person) in northern California, the Pacific Northwest, 

scattered counties throughout the Gulf of Mexico, portions of 

New York and Maine, and the upper Great Lakes States 

(fig. 6.10). No home counties along the eastern seaboard 

are among the coastal counties with the most acreage per 

capita. The two distance zone maps show that the same areas, 

especially the upper Great Lakes, Maine, and the Pacific Coast 

north of California’s Bay Area, still have the highest relative 

amount of coastal acres per capita.

Table 6.6—Total and per capita acres of coastal county 

area, percent of total surface area, and mean county 

percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Coastal county area

Sub-region and region Acres

Per 

capita 

acres

Percent 

of total 

area

Mean 

county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 70,765.2 1.12 50.2 46.8

North Central 97,211.8 1.59 29.5 18.5

North total 167,976.9 1.35 35.7 26.7

Southeast 85,955.6 1.74 52.9 41.3

South Central 61,039.7 1.14 15.2 11.9

South total 146,995.3 1.43 26.1 23.0

Great Plains 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0

Intermountain 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0

Rocky Mountains total 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0

Alaska 300,892.8 440.40 70.9 85.2

Pacific Northwest 32,901.9 3.18 30.3 41.3

Pacific Southwest 60,740.5 1.60 54.3 54.0

Pacific Coast total 394,535.1 8.04 61.2 53.3

U.S. total 709,507.4 2.33 29.2 21.4

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Coastal counties meet one of the following criteria: 1) at least 

15 percent of a county’s total land area is located within the Nation’s 

coastal watershed; or 2) a portion of or an entire county accounts for 

at least 15 percent of a coastal cataloging unit, i.e., although a county 

does not have at least 15 percent of its total area within the coastal 

watershed, it still has a large land area within a coastal watershed. 

See table 6.1 for population and total surface area acreage. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(2004).
150

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land area 

in coastal counties

0 

0.1–42.61 

42.62–86.06 

86.07–99.9 

100.0

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(65) 6.9

Figure 6.9—Percent of total land area that is in coastal counties, 2010, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004).
151

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of total coastal county 

area per capita by county, 2008

0 

< 0.01–3.65 

3.66–16.16 

16.17–44.30 

> 44.30

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(66) 6.10

Figure 6.10—Acres of total coastal county area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004).
152

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Mountains

Mountains are a highly significant natural amenity that draws 

tourists and sometimes new residents. With improvements in 

computing and communications, especially the Internet, over 

the past few decades, telecommuting has increasingly been an 

option for people who choose to live and work in mostly rural, 

mountain environments. Much of the Nation’s public land is 

concentrated in mountain environments, as are most of the 

backcountry resources that support more primitive forms of 

outdoor recreation. The wide variety of nature-based recreation 

that occurs in mountainous areas include camping, hiking, 

backpacking, mountain biking, mountain and rock climbing, 

nature study, sightseeing, driving for pleasure, and many other 

land-based activities. Many water-based activities are also 

highly dependent on mountains, among them kayaking, rafting, 

and fly fishing. In addition, activities which require snow or ice 

such as alpine and nordic skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, 

and ice climbing, occur predominantly in mountain 

environments. Areas classified by Forest Service geographer 

Robert Bailey as belonging to mountain ecosystems are shown 

in table 6.7 for the contiguous United States. 

In the 48 States, nearly 1 in 5 acres are mountainous, with the 

two western regions accounting for 78 percent (298 million 

acres) of this area. The Pacific Northwest sub-region has the 

largest proportion of mountains with over 50 percent, followed 

by the Pacific Southwest with 47 percent, and the Northeast 

and Intermountain sub-regions, both with more than 

33 percent. The North Central sub-region is the only one with 

no mountain environments. The Rocky Mountains region 

easily leads all others with about 6.8 mountainous acres per 

capita. Pacific Coast is second with 2.3 acres per capita, well 

ahead of the eastern regions, which both have fewer than 

0.5 acres of mountains per person.

County pattern maps showing the percent of total land area 

that is mountainous highlight the major mountain chains in 

the contiguous United States (fig. 6.11). In the home county 

map, all but a handful of counties west of the Great Plains 

have some mountain environments, which indicates the 

extent of the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and the 

Cascade Range. In the East, the Appalachian Mountains 

stretch from Georgia to Maine, with the only other mountains 

being the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and 

Oklahoma. (Technically, the one county in west Texas with 

mountains is in the South region.) The two distance zone 

maps are pretty similar to the home county map for the 

western mountains, but in the East these zones demonstrate 

the large regions beyond the home counties that surround the 

Appalachian and Ozark/Ouachita Mountains. (For example, 

with the exception of two counties in western New York, 

every county in all of the States north of Virginia is located 

within 125 miles of mountains.) The distance zone maps 

indicate that the majority of the Nation’s counties are located 

within a 2- to 4-hour drive and slightly fewer counties within 

even 1 hour of mountains. The county pattern maps for per 

capita acres of mountains shows that with the exception 

of upper New York and Maine, home counties in the West 

dominate the highest category with more than 116.63 acres 

per person (fig. 6.12). In the 75-mile zone, no counties in the 

East have more than 25 mountainous acres per person and 

in the 75-125 mile zone, only a few New York, Vermont, and 

Maine counties have more than 4.13 acres per capita.

Table 6.7—Total and per capita acres of mountainous area, percent of total surface area, and mean 

county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Mountainous area

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 49,174.8 0.78 34.9 30.9

North Central 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0

North total 49,174.8 0.40 10.5 8.9

Southeast 20,185.2 0.41 12.4 17.5

South Central 12,363.4 0.23 3.1 3.3

South total 32,548.6 0.32 5.8 8.6

Great Plains 2,077.2 0.34 1.1 0.6

Intermountain 185,477.6 8.54 33.6 39.6

Rocky Mountains total 187,554.7 6.76 25.0 18.9

Pacific Northwest 58,024.8 5.61 53.4 54.8

Pacific Southwest 52,514.4 1.38 47.0 54.0

Pacific Coast total 110,539.2 2.28 50.2 54.5

U.S. total 379,817.3 1.25 19.0 12.7

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Mountainous area data were not available for Alaska and Hawaii. See table 6.1 for population and total surface area 

acreage. Source: Bailey (1995).
153

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land area 

that is mountainous

0 

< 0.1–47.17 

47.18–99.99 

100.0

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(67) 6.11

Figure 6.11—Percent of total land area that is mountainous, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Bailey (1995).
154

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of total 

mountainous 

area per capita 

by county, 2008

0 

< 0.01–4.13 

4.14–24.96 

24.97–116.63 

> 116.63

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(68) 6.12

Figure 6.12—Acres of total mountainous area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: Bailey (1995). 
155

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Snow Cover

Counties with adequate winter snowfall are conducive to 

promoting a variety of snow sport activities for both residents 

and visitors, and in some places, may attract new residents. 

Alpine or downhill skiing areas require large investments in 

facilities and infrastructure and, in addition to artificial snowmaking, are very dependent on adequate snowfalls. Similarly, 

snowboarding, which has recently increased tremendously in 

popularity, also makes use of such downhill skiing facilities. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, though less dependent 

on developed facilities than alpine skiing, still require 

snowfall. The amounts and periodicity of snowfall vary 

greatly across the country, ranging from places that get none 

to others that receive many feet of snow in an average winter. 

Based on data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, 

we define a “snow county” as one that has an average of 28.5+ 

days/year with 1 or more inches of measured snow depth 

(table 6.8). (The “average” refers to the mean value from a 

number of snow reporting stations that NOAA has installed in 

every U.S. county.) This represents a fairly stringent definition 

of snow resources for recreation since even some counties 

with ski areas, for example in North Carolina and southern 

California, do not qualify. Those areas likely depend mostly 

on manmade snow equipment.

About 581 million acres (29 percent) of the total area in 

the lower 48 States is classified as a “snow county,” which 

is interpreted as being capable of supporting snow-based 

recreation in a sustainable manner. These snow areas are 

dominated by the Rocky Mountains and North regions which 

contain about 91 of the total snow county area. The remainder 

is in the Pacific Coast and one county in Virginia that 

qualifies. Although the North has less snow county acreage 

than the Rocky Mountains, more than half of its land is 

classified as a snow county. For the Rocky Mountains it is 

39 percent, followed by 24 percent in the Pacific Coast. 

However, the Rocky Mountains’ 10.4 snow acres per capita is 

more than five times that of any other region.

The county pattern maps show the percent of area in snow 

counties in the United States for the home county and two 

distance zones (fig. 6.13). By definition, a home county that is 

a “snow county” has 100 percent of its area so classified. In 

the two distance zones, only counties in the high-mountain 

West and northernmost counties in the East have 100 percent 

snow area located within a 1-hour or 2- to 4-hour drive. Also 

in the distance zones, the lightest shade (< 28.46 percent of 

area in the zone within snow counties) extends a bit farther 

south but not a great deal. This demonstrates that snow 

recreation resources as defined here within a 2- to 4-hour 

drive are limited primarily to the western and northern 

regions of the 48 States. Snow acres per capita in the home 

counties are greatest in the Rocky Mountains, Oregon, 

Nevada, and upper Minnesota and Wisconsin (fig. 6.14). Aside 

from upper New England and New York, all snow counties 

in the two distance zones east of Michigan are in the lightest 

class or shade (< 11.86 snow acres per capita).

Table 6.8—Total and per capita acres of snow county area, percent of total surface area, and mean 

county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Snow county area

Sub-region and region Acres Per capita acres

Percent of total 

area

Mean county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 94,673.1 1.50 67.1 50.8

North Central 143,440.8 2.35 43.6 28.7

North total 238,113.8 1.91 50.6 35.1

Southeast 271.0 0.01 0.2 0.4

South Central 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0

South total 271.0 0.00 0.0 0.1

Great Plains 21,110.6 3.50 10.7 7.6

Intermountain 267,830.2 12.33 48.5 58.9

Rocky Mountains total 288,940.8 10.41 38.6 31.7

Pacific Northwest 49,785.9 4.82 45.8 30.7

Pacific Southwest 3,781.5 0.10 3.4 5.2

Pacific Coast total 53,567.4 1.11 24.3 19.5

U.S. total 580,893.0 1.92 29.0 18.7

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: A “snow county” is one that has 28.5 days or more per year with 1 or more inches of measured snow depth. Data not 

available for Alaska and Hawaii. See table 6.1 for population and total surface area acreage. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005).
156

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land 

area in snow counties

0 

0.01–28.45 

28.46–86.57 

86.58–99.9 

100.0

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(69) 6.13

Figure 6.13—Percent of total land area that is in snow counties (>28.5 mean days with 1+ inches of snow depth), 2008, within the home (snow) county, within 

the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 75-125 mile distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005).
157

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of total snow county 

area per capita, 2008

0 

0.01–11.85 

11.86–58.93 

58.94–255.10 

> 255.10

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(70) 6.14

Figure 6.14—Acres of total snow county area per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 miles distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005).
158

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Specially-Designated Federal Lands

Some Federal lands have special designation status. Best known 

are Federal lands in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Park System, and National Recreation 

Area System. Sources of data covering these Systems are 

the National Park Service, Forest Service land offices, the 

Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana, and the 

Bureau of Land Management. These specially designated 

Federal lands are for the most part protected, large in size, offer 

backcountry recreation opportunities, and often offer dramatic 

scenery. Some units of the National Park System offer many 

developed facilities and some are located in urban areas, as 

are some of the national recreation areas. Wilderness areas 

by definition must be wild, such that they are “untrammeled” 

by people, in the words of the Wilderness Act. The Act also 

States that Wilderness is suitable for “primitive and unconfined 

recreation.” In any event, the intent of this category is to 

examine the availability of the special places that make up the 

three resource systems.

