Economic Impact of Out-Of-State Visitors

Home , Fort Worden

Executive Committee Meeting Fort Worden Public Development Authority Seminar Building 297, Fort Worden Tuesday, May 15, 2018 | 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Public Meeting Agenda:

1. Review of draft May 23, 2018 Board Meeting Agenda

2. Review and Approval of April 17, 2018 Executive Committee Minutes

3. Review April Cash Flow Report

4. 2017 Annual Report

5. Makers Square Update

6. Board & Staff Discussion

 Washington State Parks Commission Meeting

 Master Lease Amendments

 Capital Budget

 Maintenance Transition

 Board Work Groups

 Fort Worden Economic Impact

 Fortopia Program

 Hiebing Marketing Study

 Partner Classification

7. Public Comment

Page 1 of 69 AGENDA Board of Directors Meeting Fort Worden Public Development Authority Wednesday, May 23 2018 | 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Commons A, Building 210, Fort Worden

Regular Board Meeting:

I. Call to Order

II. Roll Call & Staff Introductions

III. Changes to the Agenda

IV. Partner Presentation: Marine Science Center

V. Correspondence  Fort Worden Partners Report

VI. Consent Agenda A. Review and Approval of Regular Board Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2018 Action: Motion to approve April 25, 2018 Board Meeting Minutes

VII. Review and Discussion of April Financials A. Staff Report B. Board Discussion

VIII. Fortopia Program A. Staff Report B. Board Discussion

IX. Hiebing Marketing Study A. Staff Report B. Board Discussion

X. Resolution to increase the 2018 Human Resource Management contract with Carolyn Pedersen from $10,000 to $20,000. A. Staff Report B. Board Discussion Action: Motion to approve Resolution 18-05 authorizing the Executive Director to increase the Human Resource Management contract with Carolyn Pedersen to $20,000.

Page 2 of 69 XI. Peninsula College/Building 202 Use Agreement C. Staff Report D. Board Discussion Action: Motion to approve Building 202 Use Agreement

XII. Staff Report A. Washington State Park Commission Meeting B. Master Lease Amendments C. Marketing Update D. Energy Efficiency Update E. Maintenance Transition Update F. Makers Square Project Update and Timeline

XIII. Board Reports/Discussion A. Board Work Groups

XIV. Public Comment

XV. Next Meetings  Executive Committee Meeting June 19, 2018  Board of Directors Meeting, June 27, 2018

XVI. Adjourn

Page 3 of 69

RESOLUTION NO. 18-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE FORT WORDEN LIFELONG LEARNING CENTER PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FWPDA) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE THE 2018 HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES CONTRACT BUDGET FOR CAROLYN PEDERSEN FROM $10,000 TO $20,000.

RECITALS

Whereas, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution 15-10 providing for master policy directives and the administrative authority of the Executive Director, and;

Whereas, the administrative authority allows the Executive Director to obtain professional and consultant services in the conduct of normal FWPDA operations not exceeding $10,000 without board approval, and;

Whereas, the Executive Director is entering into a 2018 contract with Carolyn Pedersen to provide Human Resource Management services, including recruiting for Food and Beverage department, leadership development, and Employer of Choice preliminary research for the year, and;

Whereas, due to additional needs in leadership development and training materials development currently underway, it is efficient and useful to increase the consultant’s annual human resource management services contract to an amount not to exceed $20,000 for 2018.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Fort Worden Public Development Authority confirms and approves that the Executive Director may add an additional Scope of Work to the existing service agreement resulting in total contracted services not to exceed $20,000.

ADOPTED by a majority of the Board of Directors at its regular meeting on May 23, 2018

By: ______Norm Tonina, Chairperson

ATTEST:

______Jane Kilburn, Secretary

Page 4 of 69

Minutes Executive Committee Meeting Fort Worden Public Development Authority (FWPDA) Seminar Building 297, Fort Worden Tuesday, April 17, 2018 | 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Regular Executive Committee Meeting:

I. Call to Order: 9:02 a.m.

II. Roll Call Committee Members: Gee Heckscher, Norm Tonina, Jane Kilburn, Jeff Jackson (by phone)

Immediate Past President: Cindy Finnie (by phone)

Staff: Dave Robison, Diane Moody, Karolina Anderson

Public: David Goldman

III. DRAFT April Board Meeting Agenda The Committee reviewed the April board meeting agenda. An Energy Efficiency Update and a Maintenance Transition Update will be added in the “Staff Update” section of the agenda.

IV. Review Cash Flow Report Diane Moody reviewed the March cash flow report and noted that March came in $70,000 ahead of revenue projections.

V. 2017 Draft Annual Report Dave Robison presented the draft annual report (PowerPoint) and updated the Committee about the presentation he made to the City Council. Robison noted that the presentation did not include investments the PDA has made in meeting rooms including painting and refinishing the floors of JFK, refinishing the stage floor of the Wheeler Theater, and a refresh of Building 204 (in progress). Robison reported that he thanked the City Council for their support and that LTAC revenues increased significantly from 2014 to 2017 – reflecting increased revenues to the City. Robison also thanked the City Council for passing the resolution that allowed for better benefits for employees through the plan offered through Association of Washington Cities. Robison reported that good progress has been made on recruiting and retaining key staff in all departments. Robison talked about the sustainability plan and noted delays caused by the departure of the consultant hired to manage the project. Robison reported that the NCO feasibility study is moving ahead.

Robison stated that a presentation will be made to the board about the Fall Break Program at the May board meeting (previously “Spring Break”) noting that there’s enthusiasm about the project among the partners.

Page 5 of 69

Robison stated that operational efficiencies were improved in 2017, including staff onboarding and training, safety meetings and adding night security. Robison and Moody reviewed the year- end financial revenue mix. Staff and the Committee discussed lodging revenue, including increasing bookings in the off season and possible reasons for reduced lodging revenues from partner programming.

Robison stated that a written annual report is in progress. Robison noted that the growth of the hospitality business has been key to being able to support the maintenance transfer since the FWPDA will take on approximately $580,000 in annual maintenance costs after the transfer on May 1, 2018.

Robison reviewed 2018 to 2021 Strategic Priorities as part of the annual report.

VI. Capital Budget Request Robison discussed the Heritage Capital Grant and request to the Governor for additional capital investments. The board authorized submittal of the grant.

VII. Makers Square Update Robison reviewed details of the request for additional design services from Signal Architects, and the requested documentation from Signal.The committee discussed the possibility of the need to phase the Makers Square project – Robison suggested that the critical decision on phasing will be made in July or August 2018. Kilburn requested that staff include a Makers Square Schedule and update at each board meeting - Kilburn also requested verbal updates on hiring staff to manage the project. Robison reported that recruitment is in progress for a Makers Square Project Manager and the Committee discussed posting the position on the AIA site as well as a construction management site. The Committee discussed fees and additional documentation to ensure accurate tracking of expenditures.

VIII. Board & Staff Discussion

A. Retreat Follow-Up Norm Tonina asked the Committee to provide feedback about the board retreat. Jeff Jackson stated that a feeling of inclusion was communicated to the partners but that there was less focus on strategy and execution (i.e. brand, criteria for recruiting new partners).

Cindy Finnie asked how strategic priorities line up with outcomes from the retreat.

Kilburn suggested that the strategic discussion needs more structure and that the mission of Makers Square needs clarification.

Tonina noted that board members directly experienced Food & Beverage and hospitality gains while staying at the fort and complimented the food and hospitality.

The Committee discussed Key Performance Indicators and progress made by Cody Griffith on customer segmentation.

Page 6 of 69

The Committee discussed areas of improvement including utilizing processes that support strategic priorities and outcomes. They also discussed the importance of clarifying criteria for recruiting new Partner Organizations to complete the “partner ecosystem.”

Diane Moody stated that although she was aiming for more tangible results from the retreat, she noted a positive engagement by partners. Moody asked the following rhetorical questions: “Where do we go from here? What is the process for moving forward on the partner ecosystem and Makers Square?

Robison stated that management has invested in building positive working relationships with partners and that the level of trust and camaraderie has been steadily improving. The Fall Break and Fortopia projects have provided the opportunity for partners to work collaboratively together with the FWPDA.

Jeff Jackson stated that the FWPDA board needs to evolve with the goals and the needs of the entity and move from a focus on operations to strategy. Jackson suggested board evolution as a general topic for further discussion.

Tonina and Robison discussed developing charters & deliverables for the following Board working groups: Developing the Partner Ecosystem, Branding of the Lifelong Learning Center, Capital Projects, Hospitality Program, Fundraising and Board Development and Succession Planning.

Tonina acknowledged the enormous amount of effort that the staff put into the retreat.

Robison stated that the retreat focused on re-centering the organization around Lifelong Learning and standardizing how to talk about the Fort - progress was made in both regards.

B. Master Lease Amendments Robison discussed amendments to the Master Lease will go before the Commission in May.

C. Capital Budget Robison reported that meetings with the Washington State Parks Capital Projects team have gone well and reviewed the capital budget request for next biennium (2019-2021). He reported that he has also been meeting with the Marine Science Center regarding renovation of the Pier. Robison noted that NCO Row is slated to be closed and offline during the water/sewer project in early 2019.

D. Governors Visit/Revitalize WA Robison discussed the upcoming visit by Governor Jay Inslee and the presentation that he will be making to the Governor and the attendees of the Revitalize Washington event on April 24 – following the presentation there will be a walking tour of Fort Worden. The Committee discussed details of the tour.

Page 7 of 69

E. Kitsap Bank Bond Moody reported that the bond with Kitsap Bank has closed and the Committee discussed details of the bond terms. Robison reported that planned installation of solar panels on the Commons building is still pending approval by Washington State Parks.

IX. Public Comment David Goldman stated that he thinks the board needs to decide what it wants to be and noted that staff are working very hard. Goldman suggested that the Committee consider what the next board task should be, what will draw people here and what the FWPDA means by becoming a National Destination (excerpted from the strategic priorities).

Tonina responded that the board needs to figure out branding and to determine where to focus efforts (i.e. culinary school).

Goldman stated that the proposed small board working groups encourage more ownership of the board’s function. Goldman stated that the board has done a great job and noted that the function of the board has changed since it was established.

X. Adjourned: 11:10 a.m.

Page 8 of 69 Page 9 of 69 Page 10 of 69 R e g i o Current 19-21 running Partnerships Region Park Proj. Reapprop Estimate 19-21 Estimate 21-29 Project Name 21-23 23-25 25-27 27-29 29 to 39 Grant Estimate n Funding total Estimate Project # Project R a n k Pier and Marine Learning Center Improve or SW 6 Fort Worden $734,000 $100,000 $5,000,000 $13,200,000 $1,400,000 $3,600,000 Replace

SW 7 Fort Worden $2,320,000 $1,250,000 $14,450,000 Replace Failing Sewer Lines

SW 10 Fort Worden $377,000 $150,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $24,400,000 Replace Failing Waterlines $1,500,000

SW 70 Fort Worden $500,000 $92,191,000 Replace Upper Campground Comfort Station

SW 71 Fort Worden $1,250,000 $93,441,000 Roofs BLDGS 201 & 305

Historic Preservation 298 SW 72 Fort Worden $300,000 $1,000,000 $93,741,000 $1,000,000

SW 81 Fort Worden $1,100,000 $5,500,000 $100,196,000 Housing Areas Exterior Improvements $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $5,000,000

Relocation of Fort Construction-Era Locomotive SW 99 Fort Worden $350,000 $350,000 for Interpretive Display

SW 109 Fort Worden $2,500,000 ADA Improvements $2,500,000

SW Fort Worden PDA Partnership - $4M per Biennium $20,000,000

Page 11 of 69 Draft "Exhibit G" FWPDA Departmental Assignments Program Task Responsible Department

Road/walkways Maintain curbs, walkways, driveways, graveled areas Grounds Road/walkways Replace street light bulbs as needed Maintenance

Signage PDA / tenant signage Faciltiies Signage Tenants ‐ by tenants ‐ as approved by PDA & State Parks Facilities Signage Traffic Faciltiies Signage Directional Faciltiies Signage Discover Pass Faciltiies Signage Handicapped parking Faciltiies

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Paving and resurfacing Grounds Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Repair potholes, cracks Grounds Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Striping (streets, parking areas) Grounds Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Access control gates Grounds Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Maintenance of curbs, driveways, graveled areas Grounds

Structural Replacement /repair of roofs Facilities Structural Repair/replacements of porches, building access Facilities Structural Floor separation/sealing Facilities Structural Beams, columns, walls (cracks & spalling) Facilities Structural Major repairs to windows and door frame sealants Facilities Structural Staircase bearing/safety issues Facilities Structural Foundations Facilities Structural Masonry—tuck‐point and sealing Facilities Structural Chimneys (complete to foundation) Facilities Structural Building exterior painting Facilities Structural Plaster repairs ‐ major delimitation/cracking Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Water supply lines Facilities Underground/overhead utilities Storm and sanitary sewer lines Facilities Underground/overhead utilities Electrical Facilities Underground/overhead utilities Electric vaults above and below ground Facilities Underground/overhead utilities Replace/repair drainage systems Facilities

Other Wireless network troubleshooting IT Other Telecommunications (phones/TV/cable) IT

Mechanical & Electrical HVAC control adjustment Maintenance Mechanical & Electrical Boiler and heat pump minor adjustment & startup Maintenance Mechanical & Electrical Security system testing and maintenance Maintenance Mechanical & Electrical Emergency and exit lighting Maintenance Mechanical & Electrical Smoke detector maintenance/replacement Maintenance Mechanical & Electrical Standpipes Facilities Mechanical & Electrical Electric wiring and systems Facilities Mechanical & Electrical Plumbing system Facilities Mechanical & Electrical HVAC equipment, ductwork, piping Facilities Mechanical & Electrical Fuel oil tanks Facilities Mechanical & Electrical Radiator and control valve replacement Facilities Mechanical & Electrical Fire alarm system testing and maintenance Maintenace Mechanical & Electrical Sprinkler head checking and maintenance Maintenace Mechanical & Electrical Elevator testing and maintenance Maintenace Mechanical & Electrical Solar panel maintenance Maintenace

