National Park Service

U.S. Department of th e Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science



# Economic Benefits to Local Communities from

National Park Visitation, 2011

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR

– 2013/632

### ON THE COVER

Floaters at Kittatinny Point in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey

Photograph by NPS/Margaret Littlejohn

# Economic Benefits to Local Communities

from National Park Visitation, 2011

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR

– 2013/632

Yue Cui

Ed Mahoney

Teresa Herbowicz

Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

- 6446

February 201 3

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Fort Collins, Colorado

# ii The National Park Service Associate Director for Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics

of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National P ark Service and others in natural

resource man agement, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and

the public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high

- priority , current natural resource

management informa tion with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management

applicability.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.

This report received formal peer review by subject

- matter experts who were not directly

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise

put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendatio ns, and data in this report do not

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use by the U.S. Gov ernment

.

This report is available from the Environmental Quality Division ( www.nature.nps.gov/

socialscience/index.cfm ) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website

( http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/ ).

Please cite this publication as:

Cui, Yue, Mahoney, E. & Herbowicz, T. 2013. Economic benefits to local communities from

national park visitation, 2011. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRTR

— 2013/631.

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

# iii 

# Contents

Page

Figures and Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... iv

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ v

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1

2011 Updates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1

Recreation Visits

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

Visitor Spending

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

Local Significance and Impacts of Visitor Spending

................................ ................................ ..... 5

National Significance of Visitor Spending

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

State and Regional Impacts of Visitor Spending

................................ ................................ ............ 9

Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

Errors and Limitations

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14

Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15

# iv 

# Figures and Tables

Page

Figure 1 . Distribution of National Park Visitor Spending in 2011

................................ ................ 4

Table 1 . National Park Visitor Spending in the Local Area by Segment, 2011 ($ per

party per day/night)

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2

Table 2 . National Park Visitor Spending by Segment, 2011

................................ ......................... 3

Table 3 . Economic Significance of National Park Visitor Spending to Local

Economies, 2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5

Table 4 . Economic Impacts of National Park Visitor Spending on Local Economies,

2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6

Table 5 . Economic Significance of National Park Visitor Spending to National

Economy, 2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8

# v 

# Executive Summary

The National Park System received 278. 9 million recreation visits in 2011. Park visitors spent

$12.9 5 billion in local gateway regions (within roughly 60 miles of the park). Visitors staying

overnight outside the park ( in motels, hotels, cabins

, and bed and breakfasts ) accounted for

54. 9 % of the total spending. About half (48%) of the spending was for lod ging and meals, 21.4%

for gas and local transportation, 9.7% for recreation and entertainment , 8.1% for groceries, and

12.7% for other retail purchases.

The contribution of this park visitor spending to the national economy amounted to 251, 6 00 jobs,

$9.3 4 billion in labor income, and $ 16.50 billion in value added 1 

# . The direct effects of visitor

spending are measured at the local level in gateway regions around national parks. Local

economic impacts were estimated after excluding spending by park visitors f rom the local area

(9. 8 % of the total spending ). Combining local impacts across all parks yield ed a total local

impact ( including direct and secondary effects ) of 1 62

, 4 00 jobs, $ 4.58 billion in labor income,

and $ 8.15 billion value added. The four local ec onomic sectors most directly affected by non

local visitor spending are lodging, restaurants, retail trade, and recreation and entertainment

. Their spending support ed 45, 2 00 jobs in restaurants and bars

, 34

, 1 00 jobs in lodging sectors

, 15

, 5 00 jobs in retail and wholesale trade

, and 20,0 00 jobs in recreation and entertainment

.

In this 2011 study, payroll impacts were not included due to the conversion to a new accounting

system for the National Park Service, which prevented obtaining the required input s for such

analysis in time for publication

.

1 

## National estimates use multipliers for the U.S. economy.

# 1 

# Introduction

This report provides updated estimates of National Park Service (NPS) visitor spending for 2011 and

estimates the economic impacts of visitor spendin g. Visitor spending and impacts are estimated using

the Money Generation Model version 2 (MGM2) (Stynes et al . 2000) based on park visits (also

called recreation visits) during the calendar year 2011, spending averages from park visitor surveys,

and local

- area and national

- level economic multipliers.

Visitor spending effects are estimated for all park units with visitation data. Direct effects cover

businesses selling goods and services directly to park visitors. Secondary effects include: indirect

effects resulting from sales to backward

- linked industries within the local region, and induced effects

from household spending of income earned directly or indirectly from visitor spending. Impacts of

construction activity and park purchases of goods and services are not included.

Effects are estimated at both the national and local level. Most spending directly associated with park

visits occurs in gateway regions around each park. Impacts of this spending on the local economies

are estimated using local input

- ou tput models for each park. Local regions are defined as a 60

- mile

radius 2 

## around each park. To estimate impacts on the national economy, spending within roughly 60

miles of the park is applied to the national input

- output model. System

- wide totals covering impacts

on local economies are also estimated by summing the spending and local impact estimates for all

park units. Results for individual park unit s are reported in the Appendix.



# 2011 Updates

The 2011 estimates reflect new visitor surveys at four parks. In 2011, visitor surveys were conducted

at Joshua Tree NP, Chiricahua NM, Fort Bowie NHS and Fort Stanwix NM. 3 

## Spending and visitor

profiles for these parks were updated based upon the survey data. For other parks, spending profiles

from 2010 were price

- a djusted to 2011 using Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices for

each spending category. Consumer prices remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2011 except for

an increase of 26% in gasoline prices and a 10% increase in transportation costs.

Vi sitor segment mixes were assumed to be unchanged except as reflected in overnight stays or new

visitor surveys. Except for parks with new visitor surveys, average party sizes, lengths of stay and re

entry factors were assumed to be unchanged from 2010. Vis it and overnight stay figures for all parks

were updated to 2011 from the NPS public use statistics (Street 2012).

Multipliers for individual parks were estimated in 2011 based on 2008 IMPLAN data and IMPLAN’s

trade flow models (Stynes, 2011). Local regio ns were defined to include all counties within roughly

60 road miles of each park. For 2011, local region multipliers were adjusted from 2008 to 2010 based

on structural changes in the national economy (i.e., ratios of jobs, income and value added to sales in

each sector). Secondary effects and direct job ratios were adjusted to 2011 b ased on consumer price

indices.

2 

## The 60

- mile radius is a general average representing the primary impact region around most parks. The radius is

closer to 30 miles for parks in urban settings, and as large as 100 miles for some western parks. Economic

multipliers are based on regions def ined as groupings of counties to approximate a 60

- mile radius of the park.

3 

## These studies are conducted by the Visitor Services Project (VSP) at the University of Idaho. Reports for

individual parks are available at their website: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.reports.htm

# 2 

# Recreation Visits

The National Park System received 278. 9 million recreation visits in 2011. Spending by visitors

was estimated by dividing all visitors to each park into segments with distinct spending patterns

and applying spending averages based on surveys of park visitors at selected parks. As spending

averages are measured on a party

- day basis (party nights for overnight trips), the NPS coun ts of

recreation visits are converted from person entries to a park to party

- days in the area by applying

average party size, length of stay, and park re

- entry factors. This eliminates some double

counting of visits. To the extent possible, spending not di rectly related to a park visit is

excluded. 4



# In 2011

, there were 13.75 million recreation overnight stays in the parks. Twenty

- nine percent of

park visits were day trips by local residents, 40.0% were day trips from 60 miles or more, 5 

# and

27.7% involved an overnight stay near the park. Visitor spending depends on the number of days

spent in the local area and the type of lodging for overnight trips. D ay trips by non

- local visitors

account ed for 33.5% of the party days spent in the local area, day trips by local visitors, for

27.8%, and overnight stays , for 38.7%. Sixty

- four percent of all overnight stays by park visitors

were in hotels, motels, lodges, or bed and breakfasts outside the park; another 17.5% were in

campgrounds outside the park, 7.5% in private homes; and 11.1% were inside the park in NPS

campgrounds, lodges, or back

- country sites resided in National Parks

.



# Visitor Spending

Visitor spending averages cover expenses within the local region, excluding park entry fees.

Spending averages for each segment are derived from park visitor surveys at selected parks over

the past ten years. Bureau of Labor Statistics price indices for each spending category are applied

to adjust all spending to 2011 dollars.

NPS s ystem

- wide spending averages for 2011 are given in Table 1 for seven distinct visitor

segments. A typical park visitor party of local residents on a day trip spends $49. 86 and $ 75.0 2 if

a non

- local party (Table 1).

On a party

- night basis, spending by visitors on overnight tr ips varied from $59.9 1 for back

country campers to $330.7 0 for visitors staying in park lodges. Campers spent $119. 86 per night,

if staying outside the park, and $86.7 2 , if staying inside the park. Spending averages at

individual parks varied from these sy stem

- wide averages due to differences in local prices and

spending opportunities.