Nationwide, there are nearly 158 million acres of specially 

designated Federal lands, with more than 56 percent in Alaska 

(table 6.9). Almost 94 percent of all such lands are in the West, 

85 percent if Alaska is excluded. These are about the same 

proportions of Federal lands in general. The Pacific Southwest 

sub-region, with numerous national parks, recreation areas, 

and wilderness in California especially, has more than 

twice the percentage of specially- designated Federal lands 

(15 percent) than any other sub-region except for Alaska. On 

a per capita basis, however, the Intermountain sub-region has 

nearly twice the acres of specially designated Federal land per 

person (1.6 acres) than the other sub-regions, with the Pacific 

Northwest a distant second (0.8 acres per capita). Alaska is 

obviously not comparable to the other sub-regions.

Although large acreages are in the West, the distribution of 

specially designated Federal lands by county is much more 

evenly distributed across the country with nearly every 

State having at least one home county with a percentage 

greater than zero (fig. 6.15). The highest percentage areas are 

indeed in the West (darkest shade, > 16.61 percent), with the 

exception of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area of Minnesota, 

the Everglades and Big Bend National Park regions of 

Florida and Texas respectively, the Okefenokee Wilderness in 

Georgia, and a handful of counties in and around the southern 

Appalachian mountains, including Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park. The number of counties with at least some 

specially designated Federal lands for the two distance zones 

increases considerably. The latter distance zone, which 

represents about a 2- to 4-hour drive, includes at least 90 

percent of U.S. counties, the only exceptions being scattered 

counties throughout the Great Plains and upper Midwest, and 

a single remote county in northwestern Nevada. In the two 

distance zone maps, it is easy to see the influence (darkest 

shade) of the regions surrounding the Greater Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton areas of Wyoming, the Sawtooth Mountains in 

Idaho, Glacier National Park in Montana, Mount Ranier and 

North Cascades National Parks in Washington, the special 

mountain and desert lands in southern California, Nevada, 

and Arizona, and the Everglades region in Florida.

On a per capita basis, the West dominates the highest category 

(darkest shade, > 13.82 acres per person) for the home county 

and two distance zones with just a few exceptions (fig. 6.16). 

Only a few counties in the East are in the second highest 

category (between 1.36 and 13.82 acres per capita) in the two 

distance zones. Eastern counties in the third highest class of the 

distance zones, which is a relatively small land area of between 

0.07 to 1.35 acres per capita, are concentrated in the upper Great 

Lakes States, upstate New York and New England, the southern 

Appalachians and Ozark/Ouachita regions, southern Georgia/

northern Florida, the Everglades region of Florida, and portions 

of western Texas and Oklahoma.

Table 6.9—Total and per capita acres of specially 

designated Federal land, percent of total surface area, and 

mean county percent by RPA sub-region and region, 2008

Specially designated Federal land

Sub-region and region Acres

Per 

capita 

acres

Percent 

of total 

area

Mean 

county 

percent

thousand

Northeast 794.2 0.01 0.6 0.6

North Central 2,214.4 0.04 0.7 0.2

North total 3,008.6 0.02 0.6 0.3

Southeast 4,495.3 0.09 2.8 1.4

South Central 2,466.3 0.05 0.6 0.5

South total 6,961.6 0.07 1.2 0.9

Great Plains 383.4 0.06 0.2 0.1

Intermountain 34,228.4 1.58 6.2 5.1

Rocky Mountains total 34,611.8 1.25 4.6 2.5

Alaska 88,036.5 128.85 20.7 18.7

Pacific Northwest 8,340.0 0.81 7.7 7.0

Pacific Southwest 16,928.9 0.44 15.1 9.1

Pacific Coast total 113,305.5 2.31 17.6 9.7

U.S. total 157,887.5 0.52 6.5 1.5

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Specially designated Federal land includes units in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, National Park Service units (nonwilderness), and U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

National Recreation Areas. See table 6.1 for population and total 

surface area acreage. 

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service 

(2008), Wilderness Institute (2009) .
159

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Percent of total land that 

is specially-designated 

Federal land

0 

< 0.01–0.73 

0.74–4.62 

4.63–16.61 

> 16.61

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(71) 6.15

Figure 6.15—Percent of total land area that is specially designated Federal land, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, 

and within the 75-125 mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), and Wilderness Institute (2009).
160

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Acres of specially-designated 

Federal land per capita by 

county, 2008

0 

< 0.01–0.06 

0.07–1.35 

1.36–13.82 

> 13.82

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(72) 6.16

Figure 6.16—Acres of specially designated Federal land per capita, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), and Wilderness Institute (2009).
161

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Private Recreation Businesses

The U.S. Census Bureau maintains its Business Register, a file 

of all known single and multi-establishment companies, and 

conducts the Economic Census for the United States every 

5 years. These are the Bureau’s sources of data covering 

private business employment and finance as well as the 

number of establishments, organized by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Data are 

analyzed and reported in the County Business Patterns, which 

was last published in 2007. Private businesses are important 

resources for outdoor recreation because they provide not 

only access to privately owned land and water resources and 

other facilities for recreation, but also may provide outfitter 

and guide services, without which many people would be 

precluded from participating. An example is a whitewater 

rafting outfitter which not only has the rafts and other 

necessary equipment that a person may not own, but also the 

leadership expertise to guide clients on a trip they may not be 

qualified to handle by themselves. 

Presented in this section is an index of the level of privatesector recreation-related business establishments for each U.S. 

county, summarized by region and sub-region (table 6.10). 

The index consists of the simple summation of nine separate 

business types:

1. marinas 

2. skiing facilities 

3. private-sector historical sites 

4. private-sector zoos and botanical gardens 

5. recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds 

6. private-sector nature parks 

7. private golf courses and country clubs 

8. amusement and theme parks 

9. recreational and vacation camps (except campgrounds) 

These businesses represent the extent of recreation-related 

industrial sectors in the County Business Patterns data that 

may confidently be called “outdoor recreation businesses.” 

The index is not intended to be representative of all outdoor 

recreation-oriented businesses. One limitation of these 

Census data is that many recreation businesses are included 

in the miscellaneous category “All Other Amusement and 

Recreation Industries,” which are not included in the index 

because this category includes as many if not more indoor 

recreation-oriented businesses than outdoor. Data are limited 

to number of recreation businesses and the number per capita. 

(An area measurement is not applicable.) 

The two East regions account for more than 20,000 (76 

percent) of the nearly 27,000 total businesses nationwide. 

This is nearly identical to the 75 percent of population in the 

East (see table 6.10). The per capita number of recreation 

businesses nationally is slightly less than 0.9 per 10,000 people 

(or 9 per 100,000) with the four regions much more closely 

centered around this mean, than say for example, some of 

the public land resources which have much higher per capita 

values in the West. The Rocky Mountains barely leads the 

North, both with slightly over 1 business per 10,000 people, 

while the South and Pacific Coast trail not far behind with 

0.75 and 0.69 per capita, respectively. The only real notable 

patterns in the county maps for the three distance zones are 

the lack of any businesses in many Great Plains home counties 

and scattered counties elsewhere, and relatively low numbers 

of businesses per capita for the two distance zones in the 

South, Midwest, and southern California (fig. 6.17). Similar 

to many other resources, recreation businesses per capita are 

relatively highest (darkest shade > 4.19 per 10,000) in the high 

amenity areas of the Rocky Mountains, upper Great Lakes 

States, and New England.

Table 6.10—Total number of recreation businesses, 

and number per 10,000 people by RPA sub-region 

and region, 2007

Recreation businesses, 2007

Sub-region and region

Number of 

businesses Per 10,000 people

Northeast 6,530.0 1.03

North Central 6,200.0 1.01

North total 12,730.0 1.02

Southeast 4,188.0 0.85

South Central 3,548.0 0.67

South total 7,736.0 0.75

Great Plains 785.0 1.30

Intermountain 2,153.0 0.99

Rocky Mountains total 2,938.0 1.06

Alaska 209.0 3.06

Pacific Northwest 1,124.0 1.09

Pacific Southwest 2,055.0 0.54

Pacific Coast total 3,388.0 0.69

U.S. total 26,792.0 0.88

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: “Recreation businesses” as presented in this table is an index of 

the level of private-sector recreation-related business establishments 

that exist in each U.S. county. It is the sum of nine distinct business 

types: marinas, skiing facilities, private-sector historical sites, privatesector zoos and botanical gardens, recreational vehicle parks and 

campgrounds, private-sector nature parks, (private) golf courses and 

country clubs, amusement and theme parks, and recreational and 

vacation camps (except campgrounds). See table 6.1 for population 

and total surface area acreage. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007b). 
162

Geospatial Patterns of Recreation Resources

Number of recreation 

businesses per 10,000 

people by county, 2008

0 

0.01–0.91 

0.92–2.03 

2.04–4.19 

> 4.19

Home county

75-mile zone of 

the home county

75-125 mile zone 

of the home county

(73) 6.17

Figure 6.17—Number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people, 2008, within the home county, within the 75-mile distance zone, and within the 

75-125 mile distance zone. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007b).
163

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

This chapter addresses objective 7 of this national assessment 

on outdoor recreation and protected land resources: to tabulate 

and map projections of future per capita recreation resources 

for the 75-mile distance zone. The primary focus is on 

projections of the geospatial distribution of these resources 

by region and sub-region of the country. County-level maps 

of the contiguous United States are presented which show 

expected relative availability in the year 2060 for the same 

9 recreation resources described in chapter 6. The projected 

recreation resources, driven by forecast population changes 

between the present and 2060, can be interpreted as becoming 

less “available” as more people are competing to use them. 

The focus is on the 75-mile recreation distance zone, which is 

generally interpreted as the distance encompassing recreation 

opportunities within a 1- to 2-hour drive of people’s homes. To 

review, the nine basic outdoor recreation resources include:

• Federal and State park land

• Water 

• Non-Federal forest 

• Non-Federal open range and pasture

• Ocean and Great Lakes coast

• Mountains

• Snow cover

• Specially-designated Federal lands

• Private recreation businesses 

Data and Methods

Recreation resource data compiled for all U.S. counties 

allowed basic projections of how the availability of those 

resources would change given projected changes in 

population. Non-Federal forest, range and pasture projections 

to 2060 were used in this assessment forecasting (Wear 2011). 