Interior maintenance Routine painting Facilities Interior maintenance Wall & ceiling repair Facilities Interior maintenance Plumbing fixtures and exposed & interior piping repair Maintenace

Page 12 of 69 Interior maintenance Electric fixture and exposed & interior wiring maintenance Maintenace Interior maintenance Floor covering repairs (carpet, tiles, etc.) Maintenace

Grounds maintenance Mowing Grounds Grounds maintenance Brushing Grounds Grounds maintenance Weeding Grounds Grounds maintenance Pruning Grounds

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Janitorial, custodial of all campus facilities Maintenance General Housekeeping/Janitorial Trash, recycling, compost, debris Maintenance General Housekeeping/Janitorial Waste line, sink, & toilet clogs Maintenance General Housekeeping/Janitorial Windows/glass cleaning Maintenance General Housekeeping/Janitorial Decks and building cleaning, pressure washing Maintenance General Housekeeping/Janitorial Artwork maintenance and repair Maintenance

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Includes all minor and major improvement or upgrades including but not limited to: Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Furniture, fixture & equipment repair and replacement Maintenance Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Office furniture Maintenance Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Office equipment Maintenance Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements HVAC controls ‐ for efficiency upgrades Facilities Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Efficiencies upgrades; heating, electrical, water, etc. Facilities Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Pest Control Program Maintenance

Exterior maintenance Painting Facilities Exterior maintenance Window and door replacement/repair Facilities Exterior maintenance Window glass replacement Facilities

Equipment Maintenance and Repair ‐

Building Repairs Lock repairs Maintenance Building Repairs Furniture, fixture and equipment maintenance, upgrade and Maintenance replacement

Page 13 of 69 Study: State park system a strong driver of economic, ecosystem health

The Washington state park system provides access to a bounty of Washington’s most beautiful and significant natural and cultural heritage sites for outdoor recreation and education. A recent study concludes that access to these sites generates significant contributions to the state’s economy and ecological health.

The August 2015 report, “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State Parks,” was completed by Earth Economics of Tacoma. The study confirms that more than 35 million annual visits to

state parks result in a total economic contribution of $1.4 billion, including $95 million for state and local taxes. During the 2013-15 study Rock State Park period, the park system generated six

times the tax receipts it received in its Beacon budget to operate the system.

The study also notes that the state park system creates jobs, contributes to tourism and especially benefits rural communities. State Park

Among specific findings, the study notes that state Dry Falls Dry parks annually generate: - • $803 million in travel expenditures such as gas, food and fees Sun Lakes • $721 million in outdoor equipment purchases – for backpacks, boats and tents • 14,000 full- and part-time jobs in food and beverage services, wholesale trade and petroleum-related sectors • $212 million in federal, state and local tax revenues.

For more information, visit washingtonstateparks.us • Info Center: (360) 902-8844 FS15-013 Revised Nov. 3, 2015

Page 14 of 69 State parks generate $64 million annually to the state’s General Fund. Currently, State Parks receives $15.6 million a year in General Fund and other public funding sources ($31.1 million for the 2015-17 biennium).

The report further finds that state parks generate between $500 million and $1.2 billion a year of “ecosystem service value.” This value measures the economic benefits people derive from natural ecosystems—for example, aesthetics, habitat for wildlife, and natural water filtration to sustain local water systems.

The Earth Economics’ state parks research is an offshoot of a statewide study from earlier this year, called “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State.” The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission initiated this latest study to understand the specific effects of the state park system on the state economy as part of its Transformation Strategy goal of demonstrating that all citizens benefit from state parks and services.

The Commission also wanted to understand the system’s specific economic benefits to tourism and to individual counties.

To view the study report, visit online at bit.ly/ParksEcon

For more information, visit washingtonstateparks.us • Info Center: (360) 902-8844 FS15-013 Revised Nov. 3, 2015

Page 15 of 69 Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Prepared for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission by EARTH ECONOMICS August 2015

Primary Authors: Greg Schundler, GIS and Research Analyst, Earth Economics Johnny Mojica, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Tania Briceno, PhD, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics

Executive Summary From ocean beaches to mountain waterfalls, hiking trails to swimming areas, Washington’s state parks provide access to a diversity of outdoor recreational experiences across the state. The spending associated with these recreational experiences and activities have been contributing to Washington State’s economy since the park system’s founding in 1913. This report calculates some of the economic benefits of one of the nation’s premier state park systems.

An analysis of economic activity associated with Washington State’s park system reveals:

Consumer expenditures amount to $1.5 billion per year.1  Expenditures associated with travel to state parks (e.g. gas, food, fees) amount to $803 August 2015million per year.  Purchases of outdoor recreation equipment (e.g. backpacks, boats, tents) which are used at least in part during the trip amount to $721 million per year.

Economic contribution of state parks totals $1.4 billion per year.  Direct economic contribution is $804 million per year. Direct contribution refers to the portion of the initial consumer expenditures that recirculate throughout the state’s economy. This excludes “leakages” of $720 million for purchases of goods and services that come from outside of Washington State (such as the purchase of a backpack made in California).

1 Government expenditures/funding of State Parks' lands (for capital improvements and operations) will also create economic activity, but are not quantified in this report.

1 Executive Summary from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State ParksPage 16 of 69

 Indirect economic contribution is $259 million per year. Indirect contribution refers to the economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local businesses (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.  Induced contribution is $343 million per year. Induced contributions are the economic effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example, a Cabela’s employee who uses wages to buy locally-produced milk is creating an induced contribution for the Washington economy.

The total economic contribution of state parks generates jobs and taxes.  14,000 jobs. Calculated as 14,000 jobs that include both full and part time jobs; primarily in the food & beverage, retail, wholesale trade and petroleum-related sectors. It does not include jobs resulting from government investment.  $212 million in annual federal, state, and local tax collections, including $64 million per year in state tax revenue contributing directly to the State general fund.  By comparison, during the sample period the state park system received state tax support of $20.4 million for the two-year 2013-15 biennium ($10.2 million/year). State tax support for state parks in the 2015-17 biennium increased to $31.1 million ($15.6 million/year).

Non-market benefits range between $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion per year.  Recreation-related consumer surplus is $1.4 billion per year. Consumer surplus is an economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and the actual expenditures incurred. The study found that the average visitor spends $22.39 per visit and receives about $40 in additional or ‘surplus’ value; or non-market benefits in the form of experienced satisfaction related to the recreational activity.  Non-market ecosystem services valued between $500 million and $1.2 billion per year. Ecosystem service value is the measurement of economic benefits that people derive from natural ecosystems, often expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents. State lands produce ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and water filtration received by nearby communities. This study calculated the value of these three ecosystem services, although many more are likely being produced. For example, flood protection, pollination, and carbon sequestration are examples of other benefits being provided by state parks, which were not included in this valuation.

2 Executive Summary from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State ParksPage 17 of 69

Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures

Total Consumer Spending Attributed to State Park Visitation $1.5 billion Leakages

Trip-Related Spending Equipment-Related $720 million Spending from State Park from State Park Visitation Visitation

$803 million $721 million

Direct In-State Indirect In-State Induced In-State Economic Economic Economic Contribution Contribution Contribution

$804 Million $259 Million $343 Million

$165.0 million State and Local Tax Total Economic Contributions $95 million $1.4 Billion

The magnitude of each type of economic effect is also illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation $1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

(millions) $600

Economic Effect Economic $400

$200

$0 Consumer Economic Economic State & Local Recreational Ecosystem Expenditures Contribution Impact Taxes Consumer Services Surplus

3 Executive Summary from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State ParksPage 18 of 69 economy in Pacific, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan counties, attracting as much as $2,500 in consumer expenditures per county resident.2 This analysis shows that through outdoor recreation there is a large transfer of wealth from the urban to rural counties. Expenditures associated with state parks tend to benefit smaller, local businesses and rural areas.

Not all economic contributions are the same; some industries do a better job at recirculating spending within the regional economy. For example, when a person spends $20 on a trip to a movie theater, much of that $20 immediately leaves the regional economy to production studios, movie theater chains and chain restaurants, while a small portion stays within the region, mostly in the form of employee compensation.3 Spending associated with recreation at state parks tends to recirculate within the economy at a higher rate. This analysis finds that 51.5% of spending at state parks stays within the state. A British Columbia study4 found that 45% of spending at local independent retailers stays within the region while only 17% of spending at national chains stays within the regional economy. When money is re-spent within the region, more taxes, jobs, and income are created.

In addition to a strong economic contribution, state parks provide a suite of economic benefits in the form of consumer surplus and ecosystem services which are not typically measured in a traditional economic analysis. These benefits are worth much more to both the consumer and society than is actually paid for; both by the visitor and government. Accompanying recreation, state parks provide invaluable ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and water filtration. These ecosystem services are benefits that nature provides for free, given they are maintained. As natural land continues to be degraded, society is seeing increased costs in built infrastructure needed to substitute these services. State Parks helps to preserve and maintain one of Washington’s greatest and most productive resources: nature.

This analysis of State Parks' economic contribution is a segmentation of a statewide study on outdoor recreation conducted earlier this year by Earth Economics; Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Portions of the modeling and data have been extracted from the earlier report, making it a valuable companion tool for understanding the economics of outdoor recreation. The methodology to determining these various economic effects is described in this study. Data sources, underlying assumptions, calculations, and concepts are explained for each type of analysis. Explanatory maps, figures, and graphs are used to illustrate results. Attendance data is from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, which takes data from calendar year 2012 and provided by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Environmental Learning Centers and Interpretive Centers have been included, which were not previously valued. See Methodology section for more information. All figures are given in 2015 USD.

2 Consumer expenditures by county residents and county visitors divided by the number of county residents; this figure gives some measure of the State Park recreation economy in proportion to county populations. 3"Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much?" Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much? Web. 13 July 2015. 4"Key Studies: Why Local Matters." Institute for Local Self Reliance. Web. 08 July 2015.

4 Executive Summary from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State ParksPage 19 of 69 Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

2015

Page 20 of 69 August August

Prepared By: Prepared For:

Earth Economics Washington State Parks and Tacoma, Washington Recreation Commission Olympia, Washington

Primary Authors: Greg Schundler, GIS and Research Analyst, Earth Economics Johnny Mojica, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Tania Briceno, PhD, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics

Suggested Citation: Schundler, G., Mojica, J., Briceno, T. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to all who supported this project: Tom Oliva, Daniel Farber, Christine Parsons, Kathryn Scott and others with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission who provided valuable data and review for this report.

We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued guidance and support: Ingrid Rasch, David Cosman, Sherry Richardson, David Batker, and Joshua Farley.

Earth Economics project team members included Joshua Reyneveld, Peter Casey, Samuel Roder, Tedi Dickinson, and TaNeashia Sudds.

The authors are responsible for the content of this report.

Cover image: Palouse Falls State Park, creative commons image by David Wood.

Report photos provided by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

Page 21 of 69

Foreword The purpose of this study is to examine the economic effects provided by visitation to Washington’s state parks. There are many ways to measure economic effects.

Take for example, the Seattle Seahawks. In 2013, the Seahawks made $288 milliona in stadium revenues. But what about the jerseys, bumper stickers, and t-shirts sold? How much money is spent on those goods? And what about those hundreds of bars where people watch the game and the game day barbeques we host at home? What about the gas we consume getting to and from the stadium? All of these expenditures influence the State’s economy and can be attributed to the popularity of the Seattle Seahawks. Estimating the economic effects associated with that spending requires understanding what kind of purchases are being made, what industries supply these purchases, and how consumers and producers interact within a given geography.

Economic effects are layered and complex. First, an economic contribution analysis reveals the total spending associated with a sector, activity or policy. This spending begins with the direct purchases made in the region, or “direct contributions.” “Indirect contributions” speak to the supply chain effects from these initial consumer purchases. So if that burger was made from a local producer, the restaurant would make a purchase from a farmer which would also be counted as a contribution (albeit indirect). “Induced economic contributions” speak to the salaries of all those employees who enabled your consumption, from the grocer to the bartender, and how they spend their money in the economy. Yet the economic value of our experience doesn’t end there. What about the value of the memories, strengthening of relationships, and needed relaxation we gain from a day watching the Seahawks with friends? This is what economists call “consumer surplus,” or the value above the price paid for a given good or service.

Similarly, Washington’s state parks play an important role in driving economic activity as shown through different measurements: they encourage spending, attract recreation participants to rural areas, generate tax revenue for the state general fund, and provide accessible and valuable outdoor recreation experiences.

One place where the Seahawks and state parks are different, however, is ecosystem services. State park lands, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and beaches provide on-going value, even when they’re not visited, such as habitat, storm water protection, and water provision. They are winning games whether players are on the field or not, even in the off-season.

This study estimates the full suite of economic effects provided through consumer spending associated with state parks and analyzes the value that state parks provide in both market and non-market benefits.