Table 1 . National Park Visitor Spending in the Local Area by Segment, 2011 ($ per party per day/night)

Visitor Segment

4 

## For example, spending during extended stays in an area while visiting relatives, on business, or when the park visit

was not the primary trip purpose is excluded. For most histo ric sites and parks in urban areas, spending for one day

or night is counted for each park entry. Where several park units are within a 60

- mile radius, adjustments are made

for those visiting more than one park on the same day.

5 

## Day trips include pass

- th ru visitors not spending a night within 60 miles of the park, as well as stays with friends

and relatives and in owned seasonal homes.

# 3 Spending category Local

Day

Trip Non

- local

Day Trip NPS

Lodge NPS

Camp

Ground NPS

Back

country Motel

Outside

Park Camp

Outside

Park

Motel, hotel, B&B

- - 151.89 0.31 5.25 92.67 0.12

Camping fees

- - 0.39 15.30 2.44 0.11 25.16

Restaurants & bars 14.75 19.50 73.79 11.85 8.42 58.35 16.23

Recreation & entertainment 4.83 8.73 22.11 7.29 5.85 17.67 15.10

Groceries 7.27 7.14 12.56 14.63 6.43 14.39 12.36

Gas & oil 12.92 23.96 31.67 24.93 19.17 25.72 29.18

Local transportation 0.11 1.34 6.44 1.34 0.28 3.14 0.89

Retail purchases 9.97 14.34 31.85 11.07 12.07 27.08 20.82

Total 49.86 75.02 330.70 86.72 59.91 239.13 119.86

Note

– Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.



# In total, park visitors spent $12.95 billion in the local region surrounding the parks in 2011. 6



# Local residents account ed for 9.8% of this spending (Table 2). Visitors staying in motels and

lodges outside the park account ed for 54.9% of the total spending

, while non

- local visitors on

day trips contribute d 20.5% of all spending.

Table 2

. National Park Visitor Spending by Segment, 2011

Segment Total Spending

($ Millions) Percent of

Spending

Local d ay t rip 1,264 9.8%

Non

- local d ay t rip 2,659 20.5%

Lodge/ c abin

- i n p ark 376 2.9%

Camp

- i n p ark 301 2.3%

NPS b ack

- country c ampers 37 0.3%

Motel

- o utside p ark 7,10 5 54.9%

Camp

- o utside p ark 871 6.7%

Other o vernight v isitors a 

## 339 2.6%

Total 12,95 2 100.0%

a 

## Other overnight visitors include visitors staying overnight in the area but

not incurring lodging costs.

Notes

– Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.



# Expenses at l odging and restaurant s /bar s account ed for about a quarter of the spending

, each.

E xpenses on transportation (mainly auto fuel) account ed for 21.4%, groceries 8.1%, other retail

purchases 12. 8 %, and recreation and entertainment 9.7% (Figure 1).

6 

## Spending figures exclude airfares and other trip spending beyond 60 miles of the park. Purchases of durable goods

(boat s, RVs) and major equipment are also excluded. Special expenses for commercial rafting trips, air overflights

and other special activities are not fully captured for all parks.

# 4 Figure1 . Distribution of National Park Visitor Spending in 2011

# 5 

# Local Significance and Impacts of Visitor Spending

Local economic significance and economic impacts of visitor spending are estimated in the

MGM2 model using multipliers for local areas around each park. Multipliers capture both the

direct and secondary economic effects in gateway regions around the parks in terms of jobs,

labor income, and value added. National totals are calculated as the sum of the local impacts for

3 74 park units that have counts of visitors.

Both economic significance and economic impacts were estimated for local areas

. The average

sales multiplier across all park s’ local regions is 1.43. For every dollar of direct sales another

$ 0 .43 in sales is generated in the local region through secondary effects.

Economic Significance

The economic significance estimates in Table 3 measure the effects of all visitor spending

($12.95 billion), including that of local visitors.

The $12.95 billion spent by park visitors within 60 miles of the park in 2011 (Table 2) had a total

economic effect (significance) of $14.99 billion in sales, $5.04 billion in labor income, and $8.94

billion in value added. Visitor spending supported abou t 177,500 jobs in gateway regions. Total

effects may be divided between the direct effects that occur in local businesses selling goods and

services directly to park visitors and secondary effects that result from the circulation of this

money within the l ocal economy. 7



## Table 3 . Economic Significance of National Park Visitor Spending to Local Economies, 2011

Sector/Spending category Sales

($ Millions) Jobs Labor Income

($ Millions) Value Added

($ Millions)

Direct Effects

Motel, hotel cabin or B&B 2,979 29,552 836 1,694

Camping fees 244 4,541 77 150

Restaurants & bars 2,991 51,435 1,089 1,653

Recreation & entertain ment 1,255 22,331 418 784

Other vehicle expenses 173 2,009 88 102

Local transportation 315 6,522 158 242

Grocery stores 279 4,770 140 204

Gas stations 114 1,401 48 80

Other retail 583 10,500 273 423

Wholesale trade 266 1,570 114 206

Local manufacturing 537 685 48 118

Total Direct Effects 9,736 135,316 3,289 5,656

Secondary Effects 5,256 42,194 1,753 3,279

Total Effects 14,992 177,510 5,042 8,935

Notes: Economic significance covers all $12.9 5 billion in spending by park visitors in the local region,

including that of local visitors. Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

7 

## Secondary effects include indirect effects of businesses buying goods and se rvices from backward

- linked local

firms and induced effects of household spending of their earnings.

# 6 Direct effects were $9.7 4 billion in sales, $3.29 billion in labor income, $5.6 6 billion in value

added, and 135,300 jobs. The local region s capture d 75.2% of all visitor spending as direct sales.

Note that direct sales of $9.7 4 billion is less than the $12.95 billion in visitor s pending as most of

the manufacturing share of retail purchases (groceries, gas, sporting goods, souvenirs) is not

included. It is assumed that most of the producer price of retail purchases immediately leaks out

of the region to cover the cost of goods sol d. Sales figures for retail and wholesale trade are the

margins on retail purchases.

Economic Impacts

The e conomic impacts (which exclude spending by local visitors ) in Table 4 measure the effects

of the $11.69 billion spent by visitors who d id not reside within the gateway region s

.

Economic impact measures estimate the likely losses in economic activity to the region in the

absence of the park. Should the park opportunities not be available, it is assumed that local

residents would spend the money on other local activities, while visitors from outside the region

would not have made a trip to the region. 8 

# Spending by local residents on visits to the park do es

not represent “new money” to the region and is therefore generally excluded when estimating

imp acts. Local resident spending is included in the economic significance measures, as these

capture all economic activity associated with park visits, including local and non

- local visitors.

Table 4 . Economic Impacts of National Park Visitor Spending on Local Economies, 2011

Sector/Spending category Sales

($ Millions) Jobs Labor Income

($ Millions) Value Added

($ Millions)

Direct Effects

Motel, hotel cabin or B&B 2,979 29,552 836 1,694

Camping fees 244 4,541 77 150

Restaurants & bars 2,616 45,161 951 1,444

Recreation & entertain ment 1,122 20,033 375 701

Other vehicle expenses 158 1,843 81 93

Local transportation 312 6,451 156 240

Grocery stores 229 3,950 115 167

Gas stations 98 1,214 41 69

Other retail 502 9,072 234 363

Wholesale trade 220 1,314 93 170

Local manufacturing 417 539 37 91

Total Direct Effects 8,897 123,670 2,996 5,182

Secondary Effects 4,762 38,753 1,582 2,965

Total Effects 13,659 162,423 4,578 8,147

Note: Economic impacts cover the $11.69 billio n spent by non

- local visitors. Columns may not sum to

totals due to rounding.

8 

## To the extent possible, spending not directly associated with a park visit is also excluded. For example, only one

night’s expenses are counted for visit ors in the area primarily on business, visiting relatives, or visiting other

attractions. For parks with visitor surveys, spending attributed to a park visit was estimated based on the percentage

of visitors identifying the park visit as the primary purpos e of the trip.

# 7 Excluding $1.26 billion dollars spent by local visitors (Table 2) reduce d the total spending to

$11.69 billion for the impact analysis. Local visitors represent ed about 29.1% o f all visits but

less than 10% of all visitors’ spending (Table 2). The total effects of visitor spending

, excluding

locals

, was $13.66 billion in sales, $4.58 billion in labor income, $8.1 5 billion in value added,

and 162,400 jobs. The economic sectors mo st directly affected by non

- local visitors to the parks

are lodging, restaurants, retail trade, and recreation and entertainment . Non

- local visitor spending

support ed 45, 2 00 jobs in restaurants and bars

, 34, 1 00 jobs in lodging sectors

, 15,500 jobs in

retail and wholesale trade

, and 20,000 jobs in recreation and entertainment

.