Current resource levels were maintained for the remaining 

resources. County population projections at 10-year intervals 

from 2010 to 2060 for the moderate or A1B scenario were 

used, which closely followed Census Bureau national 

population projections that were then further disaggregated 

to the county-level for the forecasting sections of the RPA 

Assessment (Zarnoch and others 2010). 

These population projections were used to produce county-level 

maps for the nine recreation resources showing their current and 

projected relative per capita abundance (or scarcity), followed by 

maps showing the proportion of per capita availability in 2060 

relative to that in 2008, or what we call a “change proportion.” 

(Forest and open range/pasture show the change proportion 

from the base year 2010.) Maps in chapter 6 to show amount of 

resource per capita located within the 75-mile distance zone of 

each county, defined as the quantity of resource within both the 

home county and all other counties whose center or centroid 

are within 75 miles of each home county centroid. Recreation 

opportunities represented by resources within 75 miles can be 

considered to be within a 2-hour drive.

Results 

Preceding each resource map is a table showing the current 

and projected resource per capita for RPA regions and 

sub-regions, as well as the change proportion of per capita 

availability in 2060 relative to that in 2008 (2010 for nonFederal forest and open range/pasture). A proportion less 

than 1.0 indicates a decline in resources per capita. At the 

more aggregated scale represented by the table cells (9 

resource columns by 14 nation/region/sub-region rows), 

projected 2060 population increases result in change 

proportions for all resources of less than 1.0. At the resolute 

scale represented by the county-level maps, however, some 

change proportions are greater than 1.0, which indicates 

that population is expected to decrease resulting in more 

resources per capita in 2060 than in 2008. Projected 2060 

population and current total surface area acres for each subregion, region, and the Nation are shown in table 7.1.

Federal and State Park Land

Federal land agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau 

of Land Management, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State park land includes all areas 

managed by State park agencies regardless of their classification. 

Nationally, there will be a projected 1.4 acres of Federal and 

State park land per capita in 2060, which is about two-thirds 

of the 2.1 acres per capita in 2008 (table 7.2). The two western 

regions will still far outpace the eastern regions by 2060 in acres 

per capita, especially the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest 

sub-regions (not considering Alaska). However, because of 

expected population growth, the Rocky Mountains region, 

especially the Intermountain sub-region, will experience the 

largest decline in per capita acres, as indicated by the 2060/2008 

proportion. The impact should be minimal region-wide, since 

the Intermountain sub-region will still have more than twice 

the acreage of any other sub-region. However, recreationists 

in selected hotspots throughout the Rocky Mountains that 

are projected to have large population increases will likely 

experience declines in availability and/or increasing congestion.

Chapter 7

Projections of Future Recreation Resources
164

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Counties with the most acres per person in the 75-mile 

distance zone in both 2008 and 2060 (darkest shade, > 19.40) 

are entirely in the West (fig. 7.1). Regions of the United States 

with the lowest relative availability will be the urbanized 

Northeast, upper Midwest, and the large mid-section of Texas 

and Oklahoma to a lesser extent. Counties with a proportion 

greater than 1.0 in figure 7.2 will lose population in 2060, thus 

resulting in more acres per capita. Most of these counties

are in the Great Plains sub-region and along the Mississippi 

Valley, with just a few scattered counties throughout 

Northeast. The smallest change proportions are throughout the 

West, especially the Intermountain sub-region, the Southeast, 

east Texas, the Ozark/Ouachita region, and portions of 

Minnesota and Wisconsin. High population growth in these 

areas will have the most relative effect on per capita levels of 

existing Federal and State park land resources.

Table 7.1—Projected 2060 total population and current total surface area acres by RPA sub-region 

and region

Projected 2060 population

Total surface area

(thousand acres)

Sub-region and region Number Percent Number Percent

thousand thousand

Northeast 80,049.2 17.9 141,088.1 5.8

North Central 77,548.7 17.3 329,186.6 13.6

North region 157,597.9 35.2 470,274.6 19.4

Southeast 83,107.9 18.6 162,425.1 6.7

South Central 80,565.9 18.0 401,215.2 16.5

South region 163,673.8 36.6 563,640.3 23.2

Great Plains 7,915.8 1.8 196,766.0 8.1

Intermountain 41,779.9 9.3 552,682.9 22.8

Rocky Mountains region 49,695.6 11.1 749,448.9 30.9

Alaska 1,158.9 0.3 424,491.0 17.5

Pacific Northwest 16,838.7 3.8 108,595.4 4.5

Pacific Southwest 58,343.1 13.0 111,761.0 4.6

Pacific Coast region 76,340.6 17.1 644,847.4 26.6

U.S. total 447,308.0 100.0 2,428,211.3 100.0

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Source: Zarnoch and others (2010), U.S. Census Bureau (2000).

Table 7.2—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of Federal and State park land and 

proportion of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Federal and State park land

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2008

Per capita 

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 5,519.6 0.09 0.07 0.79

North Central 14,395.8 0.24 0.19 0.79

North region 19,915.4 0.16 0.13 0.79

Southeast 12,043.0 0.24 0.14 0.60

South Central 16,231.2 0.30 0.20 0.66

South region 28,274.2 0.28 0.17 0.63

Great Plains 6,666.5 1.11 0.84 0.76

Intermountain 252,976.2 11.64 6.05 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 259,642.7 9.35 5.22 0.56

Alaska 231,739.8 339.18 199.97 0.59

Pacific Northwest 41,449.4 4.01 2.46 0.61

Pacific Southwest 46,297.7 1.22 0.79 0.65

Pacific Coast region 319,486.9 6.51 4.19 0.64

U.S. total 627,319.2 2.06 1.40 0.68

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Federal and State park land is the sum of Federal land-managing agency area and State park system areas. Acreage 

is held constant at the 2008 level. See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. 

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006), and 

Zarnoch and others (2010).
165

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of Federal and State 

park land per person

0 

< 0.01–0.07 

0.08–1.39 

1.40–19.40 

> 19.40

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(74) 7.1

Figure 7.1— Acres of Federal and State park land per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b), 

USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
166

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of Federal and State park land projected for 2060

0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00

75-mile zone of 

the home county

(75) 7.2

Figure 7.2—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of Federal and State park land projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008, 2009b), USDI National Park Service (2008), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2009), USDI Bureau of Land Management (2008b), Tennessee Valley Authority (N.d.), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
167

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Water Area

Water resources, including streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and 

ocean will continue to be a major factor that attracts both 

local residents and visitors for outdoor recreation. Given the 

expected population increase, water acres per capita in the 

United States are projected to fall from slightly more than 

0.5 acres per person in 2008 to less than 0.4 acres per person 

in 2060 (table 7.3). The largest decline will be in the Rocky 

Mountains region, which has the least amount of water area 

(about 7.3 million surface acres), that is, only about one-fourth 

the water area of the next closest region, the South. Water 

recreation opportunities in the West could feel these effects, 

especially around metropolitan areas such as Denver, Phoenix, 

and Salt Lake City. 

County pattern maps for the 75-mile distance zones show 

the largest acres per capita in 2008 and 2060 (darkest shade, 

> 2.24 acres per person) in the West, upper Great Plains, and 

Great Lakes States, with the West tailing off some in 2060 

(fig. 7.3). The change proportion map shows a definite shift to 

lower per capita water resources in the West and Southeast, a 

result of the high projected population growth in those areas, 

especially the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains regions 

(fig. 7.4). The highest relative change proportions are located 

in northern Maine, along the Great Lakes, in the Mississippi 

Valley, and scattered throughout the Great Plains.

Table 7.3—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of total water area and proportion of 

current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Water area

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2008

Per capita 

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 14,328.5 0.23 0.18 0.79

North Central 42,505.3 0.70 0.55 0.79

North region 56,833.8 0.46 0.36 0.79

Southeast 15,068.8 0.30 0.18 0.60

South Central 14,213.4 0.27 0.18 0.66

South region 29,282.1 0.28 0.18 0.63

Great Plains 2,495.3 0.41 0.32 0.76

Intermountain 4,793.4 0.22 0.11 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 7,288.8 0.26 0.15 0.56

Alaska 58,442.2 85.54 50.43 0.59

Pacific Northwest 4,569.2 0.44 0.27 0.61

Pacific Southwest 7,836.5 0.21 0.13 0.65

Pacific Coast region 70,848.0 1.44 0.93 0.64

U.S. total 164,252.7 0.54 0.37 0.68

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Census Bureau water is classified as one of four types: inland, coastal, territorial, and Great Lakes. Acreage is held 

constant at the 2008 level. See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Zarnoch and others (2010).
168

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of total water 

area per person

0 

< 0.01–0.06 

0.07–0.40 

0.41–2.24 

> 2.24

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(76) 7.3

Figure 7.3—Acres of total water area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
169

Projections of Future Recreation Resources Portion of 2008 per capita acres of total water area projected for 2060 0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.0 75-mile zone of the home county

(77) 7.4

Figure 7.4—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of total water area projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000), and Zarnoch and others (2010). 
170

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Non-Federal Forest

Forests are a major land cover and use in the United 

States. Currently, the total area of public and private forest 

resources covers approximately 29 percent of the surface 

area of the country. Similar to chapter 6, the focus of this 

section is on non-Federal forest land. Based on RPA land 

use projections (Wear 2011), non-Federal forest area in the 

48 States is expected to decline 7.8 percent between 2010 

and 2060 for the A1B scenario, from about 386 million 

acres to 356 million (table 7.4). The projected decline in 

forest acres per person is also significant, from 1.27 in 2010 

to 0.8 in 2060. In two high-population growth sub-regions, 

Intermountain and Southeast, the 2060 per capita forest land 

is projected to be just 0.50 and 0.52, respectively, which is 

about half the level in 2010.

Acres of non-Federal forest area per capita by county in the 

75-mile distance zones in 2010 and 2060 are shown in 

figure 7.5. The highest per capita counties (darkest shade, > 

16.10 acres per person) in 2008 are mostly in the Northeast, 

upper Great Lakes regions, and scattered throughout the 

West, with a few counties falling out of the highest class 

in 2060. Almost all of west Texas and a handful of other 

western counties have no non-Federal forest located within 

75 miles. Similar to the other natural resources, most 

counties in the West and Southeast have the largest declines 

(lightest shades) in per capita non-Federal forest area in 2060 

(fig. 7.6). Also included in this class are concentrations of 

counties in the Ozark/Ouachita highlands, Minnesota, and 

upper Wisconsin. The positive expected changes in the Great 

Plains States are somewhat misleading because of relative 

lack of forest resources in that region.