Page 1 of 45 Page 22 of 69

Table of Contents Foreword ...... 1

Table of Contents ...... 2

Glossary of Terms Used in this Study ...... 4

Executive Summary ...... 6

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 10

1.1 Purpose of the Study ...... 10 1.2 Methodology Overview ...... 11 Chapter 2: Expenditures and Contributions of Outdoor Recreation Occurring on State Parks’ Lands ...... 19

2.1 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the State Level ...... 19 2.2 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the County Level ...... 22 2.3 Economic contribution of State Parks at the Legislative District Level ...... 25 2.4 Expenditures and Contributions of Recreation Activities on Waters Associated with State Parks ...... 27 Chapter 3: Consumer Expenditures and Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation by Non- Local Participants; Economic Impact of Out-of-State Visitors ...... 30

3.1 Economic Contribution from Non-Local Participants ...... 30 3.2 Economic Impact from Out-of-State Visitors ...... 32

Chapter 4: Non-Market Economic Benefits of Recreation in State Parks ...... 34

4.1 Introduction to Non-Market Benefits ...... 34 4.2 Consumer Surplus of Recreation as an Ecosystem Service ...... 35 4.3 Ecosystem Services provided by State Park Lands ...... 36

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Further Research ...... 39

Endnotes ...... 40

Appendix A: Assumptions for Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks ...... 41

Appendix B Ecosystem Services and Valuation Methodologies ...... 43

Appendix C Washington State Budget Revenue ...... 45

Page 2 of 45 Page 23 of 69

Table of Figures Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures ...... 7 Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation ...... 8 Figure 3. Proportional State Park Visits to All Recreation Days ...... 11 Figure 4. Overview of Methodology ...... 12 Figure 5. Types of Participants to State Parks ...... 13 Figure 6: Classification of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Parks Based on Census Population Density Data ...... 14 Figure 7. Washington State Park Visits by Type ...... 19 Figure 8. Washington State Park Visits by Expenditures ...... 19 Figure 9. Total Contribution by Top Industries ...... 21 Figure 10. Total Economic Contribution from Consumer Expenditures associated with State Parks by County ...... 23 Figure 11. State Park Expenditures by Legislative District and Magnification of Puget Sound Region ...... 25 Figure 12. Water-Related Recreation Visits at State Parks ...... 27 Figure 13. State Park Classification and Population Density ...... 31 Figure 14. Consumer Surplus versus Consumer Expenditures ...... 36 Figure 15: Non-Local Participants (“Visitors”) by Survey in NY State ...... 42 Figure 16. Washington State Budget Revenue by Source ...... 45

Page 3 of 45 Page 24 of 69

Glossary of Terms Used in this Study Consumer Surplus – An economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and actual expenditures incurred.

Direct Effects – Direct sales or margins of sales in the regional economy associated with an initial expenditure.

Economic Activity - Different types of economic exchanges in a region's economy which involve the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

Economic Benefit – The total increase in social welfare, including market and non-market values.

Economic Contribution – The economic effects that circulate throughout the local economy (in this case the state or county economy) as a result of an initial expenditure. Total economic contribution is made up of direct contribution, indirect contribution and induced contribution.

Economic Impact – The net changes in economic activity associated with the industry analyzed (i.e. outdoor recreation economy). For example, an impact accounts for new dollars flowing into the defined regional economy as a result of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Ecosystem Service Value – The measurement of economic benefits that people derive from ecosystems, many times expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents.

Employee Compensation – The total payroll cost of the employee paid by the employer. Included in this are wages, benefits and taxes.

Equipment Expenditures – Equipment expenditures are calculated based on the number of participants and average lifespan of the equipment good. They are classified as retail sales and are based on U.S. Census data yearly sales. These expenditures are attributed to the home state or county of the recreation participant.

Expenditure Category – Expenditures made by consumers of recreation, grouped into general categories of goods and services.

IMPLAN – Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) is an industry standard economic modeling software package to estimate total economic activity generated by expenditures in a regional economy. County and statewide IMPLAN models were used in this report.

Indirect Contribution – The economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local businesses. (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.

Induced Contribution – Economic effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example, a Cabela’s employee that uses their wages to buy locally- produced milk is creating an induced contribution for the Washington economy.

Page 4 of 45 Page 25 of 69

Leakage - Money that leaves the defined regional economy when an expenditure is made. For example, if a recreational boat has to be repaired in Washington, some of the parts needed for the repair may be ordered from California.

Local and State Government Fees – Any payment from recreation participants to local and state government enterprises, typically access fees. These could refer to camping, public boat launches, paying for a Discover Pass, or registering a snowmobile.

Multiplier - In this report the economic multiplier refers to the ratio between initial expenditures and total economic contribution (also called Keynesian multiplier). It shows how initial expenditures generate additional economic activity as the initial money is re-spent by other businesses and workers. An illustration of this follows below:

A hotel is paid $150 to house a recreation participant for the night. The hotel owner keeps $15 as profit, employees are paid $85 and $50 are spent importing goods from out of state (rent and taxes are ignored for brevity). The employees spend $85 on food. Most of the food is imported from out of state so only $10 of the expenditure goes to wages and profit for the grocery store. The hotel owner sends his $15 to his daughter in California creating no further economic activity in Washington. Currently there has been $110 ($15 profit + $85 wages + $10 to grocery store) in economic activity from the initial $150. If no further activity occurs then the multiplier will be 0.73(110/150).

Participants (Recreation) – People that engage in recreation irrespective of the frequency in which they engage in the activity.

Recreation-related Expenditures – Money spent on outdoor recreation, including equipment, travel and lodging, entrance fees, and food and beverages, among others. In this study, all expenditures were calculated in relation to Washington State recreational patterns. These expenditures are assumed to be made within Washington.

Sector - The economic sectors in this report refer to IMPLAN's sector categories. Each sector produces a unique good or service (gasoline, transportation, food and drink, medical care etc.). Each sector also has unique products, services, wages and profits that businesses in that sector purchase in order to operate.

Tax on Production and Imports – Taxes comprised of tax liabilities, such as general sales and property taxes. These taxes include non-personal property taxes, licenses, and sales taxes as well as federal excise taxes on goods and services.

Trip Expenditures – Spending that occurs in relation to a visit. Some examples of trip expenditures are food and beverages, transportation, and lodging. They are allocated to the destination site.

Visit – A single participant’s visit to a recreational land or a one-time engagement by one individual in a recreational activity. For example, if a family of two adults and two children spent a day at a state park, it would be calculated as four Visits.

Visitors – Recreation participants originating from outside Washington State that visit one of Washington’s State parks. In state residents are referred to as participants.

Page 5 of 45 Page 26 of 69

An analysis of economic activity associated with Washington State’s park system reveals:

Consumer expenditures amount to $1.5 billion per year.1

 Expenditures associated with travel to state parks (e.g. gas, food, fees) amount to $803 million per year.  Purchases of outdoor recreation equipment (e.g. backpacks, boats, tents) which are used at least in part during the trip amount to $721 million per year. Economic contribution of state parks totals $1.4 billion per year.  Direct economic contribution is $804 million per year. Direct contribution refers to the portion of the initial consumer expenditures that recirculate throughout the state’s economy. This excludes “leakages” of $720 million for purchases of goods and services that come from outside of Washington State (such as the purchase of a backpack made in California).  Indirect economic contribution is $259 million per year. Indirect contribution refers to the economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local businesses (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.  Induced contribution is $343 million per year. Induced contributions are the economic effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example, a Cabela’s employee who uses wages to buy locally-produced milk is creating an induced contribution for the Washington economy. The total economic contribution of state parks generates jobs and taxes.  14,000 jobs. Calculated as 14,000 jobs that include both full and part time jobs; primarily in the food & beverage, retail, wholesale trade and petroleum-related sectors. It does not include jobs resulting from government investment.  $212 million in annual federal, state, and local tax collections, including $64 million per year in state tax revenue contributing directly to the State general fund.

1 Government expenditures/funding of State Parks' lands (for capital improvements and operations) will also create economic activity, but are not quantified in this report.

Page 6 of 45 Page 27 of 69

 By comparison, during the sample period the state park system received state tax support of $20.4 million for the two-year 2013-15 biennium ($10.2 million/year). State tax support for state parks in the 2015-17 biennium increased to $31.1 million ($15.6 million/year). Non-market benefits range between $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion per year.  Recreation-related consumer surplus is $1.4 billion per year. Consumer surplus is an economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and the actual expenditures incurred. The study found that the average visitor spends $22.39 per visit and receives about $40 in additional or ‘surplus’ value; or non-market benefits in the form of experienced satisfaction related to the recreational activity.  Non-market ecosystem services valued between $500 million and $1.2 billion per year. Ecosystem service value is the measurement of economic benefits that people derive from natural ecosystems, often expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents. State lands produce ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and water filtration received by nearby communities. This study calculated the value of these three ecosystem services, although many more are likely being produced. For example, flood protection, pollination, and carbon sequestration are examples of other benefits being provided by state parks, which were not included in this valuation.

Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures

Total Consumer Spending Attributed to State Park Visitation $1.5 billion Leakages

Trip-Related Spending Equipment-Related $720 million Spending from State Park from State Park Visitation Visitation

$803 million $721 million

Direct In-State Indirect In-State Induced In-State Economic Economic Economic Contribution Contribution Contribution

$804 Million $259 Million $343 Million

State and Local Tax Total Economic Contributions $95 million $1.4 Billion

Page 7 of 45 Page 28 of 69

The magnitude of each type of economic effect is also illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation $1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

(millions) $600

Economic Effect Economic $400

$200

$0 Consumer Economic Economic State & Local Recreational Ecosystem Expenditures Contribution Impact Taxes Consumer Services Surplus

This study shows that state parks are essential assets in the outdoor recreation economy and serve as a vehicle for rural economic development. On average, state parks capture 8% of all outdoor recreation participation. State Parks are the major facilitator of the outdoor recreation economy in Pacific, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan counties, attracting as much as $2,500 in consumer expenditures per county resident.2 This analysis shows that through outdoor recreation there is a large transfer of wealth from the urban to rural counties. Expenditures associated with state parks tend to benefit smaller, local businesses and rural areas.

Not all economic contributions are the same; some industries do a better job at recirculating spending within the regional economy. For example, when a person spends $20 on a trip to a movie theater, much of that $20 immediately leaves the regional economy to production studios, movie theater chains and chain restaurants, while a small portion stays within the region, mostly in the form of employee compensation.b Spending associated with recreation at state parks tends to recirculate within the economy at a higher rate. This analysis finds that 51.5% of spending at state parks stays within the state. A British Columbia studyf found that 45% of spending at local independent retailers stays within the region while only 17% of spending at national chains stays within the regional economy. When money is re-spent within the region, more taxes, jobs, and income are created.

In addition to a strong economic contribution, state parks provide a suite of economic benefits in the form of consumer surplus and ecosystem services which are not typically measured in a

Page 8 of 45 Page 29 of 69

traditional economic analysis. These benefits are worth much more to both the consumer and society than is actually paid for; both by the visitor and government. Accompanying recreation, state parks provide invaluable ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and water filtration. These ecosystem services are benefits that nature provides for free, given they are maintained. As natural land continues to be degraded, society is seeing increased costs in built infrastructure needed to substitute these services. State Parks helps to preserve and maintain one of Washington’s greatest and most productive resources: nature.

Page 9 of 45 Page 30 of 69

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic importance of outdoor recreation on lands and waters managed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (referred to as the Commission from here on). The Commission’s mission is to connect all Washingtonians to their diverse natural and cultural heritage and provide memorable recreational and educational experiences that enhance their lives. This study examines the contributions to local economies made through expenditures during state park visits and the non-market benefits derived from the existing recreational opportunities and from the natural lands being managed by State Parks.3 It is also shown that state parks provide an important economic and geographic bridge and a “gateway experience” between local and national parks, providing authentic outdoor recreation experiences to potentially all Washingtonians. In certain counties, including Pacific, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan (see Figure 3), State Parks is the major facilitator of the outdoor recreation economy.

The study looks at various participant categories: day versus overnight, local versus non-local, in- state versus out-of-state, and water versus non-water based recreation. The expenditures made by each type of participant determine the business sectors that will be affected and the magnitude of the economic effects. Accessibility and land conservation efforts are also important attributes for non-market benefit assessments. Results are given at the state, county and legislative district level.

Figure 3 shows the importance of state parks on a county scale relative to total outdoor recreation activity. The percentages shown in Figure 3 represent, per county, the total number of state park visits (counted by the Commission) divided by the total number of outdoor recreation visits including participants on public4 and private recreation lands. Outdoor recreation participation data was drawn from the Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington Statec which combined participation data from nearly all outdoor recreation lands including those managed by city, county, state, federal, and private entities. State parks are diverse with some parks playing the role of local parks and others playing a role more similar to that of National Parks or Recreation Areas. Ultimately state parks provide accessible outdoor recreation experiences to residents and visitors of Washington.

3 A handful of State Park lands are managed by third parties. 4 Includes visits at lands managed by the National Park Service, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers; Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, County Parks, City Parks, and local “events”.

Page 10 of 45 Page 31 of 69

Figure 3. Proportional State Park Visits to All Recreation Days

1.2 Methodology Overview Outdoor recreational activities, retreats, and gatherings at state parks influence consumer spending in many economic sectors and their associated supply chains. Food and beverage purchases, restaurant visits, fuel and retail expenditures can, and usually do, accompany a state park visit. The spending per visit is calculated based on factors like participant origin, park location, park amenities and type of recreational activity. These factors are captured through some primary data collected for Washington state parks and through estimates and assumptions based on peer-reviewed literature, expert-validation, and GIS modeling.

The methodology for conducting the economic analysis of state parks requires data and assumptions on 1) participants, 2) their expenditures, and 3) the distance between participant residence and state park location. Figure 4 illustrates the different data components and steps for conducting the analyses. The process is outlined beginning with data collection for state parks, the identification of participant types, the creation of expenditure profiles, the calculation of total visits and expenditures per destination, and finally the economic analyses at different

Page 11 of 45 Page 32 of 69

geographical levels conducted with a series of economic analysis tools (IMPLAN5, EVT6, and Rosenberger’s recreation database7). Data sources for all the different components include existing studies on recreation, data recorded by individual parks, local surveys on recreation behavior, licenses and permits issued for specific activities, and when necessary, modeling of location-specific trends. In the following sections the different data components will be described in more detail.