# 8 

# National Significance of Visitor Spending

The contribution of NPS visitor spending to the national economy can be estimated by applying the

spending totals to m ultipliers for the national economy. This circulates spending that occurs within

gateway regions around national parks within the broader national economy, capturing impacts on

sectors that manufacture goods purchased by park visitors and additional second ary effects.

The estimates do not include park visitors’ spending at home on durable goods such as camping,

hunting and fishing equipment, recreation vehicles, boats, and other goods used on trips to the

national parks. The estimates also exclude airfares and other en

- route spending that occurs more

than 60 miles from the park. Since many long

- distance trips involve multiple purposes and often

visits to multiple parks, it is difficult to capture these expenses without double counting or

attributing spendin g not directly related to a national park visit.

With the above exclusions, the contribution of visitor spending to the national economy in 2011

was $30.09 billion in sales, 251

, 6 00 jobs, $9.34 billion in labor income, and $16.50 billion in

value added (T able 5).

Table 5 . Economic Significance of National Park Visitor Spending to National Economy, 2011

Sector/Spending category Sales

($ Millions) Jobs Labor Income

($ Millions) Value Added

($ Millions)

Direct Effects

Motel, hotel, cabin or B&B 2,979 27,690 876 1,730

Camping fees 244 4,306 81 153

Restaurants & bars 2,991 52,937 1,059 1,628

Recreation & entertain ment 1,255 22,153 418 785

Other vehicle expenses 173 1,996 90 103

Local transportation 315 6,492 175 250

Grocery stores 279 4,817 142 204

Gas stations 114 1,518 47 80

Other retail 583 10,510 276 425

Wholesale trade 468 2,637 205 365

Local manufacturing 2,858 4,121 291 711

Total Direct Effects 12,259 139,177 3,660 6,434

Secondary Effects 17,826 112,466 5,682 10,067

Total Effects 30,085 251,643 9,342 16,501

Note: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding

.



# With the exception of manufacturing activity and a portion of activity in wholesale trade, the

direct effects of visitor spending accrue to local regions around national parks. 9 

# Compared to the

contribution to local economies (Table 3 ), an additional 74,100 jobs are supported nationally by

NPS visitor spending, primarily due to the greater indirect and induced effects at the national

level. The sales multiplier for NPS vis itor spending at the national level is 2.51, compared to an

average of 1.43 for local regions around national parks.

9 

## Local economic ratios are therefore used to estimate the direct effects. National multipliers are used to estimate

secondary effects. With the exception of wholesale trade and manufacturing sectors, the national direct effects

(Table 5) a re therefore the same as the local direct effects (Table 3).

# 9 

# State and Regional Impact s of Visitor Spending

Economic impacts of individual parks can be aggregated to the state level with a few

compli cations. While most parks fall within a single state, there are 20 park units with facilities

in more than one state. For these parks, shares of visits were assigned to each state based on

percentages provided by the NPS Public Use Statistics Office. It wa s assumed that spending and

economic impacts are proportional to where recreation visits are assigned.

Estimates of park visits, spending, and state

- level economic impacts for each state and U.S.

territory are given in Table A

- 2 in the Appendix. These state estimates are larger than the

impacts for local economies since states generally include a larger economic productive capacity

than local areas and therefore account for a larger share of the overall impacts.

Estimates of park visits, spending, and r egional

- level economic impacts for each NPS region are

given in Table A

- 3 in the Appendix. Similar to the state

- level impacts discussed above, these

regional estimates are larger than the impacts for state economies since regions generally include

a larger economic productive capacity than states and therefore account for a larger share of the

overall impacts. As noted earlier, impacts reported here do not include long

- distance travel,

airfares, or purchases made at home for items that may be used on trips to national parks.



# Methods

Spending and impacts were estimated using the MGM2 model. NPS public use statistics for

calendar year 2011 provide estimates of the number of park visits and overnight stays at each

park. For each park, recreation visits were a llocated to the seven MGM2 segments, 10 

# converted

to party days/nights spent in the local area and then multiplied by per

- day spending averages for

each segment. Spending and impact estimates for 2011 are made individually for each park unit

and then summed to obtain national totals for impacts on local regions. Impacts on the national

economy are also estimated by applying all visitor spending to multipliers for the national

economy.

Spending averages cover all trip expenses within roughly 60 miles of the pa rk. They therefore

exclude most en route expenses on longer trips, as well as airfares and purchases made at home

in preparation for the trip, including costs of durable goods and equipment. Spending averages

vary from park to park based on the type of par k and the regional setting (low, medium, or high

spending area).

The segment mix is very important in estimating visitor spending, as spending varies

considerably across the MGM2 segments. Segment shares are estimated based on park overnight

stay data and , where available, park visitor surveys. For park units that lack recent visitor

surveys, estimates are made by generalizing from studies at similar parks or based on manager or

researcher judgment.

10 

## Visits are classified as day trips by local visitors, day trips by non

- local visitors, and overnight trips by visitors

staying in campgrounds or hotels, lodges, cabins, and bed and breakfasts. For parks with lodging facilities within the

park, visitors st aying in park lodges, campgrounds, or back

- country sites are distinguished from those staying

outside the park in motels or non

- NPS campgrounds. Visitors staying with friends or relatives, in owned seasonal

homes, or passing through without a local overnig ht stay are generally treated as day trips.

# 10 For parks with VSP (Visitor Services Project) studies ove r the past ten years, spending averages

are estimated from the visitor survey data collected at each park. 11 

# Averages estimated in the

surveys were price

- adjusted to 2011 using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) price indices for

each spending category. Sampl ing errors for the spending averages in VSP studies are generally

5

– 10% overall and can be as high as 20% for individual visitor segments (Stynes, 2011)

.

The observed spending patterns in park visitor studies are then used to estimate spending

averages for other parks that lack visitor spending surveys. This procedure does not capture some

spending variations attributable to unique characteristics of a given park or gateway region

— for

example, the wider use of public transportation at Alaska parks or extra expenses for special

commercial attractions in or around some parks, such as rafting trips, air overflights, and other

tours. When visitor studies are conducted at individual parks, these unique situations are taken

into account.

Multipliers for local reg ions around national parks were applied to the visitor spending totals to

translate spending into jobs, income

, and value added and also to estimate secondary effects. All

MGM2 multipliers were re

- estimated in 2011 using IMPLAN ver 3.0 and 2008 economic da ta

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group 20 09 ). The multipliers were adjusted to 2011 based on structural

changes in the national IMPLAN models between 2008 and 2010 and price changes between

2010 and 2011.

Based on national IMPLAN models, there were some significant s tructural changes in economic

ratios and m ultipliers between 2008 and 2010 . Most notable was a change in ratios for the

recreation and entertainment sector (IMPLAN sector 410) due to under estimate d outpu t in 2008.

IMPLAN ratios in 2010 for sector 410 were triple the 2008 estimates. Using 2008 multiplier

would cause a significant underestimate of jobs, income and value added in the MGM2

recreation and entertainment sector estimates if the ratio were not adjusted from 2008 to 2010

. The MGM2 estimates of jobs, income and value added are sensitive to any changes in these

ratios and multipliers.

With the exception of parks with new visitor surveys in 2011, no changes were made in party

sizes, lengths of stay, or re

- entry factors between 2010 and 2011. MGM2 model parameters for

individual parks are adjusted over time as new park visitor studies are conducted or other

relevant information becomes available.

The retail margin used to the estimate economic impacts on gasoline sales with national park

visits in 2010 was 22.3% and 8.3% at wholesale (Stynes, 2011). In a more recent report by Oil

Price Information Service (2012) , the retail margin is about 5% of the retail price

. Energy

Almanac (2012) shows that the distribution of gasoline, including retail and wholesale cost and

profit, was approximately 10% of the gasoline’s retail price, t he refinery sector was 75% of the

price

, and fuel tax comprised 15 % of the retail price in 2011. The fuel taxes can be shifted to the

refinery sector since this shift has relatively minor effe ct on job estimates because the refinery

sector has a very small job

- to

- sal es ratio . In addition , U.S. refineries are concentrated in a few

geographic areas and would seldom be located in NPS economic impact areas. As a result, the

11 

## Detailed impact reports for parks that have included economic questions in their VSP studies are available at the

MGM2 ( http://mgm2impact.com/ ) or NPS social science webs ites

( http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/products.cfm#MGM2Reports ).

# 11 gas oline margins used to estimate 2011 economic impacts of national parks were adjusted as

follows: 90% went t o the petroleum refining sector; 5%

, to the wholesale trade sector; and 5%

, to

the retail sector. This 2011 adjustment reduced the estimation of local ec onomic significance of

spending on gasoline associated with national park visits by 5,800 jobs.