Table 7.4—Current (2010) and projected (2060) per capita acres of non-Federal forest and proportion 

of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Non- Federal forest land land

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2060

Per capita

acres, 2010

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2010 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 69,168.0 1.18 0.86 0.73

North Central 68,839.6 1.20 0.89 0.74

North region 138,007.6 1.19 0.88 0.74

Southeast 60,119.0 1.40 0.72 0.52

South Central 94,555.9 1.90 1.17 0.62

South region 154,674.9 1.66 0.95 0.57

Great Plains 3,183.5 0.54 0.40 0.74

Intermountain 24,373.2 1.16 0.58 0.50

Rocky Mountains region 27,556.7 1.02 0.55 0.54

Pacific Northwest 22,759.1 2.31 1.35 0.59

Pacific Southwest 12,509.2 0.36 0.21 0.59

Pacific Coast region 35,268.3 0.79 0.47 0.59

U.S. total 355,507.5 1.27 0.80 0.63

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Non-Federal forest land projections were not done for Alaska and Hawaii. See table 7.1 for projected population and 

total surface area acreage. Sources: Wear (2011), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
171

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of total non-Federal 

forest land area per person

0 

< 0.01–1.33 

1.34–5.98 

5.99–16.10 

> 16.10

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(78) 7.5

Figure 7.5—Acres of total non-Federal forest land area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. 

Sources: Wear (2011), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
172

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-federal forest projected for 2060

0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00

75-mile zone of 

the home county

(79) 7.6

Figure 7.6—Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-Federal forest projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: Wear (2011), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
173

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Non-Federal Open Range and Pasture

Open non-forested lands are very extensive in the United 

States. Besides non-Federal forest, open range and pasture is 

the only category of recreation resources considered in this 

report for which projected changes in area to the year 2060 

exist (Wear 2011). In 2060, non-Federal open range and pasture 

are projected to be about 497 million acres in the 48 States, 

down about 3 percent from the 514 million acres in 2010 (table 

7.5). While much of range is publicly owned (especially by 

the Bureau of Land Management, but Federal lands are not 

included in this analysis), most pasture is privately owned. 

Recreation occurs on almost all these acres in one form or 

another. Per capita open range and pasture land is expected to 

be about 1.1 acres per person nationally in 2060, about twothirds what it was in 2010. The largest changes are expected 

in the Intermountain and Southeast sub-regions, due largely 

to population growth, though the Southeast has just a fraction 

of the acreage of open range and pasture land compared to the 

Intermountain. The Great Plains will still dwarf all other subregions in acres per person by 2060, despite the 9.7 projected 

acres per person which is a decline from 12.8 acres in 2010.

Current and projected acres of open range and pasture per 

capita within the 75-mile distant zone are dominated by the 

western regions, as shown in the county pattern maps for 2008 

and 2060 (fig. 7.7). The projected change proportion in per 

capita acres from 2010 to 2060 will show the least declines 

and some gains (i.e., ≥ 1.0) in the Great Plains, where range 

and pasture is plentiful and population is slow growing or 

declining, and also in the lower Mississippi Valley and coastal 

plain of the Southeastern United States (fig. 7.8). The Midwest 

and Northeast States will remain fairly constant because of 

their relatively small amount of range and pasture resources.

Table 7.5—Current (2010) and projected (2060) per capita acres of non-Federal open range and 

pasture and proportion of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Non-Federal open range and pasture

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2060

Per capita 

acres, 2010

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2010 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 6,514.4 0.11 0.08 0.72

North Central 26,635.1 0.47 0.34 0.73

North region 33,149.5 0.29 0.21 0.73

Southeast 13,917.9 0.32 0.17 0.53

South Central 150,183.3 2.90 1.86 0.64

South region 164,101.2 1.66 1.00 0.60

Great Plains 76,744.1 12.82 9.70 0.76

Intermountain 188,934.7 8.88 4.52 0.51

Rocky Mountains region 265,678.8 9.74 5.35 0.55

Pacific Northwest 17,299.2 1.70 1.03 0.60

Pacific Southwest 16,862.2 0.50 0.29 0.58

Pacific Coast region 34,161.4 0.77 0.45 0.59

U.S. total 497,090.9 1.70 1.11 0.66

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Open range and pasture projections were not done for Alaska and Hawaii. Does not include cultivated agricultural 

lands. See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. 

Sources: Wear (2011), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
174

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of open range and 

pasture area per person

0 

< 0.01–0.72 

0.73–4.65 

4.66–51.85 

> 51.85

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(80) 7.7

Figure 7.7—Acres of open range and pasture area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: Wear (2011), 

and Zarnoch and others (2010).
175

Projections of Future Recreation Resources Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-Federal open range and pasture projected for 2060 0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00 75-mile zone of the home county

(81) 7.8

Figure 7.8—Proportion of 2010 per capita acres of non-Federal open range and pasture projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: Wear (2011), and Zarnoch and others (2010).
176

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Ocean and Great Lakes Coast

Coastal counties contain 17 percent of the U.S. contiguous 

land area, have more than half of the country’s population, 

and cover a variety of landscapes from oceans, to the Gulf 

of Mexico, and Great Lakes. Given the projected population 

growth in the United States, per capita acres of coastal county 

area are expected to decline from 2.3 acres per person in 2008 

to 1.6 in 2060 (table 7.6). The Southeast and Pacific Northwest 

sub-regions should experience the largest decline in per capita 

change proportions relative to the other regions, though the 

differences are slight among all sub-regions. 

The county pattern maps for 2008 and 2060 highlight the 

counties in the Great Lake States, Maine, and a few in 

northern California and Oregon as having the most coastal 

land per capita within the 75-mile distance zone (fig. 7.9). 

Conversely, they also show that the Southeast will have 

noticeably fewer counties with high per capita coastal acreage 

in 2060. The change proportions indicate that the counties 

that will decline the most relative to other coastal counties are 

in California, Pacific Northwest, and along the southeastern 

coast (especially Florida) and stretching into the Gulf States 

to Texas (fig. 7.10). Many Great Lakes counties are expected 

to stay nearly constant (in the 0.86 to 0.99 proportion class) 

in coastal acres per capita due to lower projected population 

gains, while all others except in Northern Michigan will be in 

the 0.66 to 0.85 change proportion category.

Table 7.6—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of ocean and Great Lakes coastal 

county area and proportion of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Coastal county area

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2008

Per capita

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 70,765.2 1.12 0.88 0.79

North Central 97,211.8 1.59 1.25 0.79

North region 167,976.9 1.35 1.07 0.79

Southeast 85,955.6 1.74 1.03 0.60

South Central 61,039.7 1.14 0.76 0.66

South region 146,995.3 1.43 0.90 0.63

Great Plains 0.0 0.00 0.00 na

Intermountain 0.0 0.00 0.00 na

Rocky Mountains region 0.0 0.00 0.00 na

Alaska 300,892.8 440.40 259.64 0.59

Pacific Northwest 32,901.9 3.18 1.95 0.61

Pacific Southwest 60,740.5 1.60 1.04 0.65

Pacific Coast region 394,535.1 8.04 5.17 0.64

U.S. total 709,507.4 2.33 1.59 0.68

RPA = Resources Planning Act; na= Not applicable.

Note: Coastal counties meet one of the following criteria: 1) at least 15 percent of a county’s total land area is located within 

the Nation’s coastal watershed; or 2) a portion of or an entire county accounts for at least 15 percent of a coastal cataloging 

unit, i.e., although a county does not have at least 15 percent of its total area within the coastal watershed, it still has a large 

land area within a coastal watershed. Acreage is held constant at the 2008 level. See table 7.1 for projected population and 

total surface area acreage. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004).
177

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of total coastal 

county area per person

0 

< 0.01–3.65 

3.66–16.16 

16.17–44.30 

> 44.30

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(82) 7.9

Figure 7.9—Acres of coastal county area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004).
178

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of coastal county area projected for 2060

0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00

75-mile zone of 

the home county

(83) 7.10

Figure 7.10—Proportion of 2008 per capita coastal county acres projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004).
179

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Mountains

Mountains are a highly significant natural amenity that 

supports a myriad of outdoor recreation opportunities that 

attract residents and tourists. Much of the Nation’s public land 

is concentrated in mountain environments, especially in the 

West, but also along the Appalachians and Ozark/Ouachita 

ranges. Mountains are a resource that will obviously change 

very little, if at all, over a 50-year planning horizon. However, 

mountain acres per capita will decline as population rises, as 

shown by the projected 0.85 acres per capita in 2060 which 

is a decrease from 1.25 acres per person in 2008 (table 7.7). 

Based on projected population, the Intermountain sub-region 

will experience the sharpest decline; however, its 4.4 mountain 

acres per person will still lead all other sub-regions by a 

significant margin. The only other sub-region with more than 

1 acre per person will be the Pacific Northwest with 3.5. The 

Northeast sub-region will continue to have the most mountain 

acres per capita in the Eastern United States.

County pattern maps for mountain acres in the 75-mile 

distance zones for 2008 and 2060 show that every county in 

the highest category is now and will continue to be located in 

the West (fig. 7.11). Counties in the contiguous United States in 

this category having more than 116.63 mountainous acres per 

person represent the top 10 percent of counties, many of which 

are sparsely populated. The only eastern county that is not in 

the lower two classes in 2060 is the northernmost county in 

Maine. Many western counties will remain in the two middle 

categories, between 4.14 and 116.63 acres per capita. Based 

on the change proportions, many western counties, especially 

in the Intermountain sub-region, will have fewer mountain 

acres per person in 2060 than in 2008, however, some western 

counties will remain in the darker shades, with a few even 

increasing in per capita acres (fig. 7.12). Conversely in the East, 

very few counties are expected in the lowest change proportion 

class, which reflects slower population growth than in the West.

Table 7.7—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of mountains and proportion 

of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Mountains

Sub-region and region

Total acres 

2008

Per capita

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 49,174.8 0.78 0.61 0.79

North Central 0.0 0.00 0.00 na

North region 49,174.8 0.40 0.31 0.79

Southeast 20,185.2 0.41 0.24 0.60

South Central 12,363.4 0.23 0.15 0.66

South region 32,548.6 0.32 0.20 0.63

Great Plains 2,077.2 0.34 0.26 0.76

Intermountain 185,477.6 8.54 4.44 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 187,554.7 6.76 3.77 0.56

Pacific Northwest 58,024.8 5.61 3.45 0.61

Pacific Southwest 52,514.4 1.38 0.90 0.65

Pacific Coast region 110,539.2 2.28 1.47 0.64

U.S. total 379,817.3 1.25 0.85 0.68

na = Not applicable; RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Mountain area data were not available for Alaska and Hawaii. Acreage is held constant at the 2008 level. 

See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. 