Figure 4. Overview of Methodology Legend Used for Market Benefit Analysis Used for Consumer Surplus Analysis Used for Ecosystem Valuation

Raw Data Participant Classification Geographic Database Models Results Segregation Day, Local, Non-Water- Direct, Indirect, Related Statewide Induced, Taxes, Contribution Jobs Day, Non- Local, Non- Statewide Water-Related Expenditures Statewide Out Direct, Indirect, Participant of State Visitor Induced, Taxes, Day, Local, Impact Jobs Data Water-Related Countywide Expenditures Statewide State Park Day, Non- IMPLAN Direct, Indirect, Local, Water- Water Related Induced, Taxes, Property Related Contribution Jobs Boundaries Legislative Rosenberger Night, Local, District-wide Recreation National Non-Water- Expenditures Database Countywide Direct, Indirect, Landcover Related Economic Induced, Taxes, Earth Contribution Jobs Data in Acres Night, Non- Economics local, Non- Park-Specific EVT Water-Related Expenditure Expendirues Consumer State, County Profiles Surplus Night, Local, Water-Related State, County, Legsilative Ecosystem District, Park Night, Non- Service State Wide local, Water - Participant Days Related Valuation

1.2.1 Participants and Visits In this report, a participant is defined as the user, and a visit is the act of a participant engaging in state park recreation. Figure 5 below shows the different types of participants considered in this analysis and the assumptions used for each. To honor the diversity of state park uses, participant

5 Impact Analysis for Planning, for more information on IMPLAN, see Box 1 6 Earth Economics’ computational engine and valuation database, the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit. 7 A consumer surplus for recreation value database developed by Dr. Randall Rosenberger, Professor of Environmental Economics at the Oregon State University.

Page 12 of 45 Page 33 of 69

types, and park characteristics, it was necessary to build a matrix of eight (8) participant types based on three binary attributes: day/night, local/non-local, and water/non-water based recreation. Boaters are used as a proxy for water-related recreation, since recreation with boats typically carry higher expenditure profiles. Figure 5. Types of Participants to State Parks

Water-Related Day Overnight Water-Related Day Overnight Water-related Water-related Participant that stays participant that lives participant that lives Day user living within overnight in the park & Local within 50 miles of the within 50 miles of the 50 miles of the park. lives within 50 miles of park and does not stay park and stays the park. overnight in the park. overnight in the park.

Water-related Water-related Participant that stays participant that lives Day user living participant that lives overnight in the park & further than 50 miles Non-Local further than 50 miles further than 50 miles of lives further than 50 from the park and does from the park. the park and stays miles from the park. not stay overnight in the overnight in the park. park.

State parks participant data is collected on a monthly basis by the Commission for each state park venue, but not for other Commission-owned properties, such as undeveloped lands. The quality and reliability of visit estimations varies by park, since the resources available for monitoring and processing visitation at each state park are variable. The Commission collects day visit and overnight visit data.8 It should be noted that these overnight counts are only for those lodging or camping within the park property boundaries. This analysis uses the same visit data as used in Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, with the inclusion of Environmental Learning Centers and Interpretive Centers, which were not previously valued.

The definition of what constitutes a local participant can vary. However, the tourism industry standard definition of “local” and “non-local” divides recreation participants by origin between those inside and outside a 50 mile radius.c The Commission does not currently collect information of the residence or place of origin of those visiting a state park. Therefore a GIS- based model was used to estimate the most likely place of origin using census population data. Three non-local and local participant types were created based on whether the park was designated as urban, suburban, and rural. “Rural,” “suburban” and “urban” have various definitions,9 but are always relative to one another along a gradient. Since many state parks are

8 The Commission refers to their participants as “visits.” 9 The US Census Bureau, US Department of Education, and US Department of Agriculture have different operating definitions.

Page 13 of 45 Page 34 of 69

clustered together, are located in the highly indented Puget Sound, and are close to state/national boundaries, a 25 mile radius was chosen to minimize these effects in characterizing each park as rural, suburban, or urban. The separation of the parks into these categories can be seen in Figure 6, where state parks are color-coded by designation overlaying census block population density data. The total number of parks and participants per urban, suburban, and rural designations can be seen in Table 1. Please see Appendix A for methodology.

Table 1. Total Number of Parks and Visits per State Park "Urban/Suburban/Rural" Designation Number of Parks Total Visits “Urban” 15 (8.3%) 3,685,815 (10.3%) “Suburban” 63 (35%) 14,290,146 (39.9%) “Rural” 103 (56.7%) 17,871,809 (49.8%)

Figure 6: Classification of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Parks Based on Census Population Density Data

In order to estimate the contribution of “water-based recreation,” boat-related visits were used as a proxy. The Commission collects data on number of launch permits sold; however, data on boat launch use is not presently collected by The Commission. Other studiesd,h,i have found that about 3% of state park participants launch motorized and/or non-motorized crafts at state parks. Thus, it is assumed for all state parks with boat launches, that 3% of their participants are motorized or non-motorized boaters. To avoid double counting, “venues” are omitted since most of them share boat launches with a state park. Boating activity is important to track because outdoor recreational research shows boating is a high outlier in terms of activity and equipment spending.c

Page 14 of 45 Page 35 of 69

1.2.2 Expenditures The economic analysis was carried out by converting 2012 state park visitation data into total consumer expenditures. Each of the eight participant types considered in this analysis had a unique “expenditure profile” per visit characterized by a unique ratio of purchases between fuel, food, restaurants, fees, and more. These assumptions were gleaned from other published studies that used survey data or borrowed data from other state and federal sources on “expenditure profiles”.c,h,i The diversity of participants and expenditure profiles can be seen in Table 2 in Chapter 2. All expenditure estimates are based on data of various vintages and are all converted to 2015 USD using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index.

1.2.3 Allocation to County and Legislative District The matrix of participants and expenditures resulting from their activity was allocated to an attribute table in Esri ArcMap 10.310 for all relevant parks. All parks contained wholly within a legislative district or county boundary was assigned to that entity. For parks or trails that split between boundaries, the Commission advised on allocation ratios across boundaries.

1.2.4 Equipment Expenditures In addition to trip-related expenditures made in conjunction with state park visitation, recreationalists also make equipment purchases. Whether tents, hiking shoes, or boats, it is assumed that these purchases are used for other forms of recreation as well. In the Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State studyc a total of 446,026,839 visits and $8,974,243,491 in equipment purchases were measured for all forms of outdoor recreation in Washington State. Thus, with 35,847,770 total visits, state parks represent 8.04% of all outdoor recreation in Washington State. Assuming that this proportion scales in a similar way for use of recreational equipment, a rough estimation of equipment-related expenditures for state parks would be $721,271,880.11 Equipment expenditures are generally made near the place of residence of the recreation participant. Due to uncertainty of available recreation equipment providers, equipment related analysis is only carried out at the state level.

1.2.5 IMPLAN Analysis Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) is an economic modeling software used to estimate economic contributions and impacts. It uses annually updated input/output models to describe the inter-sector economic relationships of a given geography (Box 1). As an input, IMPLAN models receive consumer expenditures per economic sector per geographic area. As a result

10 ArcMap is a GIS (Geographic Information System) software used for geospatial analysis and spatial data integration. 11 In Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, equipment contribution was only valued at the state level across all land types.

Page 15 of 45 Page 36 of 69

expenditures are summed for all activities by IMPLAN sector at the state and county level (legislative district-level data and models are not available). As an example, expenditures on gasoline, whether for boats, automobiles, or off-highway vehicles, are summed into one sector. Input-output models may show, for example, that only a portion of expenditures on gasoline stay in Washington State, since most crude oil is delivered from outside the state. e Input-output models also calculate multipliers12 for a given region (county or state) in order to quantify how much an initial expenditure is re-spent through the regional economy. For example, a county that has boat producers, boat repair shops, and boat retailers and is poised to capture more of the prices paid for boat-related goods and services. Generally, though not always, the less diverse a county or state-level economy, the more it must import in order to provide recreational goods and services.

Box 1. IMPLAN: A Brief Primer This study utilizes IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) which was developed by MIG, Inc. The IMPLAN modeling system has been in use since 1979 and was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service. The economic data for IMPLAN comes from the system of national accounts for the United States based on data collected by the U. S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Models for local economies are often constructed from extrapolation of national and state data and relevant local data available. Using this data, IMPLAN constructs regional trade flow models to capture how spending in one industry impacts all other industries. This data captures regional relationships between the economic contribution of industries, jobs, income, and taxes. Based on these models, IMPLAN can calculate how an economic activity such as consumer spending on a specific industry will impact jobs and income for an entire region’s economy.

This study used IMPLAN models for the entire state of Washington and for each of the 39 counties. Each of these models can capture the response of that regional economy to a change in demand or production in a given industry or group of industries. When consumer expenditures are entered, IMPLAN models how these expenditures will translate into jobs and incomes for the region. The model estimates how the expenditure will “ripple” through the economy. The industry experiencing the change in sales will need to purchase additional inputs from its suppliers (indirect contributions). Household spending also changes due to wage impact and job creation (induced contributions). Continued on next page

12 Multipliers show how initial expenditures generate additional economic activity as the initial money is re-spent by other businesses and workers.

Page 16 of 45 Page 37 of 69

Box 1. IMPLAN: A Brief Primer (cont.) The economic contribution models factor in geographic and demographic nuances including consumer spending patterns, local production capacity, and general trade flows to yield an estimate of in-region sales from the total expenditures made. In-region sales subtract the portion of purchases that ultimately flows out of the region (called economic leakage). In turn, the in-region sales are used to model tax revenues, ripple effects for local industries, and labor market effects. The sum of these ripple effects (also known as multipliers) yields the total economic contribution of an activity. In a separate calculation, the economic impact analysis identifies the influx of new money into the local economy as a result of outdoor recreation opportunities. This study estimates economic impacts in reference to out-of-state visitors.

1.2.6 Economic Contribution, Impacts, and Benefits Although they are often confused as synonymous, an “economic contribution” is different from an “economic impact,” which is yet still different from an “economic benefit.” These are different measures of economic effects and they speak to the type of well-being change being experienced, the structure of the economy (sectors present and their interface), the boundary of the economy in spatial terms, and the producers and consumers acting in the economic framework. For policy and business purposes, researchers define economies at different scales: city, county, state, and national as well as in terms of market and non-market measures of wellbeing.

Economic contributions are the aggregate economic activity measured through market transactions within a given boundary that results from initial expenditures by consumers within that boundary. Economic impact, however, speaks to new money being generated within the boundary either from 1) improving the economic interactivity of sectors (i.e. increasing the multipliers) or 2) attracting increased spending from consumers originating from outside the regional economy. Thus, economic impact speaks to the “injection” of new money to markets, while economic contribution speaks to “circulation” of existing money. Economic benefits refer to measures of wellbeing beyond what is recorded through market transactions in a given boundary.

Economic contribution and impact analyses recognize the reality that there are substitutes for consumers within every possible geographic region of analysis. In this case, a consumer could choose to spend their recreation budget either locally or elsewhere and either on outdoor recreation at a state park or on movies, bars, or other activities. These decisions translate into different types of economic activity and consumer satisfaction. Since each regional economy has its own structure, it also has its own “multiplier,” the ratio of economic activity resulting from an initial expenditure. The higher the multiplier, the more money recirculates within the local

Page 17 of 45 Page 38 of 69

economy. Usually, the larger the geographic area, the more likely the economic structure will be comprised of diverse sectors, suppliers, and wage earners. This economic activity can be measured in terms of jobs, spending, salaries, tax collections, and industries’ economic contribution. Other “economic benefits” beyond these measures may be described as “non- market benefits.” This study quantifies and incorporates the dollar value of recreation related consumer surplus and ecosystem service benefits emerging from state parks to describe non- market economic benefits.

Decision makers are often interested in “economic impact” because it speaks to economic growth. Attracting new consumers, customers, and investors to a region is essential for increasing employment and earnings. Economic impact analyses are often associated with a new development, like a stadium, to describe how a community might benefit from an investment that attracts an injection of new spending in the local economy. In outdoor recreation and tourism economics, economic impact is usually brought by the spending of participants from outside the region. Thus, accurate data or defensible assumptions about the origin of consumers are essential to providing accurate economic analyses. Understanding and leveraging the attributes that attract participants is essential to maximizing the benefits provided by state parks. This study shows that unique attributes such as ocean beaches, islands, historical monuments, boat launches, architecture, or special amenities can motivate recreationalist travel and spending behavior as well as the co-benefits provided by natural lands.

Equally important to economic growth, however, is working to diversify and “tighten” regional supply chains within the regional economy. If new visitation or expenditures are difficult to generate, a regional economy may seek to encourage business models that recirculate more of the money already spent regionally. This side of economic impact is less studied, though discourse about the merits and drawbacks of “local economies” is increasing.

This analysis uses local data on economic and industry relationships to predict revenue flows to existing businesses (direct contributions), effects on related industries from which purchases are made (indirect contributions), and effects from expenditures made through the affected household incomes and salaries (induced contributions). Local economic models are derived using IMPLAN data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S Census Bureau and other sources.

Page 18 of 45 Page 39 of 69

Chapter 2: Expenditures and Contributions of Outdoor Recreation Occurring on State Park Lands When a person visits a state park, they bring along spending with them, and as this report finds; $803 million are spent in trip related expenditures state-wide each year. Some participants may not spend any money in the economy while visiting the park, while others buy groceries, stay in campgrounds, eat in local restaurants and buy from local shops. For state parks that are predominately used as local parks, the average spending tends to be lower. For parks that are in a more rural setting, with lower population density, there is a transfer of wealth from cities like Seattle and Spokane to rural parks in Pacific or Chelan County. It is hard to track where these participants originate from exactly but, as described in section 1.2.1, a ratio of local and non-local participants are assigned to each park based on the parks’ surrounding population.

2.1 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the State Level The economic activity associated with outdoor recreation in Washington state parks can be quantified for different regions. This study utilizes GIS to show the regional differences in consumer spending between counties and legislative districts. In the county map (Figure 10, section 2.2), urban (King, Spokane) and rural counties (Grays Harbor and Island) are represented.