Spending and impact totals for states were developed from the 2011 estimates by summing the

results for all units in a given state using the mailing address for the park to identify the state.

Twenty pa rks have facilities in more than one state. For these parks, visitors and spending were

allocated to individual states based on shares used by the NPS Public Use Statistics Office for

allocating visits to states. For example, visits to Great Smoky Mountain s NP were split 44% to

North Carolina and 56% to Tennessee. It should be noted that these allocations may not fully

account for where the spending and impacts occur. There are also many other parks with

facilities in a single state but located within 60 mi les of a state border. A portion of the spending

and impacts for these parks may accrue to nearby states.

# 12 

# Errors and Limitations

The accuracy of the spending and impact estimates rests largely on the input data, namely (1)

public use recreation visit an d overnight stay data ; (2) party size, length of stay

, and park re

- entry

conversion factors ; (3) visitor segment shares ; (4) spending averages ; and (5) local area

multipliers.

Public use data provides reasonably accurate estimates of visitor entries for mo st parks. Some

visitors may be missed by the counting procedures, while others may be counted multiple times

when they re

- enter a park more than once on a single trip. Accurate estimates of park re

- entries,

party sizes

, and lengths of stay in the area are needed to convert park entries to the number of

visitor s or party days in the region. Visitors staying overnight outside the park pose significant

problems as they tend to be the greatest spenders and may enter the park several times during

their stay. Sim ilarly, visitors staying inside the park may enter and leave it several times during

their stay and be counted each time as a distinct visit. Re

- entry factors adjust for these problems

to the extent possible.

For multi

- purpose trips, it is difficult to det ermine what portion of the spending should be

attributed to the park visit. This is especially a problem for historic sites and parks in urban areas

or parks in multiple

- attraction destinations. For parks with visitor surveys, the proportion of days

and sp ending counted was decided based on stated trip purposes and the importance of the park

in generating the trip to the region.

Parkways and urban parks present special difficulties for economic impact analyses. These units

have some of the highest number o f visits while posing the most difficult problems for

estimating visits, spending

, and impacts. The majority of visits to these types of units were

assumed to be day trips by local or non

- local visitors, and only one night of spending was

counted for overn ight trips. Due to the high numbers of visits at these units, small changes in

assumed spending averages or segment mixes can swing the spending estimates by substantial

amounts.

Clusters of parks within a single 60

- mile area pose additional difficulties. For example, the many

monuments and parks in the Washington, D.C. area each count visitors separately. Similar

difficulties exist for clusters of parks in Boston, New York, and San Francisco. To avoid double

counting of spending across many national capit al parks, we must know how many times a

visitor has been counted at park units during a trip to the Washington, D.C., area. For parks in

the National Capital Region, we currently assume an average of 1.7 park visits are counted for

day trips by local visit ors , 3.4 visits for day trips by non

- local visitors , and 5.1 park visits on

overnight trips. The total of non

- local visitor spending for the National Capital Region in 2010

was $1.17 billion. This is 14% of the Travel Industry Association ’s tourist spendin g estimate of

$8.3 billion for Washington, D.C., in 2008 (USTA 2010).

NPS units in Alaska also pose special problems for economic analysis. Spending opportunities

near Alaska parks are limited and for many visitors the park visit is part of a cruise or gu ided

tour, frequently purchased as a package. Most visitors are on extended trips to Alaska, making it

difficult to allocate expenses to a particular park visit. Lodging, vehicle rentals

, and air expenses

frequently occur in Anchorage, many miles from the park. Also, many Alaska parks are only

# 13 accessible by air or boat, so spending profiles estimated from visitor surveys at parks in the

lower 48 states do not apply well. Due to the prominence of cruise lines and package tours,

special studies are required t o estimate the proportion of visitor spending that stays in the local

regions around national park units in Alaska. In this report, Alaska statewide multipliers are used

to estimate impacts for parks in Alaska.

A visit to one or more national parks is an important part of the trip for most Alaska visitors. One

could therefore argue to count a substantial portion of tourism spending in Alaska as related to

national park visits. The U.S. Travel Association estimated tourist spending in Alaska at $2.1

billion in 2008 (USTA 2010). This is ten times what we have included as spending by park

visitors in the local regions around Alaska national parks. Including spending in Alaska outside

the local regions would significantly increase the estimates; however, decidi ng which spending

to include would be somewhat subjective.

# 14 

# References

Energy Almanac. 2012. The California Energy Almanac. Available at

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.php

Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2009 . IMPLAN Pro Version 3.0, user’ s guide. Stillwater,

Minnesota.

Oil Price Information Service. 2012. Public Company Rack

- to

- Retail Margins. Available at

http://www.opisretail.com/images/press%20release%20images/BrandMargins%20FirstHalf.pdf

Street, B. 2012. Statistical abstract: 2011. Natural Resource Data Series

NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRDS

- 2012/422. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Stynes, D.J. 2011. Economic benefits to local communities from national park visitation and

payroll, 2009. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRPC/SSD/NRR

– 2011/281. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Stynes, D. J., D. B. Propst, W. H. Chang, and Y. Sun. 2000. Estimating regional economic

impacts of park visitor spending: Money Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2). Department of

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

U.S. Travel Association (USTA). 2010. The power of travel, economic impact of travel and

tourism. Available at http://www.poweroftravel.org/statistics/.

# 15 

# Appendices

Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park

, 2011.........................................................................................

.......................... 1 4

Table A

- 2

. State

- Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State,

2011........................................

................................ ................................ .......................... 2 3

Table A

- 3

. Regional

- Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Regional Economies

by Region,

2011..............................................................................................

.................. 2 5

Table A

- 4 . Allocations to States for Multi

- S tate

Parks...............................................

................................ ................................ ................ 2 6

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011



# 16 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHP 163,568

- 6,061 5,636 94 2,566 4,334

Acadia NP 2,374,645 153,798 186,180 183,325 2,970 72,808 126,167

Adams NHP 219,975

- 15,139 14,076 172 6,911 11,458

African Burial Ground NM 108,585

- 7,407 6,866 77 3,715 6,165

Agate Fossil Beds NM 11,617

- 760 754 12 225 406

Alibates Flint Quarries NM 3,214

- 170 158 2 48 93

Allegheny Portage Railroad NHS 118,410

- 6,268 5,828 88 1,958 3,700

Amistad NRA 1,436,759 32,078 44,428 38,658 522 9,975 20,428

Andersonville NHS 108,812

- 4,032 3,749 57 1,284 2,456

Andrew Johnson NHS 52,322

- 2,770 2,575 41 1,028 1,838

Aniakchak NM & PRES 57 156 21 21

- 7 13

Antietam NB 384,987

- 20,018 17,996 243 8,813 15,021

* Apostle Islands NL 176,040 24,014 20,929 20,477 358 6,946 12,383

Appomattox Court House NHP 258,917

- 13,707 12,744 186 4,256 8,079

* Arches NP 1,040,758 50,915 113,722 113,722 1,638 33,855 65,849

Arkansas Post NMEM 37,127

- 1,376 1,279 20 350 645

Arlington House The R.E. Lee ME 576,816

- 39,697 36,910 396 15,681 26,077

Assateague Island NS 2,105,419 74,712 151,195 143,513 1,957 48,550 93,783

Aztec Ruins NM 41,106

- 1,380 1,337 17 392 736

* Badlands NP 870,741 44,576 22,203 22,203 317 7,302 12,064

Bandelier NM 193,914 9,300 9,218 8,908 135 3,461 5,941

Bent's Old Fort NHS 26,842

- 995 925 12 220 468

Bering Land Bridge NPRES 1,890 1,503 652 652 7 219 392

Big Bend NP 361,862 148,799 16,703 15,914 225 4,508 9,167

Big Cypress NPRES 941,393 19,957 117,467 114,919 1,891 66,660 111,384

Big Hole NB 36,290

- 1,345 1,250 19 376 709

Big South Fork NRRA 606,579 57,071 26,116 22,752 343 5,322 10,777

Big Thicket NPRES 137,722 1,891 9,891 9,382 138 4,755 8,248

Bighorn Canyon NRA 201,010 9,278 6,261 5,463 80 1,930 3,383

Biscayne NP 476,077 13,985 34,317 33,927 416 14,322 24,337

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP 168,336 18,118 8,436 8,022 106 2,108 4,448