Source: Bailey (1995).
180

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of total mountainous 

area per person

0 

< 0.01–4.13 

4.14–24.96 

24.97–116.63 

> 116.63

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(84) 7.11

Figure 7.11—Acres of mountains per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: Bailey (1995).
181

Projections of Future Recreation Resources Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of mountains projected for 2060 0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00 75-mile zone of the home county

(85) 7.12

Figure 7.12—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of mountains projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: Bailey (1995).
182

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Snow Cover

Regions of the United States with sufficient winter snowfall 

support a number of snow and ice-based recreational 

activities that are not available in the other regions. Snowfall 

amounts and periodicity vary greatly across the country, 

generally increasing as latitudes move farther north. Based 

on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, we define 

a “snow county” as one that has an average of 28.5 days 

or more per year with 1 or more inches of measured snow 

depth. Projections of snowfall data are not available, but 

projected population increases resulted in an estimate of 1.30 

snow county acres per person in 2060 for the contiguous 

United States, down from 1.92 acres in 2008 (table 7.8). 

The Rocky Mountains region will drop significantly from 

10.41 acres per person to 5.81 acres. The Intermountain 

sub-region, in particular, will be affected by population 

growth and will have just a little more than half of the per 

capita acres in 2060 (6.41) than it had in 2008 (12.33). This 

is significant because the Intermountain sub-region accounts 

for about 46 percent of the total snow county area in the 

contiguous United States.

A handful of counties in the West and North Central States 

will remain in the highest category of per capita snow acres in 

the 75-mile distance zone (darkest shade, > 255.10 acres per 

person), with many changing to a lower category by 2060 due 

to projected population growth (fig. 7.13). The darkest shade 

in figure 7.14 shows counties with a change proportion of 1.0 

or greater, indicating an increase in per capita snow acres 

between 2008 and 2060. Just a few counties in the West and 

North Central States are expected to be in this class. Most 

counties in the Northeast and much of the Midwest will not 

decline as much in per capita snow acres as the majority of 

counties in the West.

Table 7.8—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of snow county area and proportion 

of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Snow county area

Sub-region and region Total acres 2008

Per capita 

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 94,673.1 1.50 1.18 0.79

North Central 143,440.8 2.35 1.85 0.79

North region 238,113.8 1.91 1.51 0.79

Southeast 271.0 0.01 0.00 0.60

South Central 0.0 0.00 0.00 –

South region 271.0 0.00 0.00 0.63

Great Plains 21,110.6 3.50 2.67 0.76

Intermountain 267,830.2 12.33 6.41 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 288,940.8 10.41 5.81 0.56

Pacific Northwest 49,785.9 4.82 2.96 0.61

Pacific Southwest 3,781.5 0.10 0.06 0.65

Pacific Coast region 53,567.4 1.11 0.71 0.64

U.S. total 580,893.0 1.92 1.30 0.68

na = Not applicable; RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: A “snow county” is one that has 28.5 days or more per year with 1 or more inches of measured snow depth. Acreage is 

held constant at the 2008 level. See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. Data not available for 

Alaska and Hawaii. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005).
183

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of total snow county 

area per person

0 

0.01–11.85 

11.86–58.93 

58.94–255.10 

> 255.10

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(86) 7.13

Figure 7.13—Acres of snow county area per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. 

Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005).
184

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of snow county area projected for 2060

0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00

75-mile zone of 

the home county

(87) 7.14

Figure 7.14—Proportion of 2008 per capita snow county acres projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2005). 
185

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Specially-Designated Federal Lands

Federal lands classified as “specially designated” in this 

chapter include many of the Nation’s most wild and primitive 

environments. These areas have special protection status and 

thus can provide unique recreation opportunities not found 

elsewhere. These special Federal lands include land and water 

in three designated systems: (1) the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, (2) National Park System, and (3) National 

Recreation Areas. Some national parks and national recreation 

areas have designated wilderness but it is not double-counted 

in this analysis. The specially designated Federal land areas 

are typically large in size, offer backcountry recreation 

opportunities, and often offer dramatic scenery. 

Projections of land areas in these special systems are not 

available, but per capita amounts of these resources are 

expected to decline because of population growth. Projected 

acres per capita of special Federal land in the 50 States are 

expected to be 0.35, down from 0.52 in 2008 (table 7.9). 

Excluding Alaska, the Intermountain sub-region has more 

than twice the acreage of any other sub-region, but it will also 

be most affected by population growth. Per capita acres of 

specially designated land in that sub-region will be cut almost 

in half, from just under 1.6 acres per person in 2008 to slightly 

more than 0.8 acres in 2060.

Many counties in the West will still be in the highest category 

of acres per capita within the 75-mile distance zone in 2060 

(darkest shade, > 13.82 acres per person) but the number of 

those counties will decrease somewhat (fig. 7.15). Relatively 

high areas in the East are clustered around the eastern 

mountain ranges and the Boundary Waters area of northern 

Minnesota. A few dozen counties will have an increase 

(i.e., change proportion of > 1.0) in special Federal acres per 

capita from 2008 to 2060, due to their location in remote 

counties projected to lose population (fig. 7.16). However, 

many more counties that are expected to have fewer acres per 

capita in 2060 are in the West. This change proportion is due 

to the western regions having many fast-growing metropolitan 

areas such as Denver, Phoenix, Tucson, and Albuquerque. 

These specially designated Federal lands are a national 

resource because most draw visitors from well outside the 

2-hour distance zone used in this analysis. With the exception 

of much of the Great Plains, parts of the upper Midwest, and 

a few other scattered counties, all other U.S. counties are 

located within 75 miles of specially designated Federal lands.

Table 7.9—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita acres of specially designated Federal land 

and proportion of current acres projected for 2060 by RPA sub-region and region

Specially designated Federal land

Sub-region and region Total acres 2008

Per capita 

acres, 2008

Projected 

per capita 

acres, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 acres 

projected for 2060

thousand

Northeast 794.2 0.01 0.01 0.79

North Central 2,214.4 0.04 0.03 0.79

North region 3,008.6 0.02 0.02 0.79

Southeast 4,495.3 0.09 0.05 0.60

South Central 2,466.3 0.05 0.03 0.66

South region 6,961.6 0.07 0.04 0.63

Great Plains 383.4 0.06 0.05 0.76

Intermountain 34,228.4 1.58 0.82 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 34,611.8 1.25 0.70 0.56

Alaska 88,036.5 128.85 75.97 0.59

Pacific Northwest 8,340.0 0.81 0.50 0.61

Pacific Southwest 16,928.9 0.44 0.29 0.65

Pacific Coast region 113,305.5 2.31 1.48 0.64

U.S. total 157,887.5 0.52 0.35 0.68

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: Specially designated Federal land includes units in the National Wilderness Preservation System, National Park 

Service units (non-wilderness), and U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management National Recreation Areas. 

Acreage is held constant at the 2008 level. See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. 

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), and Wilderness Institute (2009).
186

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Acres of specially-designated 

Federal land per person

0 

< 0.01–0.06 

0.07–1.35 

1.36–13.82 

> 13.82

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(88) 7.15

Figure 7.15—Acres of specially designated Federal land per person, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. 

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), and Wilderness Institute (2009). 
187

Projections of Future Recreation Resources Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of specially-designated Federal land projected for 2060 0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00 75-mile zone of the home county

(89) 7.16

Figure 7.16—Proportion of 2008 per capita acres of specially designated Federal land projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Sources: USDA Forest Service (2008), USDI National Park Service (2008), and Wilderness Institute (2009).
188

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Private Recreation Businesses

The U.S. Census Bureau maintains its Business Register and 

conducts the Economic Census for the United States. The 

Register is the Census Bureau’s source of data covering private 

employer establishments. Data are analyzed and reported in 

the County Business Patterns, most recently published in 

2007. (Businesses per capita are reported as 2008 because that 

is the population estimate year used.) Private businesses are 

important resources for outdoor recreation, especially in the 

rental and sale of equipment and provision of outfitter and guide 

services and also in supplying privately owned land and water 

for recreation. We created an index by summing the number of 

establishments in nine private-sector recreation-related business 

types for each U.S. county. The nine types of enterprises are 

the only discernible outdoor recreation-related businesses that 

are tracked in the County Business Patterns data. They include 

marinas, skiing facilities, private-sector historical sites, privatesector zoos and botanical gardens, recreational vehicle parks 

and campgrounds, private-sector nature parks, private golf 

courses and country clubs, amusement and theme parks, and 

recreational and vacation camps (except campgrounds). 

No forecast of the future numbers of these establishments 

is available, but change is certainly expected by 2060 due 

to the usual volatility of small businesses in general. As 

demand for a given recreation business increases (decreases), 

an increase (decrease) in the supply of establishments would 

be expected in response to the shifting demand. Given the 

projected population increases by 2060, the per capita number 

of recreation businesses in the Nation is expected to drop to 

about 0.60 businesses per 10,000 people (6 per 100,000) which 

is down from 0.88 in 2008 (table 7.10). Similar to the other 

resource analyses that were based on population gains, the 

Rocky Mountains will likely feel the effects more than the other 

regions. In 2008, the Rocky Mountains led all regions with 1.06 

businesses per 10,000 people but drops to second place behind 

the North region, with 0.59 businesses per capita in 2060.

The county pattern maps for the 75-mile distance zones shows 

that per capita number of recreation businesses are projected to 

decline in many areas from 2008 to 2060, under the assumption 

that the number of businesses establishments as reported in the 

2007 County Business Patterns report will remain constant 

(fig. 7.17). The exception is most of the Southeast and South 

Central States, which had relatively fewer businesses per 

capita in 2007 anyway. In figure 7.18, which depicts the change 

proportion in recreation businesses per capita from 2008 to 

2060, a shift to fewer businesses in the West is evident. The 

same situation is true throughout much of the South Central 

and Southeast sub-regions, especially in Florida. This lowest 

category means that many of the counties will have roughly 

two-thirds or less the number of recreation businesses per capita 

in 2060 than they had in 2008.

Table 7.10—Current (2008) and projected (2060) per capita (per 10,000 population) number of 

recreation businesses and proportion of current number of businesses projected for 2060 by RPA subregion and region

Recreation businesses

Sub-region and region

Number of 

businesses, 2007

Businesses per 

capita, 2008

Projected 

businesses per 

capita, 2060

Proportion of 

2008 businesses 

projected for 2060

Northeast 6,530 1.03 0.82 0.79

North Central 6,200 1.01 0.80 0.79

North region 12,730 1.02 0.81 0.79

Southeast 4,188 0.85 0.50 0.60

South Central 3,548 0.67 0.44 0.66

South region 7,736 0.75 0.47 0.63

Great Plains 785 1.30 0.99 0.76

Intermountain 2,153 0.99 0.52 0.52

Rocky Mountains region 2,938 1.06 0.59 0.56

Alaska 209 3.06 1.80 0.59

Pacific Northwest 1,124 1.09 0.67 0.61

Pacific Southwest 2,055 0.54 0.35 0.65

Pacific Coast region 3,388 0.69 0.44 0.64

U.S. total 26,792 0.88 0.60 0.68

RPA = Resources Planning Act.

Note: “Recreation businesses” as presented in this table represent an index of the level of private-sector recreationrelated business establishments that exist in each U.S. county. It is the sum of nine separate business types: marinas, 

skiing facilities, private-sector historical sites, private-sector zoos and botanical gardens, recreational vehicle parks and 

campgrounds, private-sector nature parks, (private) golf courses and country clubs, amusement and theme parks, and 

recreational and vacation camps (except campgrounds). The number of businesses is held constant at the 2007 level. 