Washington state parks are visited by a wide range of participants (See Figure 7). Each park will have a different mix of participant types as a result of park location, amenities available, and other park characteristics. In the Washington state parks system, it was calculated that the majority of participants were day visits, making up 33,677,043 visits and 94% of all visits, with local day visits making up 63% of all visits. Local day visits do make up a large portion of visits, but as a result of a lower expenditure profile, they represent only 44.75% of spending (See Figure 8).

Figure 7. Washington State Park Visits Figure 8. Washington State Park Visits by by Type Expenditures

Local Day Local Day 1% .5% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% NL Day NL Day 4% 0% 4% 0% Local ON Local ON 7% NL ON NL ON Water Local Day 30% Water Local Day 45% 63% Water Non-Local Day Water Non-Local 42% Day Water Local Overnight Water Local Overnight Water Non-Local Water Non-Local Overnight Overnight

Page 19 of 45 Page 40 of 69

A summary of these participant types with participation days, per-day expenditures and total expenditures is outlined in Table 2. It is estimated that Washington residents and out-of-state visitors spend about $803 million a year on recreation trips to Washington state parks. This estimate was done by multiplying visit counts provided by State Parks and expenditure profiles based on the type of participant. The average state park participant spends $22.39 per visit. c,h,i A majority of state park visits are local day visits which have a lower expenditure profile.

Table 2. Participant Categories and Related Expenditures Percent of Total Visits Expenditures Per Visit Visits TOTAL 35,847,770 100% $802,498,641 $22.39 Non-Water Related 35,280,847 98.42% $785,710,593 $22.27 Recreation Local Day 22,488,922 62.73% $359,089,712 $15.97 Non-Local Day 10,660,230 29.74% $339,969,751 $31.89 Local Overnight 1,404,133 3.92% $53,545,519 $38.13 Non-Local 727,562 2.03% $33,105,611 $45.50 Overnight Water Related 566,923 1.58% $16,788,048 $29.61 Recreation Water Local Day 362,097 1.01% $8,266,147 $22.83 Water Non-Local 165,794 0.46% $6,205,706 $37.43 Day Water Local 26,069 0.07% $1,266,541 $48.58 Overnight Water Non-Local 12,963 0.04% $1,049,654 $80.97 Overnight

It is important to track what happens to the money once it is spent: does this money immediately flow out of the regional economy, or does it recirculate locally? State park participants tend to have expenditure profiles that favor the recirculation of money within the economy; they spend money at local restaurants, retail shops and grocery stores which in turn provide jobs to local employees and buy goods from both local and non-local producers.

IMPLAN was used to calculate region-specific economic contributions from spending associated with state park visits. Economic contributions are the economic effects that circulate throughout the local economy (in this case the state or county economy) as a result of an initial expenditure. As seen in Table 3, direct economic contributions from consumer trip-related expenditures totaled $804 million. This direct economic contribution refers to the amount of money that recirculates within Washington State from initial expenditures. It does not include money that ultimately leaves the state, “leakages13,” such as purchases for equipment manufactured outside

13 Leakages are found by subtracting direct economic contribution from total expenditures.

Page 20 of 45 Page 41 of 69

of the state. Indirect economic contributions on the state level totaled about $259 million. Indirect economic contribution refers to money that is recirculated through a business’ supply chain in regional purchases. This is where the effects of restaurants purchasing food from within Washington would accumulate a “local food” effect. Induced economic effects, estimated at $343 million, count the money paid out to employees who help facilitate the economic activity associated with outdoor recreation at state parks. The salaries made by the bartender, river guide, or hotel housekeeper, are all spent at rates that accumulate their own effects. Individuals employed in the sectors that support outdoor recreation, tend to spend their salaries locally.f

Table 3. Total Contributions of Output Category Total Contribution Outdoor Recreation on State Expenditures $1,523,770,521 Parks Lands

Leakage $720,044,448

Direct Economic Contribution $803,726,073 Indirect Economic Contribution $258,518,471 Induced Economic Contribution $343,451,415 Total Economic Contribution $1,405,695,959

Figure 9. Total Contribution by Top Industries Outdoor recreation in Washington’s state Food services and drinking parks supports local businesses including places food and beverage places, which account Retail Stores - Sporting goods, 16% hobby, book and music for 16% of total state park-related economic Wholesale trade businesses contribution, ultimately supporting 49% 10% Petroleum refineries approximately 3,500 food and beverage 8% Retail Stores - Miscellaneous jobs in Washington. As seen in Figure 9, the Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts “other” category encompasses 49% of total 6% Real estate establishments 4% contribution, which represents 394 industry 3% 4% Other sectors. Many of these “other” industries do not receive consumer expenditures, but Total Industry Contribution benefit from indirect and induced Food services and drinking places $223,747,000 expenditures. They include waste Retail Stores - Sporting goods, hobby, $142,161,316 management, insurance, banks and many book and music Wholesale trade businesses $110,234,461 other industries. All in, 401 of the 432 Petroleum refineries $82,072,645 industry sectors in Washington State are Retail Stores - Miscellaneous $55,821,794 Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts $55,755,739 influenced by state parks. Real estate establishments $50,735,829

Page 21 of 45 Page 42 of 69

As consumers buy products and services, and businesses stimulate their supply chains and pay salaries that induce more spending, tax contributions accumulate to $95 million in local and state taxes (see Table 4), and $117 million federal taxes. The largest generator of local and state tax revenue is taxes on production and imports.14 These taxes largely include sales tax, property tax and motor vehicle tax and contribute at least $64 million in tax revenue to the Washington State general fund. 15 2011-13 General Fund Budget for Washington State was $31 billion. Figure 16 in Appendix C shows that 49% of the State budget is funded by sales tax.

Table 4. Local and State Tax Impact Contribution of State Parks Category Total Employee Compensation $841,870 Proprietor Income $0 Tax on Production and Imports $91,781,446 Households $2,274,240 Corporations $65,990 Total $94,963,546

2.2 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the County Level Of the 39 counties in Washington, 33 contain at least one state park. For certain counties, state parks are the main source of outdoor recreation as seen in Figure 3 of section 1.1. This map shows the total participation days at state parks as a ratio of total participation days for almost all forms of outdoor recreation. Washington State Parks is the largest provider of recreational opportunities in Island County, Grays Harbor County, Pacific and San Juan County.d These four counties make up over a third of all state park participation days.

14 Taxes on production and imports (TOPI) consist of tax liabilities, such as general sales and property taxes. TOPI is comprised of state and local taxes—primarily non-personal property taxes, licenses, and sales and gross receipts taxes—and Federal excise taxes on goods and services. –Bureau of Economic Analysis. 15 Washington state sales tax is 6.5% of sales. Total sales tax varies from county to county and can be as high as 9.5%. Here, it is assumed that 70% of tax revenue contributes to the state general fund.

Page 22 of 45 Page 43 of 69

Figure 10. Total Economic Contribution from Consumer Expenditures associated with State Parks by County

The flow of consumer spending through the economy depends on the boundary of that economy and what is considered “inside” and “outside” that region. Figure 10 above illustrates consumer spending associated with state park recreation for each county. Every region has a unique economic architecture with different demographic and geographic qualities. Indeed each nation, state, and county has its own composition of economic actors (consumers, suppliers, and businesses), built capital infrastructure, and natural capital infrastructure. This study examines the economic effects of state parks within their respective county economies. The economic make-up of each unique state park affects the multiplier of each region, which can be found by dividing the total economic contribution by the total expenditures found in Table 5. The multiplier summarizes the many sectors that consumers patronize and all the geographically unique mix of industries that determine how much an initial expenditure is recirculated within the region and how much additional spending happens. If an employee of a hotel in Pierce County lives in Thurston County, a large portion of his/her wages will leave the county, resulting in a lower multiplier. The same can happen with food purchases by restaurants; much of a restaurant’s food may be purchased outside of the county, resulting in low circulation of money within the county.

This analysis has also estimated jobs resulting from consumer expenditures made in relation to recreating on state park lands. These jobs range from hospitality to retail shop workers (direct

Page 23 of 45 Page 44 of 69

jobs) as well as farmers and sanitation workers (indirect jobs). Not included in the jobs estimates are jobs resulting from government investments in State Parks.

Table 5. County Level Analysis of State Parks Lands County Total Expenditures* Total Economic Contribution Jobs State & Local Tax ADAMS $5,239,978 $3,038,006 40.3 $262,498 ASOTIN $1,111,292 $685,480 9.4 $52,334 BENTON $0 - - - CHELAN $29,310,238 $26,807,919 328.6 $1,996,829 CLALLAM $4,889,908 $3,275,124 42.6 $246,922 CLARK $10,033,535 $7,788,714 91.5 $557,786 COLUMBIA $1,454,565 $637,345 9 $51,592 COWLITZ $4,501,872 $2,876,696 37.7 $214,381 DOUGLAS $1,984,345 $1,074,986 14.2 $92,220 FERRY $1,581,887 $469,485 5.5 $29,983 FRANKLIN $3,607,866 $2,006,217 24.5 $127,883 GARFIELD $0 - - - GRANT $35,739,828 $22,560,869 281 $1,803,307 GRAYS HARBOR $106,685,053 $67,887,747 844.8 $5,057,316 ISLAND $91,062,317 $51,672,282 774.4 $4,263,575 JEFFERSON $57,695,645 $36,167,505 515.6 $3,026,035 KING $74,992,266 $71,385,787 776.4 $4,416,417 KITSAP $16,176,207 $11,823,920 153.9 $839,423 KITTITAS $8,693,421 $5,890,447 88.9 $462,350 KLICKITAT $9,797,791 $3,944,899 44.2 $284,722 LEWIS $6,611,511 $4,126,292 51.4 $303,844 LINCOLN $0 - - - MASON $22,358,774 $9,736,296 123.1 $763,098 OKANOGAN $18,419,577 $12,174,716 158.3 $915,119 PACIFIC $89,236,761 $50,576,912 702.3 $3,943,058 PEND OREILLE $108,133 $35,611 0.5 $2,925 PIERCE $5,017,681 $3,693,729 41 $230,374 SAN JUAN $31,528,548 $23,169,985 295.9 $1,782,205 SKAGIT $9,787,002 $7,524,585 85.8 $477,887 SKAMANIA $7,824,822 $3,788,887 54.9 $317,633

SNOHOMISH $5,993,598 $3,834,824 50.2 $265,630 SPOKANE $85,563,590 $95,417,961 979 $6,020,284 STEVENS $0 - - - THURSTON $9,956,319 $6,885,210 83.8 $542,112 WAHKIAKUM $0 - - - WALLA WALLA $0 - - - WHATCOM $39,024,996 $38,263,028 407.4 $2,398,906 WHITMAN $3,117,445 $1,625,161 21.3 $132,279 YAKIMA $3,391,871 $2,559,622 31.2 $189,335

WASHINGTON** $1,523,770,521 $1,405,695,959 14,081 $94,963,546 *County results do not include equipment contribution. **County totals do not total to Washington results due to leakages.

Page 24 of 45 Page 45 of 69

2.3 Economic contribution of State Parks at the Legislative District Level This study identifies expenditures made at state parks within each legislative district. Unfortunately, IMPLAN data does not adequately model the economic architecture of economies defined by legislative district boundaries, thus an economic contribution analysis at the legislative level was not performed.

Washington State’s legislative districts divide the state into 49 relatively equal population units (ranging between 119,000 and 164,000 people).g As a result, less population dense regions will have geographically larger areas to capture an adequate representative population. Urban districts, in contrast, are extremely small in comparison. Because many state parks are rural and urban areas contain many legislative districts, there are twenty districts (about 40%) that do not hold state park lands. Ultimately, the legislative district map, Figure 11, shows how state parks disproportionately benefit rural areas all over the state, especially on the Pacific Coast (District 19, 24), the Puget Sound Islands (10, 35,40, 10), and the North Central Washington State (District 12). Other rural areas attract a significant amount of consumer spending: Districts 7, 9, 14, and 20. A select group of suburban and urban districts also attract significant spending including Districts 5, 11, 18, 41, and 46.

Figure 11. State Park Expenditures by Legislative District and Magnification of Puget Sound Region

Page 25 of 45 Page 46 of 69

Table 6. State Park Visits & Expenditures by Legislative District Legislative Total Legislative Total Visits Visits District Expenditures* District Expenditures* 1 0 $0 26 396,991 $8,666,744 2 0 $0 27 0 $0 3 0 $0 28 0 $0 4 2,861,041 $58,447,930 29 0 $0 5 788,668 $16,423,040 30 244,641 $5,318,961 6 982,126 $20,312,080 31 239,693 $4,936,949 7 588,427 $12,976,540 32 0 $0 8 0 $0 33 245,490 $4,937,019 9 529,184 $11,504,703 34 0 $0 10 3,967,921 $85,727,278 35 1,453,230 $32,794,307 11 0 $0 36 0 $0 12 2,421,788 $61,076,144 37 0 $0 13 1,127,776 $28,555,438 38 0 $0 14 746,076 $17,730,570 39 439,552 $9,724,740 15 132,046 $3,283,914 40 2,100,586 $48,321,737 16 370,029 $8,451,645 41 1,486,021 $29,063,848 17 0 $0 42 1,233,277 $28,084,335 18 452,213 $10,033,535 43 0 $0 19 5,317,179 $121,787,062 44 0 $0 20 534,430 $13,331,662 45 0 $0 21 0 $0 46 637,871 $12,318,211 22 115,190 $2,352,885 47 0 $0 23 318,827 $6,676,576 48 122,350 $2,362,755 24 5,995,146 $137,238,213 49 0 $0 25 0 - Washington 35,847,770 $1,523,770,521 *Legislative districts do not include equipment contribution.

Riverside State Park Riverside State Park in Spokane receives almost 1,300,000 visits each year, 99% of which are day visits. This park is an example of a state park being used as a local community park. The park is only a few miles outside of downtown Spokane and many Spokane residents will go to the park to escape the hustle and bustle of the city for a few hours. The park is responsible for $31 million in total economic contribution within the county every year.