Blue Ridge PKWY 15,382,447 132,863 340,085 310,686 4,379 73,568 145,708

Bluestone NSR 41,670

- 1,901 1,660 24 542 938

Booker T. Washington NM 24,030

- 1,272 1,183 18 414 795

Boston African American NHS 379,906

- 26,145 24,310 298 11,936 19,788

Boston NHP 2,546,156

- 93,996 90,797 1,144 47,138 78,167

Brown v. Board of Education NHS 16,886

- 894 831 13 355 610

Bryce Canyon NP 1,296,000 133,221 115,066 113,928 1,726 32,695 64,683

Buck Island Reef NM 28,223 3,920 2,018 1,921 29 490 991

Buffalo NR 1,169,802 80,954 38,232 33,636 468 10,396 18,482

Cabrillo NM 813,351

- 55,975 52,045 681 22,071 39,667

Canaveral NS 1,005,001 3,146 72,256 68,525 1,034 32,487 57,312

Cane River Creole NHP 26,996

- 1,429 1,329 20 390 752

Canyon de Chelly NM 828,145 43,362 43,314 40,318 515 10,790 21,559

Canyonlands NP 473,773 87,910 39,976 39,571 519 12,526 23,338

Cape Cod NS 4,454,771 20,246 174,980 138,812 1,739 56,607 102,574

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 17 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Cape Hatteras NS 1,960,711 69,366 104,173 98,959 1,349 34,713 62,224

Cape Krusenstern NM 8,668 9,237 2,987 2,987 31 998 1,787

Cape Lookout NS 508,116 28,854 37,621 35,784 532 10,457 19,937

Capitol Reef NP 668,834 36,577 40,856 40,607 600 11,968 23,459

* Capulin Volcano NM 46,358

- 1,391 1,366 18 288 573

Carl Sandburg Home NHS 89,721

- 4,750 4,416 70 1,819 3,151

Carlsbad Caverns NP 365,000 107 21,256 20,720 299 5,771 10,646

Casa Grande Ruins NM 72,308

- 2,282 2,142 30 930 1,602

Castillo de San Marcos NM 741,042

- 50,999 47,418 590 16,962 30,206

Castle Clinton NM 3,985,366

- 81,538 56,980 571 23,915 39,008

Catoctin Mountain Park 264,460 29,348 14,393 13,459 143 5,623 9,347

Cedar Breaks NM 493,147 1,998 18,241 16,961 255 5,368 10,492

Chaco Culture NHP 39,175 14,990 1,111 1,072 14 306 536

Chamizal NMEM 113,817

- 7,833 7,283 110 2,747 5,260

Channel Islands NP 242,756 60,922 22,368 21,308 296 10,912 19,246

Charles Pinckney NHS 45,254

- 2,396 2,227 34 915 1,579

Chattahoochee River NRA 3,161,297

- 102,108 68,878 798 29,323 46,311

* Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP 3,937,504 7,690 54,008 33,909 435 16,885 28,105

Chickamauga & Chattanooga NMP 1,036,699 1,961 54,908 51,058 774 21,858 38,327

Chickasaw NRA 1,212,139 73,956 18,160 13,961 150 3,145 5,570

* Chiricahua NM 37,037 5,232 3,414 3,383 45 1,022 2,018

Christiansted NHS 119,335

- 4,422 4,112 62 1,039 2,087

City of Rocks NRES 95,764

- 6,887 6,531 93 2,089 3,815

Clara Barton NHS 15,620

- 1,075 999 11 425 706

* Colonial NHP 3,414,577

- 62,621 57,558 936 22,406 41,049

Colorado NM 435,460 15,188 23,251 21,657 295 6,732 13,242

Congaree NP 120,166 5,503 2

, 928 2

, 579 43 1,075 1,942

Coronado NMEM 153,042

- 5,671 5,273 75 1,934 3,552

Cowpens NB 223,923 4 11,854 11,022 176 4,385 7,836

* Crater Lake NP 423,551 79,054 34,688 33,665 549 12,781 24,037

* Craters of the Moon NM 198,545 14,119 6,821 6,746 81 1,748 2,940

Cumberland Gap NHP 828,947 14,887 44,029 40,973 602 10,475 20,889

Cumberland Island NS 74,279 16,961 5,270 5,025 73 2,236 3,959

Curecanti NRA 924,468 53,058 41,288 36,075 450 8,808 18,313

Cuyahoga Valley NP 2,161,185 5,539 51,473 37,248 530 14,931 24,305

* Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP 68,048

- 3,687 3,487 67 1,475 2,638

De Soto NMEM 355,653

- 24,476 22,758 347 11,143 19,676

Death Valley NP 946,867 224,379 50,240 48,087 616 16,114 30,619

Delaware Water Gap NRA 4,986,700 109,067 149,655 127,502 1,998 47,729 93,899

* Denali NP & PRES 406,582 109,047 160,010 160,010 2,669 69,258 111,362

Devils Postpile NM 97,207 4,215 3,642 3,394 41 1,028 1,961

Devils Tower NM 395,203 13,313 14,772 13,759 207 4,781 8,075

Dinosaur NM 213,559 40,066 7,671 7,159 92 2,080 3,992

Dry Tortugas NP 75,171 39,318 6,887 6,618 73 2,514 4,261

Edgar Allan Poe NHS 14,711

- 1,012 941 14 505 838

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 18 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

* Effigy Mounds NM 82,581

- 5,124 4,901 82 1,278 2,547

* Eisenhower NHS 58,022

- 3,795 3,763 64 1,218 2,494

El Malpais NM 105,356 417 4,140 3,986 59 1,503 2,594

El Morro NM 48,332 1,943 1,816 1,738 23 365 787

Eleanor Roosevelt NHS 50,074

- 919 567 7 180 361

Eugene O'Neill NHS 2,593

- 178 166 2 89 153

* Everglades NP 934,351 28,868 146,784 141,069 2,336 83,242 140,066

Federal Hall NMEM 187,109

- 12,877 11,973 135 6,193 10,235

Fire Island NS 519,173 37,098 31,692 27,742 309 14,207 23,441

First Ladies NHS 8,254

- 568 528 9 189 341

Flight 93 NMEM 265,246

- 14,042 13,056 193 4,068 7,755

Florissant Fossil Beds NM 61,289

- 3,245 3,017 39 1,062 1,962

Ford's Theatre NHS 642,786

- 21,996 20,096 223 9,163 15,329

* Fort Bowie NHS 8,429

- 968 957 12 266 531

Fort Caroline NMEM 326,149

- 22,446 20,870 325 6,303 11,679

Fort Davis NHS 35,130

- 1,302 1,210 17 311 637

Fort Donelson NB 257,389 3 9,538 8,868 132 2,472 4,770

Fort Frederica NM 293,041

- 15,513 14,424 205 5,152 9,558

Fort Laramie NHS 52,916

- 1,961 1,823 27 534 988

* Fort Larned NHS 26,704

- 1,567 1,531 23 449 838

Fort Matanzas NM 570,695

- 39,275 36,518 454 13,063 23,262

Fort McHenry NM & HS 641,254

- 44,131 41,033 586 18,034 32,474

Fort Necessity NB 193,479 577 6,667 5,857 82 1,733 3,241

Fort Point NHS 1,338,508

- 92,117 85,649 1,145 45,382 78,273

Fort Pulaski NM 408,104 26 21,605 20,088 293 8,096 14,199

Fort Raleigh NHS 282,134

- 10,455 9,721 141 3,673 6,645

Fort Scott NHS 26,219

- 972 903 14 237 471

Fort Smith NHS 86,122

- 4,559 4,239 69 1,466 2,643

* Fort Stanwix NM 102,874

- 5,451 5,242 65 1,670 3,755

Fort Sumter NM 857,883 11 21,655 19,312 244 6,261 10,539

Fort Union NM 9,575

- 618 617 8 186 332

Fort Union Trading Post NHS 12,236

- 900 872 11 245 432

Fort Vancouver NHS 710,439

- 37,610 34,969 575 17,117 29,386

Fort Washington Park 409,381

- 14,009 12,799 142 5,836 9,763

Fossil Butte NM 16,552

- 783 783 10 205 397

Franklin Delano Roosevelt MEM 2,309,708

- 79,037 72,209 803 32,925 55,080

Frederick Douglass NHS 46,694

- 1,598 1,460 16 666 1,114

Frederick Law Olmsted NHS 4,022

- 277 257 3 126 209

Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania N 908,836

- 48,113 44,735 618 15,068 28,167

Friendship Hill NHS 30,039

- 2,067 1,922 29 634 1,196

Gates of the Arctic NP & PRES 11,623 6,576 4,008 4,008 42 1,343 2,410

Gateway NRA 7,697,727 8,165 150,947 60,712 668 30,724 50,537

Gauley River NRA 109,780 4,765 4,882 4,259 59 1,578 2,570

General Grant NMEM 104,769

- 7,210 6,704 76 3,468 5,731

George Rogers Clark NHP 145,596

- 7,708 7,167 111 1,856 3,676

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 19 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