See table 7.1 for projected population and total surface area acreage. Businesses per capita are listed as 2008 because 

the 2008 Census population estimate is used. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007b).
189

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Number of recreation businesses 

per 10,000 people

0 

0.01–0.91 

0.92–2.03 

2.04–4.19 

> 4.19

75-mile zone of the

 home county, 2008

75-mile zone of the 

home county, 2060

(90) 7.17

Figure 7.17—Number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people, 2008 and 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007b).
190

Projections of Future Recreation Resources

Proportion of 2008 per capita number of recreation businesses projected for 2060

0 0.01–0.65 0.66–0.85 0.86–0.99 ≥ 1.00

75-mile zone of 

the home county

(91) 7.18

Figure 7.18—Proportion of 2008 number of recreation businesses per 10,000 people projected for 2060, within the 75-mile distance zone. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007b).
191

Summary

This General Technical Report presents the results of an 

analysis of public and private outdoor recreation and protected 

land resources in the United States. This analysis includes 

examination of the present status and future trends of land 

and other natural resources (to 2060) for the Nation and its 

regions and sub-regions. To help in visualizing land status and 

future trends, geospatial maps showing patterns of change 

across U.S. counties have been provided. This is one of several 

reports the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

has developed for the national 2010 Resource Planning Act 

(RPA) Assessment (described in chapter 1). As context for 

summarizing the status and futures for outdoor recreation 

resources, a brief overview of demand trends follows below.

Outdoor Recreation Demand Trends—

A Brief Overview

Outdoor recreation plays a large role in American lifestyles 

and in land management by both the public and private sectors. 

For context in thinking about the importance of recreation 

resources, a summary of major recreation trends, as reported in 

a companion RPA report (Cordell, 2012), follows: 

(1) Outdoor recreation choices by people today are noticeably 

different from those made by and available to previous 

generations of Americans.

(2) There is an overall increase in outdoor recreation 

participation even though some traditional activities have been 

in decline.

(3) There is growth in one group of nature-based activities in 

particular, that of “viewing and photographing nature.”

(4) Different segments of society choose different mixes of 

outdoor activities.

(5) There is evidence that America’s youth spend time 

outdoors, and, among some young people, this time is 

substantial.

(6) Public lands remain highly important for the recreation 

opportunities they offer.

(7) Trends in visitation vary by Federal land management 

agency and between Federal and State jurisdictions.

(8) A national study of motivations showed there are various 

reasons why people seek different forms of outdoor recreation.

(9) Future trends in terms of per capita participation and total 

number of participants appear to increase for some activities 

and decline for others.

Land and Water Resources

The total area of the United States is about 2.43 billion 

acres. Of this, 2.26 billion acres is land (60 percent of which 

is privately owned), and 169 million is water. Land with 

natural cover includes forest (612 million acres), shrublands 

(583 million acres), grasslands (319 million acres), and 

wetlands (124 million acres). Together, these natural land 

covers make up about 62 percent of the total land and water 

area of the United States. Of these natural lands, publicly 

owned lands are critical resources for nature-based outdoor 

recreation. While the amount of public land managed by local 

governments is modest, it provides highly important outdoor 

recreation opportunities near or within communities. State 

lands, too, are important because they not only are located 

near where people live but they also typically offer larger, 

more natural areas. Federally managed land includes about 

640 million acres, of which the majority is managed either 

for raw resource production (e.g., wood) or to remain in its 

wild natural condition. Private lands constitute the majority of 

total land area across the United States, with Kansas having 

the greatest proportion at 99 percent and Nevada having the 

smallest at 13 percent. Although the overall ownership pattern 

is quite constant over time, the use and ownership of private 

lands change frequently, resulting in a shifting spectrum of 

opportunities for outdoor recreation.

There has been growing interest in protection of public and 

private land and water resources. The need for protection 

is evident when one realizes the many risk factors that can 

limit a sustained flow of benefits, services, and raw materials 

from the these lands. The United States loses about 2 million 

acres of forest, farm, and other open space each year through 

conversion to developed uses. In reaction to these losses, land 

trusts, State and local governments, and Federal Government 

agencies have dedicated funding and coordinated efforts to 

conserve rural land. Most significant of the protected lands 

of the United States are the Federal lands held in public trust. 

These 640 million acres of Federal land include National 

parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other 

Federal ownerships. Private and public lands with some level 

of protection status make up the majority of opportunities for 

nature-based outdoor recreation for the American public.

Chapter 8

Summary
192

Summary

The Roles of Private and Public Sectors as 

Outdoor Recreation Providers

The private sector has made vital contributions in providing 

outdoor recreation opportunities. This includes businesses 

operating on public lands, e.g., canoe outfitters, outdoor 

equipment manufacturers, information and touring services, 

resorts, and a vast array of businesses that offer other goods 

and services. The top business establishments in the United 

States dedicated to outdoor recreation include golf courses and 

country clubs, recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds, 

marinas, recreation and vacation camps, and historical sites. 

Vacation homes are an important and growing self-supplied 

private recreation resource.

In the public sector, local governments have been a major 

provider of community recreation opportunities for over two 

centuries. Currently, about 12 percent (over 8,800) of the 

Nation’s local government units provide recreation and park 

services. State outdoor recreation opportunities are primarily 

provided by the State park systems. In 2009, State park 

agencies managed more than 6,500 individual units covering 

nearly 14 million acres.

The Federal Government provides a diverse array of outdoor 

recreation resources. Of the 640 million acres of Federal land, 

nearly all is available for recreation. There are three special 

Federal recreation resource systems that are Congressionally 

designated. They include national recreation areas, national 

wild and scenic rivers, and national recreation trails. These 

systems are made up of 41 national recreation areas totaling 

7.4 million acres, 12,500 miles of national wild and scenic 

rivers, and more than 1,000 national recreation trails (totaling 

in excess of 20,000 trail miles). 

Thumbnails on Availability of Recreation 

Resources

Recreation resource availability is largely a function of 

location relative to potential recreation users. To examine 

availability, nine resources were considered, including park 

land, water, forest, open range and pasture, ocean and Great 

Top: Privately operated canoe and boat outfitter and gift shop complex at “put in” to the Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. (Photographer Ken

Cordell, 2009) Bottom: The Minneapolis Sculpture Garden is one of Minnesota’s crown jewels and its centerpiece, the Spoonbridge and Cherry, has become a

Minnesota icon. The Sculpture Garden is essentially a free museum in a park. (Source: Explore Minnesota Tourism)
193

Summary

Lakes, mountains, snow cover, designated Federal lands, and 

private recreation businesses. In addition to examining the 

current spatial pattern of these resources across the counties of 

the country, future per capita availabilities were projected to 

reflect the effects of continuing population growth.

Nationally, 1.4 acres of Federal and State park land per capita 

are projected for 2060. This is two-thirds of the acres per capita 

that existed in 2008. Although the western regions will far 

exceed per capita availability of these public lands in the eastern 

regions by 2060, significant projected population growth in the 

Rocky Mountains region will result in that region experiencing 

the largest proportion decline in the future (meaning acres per 

capita in 2060 relative to per capita acres in 2008).

A decline in water acres per capita is also projected, from 

over one-half acre per person in 2008 to less than 0.4 acres in 

2060. As with public lands, the largest decline is projected for 

the Rocky Mountains region. The total acres of non-Federal 

forest is expected to decline by nearly 8 percent by 2060. This 

projection combined with population growth translates to a 

national per capita decline from 1.3 acres in 2010 to 0.8 acres by 

2060. The greatest projected decrease is for the Intermountain 

and Southeast sub-regions. In 2060, non-Federal open range and 

pasture are projected to total 497 million acres in the lower 48 

States, a 3 percent decline from 2010. With the further influence 

of population growth, per capita open range and pasture land 

is projected at 1.1 acres per capita in 2060, about two-thirds 

what it was in 2010. The largest decline is expected in the 

Intermountain and Southeast sub-regions.

Because of high population growth, per capita acres of coastal 

county area are expected to drop from 2.3 acres per person in 

2008 to 1.6 in 2060. Mountain acres per capita are projected to 

decrease from 1.3 acres in 2008 to 0.9 acres in 2060. Further, 

it is estimated that there will be 1.3 snow county acres per 

person in 2060, down from 1.9 acres in 2008. Large projected 

population growth in the Rocky Mountains, especially the 

Intermountain sub-region, will result in a substantial drop 

in snow county acres per capita in that region. Federal lands 

classified as “specially designated” are expected to decline 

in the 50 States from 0.5 per capita in 2008 to 0.4 in 2060. 

Excluding Alaska, the Intermountain sub-region has over 

twice the acreage of any other sub-region, but its per capita 

acres of specially designated land are expected to decline to 

almost half by 2060.

Given the projected population increases, the per capita 

number of recreation businesses nationally is expected to drop 

from 0.9 per 10,000 people in 2008 to 0.6 in 2060. Similar 

to the other resource analyses that were based on population 

gains, the Rocky Mountains will likely feel the effects more 

than the other regions, declining from just over one business 

per 10,000 people to less than 0.6 in 2060. 

Top: Tributary creek flowing from the White River National Forest in

Colorado, 2007. Bottom: South beach, Jekyll Island State Park, east Atlantic

Coast, near Brunswick, GA. (Photographs by Ken Cordell)
194

Summary

Concluding Observation

The future of outdoor recreation in the United States may 

not, and likely will not, unfold as simply as depicted in this 

report. There are many complicating factors in addition to 

population growth that will determine the future of recreation 

and protected land resources. But certainly population growth 

and all that comes with that growth will play a central, if not 

the determining role.

With population increases come pressures to use land for 

development or agriculture. As well, more population brings 

more people seeking places for the recreation activities of 

their choice. Fewer places, or places with less extensive 

undeveloped area, will be a major challenge for recreation 

providers of the future. These decisionmaking providers will 

have to weigh their choices carefully, because the results of 

many of those decisions will be irreversible. Once natural land 

is developed, or substantially altered from its natural state, 

there is little likelihood it would ever be allowed to revert back 

to a natural state.

Natural land is highly valued for its ecosystem services and 

for its aesthetic qualities. These services and qualities are at 

the core of most people’s choice of place and time for outdoor 

recreation. For sure, lodging, food, travel, information, 

and a host of other services are extremely important to 

people’s choices. But these recreation support services, 

such as lodging and travel, must be provided in or near the 

natural settings that make them desirable to the recreation 

seeker. Undoubtedly, if there are to be nature-based outdoor 

recreation opportunities in the future, measures will need 

to be taken to protect the natural character that makes 

these lands and water attractive. Land protection through 

land trusts or government action plays and will play an 

increasingly critical role in assuring future generations will 

Mountains have natural places for their recreation activities. in northwest South Carolina overlook Jocassee Lake, 2007.