The Spokane House is an interpretive center which tells the story of the local Native American population as well as fur trappers and traders who historically used the site.

Page 26 of 45 Page 47 of 69

2.4 Expenditures and Contributions of Recreation Activities on Waters Associated with State Parks Washington’s state parks encompass a rich tapestry of rivers, lakes, Puget Sound waters, and Pacific Ocean beaches. In fact, other than evergreen forest (59,029 acres), the two largest land cover categories making up state parks are beaches (8,376 acres) and rivers and lakes (7,877 acres). Figure 12 shows the location of all state parks with boat launches. State parks enable an estimated 567,000 water recreation visits a year in Washington State. This number is an estimate based on a set of assumptions explained in section 1.2.1. It is assumed that approximately 3% of park participants are water-related participants in parks that have water access.16 Participation in water-related recreation varies from park to park, year to year, and region to region and can be impacted by the general economic climate due to the expenses involved.

Figure 12. Water-Related Recreation Visits at State Parks

Because of the lack of spatially explicit activity participation data, for waters associated with state parks, boating recreation was used as a proxy for the distribution and relative economic importance of water related activities at state parks. Most water activities that have higher than average spending profiles (fishing, water skiing, scuba diving) involve a boat, specifically a motor

16 See methods for more details.

Page 27 of 45 Page 48 of 69

boat. Other water related activities, such as swimming, wading, or beach combing, do not have significantly higher expenditure rates than other general outdoor recreation activities17 and are counted as regular visits.

Usually boating and similar water related recreation is thought of as a very expensive activity, yet this report uses $30 as an average expenditure rate. According to California Outdoor Recreation Economic Study,h the average boating party size is 3.7 boaters, which results in a per-party per- day expenditure rate of $111, as compared to the all participant party sizes of 2.3i and per-party per-day expenditures of about $51. Thus, while boat owners may pay more for their trip-related expenditures, they are often bringing along friends or family who spread those costs on a per- person basis.

Total expenditures resulting from water-related recreation associated with State Park lands is estimated to be nearly $17 million per year. The largest percentage of expenditures is spent on fuel; both for the boat and for the vehicles associated with boat transport. As seen in Table 7, the state receives $1.2 million in state taxes each year from outdoor recreation on water associated with state parks. The state also receives sales tax on the purchase of boats and $25.6 million in watercraft excise taxes in 2013-15 not included in the table below.j

Table 7. Total Economic Contribution of Water-Related Recreation at State Parks Total Expenditures Total Economic Contribution Jobs State Tax Water-Related Recreation $16,788,048 $20,258,447 166.8 $1,202,066

Unfortunately, State Parks does not currently measure the participation rates and frequencies of various outdoor recreational activities happening on State Park lands. One would expect given the diversity of state parks’ geographies and facilities, that there is tremendous variance in activity participation. Even so, the ratio of activities may change from season to season or with outdoor recreational trends (e.g. stand up paddle boarding in recent years). The Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (“SCORP”) survey collects data on activity participation rates and frequencies for outdoor recreation in the State at large, but does not allocate this activity spatially. In the Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, the subset of activities borrowed from SCORP (including fishing, shell fishing, swimming, surfing, rafting boating, tubing) show that all forms of water recreation make up 8.9% of all visits. “Boating” makes up 2.2% of visits for all outdoor recreation. Meanwhile, the projected 67,000 state park water recreation participation days amount to 3% of total statewide visits for motorized boating across all recreation lands.18

17 Appendix D of “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State” Earth Economics, 2015. 18 Economic Contribution of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State has total boating days at 19,171,000. With state park boating accounting for 566,923 state parks share of boating is 2.957%.

Page 28 of 45 Page 49 of 69

Deception Pass State Park Boasting approximately 77,000-feet of saltwater shoreline, and 33,900-feet of freshwater shoreline, miles of hiking trails and beautiful wildlife viewing attractions, Deception Pass State Park received 2.25 million visits in 2012. The park is situated between Oak Harbor and Anacortes. The park is classified as suburban, but is on the fringe of being rural with a surrounding 25 mile population of 279,074, about 4% of Washington’s total population.

Deception Pass’ annual visits contribute to almost $50 million in consumer expenditures each year. These expenditures result in economic contributions in industries like food service and drinking places, retail food and beverage places, recreation industries and 358 other business sectors. The consumer surplus attributed to Deception Pass State Park is nearly $86 million per year.

Page 29 of 45 Page 50 of 69

Chapter 3: Consumer Expenditures and Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation by Non-Local Participants; Economic Impact of Out- of-State Visitors The Washington State park system is an engine for the tourism economy and for rural economic development. It attracts $165 million in expenditures from consumers originating from outside the state boundary, which results in an economic impact of $20.3 million. The spending of visitors is called an impact and not a contribution because it signifies new money entering the state economy.19 Meanwhile, non-local participants, most of whom are from Washington State, are estimated to account for 47% of total state park-related expenditures. This means that nearly half of the consumer spending associated with state parks is brought in from outside the regions where state parks are located (more than 50 miles from the park). This transfer of wealth largely occurs from populated urban areas to more rural areas.

3.1 Economic Contribution from Non-Local Participants In theory, the consumer expenditures made by non-local participants constitute an economic impact as new money is being transferred to the regional economies surrounding state parks. However, there are several data limitations to making this claim, so the economic activity is called a “non-local contribution” throughout the study. IMPLAN models describing county economies do not adequately measure economic activity on a smaller scale.20 Indeed, the population gradients (see Appendix A), shows that some parks may be more rural or urban, which affects both the expenditure rates of participants as well as the ability of the local economy to absorb the expenditures.

19 The correct allocation of economic impact is made in relation to a property, activity, event or infrastructure investment, necessarily involves knowledge of the participants’ motivation. Unfortunately such data is not available and if it were, it would vary tremendously from state park to state park, season to season, year to year, and participant to participant. For simplicity and because the visit counts are registered within State Parks, we assume that 100% of state park participant expenditures can be credited to State Parks. Both the percentage of non-local participants and their expenditures rates are relatively conservative compared to other state park studies.

20 IMPLAN does provide zip code level data, however this would have required a separate analysis for every single park which was outside the scope of this study.

Page 30 of 45 Page 51 of 69

Figure 13. State Park Classification and Population Density

Small communities are large beneficiaries of state parks. Regardless of any definitions of rural, suburban, or urban, one can observe that the majority of state parks are located in areas of low population density, representing small communities. Thus, the State Parks system is highly skewed to location in areas of low population. As seen in Table 1 in the methodology section, 56.7% of parks21 are rural and attract nearly half of all state park participants.22 For more validation on state parks urban and rural designation, see Appendix A.

Although non-local participants make up only a third of all visits, they make up nearly half of expenditures, as seen in Table 8. Because state parks attract participants and facilitate participant travel throughout Washington State by providing camping and boat access, they are meaningful assets for the outdoor recreation economy. Non-local participants and out-of-state visitors are not only likely to spend more while traveling to state parks, they are also more likely to stay longer, and spend more money at local shops and restaurants resulting in an increase in wealth in these communities.

Table 8: Local versus Non-Local Visits and Expenditures Local Non-Local Total Visits Expenditures Visits Expenditures Visits Expenditures 24,281,221 $422,167,919 11,566,549 $380,330,722 35,847,770 $802,498,641

21 Considers 181 State Park lands with provided visit counts. 22 8.3% of parks are classified as urban, 35% as suburban.

Page 31 of 45 Page 52 of 69

3.2 Economic Impact from Out-of-State Visitors Not only do many attractive features of state parks draw visitors from outside of Washington, but they also facilitate out-of-state visitor travel and appreciation of other Washington State travel attractions, notably the National Parks, Puget Sound, and Coast. Along Washington State’s borders, state parks can provide local recreation options for neighboring states and Canada, especially in the San Juan Islands, near Portland, along the Columbia River, or in Spokane County next to Idaho. In each of these cases, state parks are to some degree responsible for attracting the consumer expenditures of out-of-state visitors, or “new money,” which would not normally have been spent within Washington State.

Out-of-state visitors to state parks spend approximately $165 million each year and have an annual aggregate economic impact of over $200 million (see Table 9). For every dollar that is spent, $1.22 is circulated within the state. Although out-of-state visitors represent only 10% of total visits, they drive 20.5% of the consumer expenditures.23

Table 9. Total Impact of Out-of-State-Visitors to State Parks Category Total Impact Expenditures* $165,125,944

Leakage $49,779,010 Direct Economic Impact $115,346,934 Indirect Economic Impact $37,375,220 Induced Economic Impact $48,018,981 Total Economic Impact $200,741,136 *Does not include equipment expenditures

Expenditures in accommodation and service industries tend to trickle down to the local economy more than expenditures on other sectors such as retail stores. Food services and drinking places are the largest sector benefitting from expenditures by out-of-state visitors (see Table 10). The impact analysis highlights the importance of promoting outdoor recreation in Washington beyond state borders.

23 The estimate that 10% of park visitors are from out of state is based on findings from other state park studies and based on data collected by The Commission, showing that 11.4% of campers originate from out-of-state.

Page 32 of 45 Page 53 of 69

Table 10. Total Impact of Out-of-State-Visitors by Top Industry Industry Total Impact Food services and drinking places $25,249,289 Wholesale trade businesses $20,164,526 Petroleum refineries $15,473,558 Retail Stores - Food and beverage $13,456,876 General and consumer goods rental except video tapes and discs $10,843,871 Retail Stores - Gasoline stations $9,197,898 $8,952,092 Hotels and motels, including casino hotels

Table 11 shows some general categories of state and local taxes receiving revenue from the observed expenditures. Taxes on production and imports represent the largest area of tax revenue. These taxes emerge largely from the sale of goods and services at retail places. Total state and local tax impacts from out-of-state visitors currently stand at $13 million.

Table 11. Total Tax Contributions of Out-of-State-Visitors Tax Category Total Employee Compensation $116,362 Proprietor Income $0 Tax on Production and Imports $12,515,029 Households $318,348 Corporations $9,154 Total $12,958,893

Birch Bay State Park Birch Bay State Park is situated just 9 miles south of the Canadian border in Blaine, WA and receives 800,000 visits each year and contributes to $18.5 million in spending. It is estimated that 38% of the visits are non-local in origin, though the actual number of non- local campers may be much higher. The park offers many attractions such as boating, clamming, crabbing, fishing, camping and hiking.

Page 33 of 45 Page 54 of 69

Chapter 4: Non-Market Economic Benefits of Recreation in State Parks The benefits provided by the Washington State Park system include more than expenditures and the economic activity that these generate. The total value provided by state parks would include the value gained by recreation participants beyond expenditures, or the recreational consumer surplus, as well as the ecosystem services provided by the lands and waters within state park boundaries and enjoyed by communities nearby. These services amount to significant non- market benefits to Washington State and are estimated to be about $1.9 to $2.5 billion in additional annual value received outside markets. Of this total, $1.4 billion are annual recreational consumer surplus and $500 million to $1.2 billion of which are annual ecosystem co- benefits provided by State Park’s lands. These numbers do not include the mental and physical health benefits nor do they include the social benefits derived from outdoor recreation in Washington’s state parks.

4.1 Introduction to Non-Market Benefits Qualitatively, state parks play an important role in providing a better quality of life and environmental improvements to local communities. Although it has been conventionally difficult to measure such intangibles and externalities in the past, consumer surplus and ecosystem service valuation methods have been, with increasing accuracy and defensibility, able to quantify these non-market benefits. One measure of positive externalities, or impacts that happen outside markets, is referred to as “consumer surplus” by economists. The average state park visit provides $38 in consumer surplus, or in other words, the average state park participant would be willing to pay an additional $38 for their experience beyond the expenditures they are already incurring (which averages $22.39 per visit). Therefore the value that recreation participants place on their experience exceeds the $10 needed for a one time entry, the $30 annual fee for a Discover Pass, the boat launching fees paid, or the average of $22.39 in per visit consumer expenditures.

The State Park system, with just three ecosystem services analyzed,24 provides between $500 million and $1.2 billion in non-market benefits per year.25 Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people derive from nature, free of charge. Breathable air, drinkable water, nourishing food, waste treatment, flood risk reduction, and stable atmospheric conditions are some examples. These benefits are conventionally not accounted for in accounting or economic contribution/impact analyses. In reality, ecosystem services create irreplaceable value and can amount to high cost savings and increased economic value to the state and the communities around state parks.k In order to show their economic importance, ecosystem services can be

24 Earth Economics has developed a taxonomy of 21 ecosystem services, though only three were studied here. 25 The range of values reflects different contexts and factors that influence the value attributed to a given type of ecosystem. The range reflects the uncertainty inherent to the benefit transfer methodology.

Page 34 of 45 Page 55 of 69

valued in dollar units. In many cases these values reflect avoided costs, inputs into economic production processes, or into potentially marketable goods and services. Economists have developed a number of methods to translate ecosystem services into monetary values. A list of the most common valuation methodologies is provided in Appendix B.

In the absence of primary data for a site-specific valuation, values obtained from already published studies of sufficiently similar sites can be used as general approximations. This valuation methodology is referred to as benefit transfer. It is commonly applied in policy analysis, as decision makers require timely and cost-effective methods for valuing green spaces.

4.2 Consumer Surplus of Recreation as an Ecosystem Service In this study, consumer surplus for state parks’ visits were estimated from a recreation value database developed by Dr. Randall Rosenberger, Professor of Environmental Economics at Oregon State University.l For more information on how consumer surplus is calculated, see Box 2. The average consumer surplus from visiting a state park in Western United States was found to be $38.30 (2015 USD). This value was applied to all yearly visits to state parks in Washington, which resulted in a total of $1.4 billion in annual consumer surplus (see Table 12 for county and state level results). The actual value received from outdoor recreation in state parks is therefore much greater than the recorded economic transactions estimated through the economic contribution and economic impact analyses.