* George Washington Birthplace NM 130,647

- 3,569 3,275 44 871 1,696

George Washington Carver NM 30,787

- 547 519 7 145 272

George Washington MEM PKWY 7,417,397

- 34,370 5,021 50 1,886 3,084

* Gettysburg NMP 1,124,659 24,948 72,326 71,731 1,226 23,209 47,532

Gila Cliff Dwellings NM 25,317

- 716 690 10 161 312

Glacier Bay NP & PRES 431,986 34,309 4,592 4,592 59 1,765 3,169

Glacier NP 1,853,564 332,491 97,715 93,928 1,337 30,590 55,206

Glen Canyon NRA 2,270,817 1,311,741 233,895 233,895 2,755 88,152 138,044

Golden Gate NRA 14,567,487 60,927 289,700 119,573 1,566 62,428 107,537

* Golden Spike NHS 43,933

- 2,237 2,182 31 709 1,309

Governors Island NM 402,174

- 37,602 35,659 409 18,969 31,399

* Grand Canyon NP 4,298,178 1,357,679 467,257 467,257 7,361 194,112 346,447

Grand Portage NM 97,440 149 11,287 11,228 182 3,445 6,890

* Grand Teton NP 2,587,437 483,467 436,416 432,295 6,352 158,759 292,497

Grant

- Kohrs Ranch NHS 20,293

- 752 699 11 253 444

Great Basin NP 91,451 36,026 4,528 4,339 56 1,029 2,096

Great Sand Dunes NP & PRES 280,058 46,830 10,770 10,096 134 2,636 5,289

Great Smoky Mountains NP 9,008,830 378,830 818,886 792,559 11,418 293,668 528,578

Greenbelt Park 190,427 24,507 13,539 12,671 134 5,279 8,776

Guadalupe Mountains NP 152,546 14,192 10,919 10,379 158 2,765 5,417

Guilford Courthouse NMP 346,617 12 18,350 17,061 281 7,312 12,746

Gulf Islands NS 5,501,872 138,680 164,709 95,972 1,264 30,575 57,097

Hagerman Fossil Beds NM 21,100

- 678 590 9 191 339

Haleakala NP 956,989 21,436 68,757 65,241 795 26,798 48,229

Hamilton Grange NMEM 7,817

- 533 496 6 266 441

Hampton NHS 32,165

- 2,214 2,058 29 905 1,629

Harpers Ferry NHP 255,348

- 9,993 9,117 135 3,963 6,955

Harry S Truman NHS 28,924

- 1,991 1,851 30 955 1,574

Hawaii Volcanoes NP 1,352,123 80,880 96,990 92,119 1,121 37,711 67,877

Herbert Hoover NHS 134,249

- 7,107 6,608 109 2,513 4,317

Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt N HS 125,488

- 2,723 2,392 29 778 1,577

* Homestead NM of America 69,845

- 2,308 2,161 32 654 1,166

Hopewell Culture NHP 33,834

- 1,254 1,166 18 326 611

Hopewell Furnace NHS 44,873

- 2,376 2,209 33 926 1,615

Horseshoe Bend NMP 65,892

- 3,488 3,243 49 980 1,776

Hot Springs NP 1,396,354 13,943 100,386 95,223 1,551 30,878 54,885

Hovenweep NM 25,858 1,558 1,390 1,297 17 403 740

Hubbell Trading Post NHS 88,231

- 4,671 4,343 57 921 2,109

Independence NHP 3,572,770

- 149,894 134,115 1,878 67,770 112,298

Indiana Dunes NL 1,840,513 22,823 58,817 41,251 572 13,892 24,596

Isle Royale NP 15,892 48,787 2,098 2,098 30 524 1,049

* James A. Garfield NHS 31,499

- 1,031 944 15 449 746

Jean Lafitte NHP & PRES 420,366

- 22,254 20,691 292 10,284 16,699

Jefferson NEM 2,259,020

- 97,764 85,939 1,110 44,057 75,918

Jewel Cave NM 77,146

- 4,084 3,797 60 1,319 2,260

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 20 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Jimmy Carter NHS 66,157

- 2,452 2,279 34 571 1,189

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. MEM PK 1,147,986 34,914 7,471 6,930 93 2,198 3,727

* John Day Fossil Beds NM 148,002

- 7,303 7,185 90 1,668 3,349

John F. Kennedy NHS 18,466

- 1,271 1,182 14 580 962

John Muir NHS 31,236

- 2,150 1,999 26 836 1,557

Johnstown Flood NMEM 105,906

- 6,356 5,870 97 2,161 4,092

* Joshua Tree NP 1,396,237 281,544 50,471 50,031 690 20,220 37,817

Kalaupapa NHP 57,841

- 3,062 2,847 34 1,142 2,049

Kaloko Honokohau NHP 162,906

- 8,624 8,019 96 3,215 5,771

* Katmai NP & PRES 48,939 8,239 12,583 12,445 166 4,928 8,847

Kenai Fjords NP 346,852 1,791 11,804 11,630 159 4,624 8,303

Kennesaw Mountain NBP 1,748,436

- 59,809 52,087 644 22,144 36,030

Kings Canyon NP 566,810 182,275 44,116 40,524 549 15,441 29,781

* Kings Mountain NMP 272,325 92 9,992 8,882 135 3,127 5,699

Klondike Gold Rush NHP Alaska 795,150 5,592 22,504 22,236 273 8,226 14,678

Klondike Gold Rush NHP Seattle 64,898

- 4,466 4,153 60 2,025 3,485

Knife River Indian Villages NHS 16,025

- 594 552 9 207 359

Kobuk Valley NP 11,485 9,715 3,955 3,955 41 1,318 2,354

Korean War Veterans Memorial 3,073,430

- 105,171 96,086 1,068 43,812 73,293

Lake Chelan NRA 43,827 10,595 1,803 1,646 23 827 1,414

Lake Clark NP & PRES 5,158 1,931 1,775 1,775 18 590 1,052

Lake Mead NRA 6,396,682 923,421 246,962 209,944 2,544 79,462 138,418

Lake Meredith NRA 734,030 17,098 32,446 28,237 382 8,189 15,636

Lake Roosevelt NRA 1,523,474 162,760 48,758 42,892 563 11,732 22,969

Lassen Volcanic NP 351,269 88,567 15,807 14,403 178 4,458 8,675

Lava Beds NM 124,113 10,827 4,678 4,456 52 1,187 2,319

LBJ Memorial Grove on the Potom c 239,058

- 16,452 15,297 164 6,499 10,807

Lewis & Clark NHP 191,867

- 10,157 9,444 142 2,386 4,794

Lincoln Boyhood NMEM 108,420

- 5,740 5,337 83 1,550 2,906

Lincoln Home NHS 296,214

- 16,367 16,061 233 6,006 11,410

Lincoln Memorial 5,971,220

- 204,331 186,680 2,075 85,120 142,397

Little Bighorn Battlefield NM 312,168

- 11,568 10,756 165 4,036 7,067

Little River Canyon NPRES 225,549

- 11,355 10,768 169 3,237 6,213

Little Rock Central High School NHS 66,106

- 3,500 3,254 52 1,479 2,389

Longfellow NHS 46,596

- 2,467 2,294 28 1,126 1,867

Lowell NHP 520,452

- 35,818 33,303 408 16,351 27,109

Lyndon B. Johnson NHP 100,056

- 6,886 6,402 90 2,718 4,738

Maggie L. Walker NHS 10,779

- 271 143 2 66 114

Mammoth Cave NP 483,319 78,172 33,504 31,618 508 11,080 19,822

Manassas NBP 659,740

- 9,669 9,256 105 3,558 5,776

* Manzanar NHS 79,587

- 8,434 8,381 92 2,091 4,286

Marsh

- Billings

- Rockefeller NHP 29,049

- 1,538 1,430 21 536 932

Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial 1,490,358

- 101,657 94,240 1,017 41,961 70,532

Martin Luther King, Jr. NHS 666,482

- 45,868 42,647 562 21,142 33,915

Martin Van Buren NHS 19,287

- 419 367 4 110 202

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 21 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Mary McLeod Bethune Council Hou se