(Photograph by Ken Cordell)
195

Acknowledgments/ Literature Citations

Acknowledgments 

We thank the following for their reviews: Taylor Stein, 

Associate Professor, Ecotourism Research, University of 

Florida; Scott Shafer, Associate Professor, Department 

of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M 

University; and Linda Langner, Renewable Resources 

Planning Act Assessment Program Lead, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. We thank 

the authors for their contribution of topic papers to this 

publication, and we thank Shela Mou, Publications Specialist 

with the Athens Research Group, for her assistance with the 

preparation of this report.

Literature Citations

American Trails. 2009. National recreation trails database. http://tutsan.

forest.net/trails/. [Date accessed: March 31, 2010].

Avery, T.E. 1975. Natural resources measurements. New York: McGrawHill Book Company. 339 p.

Bailey, Margaret. 2011a. USDA Forest Service special use program data. 

Available from Margaret Bailey, CHM Government Services, 548 Cabot 

Street, Beverly, MA 01915.

Bailey, Margaret. 2011b. USDI National Park Service commercial services 

program data. Available from Margaret Bailey, CHM Government 

Services, 548 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915.

Bailey, Margaret. 2011c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers real estate division 

data. Available from Margaret Bailey, CHM Government Services, 548 

Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd 

ed. Misc. Pub. No. 1391. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.

html. [Date accessed: September 2, 2011].

Barnes, C.A. 2010. 2001 national land cover data spreadsheet by state. 

Available from C.A. Barnes of Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, a 

contractor to the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation 

and Science (EROS), 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57198-0001.

Barry, J.J.; Hellerstein, D. 2004. Farm recreation. In: Cordell, H.K. 

Outdoor recreation for 21st century America. State College, PA: Venture 

Publishing, Inc.: 149-167.

Bastian, C.T.; McLeod, D.M.; Germino, M.J. [and others]. 2002. 

Environmental amenities and agricultural land values. Ecological 

Economics. 40(3): 337-349.

Brown, D.M.; Reeder, R.J. 2007. Farm-based recreation: a statistical 

profile, ERR-53. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err53/err53.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 23, 2011].

Brown, G.; Alessa, L. 2005. A GIS-based inductive study of wilderness 

values. International Journal of Wilderness. 11(1): 14-18. 

Brown, T.C. 1999. Past and future freshwater use in the United States: 

a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service 

RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research 

Station. 47 p.

Brown, T.C.; Hobbins, M.T.; Ramirez, J.A. 2005. The source of water 

supply in the United States. RMRS-RWU-4851. Discussion Paper. 57 p. 

Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station, 240 West Prospect, Fort 

Collins, CO 80526.

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Campaign for America’s Wilderness. 2003. A mandate to protect 

America’s Wilderness. Washington, DC: Campaign for America’s 

Wilderness. 44 p. 

Carr, M., ed. 2005. Earth...water...fire: the role and management of fire 

in aquatic ecosystems. In: Wildland Waters. FS-828. http://www.fs.fed.

us/wildlandwaters/newsletters/wildlandwaters_summer05.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 16, 2011]. 

Clawson, M.; Harrington, W. 1991. The growing role of outdoor recreation 

In: Frederick, K.D.; Sedjo, R.A., eds. America’s renewable resources: 

historical trends and current challenges. Washington, DC: Resources For 

the Future: 249-279.

Clayton, S. 2003. Environmental identity: a conceptual and an operational 

definition. In: Clayton, S.; Opotow, S., eds. Identity and the natural 

environment: the psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 45-65.

Clayton, S.; Myers, G. 2009. Conservation psychology: understanding and 

promoting human care for nature. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 

264 p.

Clutter, M.; Mendell, B.; Newman, D. [and others]. 2005. Strategic factors 

driving timberland ownership changes in the U.S. South. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 15 p.

Cole, D.N. 2004. Wilderness experiences: what should we be managing for? 

International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 25-27.

Cole, D.N.; Hall, T.E. 2008. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and 

management preferences: how they vary with use level and length of 

stay. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station. 61 p.

Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national 

assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore 

Publishing. 449 p.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical 

document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 167 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Heboyan, V.; Santos, F.; Bergstrom, J.C. 2012. Natural 

amenities and rural population migration: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-146. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 32 p.

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based outdoor recreation. 

Forest History Today. Spring: 4-10.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Bowker, J.M. 2005. The multiple values 

of wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 298 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Overdevest, C. 2001. Footprints on the land: an assessment 

of demographic trends and the future of natural resources in the United 

States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 307 p.

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J. 2006. A framework for monitoring and modeling 

sustainable tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research. 4(4): 74-84.
196

Literature Citations

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Shen, F.; Ritter, P. 2007. Resident perceptions 

of sustainable tourism in Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural 

Resources. 20(6): 511-525.

Cvetkovich G.T.; Winter P.L. 2003. Trust and social representations of the 

management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and 

Behavior. 35(2): 286-307.

Dawson, C.P.; Hendee, J.C. 2009. Wilderness management: stewardship 

and protection of resources and values, fourth ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum 

Publishing. 656 p.

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2007. Be careful what you wish for: the legacy 

of Smokey Bear. Frontiers in Ecology. 5(2): 73-79.

Duarte, L. 2010. GAP and the protected areas database of the United States 

(PAD-US) partnership. Gap Analysis Bulletin. http://www.gap.uidaho.

edu/bulletins/17/Duarte.pdf. [Date accessed: May 6, 2011].

Evison, H. 1930. A state park anthology. Washington, DC: National 

Conference on State Parks. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_

books/recreation_use/chap3-2.htm. [Date accessed: September 6, 2011].

Frank, L.D.; Andresen, M.A.; Schmid, T.L. 2004. Obesity relationships 

with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 27(2): 87-96.

Hellerstein, D. 2010. Challenges facing USDA’s conservation reserve 

program. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June10/Features/

ChallengesFacingCRP.htm. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. 2004. Wilderness progress after forty years 

under the U.S. Wilderness Act. International Journal of Wilderness. 

10(1): 4-7.

Hill, B.J. 1994. Wilderness valuation – preservation. http://www.

findarticles.com [Date accessed: December 10, 2007].

Houlahan, J.E.; Findlay, C.S. 2004. Estimating the “critical” distance at 

which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. 

Landscape Ecology. 19: 677–690.

Hurteau, M.D.; Hungate, B.A.; Koch, G.W. 2009. Accounting for risk in 

valuing forest carbon offsets. http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/4/1/1. 

[Date accessed: August 16, 2011].

Im, S.; Brannan, K.M.; Mostaghimi, S. 2003. Simulating hydrologic 

and water quality impacts in an urbanizing watershed. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 39(6): 1465–1479.

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. 2009. River mileage 

classifications for components of the June 2009 National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. http://rivers.gov/publications/rivers-table.pdf. [Date 

accessed: February 23, 2010].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate 

change 2007: synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm. 

[Date accessed: September 30, 2011]. 

Jubenville, A. 1978. Outdoor recreation planning. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. 

Saunders Company. 290 p.

Kalabokidis, K.D. 2000. Effects of wildfire suppression chemicals on 

people and the environment: a review. Global Nest. 2(2): 129-137.

Krist, F.J.; Sapio, F.; Tkacz, B. 2007. Mapping risk from forest insects 

and diseases. FHTET-2007 06. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 

115 p.

Land Trust Alliance. 2006. 2005 National land trust census report. http://

www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/2005-report.pdf. 

[Date accessed: January 14, 2011].

Leung, Y.-F.; Siderelis, C.; Serenari, C. 2010. Annual information 

exchange—statistical report of state park operations: 2008-2009. Raleigh, 

NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Parks, Recreation, 

and Tourism Management. 58 p.

Lubowski, R.N.; Vesterby, M.; Bucholtz, S. [and others]. 2006. Major 

uses of land in the United States, 2002. http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/EIB14/eib14.pdf. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

Maczko, K.; Hidinger, L., eds. 2008. Sustainable rangelands: ecosystem 

goods and services. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008_

maczko_k001.pdf. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

Menakis, J.P. 2008. Mapping wildland fire potential for the conterminous 

United States. http://svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/RS2008/j_menakis/index.htm. 

[Date accessed: August 16, 2011].

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2001. National Land 

Cover Database 2001. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001.php. [Date accessed: 

June 24, 2011].

Munn, I.A.; Barlow, S.A.; Evans, D.L.; Cleaves, D. 2002. Urbanization’s 

impact on timber harvesting in the south-central United States. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 64: 65-66.

National Association of State Foresters. 2006. State forestry statistics. 

http://www.stateforesters.org/node/896 [Date accessed: July 8, 2009].

National Scenic Byways Program. 2010. America’s byways: national scenic 

byways online. http://www.byways.org. [Date accessed: January 4, 2011].

Negra, C.; Sweedo, C.C.; Cavender-Bares, K.; O’Malley, R. 2008. 

Indicators of carbon storage in U.S. ecosystems: baseline for terrestrial 

carbon accounting. Journal of Environmental Quality. 37: 1376-1382.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T.; Dwyer, J.F. [and others]. 2005. The increasing 

influence of urban environments on U.S. forest management. Journal of 

Forestry. 103(8): 377–382.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Outdoor 

recreation for America. Washington, DC: U.S. Governmentt Printing 

Office. 246 p.

Outdoor Resources Review Group. 2009. Great outdoors America. http://

www.orrgroup.org/documents/July2009_Great-Outdoors-America-report.

pdf. [Date accessed: September 30, 2011].

Papanastasis, V.P. 2009. Restoration of degraded grazing lands through 

grazing management: can it work. Restoration Ecology. 17: 441–445.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. 1986. Report and 

recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 210 p.

Price, M.; Moss, L.; Williams, P.W. 1997. Chapter 12: tourism and amenity 

migration. In: Messerli, B.; Ives, J.D., eds. Mountains of the world: a 

global priority. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group: 249-280.

Radeloff, V.C.; Stewart, S.I.; Hawbaker, T.J. [and others]. 2010. Housing 

growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation 

value. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/940.full. [Date accessed: 

August 23, 2011].

Reeves, M.C.; Mitchell, J.E. (In press). A synoptic review of U.S. 

rangelands: a technical document supporting the 2010 USDA Forest 

Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. XXX. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research 

Station. 

Robles, M.D.; Flather, C.H.; Stein, S.M. [and others]. 2008. The 

geography of private forests that support at-risk species in the 

conterminous United States. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/

pdf/10.1890/070106. [Date accessed: August 16, 2011].

Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H.E. 1991. How important is wilderness? Results 

from a United States survey. Environmental Management. 15(2): 227.
197

Literature Citations

Santos, F.I.M. 2010. Modeling the influence of environmental amenities 

on recent trends in U.S. population migration. Athens, GA: University of 

Georgia. 45 p. M.S. thesis.

Schlesinger, W.H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. 

New York: Academic Press. 588 p.