Table 12. Consumer Surplus of Yearly Visits to Washington State Parks by County Consumer Surplus Total Visits Per Consumer Surplus Total Visits Per County County Per Year 2015 Year Per Year 2015 USD Year USD ADAMS 248,048 $9,501,212 LEWIS 258,691 $9,908,862 ASOTIN 50,555 $1,936,455 LINCOLN 0 - BENTON 0 - MASON 998,793 $38,257,693 CHELAN 1,150,409 $44,065,182 OKANOGAN 733,548 $28,097,769 CLALLAM 196,595 $7,530,360 PACIFIC 3,887,381 $148,901,936 CLARK 452,213 $17,321,533 PEND OREILLE 4,911 $188,111 COLUMBIA 50,303 $1,926,802 PIERCE 226,420 $8,672,775 COWLITZ 182,272 $6,981,733 SAN JUAN 1,339,086 $51,292,251 DOUGLAS 75,410 $2,888,499 SKAGIT 413,400 $15,834,843 FERRY 62,698 $2,401,580 SKAMANIA 342,702 $13,126,832 FRANKLIN 163,190 $6,250,818 SNOHOMISH 290,502 $11,127,367 GARFIELD 0 - SPOKANE 4,170,005 $159,727,564 GRANT 1,418,420 $54,331,055 STEVENS 0 - GRAYS HARBOR 4,724,177 $180,954,528 THURSTON 441,781 $16,921,947 ISLAND 4,209,426 $161,237,543 WAHKIAKUM 0 - JEFFERSON 2,478,093 $94,920,692 WALLA WALLA 0 - KING 3,748,142 $143,568,555 WHATCOM 1,738,752 $66,601,028 KITSAP 749,202 $28,697,378 WHITMAN 141,469 $5,418,818 KITTITAS 365,757 $14,009,929 YAKIMA 136,949 $5,245,694 KLICKITAT 398,471 $15,263,004 WASHINGTON 35,847,770 $1,373,110,340

Page 35 of 45 Page 56 of 69

Box 2. What is Consumer Surplus? Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price consumers would be willing to pay for a good or service and what they actually pay for it (see Figure 14). This difference is a gain for the consumer since they are paying less than the value they place on that benefit. For example, a Washingtonian may be willing to pay $50 to go hiking for one day on the Olympic Peninsula (this would be point C in Figure 14). If the actual cost of the hiking trip is only $20 (point D), then the hiker gains a net economic benefit (consumer surplus) of $30 per day (or the area of the triangle BCD). Even though they are obtained free of charge, the existence of extra benefits is strategic in the decision to visit an attraction or engage in an activity.

Figure 14. Consumer Surplus versus Consumer Expenditures

4.3 Ecosystem Services provided by State Park Lands Three ecosystem services provided by the state park ecosystems were valued for the non-market economic benefits they provide local and non-local communities. These benefits accrue outside the transactions and experiences associated with recreational activity. In addition to the services valued in this report, state park lands may also provide important storm water, flood, or fire buffers to communities. Many other ecosystem services are provided by the natural lands preserved by State Parks (see Appendix B). However, only three services were valued in this report.

Aesthetic Information Aesthetic Information is defined as enjoying the sights, sounds, smells, and presence of nature. This ecosystem service is often valued through the environmental attributes of property sales and hence reflects the added housing value to those who live close to outdoor recreational areas. Properties located on the edge of a lake are often more expensive than non-lakeside properties

Page 36 of 45 Page 57 of 69

in the same area. For example, one half of the respondents to a National Association of Realtors survey reported they would pay 10% more for a house located near a park or open space, while the actual premium paid for homes directly adjacent to parks is 16% higher. m

Wildlife Habitat Recreational activities like wildlife viewing or hunting would not exist without the ecosystem service of habitat and nursery. Beyond recreation, however, ecosystems within state parks also provide safe havens for endangered species and other species important in food webs and in other ecological functions. In some cases, people value the existence of wildlife as an end in itself (intrinsic value of wildlife). There are many methods for valuing habitat. It can be valued as a factor of production (e.g. inputs to crops or maintenance of fish populations) or through willingness to pay surveys for specific species. It should also be noted that “wildlife viewing” was the most lucrative outdoor recreation activity in Washington State.c

Water Quality Many state parks have rivers, lakes, and watersheds within them. The vegetated landscape around these water bodies plays an important function in improving or maintaining water quality, which eventually affects downstream users as well. Forest and grassland vegetation along river banks stabilize soils and prevent erosion, reducing sediment run-off. Vegetation, microbes, and soils remove pollutants and sediment from the water by adhering to contaminants, by reducing water speed to enhance infiltration, by biochemical transformation of nutrients and contaminants, by absorbing water and nutrients from the root zone of trees, by stabilizing eroding banks, and by diluting contaminated water.n Some species, like shellfish, are able to provide clean water by removing pollutants and sediment from the water. It can be said that natural lands filter and control the flow of water in lieu of built infrastructure like water purification facilities, levies, and storm water systems. The cost of replacing these functions with built infrastructure, or replacement value, is one way to value water quality.

In order to estimate the economic value of these three co-benefits being produced by state parks, a benefit transfer methodology was used. Earth Economics’ computational engine and valuation database, the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit (EVT), has a large number of primary valuation studies for Washington State and other Western States with similar climatic and geographical conditions. In order to conduct the valuation, GIS was used to determine the number of acres of different land cover types within state parks across Washington State (see Table 13). These ecosystems, or land covers, were categorized using the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD).o For each land cover type a set of suitable values were chosen for the selected ecosystem services that exist within them. The unit of valuation used is 2015 USD per acre per

Page 37 of 45 Page 58 of 69

year and a range of values is provided to reflect differences found in existing studies.26 The total annual economic value of the three ecosystem services provided by State Parks’ lands range between $500 million and $1.2 billion.

Table 13. Aesthetic, Wildlife Habitat, and Water Quality Value Provided by State Parks’ Ecosystems (Table revised 9/9/2015) Annual Low Annual High Total Low Total High NLCD Acres ($/acre/year) ($/acre/year) ($/year) ($/year) Developed, 3,434 $484 $3,020 $1,662,056 $10,370,680 Open Space Deciduous 2,912 $6,036 $12,116 $17,576,832 $35,281,792 Forest Evergreen 59,029 $6,365 $12,451 $375,719,585 $734,970,079 Forest 7,737 $5,551 $11,630 $42,948,087 $89,981,310 Mixed Forest Grassland/ 5,106 $8,031 $12,764 $41,006,286 $65,172,984 Herbaceous 840 $5 $15 $4,200 $12,600 Pasture/Hay Cultivated 1,143 $9,776 $20,066 $11,173,968 $22,935,438 Crops Woody 3,853 $534 $33,297 $2,057,502 $128,293,341 Wetlands Emergent 2,544 $946 $20,926 $2,406,624 $53,235,744 Herbaceous Wetlands Rivers and 7877 $258 $579 $2,032,266 $4,560,783 Lakes 30,901 $258 $550 $7,972,458 $16,995,550 Shrub/Scrub 8,376 $253 $667 $2,119,128 $5,586,792 Beaches Total 133,752 $3788 $8728 $506,678,992 $1,167,397,093 *Marine waters were not included as a land cover type; excludes 4,166 ‘miscellaneous’ land to total 137,918 acres for park system. –adjusted

Many people stand to benefit from the conservation of land as a state park. Beyond the ecosystem services values in this report, the conservation of green spaces also results in reductions in flood risks, cleaner air, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, greater biodiversity, pollination services, scientific and education opportunities, and more (see Appendix B).

26 The range of values reflects different contexts and factors that influence the value attributed to a given type of ecosystem. The range reflects the uncertainty inherent to the benefit transfer methodology.

Page 38 of 45 Page 59 of 69

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Further Research

The first part of this report quantified and allocated the significant market-based economic benefits resulting from recreational activities within state parks including consumer expenditures, economic contributions, economic impacts, taxes collected, and jobs. State parks promote consumer expenditures in sectors that provide significant employment to Washington State residents and appreciable tax revenue to the state general fund.

The state park system is an engine for rural economies and redistributes wealth to rural regions by attracting significant spending from non-local participants. State parks facilitate tourism by providing critical outdoor recreation assets and also attract new money from out-of-state visitors. State parks are especially important in areas that lack other kinds of public conservation land or critical recreational amenities such as Salish Sea Islands and the Pacific Coast.

The second part of this report quantifies some of the non-market benefits of the Washington State park system. Indeed, state parks provide an aggregate consumer surplus that nearly matches the aggregate value of equipment and activity-related consumer expenditures. The lands and waters from which state parks are composed provide numerous and essential ecosystem services to local and non-local beneficiary populations outside those that interface with state parks as outdoor recreation participants. Whether storm water management, a driver for real estate value, or wildlife habitat, state parks provide more value than the consumer expenditures they help generate and the recreational experiences they provide.

The results of this report can be used to inform State Park policy on maintenance budgeting, asset management, and investments on a state level. The regional results provide a means for teasing out regional and park-specific comparative advantages and value-propositions. These numbers also provide a reference for scale to understand the niches that state parks fill in the outdoor recreation economy as well as their state-wide, overall importance.

Suggestions for further areas of study include the physical and mental health benefits associated with state park-related outdoor recreation as well as the social capital benefits provided by outdoor recreation participation, events, and conferences.

Page 39 of 45 Page 60 of 69

Endnotes a "Seattle Seahawks." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Web. 05 July 2015. b "Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much?" Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much? Web. 13 July 2015. c Economic Impacts of Visitors to Washington State Parks, Dean Runyan 2002 d Briceno, T., Schundler, G. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. e Department of Commerce. 2013. Petroleum Supply and Use in Washington State: An overview of recent developments in the petroleum market. http://www.commerce.wa.gov/documents/petroleum-whitepaper-7-15- 2013.pdf f "Key Studies: Why Local Matters." Institute for Local Self Reliance. Web. 08 July 2015. g http://data.spokesman.com/census/2010/washington/legislative-districts/ h California State Parks/BBC Research & Consulting, 2011. California Outdoor Recreation Economic Study: Statewide Contributions and Benefits.http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ca%20outdoor%20rec%20econ%20study- statewide%2011-10-11%20for%20posting.pdf i Stynes, D., White, E. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year Report, East Lansing, MI. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/NVUM4YrSpending.pdf j A. Legislative Guide, Washington State's, and Tax Structure. "A LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO WASHINGTON STATE'S TAX STRUCTURE." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 2 July 2015 k Schrier, A. V., Bronfin, J., Harrison-Cox, J. 2013. What is your planet worth? A handbook for understanding natural capital. Earth Economics. Tacoma, WA. l Rosenberger, R.S. 2011. Recreation Use Values Database. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Available online at http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu/database. m Tassel, Sandra “Making the Most of Our Money: Recommendations for State Conservation Programs” Look at the Land, Inc., Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land. n Brauman, K.A., G.C. Daily, T.K. Duarte, and H.A. Mooney. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. o Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States- Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354

Page 40 of 45 Page 61 of 69

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Appendix A: Assumptions for Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks

For this study, GIS was employed by “clipping” US Census 2010 Block data for population with a 25 mile radius circle around the centroid of each state park. The mean was then derived of these 25 mile radius population counts: 415,622. Because the dataset was highly skewed to rural, the standard deviation of 634,995 was not suitable for bell curve distribution analytics. As a result we analyzed the distribution curve of state park 25 mile population and created two thresholds between rural and suburban and suburban and urban. The resulting division of parks and total participants into these categories can be seen in Table 14.

Table 14. Summary of Urban-Rural Designation 25 Mile Radius Number of Total Participants Population Range Local % Non Local % Parks Data Urban >1.4 million 79% 21% 15 (8.3%) 3,685,815 (10.3%) Suburban 1.4 million to 207,000 72% 28% 63 (35%) 14,290,146 (39.9%) Rural <207,000 62% 38% 103 (56.7%) 17,871,809 (49.8%) Total N/A 68% 32% 181 35,847,770 Dean Runyan (2002) All Parks 64% 36%

Page 41 of 45 Page 62 of 69

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

A spectrum of local and non-local participant ratios along an urban to rural gradient is confirmed by primary data collected on participant origin for a New York State Park study. On the extreme urban side of the spectrum New York State recorded “non-local visitors” at 2.9% of total State Park participants in New York City and 37.8% for the Niagara Frontier. Relative urban density varies from era to era, nation to nation, and region to region, therefore we did not transfer these values directly. The range of ratios we chose was a more conservative range of non-local participants with 21% for urban parks, 28% for suburban, and 38% for rural parks. Regardless of the designation, these parks still have a majority of local Figure 15: Non-Local Participants participants. For guidance we benchmarked this (“Visitors”) by Survey in NY State assumption against Dean Runyan’s assertion that 64% of 2002 State Park Visitors were local day visitors.

PagePage 42 63 of of 4569

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Appendix B Ecosystem Services and Valuation Methodologies Table 15. Typology for 21 Ecosystem Services Good/Service Economic Benefit to People Provisioning Services Food Producing crops, fish, game, and fruits Medicinal Resources Providing traditional medicines, pharmaceuticals, and assay organisms Providing resources for clothing, jewelry, handicraft, worship, and Ornamental Resources decoration Energy and Raw Providing fuel, fiber, fertilizer, minerals, and energy Materials Provisioning of surface and groundwater for drinking water, irrigation, Water Supply and industrial use Regulating Services Biological Control Providing pest and disease control Supporting a stable climate at global and local levels through carbon Climate Stability sequestration and other processes Air Quality Providing clean, breathable air Moderation of Extreme Preventing and mitigating natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, Events fires, and droughts Pollination Pollination of wild and domestic plant species Creating soils for agricultural and ecosystems integrity; maintenance of Soil Formation soil fertility Soil Retention Retaining arable land, slope stability, and coastal integrity Improving soil, water, and air quality by decomposing human and animal Waste Treatment waste and removing pollutants Providing natural irrigation, drainage, groundwater recharge, river flows, Water Regulation and navigation Supporting Services Maintaining genetic and biological diversity, the basis for most other Habitat and Nursery ecosystem functions; promoting growth of commercially harvested species Genetic Resources Improving crop and livestock resistance to pathogens and pests Cultural Services Enjoying and appreciating the presence, scenery, sounds, and smells of Natural Beauty nature Cultural and Artistic Using nature as motifs in art, film, folklore, books, cultural symbols, Inspiration architecture, and media Recreation and Experiencing the natural world and enjoying outdoor activities Tourism Science and Education Using natural systems for education and scientific research Spiritual and Historical Using nature for religious and spiritual purposes Source: Adapted from de Groot puc., 2002 and Sukhdev et al., 2010

Page 43 of 45 Page 64 of 69

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Table 16. Primary Ecosystem Service Valuation Methods Market Value The value that an ecosystem good is sold for in a market.