NHS 18,142

- 621 567 6 259 433

Mesa Verde NP 572,329 70,891 43,382 41,397 551 12,518 24,207

Minute Man NHP 1,002,833

- 69,015 64,170 851 29,855 51,655

* Minuteman Missile NHS 59,389

- 4,229 4,229 65 1,467 2,505

Mississippi NRRA 99,398

- 11,029 10,567 186 5,981 10,155

Missouri NRR 179,983

- 9,061 8,593 140 2,204 4,171

Mojave NPRES 536,006 1,584 12,552 10,978 131 4,624 8,187

* Monocacy NB 36,674

- 2,796 2,591 33 1,299 2,122

Montezuma Castle NM 573,731

- 30,373 28,240 428 13,851 24,025

Moores Creek NB 58,118 252 2,150 1,999 31 704 1,293

Morristown NHP 222,395

- 11,773 10,947 123 5,662 9,358

* Mount Rainier NP 1,038,229 162,684 33,006 31,382 436 11,653 21,090

Mount Rushmore NMEM 2,081,722

- 74,365 69,991 1,007 22,080 37,100

Muir Woods NM 897,131

- 61,741 57,406 767 30,417 52,462

Natchez NHP 206,624

- 10,938 10,170 131 2,674 5,243

Natchez Trace PKWY 5,765,343 21,957 93,117 33,926 455 7,618 14,891

National Capital Parks Central 1,240,717

- 42,457 38,789 431 17,686 29,588

National Capital Parks East 1,167,393

- 39,947 36,497 406 16,641 27,839

National Park of American Samoa 8,716

- 744 713 11 188 381

Natural Bridges NM 91,184 6,665 4,918 4,590 59 1,191 2,339

Navajo NM 87,388 2,533 4,655 4,335 56 1,348 2,515

New Bedford Whaling NHP 273,862

- 14,250 13,618 207 6,140 11,616

New Orleans Jazz NHP 130,393

- 6,903 6,418 90 3,190 5,180

* New River Gorge NR 1,071,088 8,861 46,224 43,316 596 13,647 23,667

Nez Perce NHP 286,259

- 10,608 9,863 151 3,849 7,119

Nicodemus NHS 2,681

- 133 130 2 38 68

Ninety Six NHS 70,099

- 3,711 3,450 50 946 1,793

Niobrara NSR 65,785

- 3,312 3,141 51 806 1,525

Noatak NPRES 11,722 9,694 4,036 4,036 42 1,343 2,397

North Cascades NP 19,208 17,002 1,252 1,206 16 582 997

Obed W&SR 212,458 1,340 9,711 8,482 124 2,277 4,420

Ocmulgee NM 122,722

- 6,497 6,041 93 2,145 4,109

* Olympic NP 2,966,502 298,235 115,317 105,561 1,497 28,293 59,819

Oregon Caves NM 76,194 6,307 3,848 3,578 55 1,212 2,393

Organ Pipe Cactus NM 211,405 13,024 11,358 10,594 160 5,099 8,869

Ozark NSR 1,365,960 168,595 65,280 57,823 861 13,337 27,211

Padre Island NS 542,873 59,828 38,805 36,897 516 10,304 19,878

Palo Alto Battlefield NHP 24,752

- 917 853 13 303 593

Pea Ridge NMP 114,234

- 6,047 5,623 88 1,537 2,833

Pecos NHP 43,873

- 1,022 989 15 377 642

Pennsylvania Avenue NHS 236,136

- 8,080 7,382 82 3,366 5,631

* Perry's Victory & Intl. Peace M 93,119 1,581 7,422 7,422 147 3,430 6,037

Petersburg NB 213,261

- 11,290 10,497 155 3,799 7,139

Petrified Forest NP 614,054 4,611 44,161 41,879 568 11,735 23,317

Petroglyph NM 114,428

- 5,060 4,098 66 1,728 2,987

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 22 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

* Pictured Rocks NL 561,104 33,974 24,970 24,532 357 5,676 12,414

Pinnacles NM 393,219

- 8,415 6,942 82 2,802 4,823

Pipe Spring NM 57,360

- 3,037 2,823 39 933 1,752

Pipestone NM 61,908

- 2,846 2,762 44 991 1,678

Piscataway Park 279,060

- 9,549 8,724 97 3,978 6,655

Point Reyes NS 2,129,116 40,822 93,317 84,981 1,105 43,524 75,171

Port Chicago Naval Magazine NM 545

- 37 34 1 21 36

President W.J. Clinton Birthpla ce 9,749

- 512 474 7 124 254

President's Park 786,151

- 26,902 24,578 273 11,207 18,748

Prince William Forest Park 379,535 48,504 21,833 16,328 172 6,494 10,808

Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP 426,224

- 22,564 20,980 252 8,412 15,099

Pu'ukohola Heiau NHS 133,306

- 7,057 6,562 79 2,631 4,722

Rainbow Bridge NM 92,311

- 4,887 4,544 60 1,485 2,701

Redwood NP 380,167 5,420 20,172 18,186 247 4,689 9,966

Richmond NBP 139,376

- 10,374 9,335 146 4,420 7,697

Rio Grande W&SR 873 4,871 106 105 1 22 45

River Raisin NBP 36,206

- 3,090 2,961 52 1,667 2,837

Rock Creek Park 2,050,490

- 70,166 64,105 713 29,230 48,899

Rocky Mountain NP 3,176,941 200,712 196,127 191,892 2,742 71,849 138,269

Roger Williams NMEM 50,909

- 3,504 3,258 46 1,420 2,459

Ross Lake NRA 728,353 71,820 23,339 20,516 280 9,832 16,804

Russell Cave NM 20,717

- 1,097 1,020 16 274 526

Sagamore Hill NHS 53,336

- 3,671 3,413 41 1,516 2,726

Saguaro NP 610,045 2,033 21,949 15,156 211 5,547 10,044

Saint Croix NSR 273,729 29,738 8,803 7,740 122 2,348 4,293

Saint Paul's Church NHS 14,926

- 1,027 955 11 494 816

* Saint

- Gaudens NHS 32,695

- 1,297 1,193 19 494 869

Salem Maritime NHS 737,073

- 50,726 47,164 578 23,157 38,392

Salinas Pueblo Missions NM 29,786

- 823 792 12 306 520

Salt River Bay NHP & Ecological 2,419

- 206 198 3 52 106

San Antonio Missions NHP 568,021

- 23,831 21,323 297 8,913 15,385

San Francisco Maritime NHP 4,224,897 10,876 95,492 70,774 855 33,761 58,207

San Juan Island NHP 266,717

- 18,356 17,067 235 5,939 11,420

San Juan NHS 1,229,590

- 65,093 60,523 892 17,812 34,157

Sand Creek Massacre NHS 3,935

- 336 322 4 80 172

Santa Monica Mountains NRA 609,636 144 26,192 17,258 242 9,013 15,833

Saratoga NHP 65,043

- 2,410 2,241 27 700 1,426

Saugus Iron Works NHS 11,121

- 765 712 9 349 579

Scotts Bluff NM 128,811

- 4,416 3,586 60 1,134 2,033

* Sequoia NP 1,006,583 228,644 77,776 71,141 965 27,119 52,409

Shenandoah NP 1,209,883 282,888 73,908 65,113 938 22,465 41,855

Shiloh NMP 387,816

- 14,371 13,362 202 4,033 7,844

Sitka NHP 186,864

- 4,058 4,010 49 1,483 2,645

* Sleeping Bear Dunes NL 1,348,304 129,973 132,774 129,244 2,288 52,893 102,846

Springfield Armory NHS 16,161

- 1,112 1,034 14 438 800

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 23 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Statue of Liberty NM 3,749,982