Schneider, I.; Winter, P. 1998. Multiple use management preferences 

by visitors with differing leisure identity salience. Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration. 16(4): 22-38.

Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. 2003. Reframing environmental messages to be 

congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review. 10(2): 126-136.

Schuster, R.; Cordell, H.K.; Phillips, B. 2005. Measurement of direct-use 

wilderness values: a qualitative study. In: Peden, J.G.; Schuster, R.M., eds. 

Proceedings of the 2005 northeastern recreation research symposium; 

Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-341. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 

188-195.

Scurlock, J.M.; Hall, D.O. 1998. The global carbon sink: a grassland 

perspective. Global Change Biology. 4: 229-233. 

Smith, W.B. 2009. Forest area. In: Smith, W.B., tech. coord. Forest resources 

of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office: 12-15. 

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources 

of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Report WO-78. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office. 336 p.

Stein, S.; Butler, B. 2004. On the frontline: private forests and water 

resources, FS-790. Wildland Waters. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service. 24 p.

Stein, S.; McRoberts, R.; Alig, R. [and others]. 2005. Forests on the edge: 

housing development on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-636. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Mahal, L.G. [and others]. 2009. Private 

forests, public benefits: increased housing density and other pressures on 

private forest contributions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-795. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 74 p.

Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C.; Keeley, J.E. [and others]. 2007. Human 

influence on California fire regimes. Ecological Applications. 

17(5): 1388-1402.

Tennessee Valley Authority. [N.d.]. Recreation resources inventory, 2008. 

Available from: Jerry Fouse, Tennessee Valley Authority, Recreation 

Manager, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 11A, Knoxville, TN 

37902-1401.

Thorne, S.; Sundquist, D. 2001. New Hampshire’s vanishing forests: 

conversion, fragmentation and parcelization of forests in the granite state. 

http://forestsociety.org/pdf/vanishing_forests.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 16, 2011]. 

Tkacz, B.; Moody, B.; Castillo, J.V. 2007. Forest health status in North 

America. Proceedings: impacts of air pollution and climate change on 

forest ecosystems. The Scientific World Journal. 7(S1): 28-36.

The Trust for Public Land. 2009. City park facts. Available from: Center 

for City Park Excellence, The Trust for Public Land, 660 Pennsylvania 

Avenue SE, Suite 401, Washington, DC. 20003.

The Trust for Public Land. 2010. Conservation almanac: federal, state, 

local & private lands. http://www.conservationalmanac.org. 

[Date accessed: October 25, 2011].

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Value to the nation, fast facts. 

http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/recfastfacts.asp. [Date accessed: 

February 23, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 U.S. gazetteer files: counties. 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/places2k.html#counties. 

[Date accessed: October 24, 2011].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. County business patterns. http://www.census.

gov/econ/cbp/download/02_data/index.htm. [Date accessed: 

August 24, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004a. U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and 

Hispanic origin. http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/

usinterimproj/. [Date accessed: August 16, 2011].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004b. Census of housing, historical census of housing 

tables. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/

vacation.html. [Date accessed: October 26, 2011]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. State and local government finances. In: 

The statistical abstract of the United States. http://www.census.gov/

prod/2006pubs/07statab/stlocgov.pdf. [Date accessed: February 10, 2011]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b. County business patterns. http://www.census.

gov/econ/cbp/download/07_data/index.htm. [Date accessed: 

August 24, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007c. Census of governments. http://www.census.

gov/govs/cog/. [Date accessed: March 31, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Population estimates—annual estimates of 

the resident population for counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. http://

www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-01.html. [Date accessed: 

September 8, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. The 2010 statistical abstract, table 346–land 

and water area of states and other entities: 2008. http://www.census.gov/

prod/2009pubs/10statab/geo.pdf. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. The 2010 statistical abstract, table 800. 

farms—number and acreage: 1990 to 2008. http://www.census.gov/

prod/2009pubs/10statab/agricult.pdf. [Date accessed: October 25, 2011].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. The 2011 statistical abstract: the national data 

book. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0822.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 19, 2011]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. (In press). Future 

scenarios and assumptions for the 2010 Resource Planning Act (RPA) 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. XX. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1980. An assessment of the forest and range land 

situation in the United States. Report FS-345. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 630 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and 

wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-189. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountains Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 112 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest insects and disease conditions in 

the United States, 2006. http://gis.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/

ConditionsReport_06_final.pdf. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011].

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Land areas report as of September 30, 2008. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/2008/lar08index.html. [Date accessed: 

March 11, 2009].

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. State park inventory study [data]. 

Shela H. Mou, comp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. National survey on recreation and the 

environment, 2005-2009 [data set]. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/

Nsre/NSRECert.html. [Date accessed: October 27, 2011].
198

Literature Citations

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Current Forest Data and Maps. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis National Program. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/

current-data.pdf. [Date accessed: October 25, 2011].

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. Census of 

agriculture, vol. 1. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/

Full_Report. [Date accessed: October 25, 2011].

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Iowa State 

University Statistical Laboratory. 2000. Summary report: 1997 

natural resources inventory http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012094.pdf. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. National resources 

inventory 2003, land use. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6826033/

National-Resources-Inventory. [Date accessed: October 24, 2011]. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Summary Report: 

2007 National Resources Inventory. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/

FSE_DOCUMENTS//stelprdb1041379.pdf. [Date accessed: October 

24, 2011]. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 2004. List of coastal counties for the 

bureau of the census statistical abstract series. http://www.census.gov/geo/

landview/lv6help/coastal_cty.pdf. [Date accessed: March 27, 2009].

USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. 

National climatic data center. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climaps/

climaps.pl. [Date accessed: August 14, 2009].

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Bailey’s ecoregions and subregions of the 

United States. http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/ecoregp.html. [Date accessed: 

September 2, 2011].

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005a. Federal lands of the United States. http://

nationalatlas.gov/mld/fedlanp.html. [Date accessed: October 26, 2011].

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005b. Indian lands of the United States. http://

nationalatlas.gov/mld/indlanp.html. [Date accessed: October 26, 2011].

U.S. Department of the Interior, (USDI). 2009. Recreation one-stop 

initiative: recreation information database. http://www.recreation.gov. 

[Date accessed: April 3, 2009].

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008a. Public land statistics 2008. 

http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls08/index.htm. [Date 

accessed: June 23, 2009].

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008b. Payment in lieu of taxes 

(PILT), acres by agency. http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/pilt/search.cfm. [Date 

accessed: April 13, 2009].

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2008. Recreation fast facts. http://www.usbr.

gov/recreation/facts.html. [Date accessed: February 19, 2009].

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Annual report of lands under the 

control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2008. 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/land/pdf/AnnLandsReport_2008.pdf. [Date 

accessed: June 23, 2009].

USDI Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979. The third 

nationwide outdoor recreation plan: the assessment. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 55 p.

USDI National Park Service. 1941. A study of the park and recreation 

problem of the United States. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_

books/parks_america/index.htm. [Date accessed: January 28, 2011].

USDI National Park Service. 2008. Listing of acreage by State and county 

as of 12/31/2008. http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/acreagemenu.cfm. [Date 

accessed: February 26, 2009].

United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism 

Organization. 2005. Making tourism more sustainable: a guide for policy 

makers. Paris, France and Madrid, Spain: UNEP and WTO. 209 p.

Walls, M.A.; Darley, S.R.; Siikamäki, J.V. 2009. The state of the great 

outdoors: America’s parks, public lands, and recreation resources. http://

www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-RPT-ORRG-State-of-Outdoors.pdf. 

[Date accessed: September 30, 2011].

Wear, D.N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J.M.; Sheffield, R.M. 1999. The effects of 

population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 118: 107-115.

Wear, D.N. 2011. Forecasts of county-level land uses under three future 

scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–141. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 41 p.

Weinberg, A.; Larson, C. 2008. Forestland for sale: challenges and 

opportunities for conservation over the next ten years. Open Space 

Institute/Conservation Research Program Report. New York: Open Space 

Institute, Inc. 19 p.

White, E.M.; Alig, R.J.; Stein, S.M. 2010. Socio-economic changes and 

forestland development: commonalities and distinctions between the 

eastern and western USA. Journal of Forestry. 1087: 329-337. 

White, E.M.; Morzillo, A.T.; Alig, R.J. 2009. Past and projected rural land 

conversion in the U.S. at State, regional, and national levels. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 89: 37-48. 

Wilderness Institute. 2009. Wilderness database [data]. Missoula, MT: 

University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation. 

Wilderness Net. [N.d.]. U.S. Public Law 88-577, The Wilderness Act of 

September 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 890. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fus

e=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404. [Date accessed: August 16, 2011]. 

Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Organization, authority, and 

programs of State fish and wildlife agencies. Washington, DC: Wildlife 

Management Institute. 164 p.

Williams, D.R.; Watson, A.E. 2007. Wilderness values: perspectives 

from the non-economic social science. In: Watson, A.; Sproull, J.; Dean, 

L., comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness 

values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium. RMRS-P-49. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountains Research Station: 123-133.

Winter, P.L. 2008. Pacific Southwest Research Station and Region 

5 sustainable operations survey report. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

publications/documents/psw_misc8083.pdf. [Date accessed: 

September 7, 2011].

Winter, P.L.; Chavez, D.J. 2008. Wildland recreationists’ natural resource 

management priorities and preferences: a connection to environmental 

identity. In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation 

visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 163-174.

Zarnoch, S.J.; Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Langner, L. 2010. Projecting 

county-level populations under three future scenarios: a technical 

document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. e-Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS–128. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.
Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter J.; and Zarnoch, Stanley J. 2013. Recreation and protected land 

resources in the United States: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-169. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 198 p.

This report provides an overview of the public and private land and water resources of the United States. 

Described is use of natural and developed land as recreation resources with an emphasis on nature-based 

recreation. Also described is land protection through conservation organizations and public funding 

programs, with an emphasis on protecting private land through funding for purchase or for conservation 

easements. Outdoor recreation resources include land, water, snow and ice, scenery, developed sites, 

facilities, and user services. Protected land resources range from farm lands to remote wilderness, but 

mostly are the undeveloped lands in the United States with various forms of protection status.

The total U.S. land area is 2.43 billion acres, which contains 169 million acres of water, and consists of a 

diversity of land use and cover types. The United States loses about 2 million acres of forest, farm, and open 

space each year. In attempting to conserve such lands, land trusts and governments have instituted programs 

to obtain easements or purchase the land outright. The Federal Government holds in trust about 640 million 

acres of land (30 percent of the country’s total land area). This includes national parks, national forests, 

national wildlife refuges, and other Federal agency ownerships. These lands, along with State and local 

government lands are important recreation resources serving the public interest. Private lands and recreation 

businesses are also important recreation resources. Projections to 2060 of per capita area of public and 

private land and water show a steady downward trend across all regions of the United States.

Keywords: Land conservation, private land, public land, recreation resources, trends and forecasts.

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management 

of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as 

directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us.

Number of copies is limited to two per person.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback 

or go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-169

January 2013