The value of costs avoided that would have been incurred in the absence of particular ecosystem services. Example: The hurricane Avoided Cost (AC) protection that is provided by barrier islands avoids property damages along coastlines.

The cost of replacing ecosystem services with man-made systems. Replacement Cost Example: Natural water filtration is replaced with a costly man- (RC) made filtration plant.

The enhancement of income by ecosystem service provision. Factor Income (FI) Example: Water quality improvements increase commercial fisheries catch and thereby also the incomes of fishermen.

The cost of travel required to consume or enjoy ecosystem services. Travel costs can reflect the implied value of the service. Travel Cost (TC) Example: Recreational areas attract tourists. The value they place on that area must, at a minimum, be at least the price they were willing to pay to travel to it.

The reflection of service demand in the varying prices people will pay for associated goods. Example: Housing prices of properties in Hedonic Pricing (HP) close proximity to recreational areas can be higher than those that are farther from these areas.

The value for service demand elicited by posing hypothetical Contingent Valuation scenarios that involve some valuation of land use alternatives. (CV) Example: People would be willing to pay for increased wetland restoration, as expressed through surveys.

Discourse-based contingent valuation, which is conducted by bringing together a group of stakeholders to discuss values in Group Valuation (GV) order to determine society’s willingness to pay. Example: Government, citizen’s groups, and businesses come together to determine the value of an area and the services it provides.

Page 44 of 45 Page 65 of 69

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Appendix C Washington State Budget Revenue

2011-13 General Fund Budget for Washington State was $31 billion

Figure 16. Washington State Budget Revenue by Source

"An Introduction to the WA State Budget: The General Fund and Sources of Revenue." Economic Opportunity Institute, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 July 2015

PagePage 45 66 of of 4569 Page 67 of 69 PROGRAM 10/7/18: Moon: New Moon - Wed. Tides: High - 4:11PM, Low - 8:58 a.m./9:43 p.m. THEME: Above & Below the Salish Sea THEME: Mindful Living THEME: FIELD TRIPS/WALKS THEME: MIXED OR ALL SCHEDULE Sunrise: 7:20 Sunset: 6:35

SUNDAY OCT 7 (DAY 1) MONDAY OCT 8 (Day 2) TUESDAY OCT 9 (Day 3) WEDNESDAY OCT 10 (Day 4) THURSDAY OCT 11 (Day 5) FRIDAY OCT 12 (Day 6)

PERSPECTIVES & WELCOME: Familiarization with One OVERVIEW: Themes, Tracks, Field Trip BUILDING SKILLS: Broadening Perspectives, EXPLORE DEEPER: Deepening Your CYCLES & SUCCESSES: Reinforcing Your WRAP UPS & FAREWELLS PROGRAMMING Another and FW Options Expanding Skills Experiences Postive Experiences Sunrise Block_1 Movement/Madrona Movement Movement Movement Movement Open 6:45-7:30 AM Photo Foray: Dawn light walk about with your Sunrise Block_2 camera or phone camera. Learn to take better On Your Own to reflect and prepare to Mindful Mindful Mindful Mindful 6:45-7:30 AM pictures with magical lighting that happens at leave Fortopia. dawn/dusk. (.5-1 Hr.) Low Tide Beach Walk 7:30-8 AM Break Meditation/Learn/Appreciate Breakfast - Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast 8-8:45 AM Morning Block 9- NOON 9-10:30 AM - Closing Ceremony - WOW! SPECIAL LECTURE/BOOK SIGNING: Artist FIELD TRIP - Van tour to Chimicum Creek to see FIELD TRIP - Harvest Bounty is All Around What a week. Shared closing thoughts and Ray Troll & Kirk Johnson talk about their salmon habitat restoration (Illahee?). We hope Us and Arran Stark, Exec. Chef, is the best Fort Worden Hike - An Officer & A Gentleman reflection with the whole group. Closing AM_1 new book, Cruising the Eternal Coastline . to also see migrating chum salmon. Jefferson person to see it with. Van Trip to Chimicum Filming Locations (2 Hrs.) Tribal Blessing, Potlatch between Fortopia (Public Welcome) County Land Trust will lead this trip. (3 Hrs.) Valley Farms attendees (awards, recognitions, now Fortopia ambassadors), etc. (1.5 Hrs.) Workshop/Walk: Visit Fort Worden's 10:30 - NOON - Time to collect creative Workshop: Ray Troll - Sea Creatures and Workshop: West African Dance & Drimming Memories Vault to reflect, write poetry, AM_2 Fort Worden Hike - The Triangle of Fire! projects from the workshop spaces, meet Facinating Life Around Us to Illustrate (Centrum and Madrona) sketch, and strech your legs and your with others, explore more, etc. thinking. Whale Skelaton Articulation - PTMSC (2-4 Workshop, cont. - Creative Writing and AM_3 Workshop: Voice Class Workshop, cont.: Voice Class Hrs.) Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.)

Lecture: Dan and Lys Burden - Sustainable Communities and Living Well (PUBLIC Lecture: The Evolution of Fort Worden - From AM_4 Workshop: Woodworking - Ladle Workshop, cont.: Ladle WELCOME?) Dan is part of exclusive group Fort to Life Long Learning Center that will talk about future cities this Dec. at Windsor Castle. (1-2 Hrs.)

Workshop - Creative Writing and AM_5 Workshop, cont.: Fiber Art Sculpture Workshop, cont.: Fiber Arts/Judith Bird Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.) Workshop, cont. - Creative Writing and AM_6 Workshop: Make A Journal PTSA Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.)

BREAK - AM Block Kinetic Sculptures on display after the Wearable Art to display? Other BIG ART to display in/out on campus? Break NOON-12:30 races?

SUNDAY ONLY - 36th Great PT Bay All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art ALL WEEK (during Kinetic Races featuring local artists in spaces across the featuring local artists in spaces across the Fort featuring local artists in spaces across the featuring local artists in spaces across the Fort featuring local artists in spaces across the open hours) 10:30 AM - 8 PM Fort Worden campus (Northwind) Worden campus. Fort Worden campus. Worden campus. Fort Worden campus.

MUSEUMS (during All-Access to Museums during open hours All-Access to Museums during open hours All-Access to Museums during open hours All-Access to Museums during open hours All-Access to Museums during open hours open hours) throughout the week. throughout the week. throughout the week. throughout the week. throughout the week.

Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading and Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading and Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading and Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading and Lunch on your own Lunch 12:30 and Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch (Taps & Reveille are Open) Afternoon Block 1:30- Post - Fortopia Field Trips Depart 12:30 PM 2-4 PM Arrivals/Check In to Lodgings 4:30 PM for the Elwha River with Jessica Plumb Rainshadow Studio - Tour & Music in the AFTERNOON TEA - with the PT Hsitorical PM_1 Whale Skelaton Articulation - PTMSC FARM FIELD TRIP (if not AM) Studio Society (Porch - COQ?) Follow the Afternoon Tea with a FIELD TRIP Fort Worden Hike - Natural Elements of this FIELD TRIP - Van Tour to Historic FIELD TRIP - VISIT THE Northwest Maritime to Historic Downtown Van Tour (1-2 Hr.) or a PM_2 place will be discussed, from geology, beaches, Downtown Center. screening of An Officer & A Gentleman (2.5 plants, animals, sealife and more. Hrs.) Workshop: Printmaking - add to your journal Demo/Workshop - Arran Stark - Local Food an original print that depicts your connection PM_3 Workshop, cont.: Woodworking Ladle Workshop, cont.: Woodworking Ladle Cooking to place/people with Corvidae Press (and PTSA) (2 Hrs.) Workshop: Journal Sketching - Especially Port Townsend Film Festival - Screening of Workshop: Fiber Art Public Sculpture focused on nature and place, add Workshop, cont.: West African Dance & PM_4 2018 Film Shorts in the Wheeler (PUBLIC creating using invasive Scot's Broom. drawing/sketching to your journaling practice. Drumming WELCOME) (2+ Hrs.) PTSA DBeck (2 Hrs.) PM_5 Workshop, cont. - Voice Class Workshop - Herbal Interlude: Self Care Workshop, cont.: Journal Sketching - Especially focused on nature and place, add PM_6 Workshop, cont. - Fiber Arts with Judith Bird drawing/sketching to your journaling practice. PTSA DBeck (2 Hrs.) Could sketch on a field trip. Lecture - Salish Sea Salmon & Orca Survival Lecture/All (PUBLIC WELCOME) Fun & Games 4:30- 2-5 PM Fort Tours, Games - including Open Studio Time - More time as needed Open House - All Partner Spaces (Public Break for Fun & Games Break for Fun & Games 5:30 PM petanque lessons and tourney! for your projects, observe others in classes. Welcome?)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT Reception at the Pier Marine Exhibit and HAPPY HOUR 5-6 PM - At Taps w Poetry Finistere chefs, Deborah Taylor and Scott SPECIAL CONCERT - CENTRUM VOICE CLASS - Featuring Local, the Natural History Exhibit, Port Reading and Music on Tap at Taps also Ross, provide gourmet locally sourced small Local Featured Chef - Arran Stark PERFORMANCE and Local Featured Producer - Sustainable Fare 5:30- Townsend Marine Science Center, featuring Local Producer - wine, cider, plate wonders. wine, cider, vegetables/fruit, etc. Dinner featuring... vegetables/fruit, etc.

Bounty from the Bay: Field to Fort locally Chef Arran Stark brings his harvest basket Traditional Salmon Dinner at the Beach Dinner - 6-7 PM Dinner at the Beach Shelter Dinner sourced seafood and produce. Featuring Fort back to the Fort to create a masterpiece of Kitchen Shelter, Campfire Worden's Chef Kristan McCary. fall favorites for dinner. The Salish Sea with Billy B (1 Hr.) followed by Campfire Stories at the Beach - Local and Opening Ceremony, Tribal Blessing and Talk: Wes Cecil - Philosophy for Living: At Key City Players Theatre - Dress a Screening of the Return of the River with Tribe Storytellers - (Salish Sea, Harvest, Evening 7:30 Evening Program at the Beach (Campfire - Wisdom & Beauty (Public Welcome) (1-2 Rehersal of Annapurna (2-3 Hrs.) or Sunset filmmaker, Jessica Plumb (2 Hrs.) (Public Haunted/Ghosts, Legends/Lore, Salmon, Orca, 1 Hr.) Hrs.) Charter Boat Trip (sunsets at 6:35 PM) Welcome) etc.) (1-2 HR.)

Page 68 of 69 Current Fort Worden PDA Partner Program Classification

The organization has programs that have been consecutively repeating for 10+ years at the same time each year with 100+ bed nights prior to May 1, 2014

Yes No

This is a Legacy Program The organization is currently located on property and was established prior to Onsite: Offsite: May 1, 2014 Centrum Acoustic Blues Camp Bharat Centrum Artist Residencies Exceptional Chorale Centrum Blue Heron FW Knitters Centrum Chamber Res. Ind. Men's Bible Retreat Yes No Centrum Explorations INPRA Centrum Fiddle Tunes Quilters This is a Founding Partner The organization is currently located on property and was established after Centrum HS Writers Rainbow City Band Founding Residential May 1, 2014 Founding Partner: Centrum Jazz Royal Scottish Dancers Program Partner: Centrum Voice Works St. Joseph Healing Ministry (100+ bed nights/yr) (100> bed nights/yr) Centrum Water World Swedish Family Medicine Res. Centrum Copper Canyon Press Centrum Writers WW Scrappers Goddard College Corvidae Press Yes No Goddard Artists Madrona MindBody Ins. Friends of Fort Worden Goddard Writers PT Marine Science Center Peninsula College This is a Tenant Partner This organization offers yearly, regular or consistent programs WASP Ranger Training Washington State Parks PS Coast Artillery Museum (Any New Onsite Partners) at Fort Worden Booking Timeline: PT School of Woodworking Gray Wolf Ranch Up to 3 Years in Advance Booking Timeline: KPTZ Booked By: After Legacy & PT School of the Arts Partner Sales Group Sales After Legacy Programs Founding Resident Rainshadow Recording Yes No Rates: Programs Booking Timeline: M: Founding Res. Booked By: After Legacy & This is a Partnership This is a Group Sales Event M: Group Rate Partner Rates Partner Sales Founding, up to 1 year Public: Community: All Accommodations: 1 Accommodation in advance H: Founding Res. Rates: An offsite government or An offsite privately owned H: Group Rate Full Package - Limited - Just Housing Partner Rates M: Founding Res. Booked By: publicly owned entity that organization that regularly M: Day Use Rates Housing, Meeting or Meeting Space or Partner Rates Partner Sales rents space rents space Space & Catering Catering H: Founding Res. H: 20% Off Current Rates: Booking Timeline: Partner Rates Rack Rate M: Day Use Rates Unless generating over 100 bed nights, these Booking Timeline: H: 20% Off Current participants can book up to 1 year in Up to 16 months in Up to 1 year in Rack Rate advance advance advance Booked By: Booked By: Group Sales Group Sales Rates: Rates: M: TBD M: TBD M: Group Rate M: Group Rate H: TBD H: TBD H: Group Rate H: Group Rate

5/8/2018 Page 69 of 69