- 174,607 157,217 2,009 79,828 137,508

Steamtown NHS 111,725

- 4,140 3,850 59 1,529 2,759

Stones River NB 187,208

- 9,911 9,215 143 4,716 7,784

Sunset Crater Volcano NM 185,265

- 9,808 9,119 121 2,986 5,514

Tallgrass Prairie NPRES 17,893

- 901 854 14 225 433

Thaddeus Kosciuszko NMEM 1,949

- 134 125 2 67 111

Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace N HS 6,537

- 450 418 5 216 358

Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural NH S 17,107

- 1,177 1,095 15 416 840

Theodore Roosevelt Island Park 137,690

- 9,476 8,811 95 3,743 6,225

Theodore Roosevelt NP 563,407 21,518 28,318 26,881 431 8,784 15,313

Thomas Edison NHP 55,284

- 3,805 3,538 40 1,830 3,024

Thomas Jefferson MEM 1,945,696

- 66,580 60,829 676 27,736 46,400

Thomas Stone NHS 6,351

- 437 406 4 173 287

Timpanogos Cave NM 96,965

- 6,673 6,205 100 2,856 4,840

Timucuan EHP 1,028,922

- 56,265 43,836 617 19,121 33,487

Tonto NM 53,426

- 2,828 2,630 40 1,279 2,227

Tumacacori NHP 33,740

- 1,250 1,163 16 426 783

Tuskegee Airmen NHS 16,244

- 860 800 13 303 523

Tuskegee Institute NHS 23,288

- 1,233 1,146 18 435 749

Tuzigoot NM 101,104

- 5,352 4,977 75 2,441 4,234

Ulysses S. Grant NHS 35,664

- 2,454 2,282 31 1,209 2,086

Upper Delaware S&RR 270,390

- 8,636 7,538 89 2,182 4,207

* Valley Forge NHP 1,303,046 2,000 49,497 35,127 560 21,595 34,786

Vanderbilt Mansion NHS 367,680

- 5,761 3,363 39 1,025 2,023

Vicksburg NMP 796,035

- 42,141 39,182 589 16,080 27,139

Vietnam Veterans MEM 4,020,127

- 137,566 125,682 1,397 57,307 95,869

* Virgin Islands NP 442,414 57,741 58,649 58,649 1,086 21,565 40,139

Voyageurs NP 177,184 65,465 8,972 8,593 137 2,993 5,566

Walnut Canyon NM 125,003

- 6,618 6,153 82 2,015 3,721

War in the Pacific NHP 482,391

- 17,876 16,621 245 4,892 9,380

Washington Monument 430,153

- 14,720 13,448 150 6,132 10,258

Washita Battlefield NHS 10,995

- 456 428 7 110 222

Weir Farm NHS 22,415

- 1,543 1,434 16 692 1,161

Whiskeytown NRA 761,710 43,713 33,980 29,683 386 8,906 18,157

White House 570,057

- 19,507 17,822 198 8,126 13,594

White Sands NM 428,924 2,185 15,812 15,500 230 5,053 9,091

Whitman Mission NHS 57,611

- 2,135 1,985 28 601 1,143

William Howard Taft NHS 21,141

- 1,455 1,353 22 646 1,053

Wilson's Creek NB 192,865

- 10,210 9,493 156 3,689 6,705

Wind Cave NP 538,394 3,054 51,506 51,381 890 19,661 34,288

Wolf Trap NP for the Performing Arts 425,177

- 29,261 27,206 292 11,558 19,222

* Women's Rights NHP 25,426

- 740 740 7 173 334

World War II Memorial 3,752,172

- 128,397 117,305 1,304 53,487 89,479

World War II Valor in the Pacif ic NM 1,694,896

- 71,109 63,623 735 24,117 42,948

Wrangell

- St. Elias NP & PRES 65,225

- 3,110 3,110 44 1,174 2,123

## Table A

- 1

. Local

- Level Impacts of NP S Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park , 2011 (continued)



# 24 Park Unit Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2011 Impacts of Non

- l ocal Visitor

Spending

2011

Recreation

Visits 2011

Overnight

Stays All

Visitors Non

- l ocal

Visitors Jobs Labor

Income Value

Added

($000's) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)

Wright Brothers NMEM 445,455

- 16,507 15,348 223 5,800 10,491

Wupatki NM 216,165

- 11,444 10,640 141 3,484 6,434

* Yellowstone NP 3,394,326 1,280,978 332,975 332,975 5,041 133,534 227,947

* Yosemite NP 3,951,393 1,630,610 379,116 374,136 5,003 128,202 251,573

Yukon

- Charley Rivers NPRES 1,718 6,774 1,966 1,966 21 670 1,217

* Zion NP 2,825,505 312,608 138,697 137,403 2,286 51,416 98,433

* 

### For these parks, results are based on a visitor survey at the designated park. For other parks, visitor characteristics and

spending averages are adapted from national averages for each park type, adjusted for surrounding populations and spending

opportun ities.

Notes: Non

- local visitors live outside a roughly 60

- mile radius of the park. Jobs include part

- time and full

- time jobs with

seasonal jobs adjusted to an annual basis. Impacts include direct and secondary effects of visitor spending on the local eco nomy.

Labor income covers wages and salaries, payroll benefits, and incomes of sole proprietors in the local region. Value added

includes labor income, profits and rents, and indirect business taxes.

## Table A

- 2

. State

- Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State, 2011



# 25 State Non

- l ocal

Visitor

Spending

($ Millions) Jobs from

Non

- l ocal

Visitor

Spending Labor Income

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions) Value

- added

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions)

Alaska 237 4,138 116 200

Alabama 19 315 8 13

Arkansas 140 2,364 53 92

American Samoa 1 12 0 a 

### 1

Arizona 737 12,49 9 381 671

California 1,192 17,978 690 1,224

Colorado 319 4,621 148 266

Connecticut 1 19 1 1

District of Columbia 1,02 5 8,852 404 684

Florida 608 9,818 320 561

Georgia 241 3,592 108 189

Guam 17 268 8 14

Hawaii 259 3,113 104 187

Iowa 12 195 5 8

Idaho 24 379 8 15

Illinois 16 253 9 16

Indiana 54 826 20 35

Kansas 4 67 2 3

Kentucky 85 1,400 36 62

Louisiana 28 429 12 21

Massachusetts 432 6,917 179 307

Maryland 145 2,025 65 115

Maine 183 2,555 97 169

Michigan 159 2,875 82 148

Minnesota 37 665 19 33

Missouri 158 2,468 67 116

Mississippi 10 1 1,471 35 61

Montana 279 4,492 107 190

North Carolina 725 11,915 323 560

North Dakota 28 478 11 18

Nebraska 13 227 5 9

New Hampshire 1 20 1 1

New Jersey 117 1,80 7 63 113

New Mexico 9 8 1,479 36 63

Nevada 162 2,045 67 116

New York 341 3,998 159 274

Ohio 52 862 22 39

Oklahoma 14 177 5 9

Oregon 54 915 26 45

Pennsylvania 325 5,358 161 280

Puerto Rico 61 9 80 29 50

Rhode Island 3 45 1 2

South Carolina 

## 4 8 704 18 31

South Dakota 160 2,576 54 93

Tennessee 530 8,847 261 452

Texas 177 2,798 91 164

Utah 693 11,240 336 565

## Table A

- 2

. State

- Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State, 2011 (continued)



# 26 State Non

- l ocal

Visitor

Spending

($ Millions) Jobs from

Non

- l ocal

Visitor

Spending Labor Income

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions) Value

- added

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions)

Virginia 541 8,116 237 417

Virgin Islands 65 1,236 37 63

Vermont 1 22 1 1

Washington 261 3,827 121 215

Wisconsin 24 45 5 12 19

West Virginia 60 869 21 36

Wyoming 621 9,098 222 397

a 

## $0.35 million for labor income

## Table A

- 3

. Regional

- Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Regional Economies by Region, 2011



# 27 Region Non

- l ocal

Visitor Spending

($ Millions) Jobs from

Non

- l ocal

Visitor

Spending Labor Income

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions) Value

- added

from Non

l ocal Visitor

Spending

($ Millions)

Alaska Region 23 7 4,138 116 200

Intermountain Region 2, 885 48,326 1,569 2,811

Midwest Region 854 15,630 462 810

National Capital Region 1, 209 15,225 587 984

Northeast Region 1,847 28,802 1,071 1,873

Pacific West Region 2, 022 30,612 1,144 2,026

Southeast Region 2, 631 44,944 1,397 2,461

## Table A

- 4 . Allocations to States for Multi

- S tate Parks



# 28 Park State Share

Assateague Island NS MD 33%

Assateague Island NS VA 67%

Bighorn Canyon NRA WY 46%

Bighorn Canyon NRA MT 54%

Big South Fork NRRA KY 41%

Big South Fork NRRA TN 59%

Blue Ridge Parkway VA 38%

Blue Ridge Parkway NC 62%

Chickamauga & Chattanooga NMP GA 50%

Chickamauga & Chattanooga NMP TN 50%

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP WV 6%

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP MD 9%

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP DC 85%

Cumberland Gap NHP KY 93%

Cumberland Gap NHP VA 7%

Delaware Water Gap NRA PA 29%

Delaware Water Gap NRA NJ 71%

Dinosaur NM UT 26%

Dinosaur NM CO 74%

Gateway NRA NJ 20%

Gateway NRA NY 80%

Glen Canyon NRA AZ 8%

Glen Canyon NRA UT 92%

Great Smoky Mountains NP NC 44%

Great Smoky Mountains NP TN 56%

Gulf Islands Nat Seashore MS 25%

Gulf Islands Nat Seashore FL 75%

Hovenweep NM CO 44%

Hovenweep NM UT 56%

Lake Mead NRA AZ 25%

Lake Mead NRA NV 75%

Natchez Trace Parkway AL 7%

Natchez Trace Parkway TN 13%

Natchez Trace Parkway MS 80%

National capital Parks East MD 10%

National capital Parks East DC 90%

Saint Croix Nat scenic river MN 50%

Saint Croix Nat scenic river WI 50%

Upper Delaware SRR NY 50%

Upper Delaware SRR PA 50%

Yellowstone NP WY 49%

Yellowstone NP MT 51%

### The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultur al heritage; provides scientifi c and

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affi liated

Island Communities.National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior



### Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM