Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy - TNF
Context The Alaska Region of USDA Forest Service is seeking to continue to provide recreation opportunities through public use rental cabins on the National Forests. The Region currently has approximately 250 public use recreation cabins, about 150 on the Tongass National Forest and 100 on the Chugach National Forest; representing approximately one‐half of the developed recreation facilities in the Alaska Region. Increased cost of services and declining maintenance budgets threaten the Forest Service’s ability to provide all of these cabins. In February 2010 the Region hosted a public workshop for public and private partners to address how to move forward with a sustainable recreation program within the Alaska Region. One of the tasks from that meeting was to gain an understanding of the public use cabin program and the costs associated with delivering that program.
Analysis In August 2011 Capital Hotel Management (CHM) was contracted to provide a financial analysis of the current situation on the Tongass National Forest and provide some strategies that could be used to increase the financial efficiency of the public use recreation cabins. CHM proposed a three step process resulting in recommendations for a portfolio strategy. The steps entailed gaining an understanding of the unique product, and its niche within the region, that the public use cabins provide to the recreating public; looking for options to expand market opportunities and finally, examining gaps between current (or baseline) operations and potential market opportunities. Based on this process CHM developed strategies for providing better economic efficiencies and an analysis of changes to the portfolio that might be undertaken. There are several important factors that must be used when interpreting the information. This was a snapshot of data from Fiscal Year 2010, and there may have been other changes in the delivery of the cabin program since then that will not have been included. This analysis looks at the costs associated with the public use recreation of cabins and so only presents one aspect to financially sustainable developed recreation program.
Conclusions The report collected data and makes recommendations based solely on financial efficiencies, it was not intended as a decision document rather, it is a collection of data that can be used by line officers to make an informed decision regarding management of a program area. Public Use Recreation Cabins are one component of a sustainable recreation program, and need to be considered within this larger context.
January 2013
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy – Tongass National Forest US Forest Service Alaska Regional Office
Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Park City Washington, DC
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Tel 978.522.7000 Fax 978.522.7008 548 Cabot Street Beverly, MA 01915 www.chmhotel.com
November 26, 2012
Mr. Eric Ouderkirk Alaska Region ARRA Program Coordinator USDA Forest Service – Alaska Region 709 West 9th Street Juneau, AK 99802
Dear Mr. Ouderkirk,
We are pleased to present our Final Report on the Tongass National Forest Public Use Recreation Cabin Program for Financial Sustainability. This work has been completed under Task Order AG- 0109-D-10-008 under CHM IDIQ Contract AG-02NV-C-09-004.
It has been a pleasure to be of service to the Alaska Regional Office and the US Forest Service. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,
Capital Hotel Management
Section 1 - Introduction
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Section 1 - Introduction
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Report Format ...... 6 2. Goals and Objectives ...... 7 3. Understanding the Product ...... 8 3.1 General Characteristics of Cabin Supply ...... 8 3.2 General Characteristics of Cabin Demand ...... 10 3.3 Revenue ...... 15 3.4 Current Operating Costs ...... 16 3.5 Industry Standard Estimated Operating Costs ...... 23 3.6 Sub Conclusion – Understanding the Product ...... 25 4. Market Opportunity ...... 27 4.1 Competitive Market ...... 27 4.2 Comparable Markets ...... 35 4.2 Alternative Practices Observed in Market ...... 41 4.3 Desires of Alaskan Residents ...... 42 4.4 Sub Conclusion – Market Opportunity ...... 46 5. Gap Analysis ...... 47 5.1 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis ...... 48 5.2 Strategies for Closing the Gap ...... 49 6. Portfolio Strategy Analysis ...... 52 6.1 Options Evaluated ...... 53 6.2 Scenario Outcomes & conclusion ...... 55 7. Appendix ...... 57 7.1 Cabin Occupancy by Cabin ...... 58 7.2 Rates Applied by Cabin ...... 62 7.2 Maps by Cabin ...... 68
Section 1 - Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Tongass National Forest Recreation Cabins Program and the current and long-term sustainability of the system. Our research included information gathered from a week-long site visit, interviews, surveys, and desktop research on a wide-variety of cabin elements. The cabin program at the Tongass National Forest is comprised of approximately 150 public use cabins and is the second-largest contributor to recreation site fees at 20 percent of total fees collected. (Visitor centers are the largest contributor, averaging 63 percent over the 2005 to 2009 period.) These cabins are a key component of the recreation experience provided by the Forest Service and help to define the region’s recreational niche. Public users as well as US Forest Service employees are passionate about the cabin program and many wish to be engaged in the strategy development process. For these reasons, the purpose of this study is to analyze a wide range of variables within the cabin system and identify the current state of the program in regards to long-term sustainability as well as the potential future of the program and recommendations for improvement. The financial sustainability of the cabin program will be dependent upon the following: • the makeup and inventory of the cabins and their operating characteristics, • the physical state of the cabins and life of the assets, • the effort and cost required to maintain each cabin, • the effort and cost required to operate the program, • the current and projected demand for the cabins, and • the fees that the program generates and the appropriated funds available in comparison to the cost of maintaining and operating a sustainable program.
1.1 REPORT FORMAT The format of this report has been designed to be delivered in phases in order to communicate portions of our findings as they evolve. The report outline includes the following: 1. Introduction 2. Goals and Objectives for Recreation Cabin Portfolio Strategy 3. Understanding the Product 4. Market Opportunity 5. Gap Analysis 6. Portfolio Strategy Analysis 7. Appendix
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 6 CHM Government Services Section 2 – Goals and Objectives
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To develop the best strategy for the financial sustainability of the cabin program, the USFS’s goals and objectives must first be understood. The future of the cabin program lies in the creation of a strategy to maximize the life of past and future public investments as well as the development of new and possibly creative ways to narrow the gap between the following: 1. Funds available through appropriation as well as revenues generated by rental fees and 2. Costs of maintenance and administration of the cabins. The basis of the solution to narrowing the gap is to control expenses and develop revenue strategies which can favorably impact long-term financial sustainability. The cornerstone of this endeavor is having an understanding of the components that make up each element. • The maintenance goals of the cabins are to maximize the life of the assets, which is done through preventative maintenance and the accurate management of deferred maintenance. Currently, CHM understands that the standards to which the cabins should be maintained are based on regional and national standards. These standards can be found in the 2008 Tongass National Forest Plan, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2330, the Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, and FSM 2320 for wilderness cabins. As part of this work, Jacobs Engineering will be undertaking an estimated cost of maintenance through a condition assessment. This will assist in determining an “industry” standard for facility maintenance and forecasting operations and maintenance expense for the portfolio. • Costs to operate the cabin program are largely made up of payroll and labor to book reservations, clean cabins, refresh supplies, manage hazards, manage crews, etc. These costs are to be looked at on a historical basis as well as on a forward-looking basis, depending upon any changes that program management may want to implement. • Money to support the cabin system comes from both fees generated from the cabins as well as appropriated funding. Cabin rental fees are paid by individual users, while money used to support the system from the budget (appropriated funds) is a way of subsidizing the program through public funding, which may or may not be available in predictable amounts in the future. Cabin fee revenue generated by the cabins is a topic that has been greatly focused on, specifically in regards to increasing rental rates and/or stratifying the cabin product and assigning different rates to specifically classified cabins. In an effort to explore this topic, rate proposals have been submitted, recommendations have been made, and a rental fee market survey has been completed. In addition, a tool has been created for a preliminary approach to pricing cabin rates based on facilities, capacity, amenities, and recreation opportunities provided. In regards to cabin rates, this study aims to synthesize much of the effort that has already been made as well as generate and recommend a suitable and robust approach for the future.
The following sections of this report will provide insights to these issues as well as begin to identify options for the USFS to evaluate in developing strategies for increasing financial sustainability of their cabin portfolio.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 7 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
3. UNDERSTANDING THE PRODUCT To understand the cabin product available within the system, an analysis of the current supply and demand as well as the operating characteristics and costs to maintain and operate the cabins was undertaken. There are approximately 150 cabins in the Tongass National Forest recreation cabin program, and different characteristics were analyzed in order to promulgate an understanding of the product available. The cabins are found as far south as Humpback Lake in the Ketchikan Ranger District (RD) and as far north as Situk Lake in the Yakutat RD and are located near remote lakes, rivers, streams, and on saltwater beaches. Most lake cabins are accessible only by float plane, while cabins on saltwater can be reached by boat and typically by floatplane. 3.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CABIN SUPPLY The vast majority of cabins (72 percent) are accessible by planes, and half of the cabins are accessible by boat. Many cabins are accessible by more than one type of transportation (e.g. 42 percent of the cabins are accessible by both plane and boat), while some cabins are only accessible by plane or only by boat. Approximately four percent of the cabin portfolio is only accessible by trail, and approximately one percent (only two cabins) is accessible by road. Understanding the profile for how cabins are accessed is important since it will serve as a basis for developing strategies for managing operations and maintenance costs. In essence, the location of the inventory is fixed; the strategies to deal with the location factors are variable. The exhibit below shows the composition of the cabin program by access: Exhibit 1 - Share of Cabins by Access Type1
80% 72% 70%
60% 51% 50%
40%
30%
20% 11% 10% 2% 1% 0% Plane Boat Trail Road Railroad
1 Percentages do not sum to 100 percent, as some cabins are accessible by various modes of transportation. Source: USFS, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 8 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
CHM has developed maps to outline the approximate distances of each cabin from the RD offices and the major population centers for each cabin market. These are provided in a separate attachment to this document. Although all cabins are rustic and have generally the same cabin package (plywood bunks, wood or oil stoves for heat, cooking counter and table, shelves, cupboard space, and an outhouse toilet), the cabins are made of differing materials and are constructed in distinct styles. Understanding the physical profile of the assets is important, since it will form the basis for understanding how the asset profile is maintained. Typically, the less cabin types, the more simple and cost-effective the cabin maintenance for the portfolio. The most common cabin type is the Pan-abode style, making up half of the cabin inventory, while the second most common style is A-frame. The following exhibit depicts the share of each cabin type within the portfolio. Exhibit 2 - Share of Cabins by Type
60% 50% 50%
40%
30% 19% 20% 17% 14% 10%
0% Pan Abode A-Frame Hunter Style Other
Source: USFS, CHM
Cabins within the portfolio can accommodate various party sizes. The most common cabin capacity ranges from six to ten people (71 percent of cabin inventory), while 26 percent of the cabins accommodate two to five people, and three percent (four cabins) can accommodate parties over ten.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 9 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Exhibit 3 - Capacity of Cabins
11 - 15 People 3%
6 - 10 People 71%
2 - 5 People 26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source: USFS, CHM 3.2 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CABIN DEMAND One dimension of analyzing the overall value of certain cabins is through a demand analysis. The demand generated by each cabin affects not only revenue generated, but the cost to maintain it. Cabins with heavier usage patterns experience more wear-and-tear and require more administrative and maintenance support, while cabins with little usage still need to be maintained to standard with little cost recovery realized. The following exhibit presents some general demand findings from the analysis of data provided over the five-year period of 2007 to 2011. Across the entire portfolio, the average occupancy (as averaged over the past five years) is 15.6 percent, equating to total occupied cabin nights of approximately 8,300. Approximately 60 cabins achieve an occupancy of below 10 percent (36 nights or less). The cabin that achieves the highest occupancy is Windfall Lake Cabin in Juneau at an average of 65 percent or 237 occupied nights per year (and this cabin achieved an occupancy of 75 percent in 2011. The next- highest three cabins are occupied on average between 44 and 54 percent and are John Muir Cabin in Juneau, Allan Point Cabin in Sitka, and Fred’s Creek Cabin in Sitka. Exhibit 4 - Cabin Average Annual Occupancy by Category
Average Cabin As Percent of Total Average Nights Occupied Occupancy* # of Cabins Cabins Under 15 Under 4% 19 13% 15 to 29 4% to 8% 30 21% 30 to 59 8% to 16% 42 29% 60 to 119 16% to 33% 38 26% 120 & Over Over 33% 17 12% Total 146 100% *Note: Average occupancy is calculated as the average nights occupied annually divided by 365. Source: USFS, CHM
The following chart represents the cabin usage categories above (cabins grouped in categories by average nights occupied) in pictorial form:
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 10 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Exhibit 5 - Cabin Usage by Category
*Note: The percentages in the above chart represent the amount of cabins in that category (e.g. 13 percent of the total cabin inventory is occupied 15 nights or less per year). Source: USFS, CHM
Although 70 percent of the cabins are occupied at 20 percent or below, seasonality of demand needs to be taken into account to determine a more clear profile of demand. I.e., certain cabins experience high levels of occupancy over a few months, but on an annual basis, have low occupancies. For example, in 2010 (the only data CHM has on a monthly basis) 26 cabins (18 percent) achieve at least 30 percent in at least one month during the year, but achieve occupancies of 10 percent or below on an annual basis. Typically, occupancy of 30 percent indicates usage on the weekends but minimal midweek use. Most cabins achieve their greatest occupancy from May to September; however, some cabins still achieve high occupancy during November and December, as the hunting season affects cabin demand in certain locations. For example, in 2010, Staney Creek Cabin and Twelvemile Cabin in the Prince of Wales RD achieved their highest occupancy of the year in November at 83 percent and 80 percent occupancy, respectively. What this seasonal occupancy identifies is the potential for both re-evaluations of seasons of operation for the cabin portfolio as well as more additional focus as to the high cost, low usage profile of a significant inventory of the recreation cabin portfolio. The following exhibit outlines the characteristics of the most-occupied (i.e. 100 cabin nights per year or more) cabins in the Tongass National Forest cabin program in 2010.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 11 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Exhibit 6 - Cabin Profiles of Most-Occupied Cabins District Cabin Cabin Capacity Type Heat Access Rate2 Nights1 Source Juneau Windfall Lake 266 4 Pan Abode Propane Trail, floatplane, $35 snowmachine Sitka Allan Point 187 8 A-frame Oil Floatplane, boat $35 Juneau John Muir 186 6 Pan Abode Propane Trail $35 Juneau Eagle Glacier 176 6 Chalet style Propane Trail $35 Juneau Peterson Lake 163 6 Pan Abode Wood Trail $35 Juneau Berners Bay 160 5 Pan Abode Oil Floatplane, boat $35 Sitka Brents Beach 157 6 Pan Abode Wood Boat $35 Sitka Freds Creek 154 8 Pan Abode Wood Boat $35 Sitka Moser Island 154 6 Pan Abode Wood Floatplane, boat $35 Sitka Samsing Cove 152 15 Pan Abode Oil Boat $45 Craig Twelvemile 140 6 Metal- Wood Floatplane, boat $45 roofed Ketchikan- Fish Creek 134 6 Pan Abode Oil Floatplane, boat $45 Misty Admiralty Admiralty Cove 129 5 Pan Abode Oil Floatplane, boat $35 Prince of Karta Lake 124 6 Pan Abode Oil Floatplane, boat $45 Wales Sitka Piper Island 122 8 A-Frame Oil Floatplane $35 Yakutat Eagle 119 4 Pan Abode Oil Plane, boat, trail $35 Wrangell Middle Ridge 117 8 Pan Abode Wood Road $35 Ketchikan- Jordan Lake 115 6 Pan Abode Wood Floatplane $35 Misty Yakutat Raven 112 4 Pan Abode Oil Plane, boat, trail $35 Petersburg West Point 108 7 A-Frame Wood Floatplane, boat $35 Sitka North Beach 106 8 A-Frame Oil Boat $35 1Cabin nights are based on 2010 data. 2Rates listed are year-round, unless peak and off-peak rates are offered. When the rates are tiered, the peak rate is listed. Source: USFS, NRRS, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 12 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Approximately 52 cabins within the portfolio are reserved only 30 days per year or less on average, of which 13 percent (19 cabins) are occupied 15 nights or less per year. The following cabins are the least-occupied cabins in the system according to the past five years of occupancy. The full list of cabins and associated occupancies can be found in the appendix of this report. Exhibit 7 - Cabin Profiles of Least-Occupied Cabins - 2010
Total Total Total Total Total Nights Nights Nights Nights Nights Use Use Use Use Use Average Average Cabin Name 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Nights Occupancy Binkley Slough Cabin 2 2 0 1 0 1 0% Square Lake Cabin 7 0 0 0 0 1 0%
Distin Lake Cabin 7 0 2 0 0 2 0%
Sergief Island Cabin 1 6 6 5 1 4 1%
Anan Lake Cabin 11 14 1 2 0 6 2%
Gut Island #2 Cabin 3 4 12 5 6 6 2%
Davidof Lake Cabin 8 8 6 11 0 7 2%
Marten Lake Cabin 2 3 4 10 15 7 2%
De Boer Lake Cabin 9 22 8 0 0 8 2% Middle Dangerous River Cabin 11 6 2 6 16 8 2% Lower Dangerous River Cabin 9 6 0 18 10 9 2% Eagle Lake Cabin 8 15 12 9 9 11 3% Winstanley Lake Cabin 19 0 16 12 10 11 3% Koknuk Cabin 11 9 13 12 17 12 3% Suloia Lake Cabin 14 10 10 13 18 13 4%
Avoss Lake Cabin 39 3 8 8 8 13 4%
Checats Lake Cabin 21 18 9 19 2 14 4% Goulding Lake Cabin 10 5 24 19 12 14 4% Towers Arm Cabin 21 17 15 7 11 14 4%
Note: Bakewell Lake Cabin, Harlequin North, Harlequin South, and Red Alders were not included in the data received. These cabins may no longer be taking reservations. Source: USFS, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 13 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Understanding the profile of the cabin users is also a key element in understanding demand for cabins. The vast majority of users who make cabin reservations are from Alaska, and the top six origin cities are all in Alaska and make up approximately 68 percent of the total number of reservations. Those same top six cities made up 85 percent of reservations made by Alaskans. Alaskans made 79 percent of the reservations overall. Twenty-five percent of all 2011 cabin reservations were made by residents of Juneau and 20 percent of total reservations were made by residents of Sitka. Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Craig together make up approximately 24 percent of total reservations. This segmentation illustrates that while there is an opportunity to expand the market beyond Alaska, overall, the market is primarily Alaskan. Understanding the needs and wants of the Alaskan user market must be the focus of future recommendations. Exhibit 8 - Reservation Origin – Top Alaska Cities - 2011 Origin City Reservations % of AK % of Total Reservations Reservations Made Made Juneau 990 31.7% 25.2% Sitka 719 23.0% 18.3% Ketchikan 370 11.8% 9.4% Petersburg 268 8.6% 6.8% Wrangell 207 6.6% 5.3% Craig 106 3.4% 2.7% Total from above 2,660 85.1% 67.6% Total Reservations Made 3,933 79.4% 100.0%
Source: USFS, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 14 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
3.3 REVENUE In 2010, the cabin program within the Tongass National Forest generated over $304,000 in total recreation use fees/revenue. Of this revenue, approximately $29,000 went to Active Network/ReserveAmerica in reservation fees (approximately ten percent of total fees). Sitka was the highest-grossing ranger district with over $71,000 (23 percent of total revenues), while the Hoonah RD with only two cabins was the lowest-grossing district. Juneau has the most revenue generated per cabin, while Wrangell has the least revenue generated per cabin. It is interesting to note that while Wrangell only generates nine percent of total fees, Wrangell holds 16 percent of the cabin inventory. Sitka, on the other hand, generates over a quarter of the program’s fees with 17 percent of the cabin inventory. The chart below summarizes total 2010 revenue by ranger district: Exhibit 9 - Total Revenue by Ranger District - 2010 District Total Fees % Fees # Cabins % Inventory Average Share Share Revenue Per Cabin Juneau $45,815 15% 11 8% $4,165 Admiralty $16,380 5% 13 9% $1,260 Sitka* $71,355 23% 24 17% $2,973 Hoonah $4,110 1% 2 1% $2,055 Yakutat $15,035 5% 9 6% $1,671 Ketchikan-Misty $43,855 14% 22 15% $1,993 Prince of Wales/ Craig/Thorne Bay $42,239 14% 19 13% $2,223 Petersburg $37,610 12% 20 14% $1,881 Wrangell $27,265 9% 23 16% $1,185 Total $303,664 100% 143 100% $2,124 Reservation Fees $29,079 10% - - - Grand Total $274,585 90% - - - *Note: Starrigavan Cabin has been excluded from these calculations, because the Sitka RD includes it in the recreation program, not the cabin program. Source: NRRS, CHM
The average daily cabin rate (“ADCR”) with the exclusion of Recreation.gov reservation fees was approximately $33.00 per night in 2010. This rate was calculated by dividing the total recreation use fees (revenue) minus reservation fees by the total number of cabin nights. This rate of $33.00 is a blend of charged rates that range from $25.00 to $45.00. The ADCR, before paying the Recreation.gov fees, was approximately $37.00 in 2010. This average rate, however, still may include cancellation and late fees collected. In the next stage of analysis, CHM evaluates the average costs to manage the cabin inventory.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 15 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
3.4 CURRENT OPERATING COSTS Understanding the operating costs for the cabins serves as a foundational element for the development of options for the recreation cabin portfolio analysis. The USFS made available to CHM various sources of information regarding the costs to manage the recreation cabin program. CHM was provided the INFRA database, which has been populated by Ranger District and Forest with costs to maintain facilities to the regional and national standards. Additionally, the Tongass undertook a recent review and update of their Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA). Both of these databases feed each other and are developed for planning and estimating the cost basis for facilities. However, neither of these identify the actual costs spent on facilities. The only way these costs can be identified is to evaluate the funds expended on these facilities. To calculate this, CHM identified in conversations with the USFS that the best way to understand actual costs would be to evaluate the annual USDA Forest Service workplans for program areas that include the recreation cabins. Discussions with RD staff indicated that each RD undertakes the development of the work plans that pertain to cabins differently. CHM was able to ascertain that typical job codes related to the cabin program include the following: • CMFC: For managing operations and management of the program using appropriated funds • FDDS: For expending funds received from the fee program for operations and management of the program • FDRF: For managing one-time deferred maintenance • CMTL: For trail systems supporting cabins • NFRW: Typically for administrative oversight Since each RD does not undertake the work plan data entry similarly, CHM developed a survey/questionnaire that was sent to each RD, which allowed for the consolidation of the data provided under each of these job codes/work plans. CHM then began to develop a more comprehensive picture of actual costs for recreation cabin management by RD. The survey was issued in October 2011, and the results of the survey were returned in mid to late-November 2011. The findings from this survey are presented in this section. Work plans used were from fiscal year 2011 in all districts except Sitka, where fiscal year 2010 data was used. The work plans categorize expenses into three sections: “labor”, “fleet”, and “other”. In most instances, plane usage was categorized by the USFS under “other”. For CHM’s purposes, those costs were re-categorized to be under “fleet” costs in order to get a more clear understanding of aggregate transportation costs.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 16 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
In addition to gathering work plans, the survey requested unrecorded information from the districts. One section inquired about the primary and secondary modes of transportation taken to get to each cabin, as transport to a cabin can greatly affect the cost to service a cabin. Although some cabins can be reached by multiple modes of transportation, CHM used the primary mode of transportation to categorize the cabins in each district. The compiled data regarding transportation to cabins per district is presented below. The red highlighted cells represent percentages that are above average per each transportation category. Exhibit 10 - Type of Transportation to Cabins per District by Percentage and Number Percent Reached by District # of Cabins Boat Plane Road Other
Admiralty 14 21% 79% 0% 0% Juneau 11 18% 18% 45% 18% Sitka 25 56% 40% 4% 0% Hoonah 2 50% 50% 0% 0% Yakutat 12 0% 67% 33% 0% Ketchikan 24 33% 63% 0% 4% Prince of Wales 19 42% 42% 16% 0% Petersburg 19 79% 16% 0% 5% Wrangell 23 78% 17% 4% 0% Total 149 46% 42% 9% 3% Average 17 42% 43% 11% 3% Number Reached by Admiralty 14 3 11 0 0 Juneau 11 2 2 5 2 Sitka 25 14 10 1 0 Hoonah 2 1 1 0 0 Yakutat 12 0 8 4 0 Ketchikan 24 8 15 0 1 Prince of Wales 19 8 8 3 0 Petersburg 19 15 3 0 1 Wrangell 23 18 4 1 0 Total 149 69 62 14 4 Average 17 8 7 2 0
Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
Many districts have their own means of boat and road transportation and also contract out plane transportation. Cabins that are accessed by boat and road are typically more cost-effective to service than those that are accessed by planes. Those districts whose cabin portfolios are more heavily weighted with plane-accessible cabins generally have an increased transportation cost due to paying the hourly rate to access those cabins for maintenance.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 17 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Data regarding cost per transport type per hour were gathered through the survey sent to the districts, and hourly rates provided are presented below. As can be seen, differing rates are charged per district, and the variability in transport costs affects the overall portfolio costs. Rates most probably differ due to the locations of ranger offices in relation to where planes come from. A district-wide evaluation of rates currently being paid could potentially identify possible savings if one contract across multiple districts was possible. Similarly, a transportation evaluation may find that savings could occur for districts who do not own their own boats, which may be a logical investment if boats currently have to be contracted out. Most plane-access cabins are accessed by floatplanes (vs. wheeled planes), and Cessna’s are the typical choice; however, Beavers and Otters are used for heavier maintenance when more equipment, people, and or materials are required. Exhibit 11 - Hourly Transportation Rates per District District Cessna Beaver Otter Wheeled Boat Truck Admiralty $475 $710 $1,410 - 1$400 - Juneau - $800 - - - - Sitka $600 $700 $850 - 2$9 3$3 Hoonah - $650 - - - - Yakutat - - - $450 - - Ketchikan $450 $650 - - - - Prince of Wales - $475 /$675 - - - - Petersburg $475 $790 - - - - Wrangell $475 - - - 4$100 - Average $513 $671 $1,037 $450 $170 $3 1Summer King boat 2$1,460 per month 3$405 per month 4Break-away water taxi Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 18 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
The daily rates provided within the RDs’ work plans were averaged and converted into hourly rates for the employees that worked within the cabin system and are presented below. Wrangell, Sitka, and Juneau had the highest hourly rates. The range of hourly rates suggests that team compositions and skill sets could be evaluated to ensure that personnel assigned to specific tasks are the most cost-effective to perform the specific tasks. Exhibit 12 - Average Hourly Labor Rates per District District Average Hourly Labor Rate Admiralty $25.19 Juneau $30.18 Sitka $32.05 Hoonah N/A Yakutat $29.87 Ketchikan $18.73 Prince of Wales $24.68 Petersburg $22.23 Wrangell $36.66 Average $27.41 Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
Data from six districts were provided regarding how many trips were made to each cabin site per year. The number of trips to a cabin per year ranged from zero to eight and was not necessarily affected by the number of occupied nights per year. Other factors that may affect the number of trips could be the ease of getting to the cabin, the seasonality of the site, or the severity of maintenance issues. It is CHM’s understanding that the majority of cabins are at the least visited at the beginning of the season for opening purposes and those cabins heated by oil are also visited for closings. Aside from the opening and closing visits, many cabins are only visited on the basis of necessity for maintenance. Interviews with the USFS indicated that a “working circle” concept is currently in practice in regards to visiting cabins for maintenance. This practice involves making maintenance trips to cabins near each other or en route to each other on the same trip in order to save money on travel expenses. This concept may make more sense for opening and closing maintenance trips, but may not be the best strategy for additional trips throughout the year, as some cabins may not need to be visited as often as previously thought.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 19 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
After tallying the trips to each cabin for the districts that provided the data, CHM then calculated the average number of occupied nights per trip for each district. Although CHM expected to see a general pattern in the number of trips per occupied night (reasoning that more usage meant more maintenance), the calculation yielded a large range. The summary data is presented below. Exhibit 13 - Occupied Nights per Trip, per District District Occupied Night per Trip Admiralty 36.6 Juneau N/A Sitka 33.8 Hoonah N/A Yakutat 19.2 Ketchikan 10.6 Prince of Wales 15.8 Petersburg N/A Wrangell 13.8 Total - Average 21.6 Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 20 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Per district costs per the three categories were taken from the work plans provided by each cabin district. The Hoonah RD was not able to provide cabin-specific work plans, as the costs to maintain and operate their two cabins are not recorded separately. The red highlighted cells represent percentages that are above average per category. The FDRF work plan costs were not included in these calculations, as they included one-time deferred maintenance projects (for example, a $101,369 renovation of the Big Shaheen Cabin in the Admiralty RD and a $61,301 renovation of Peterson Lake Cabin in the Juneau RD). The total cost to operate the cabin system is estimated to be $1,160,000 with an average of $128,900 per RD and an average of $8,100 per cabin. The red highlighted cells below represent percentages that are above average per category. Exhibit 14 - Per District Costs District Costs District Personnel Fleet Other Total Admiralty $83,821 $52,774 $41,605 $178,200 Juneau $43,699 $7,560 $16,043 $67,302 Sitka $83,331 $29,249 $32,058 $144,638 Hoonah N/A N/A N/A $4,500 Yakutat $187,751 $42,015 $28,498 $258,264 Ketchikan $32,822 $34,650 $43,211 $110,683 Prince of Wales $123,380 $50,365 $32,120 $205,865 Petersburg $58,038 $16,480 $18,707 $93,225 Wrangell $73,859 $15,269 $8,214 $97,342 Total $686,701 $248,362 $220,456 $1,160,018 Average $85,838 $31,045 $27,557 $128,891 Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 21 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
From these aggregate costs, a cost per occupied night was calculated per district. The cost recovery was calculated by dividing revenue after the deduction for reservation fees (estimated to be nine percent) by the total cost. These findings are presented below: Exhibit 15 - Cost Recovery per District District Total Cost Revenue (Less Occ. Nights Cost per Revenue Cost Reservation Occ. per Occ. Recovery Fees) Night Night Admiralty $178,200 $14,742 439 $406 $34 8% Juneau $67,302 $41,234 1,253 $54 $33 61% Sitka1 $144,638 $64,220 1,843 $78 $35 44% Hoonah2 $4,500 $3,699 97 $46 $38 82% Yakutat $258,264 $13,532 429 $602 $32 5% Ketchikan $110,683 $39,470 1,168 $95 $34 36% Prince of Wales $205,865 $38,015 1,138 $181 $33 18% Petersburg $93,225 $33,849 1,151 $81 $29 36% Wrangell $97,342 $24,539 828 $118 $30 25% Total $1,160,018 $273,298 8,346 - - 24% Average $128,891 $30,366 927 $185 $33 35% 1Starrigavan Cabin is not included for analysis purposes. 2Hoonah was able to provide a general estimate of the cost to maintain the district’s two cabins, but was unable to provide work plans. For this reason, the accuracy of the calculated cost recovery of 82 percent is uncertain. Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM
This data indicates that the total cost recovery across the portfolio is 24 percent (i.e. 24 percent of the total operating cost is recovered from the revenue generated). From a business perspective, one might say that this cost recovery translates into the following: for every night a cabin is occupied, the USFS loses approximately $141 (76 percent of $185--the average cost per occupied night). From the data and various tables presented above, certain trends begin to stand out. For example, the Juneau RD has a high percentage of cabins accessed by road (45 percent), and also has a high cost recovery (at 61 percent), supporting the assumption that districts with a lower number of cabins accessible by plane can manage costs better, thus resulting in more cost recovery. Following that logic, it was found that the Admiralty and Yakutat RDs have the highest ratio of cabins accessed by plane (79 percent and 67 percent, respectively) and also have the lowest cost recovery (8 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Although Ketchikan has the third-highest ratio of plane accessible cabins of the nine districts, the cost recovery is average. This is presumably because Ketchikan has 24 cabins in its district (the same number as Sitka) and can spread costs more effectively over the cabin system, thus operating a relatively efficient cost profile. For example, with more cabins in a specific area, a contracted plane could visit multiple cabins in one day, thus spreading the cost across the operation. Another factor in the efficiency of operating the cabins is the amount of occupied nights per district. Eliminating Hoonah from the analysis (since substantial cost data was unavailable), all districts that had occupied nights of over 1,100 had a cost recovery of over one-third (except for Prince of Wales, which has a combination of a relatively high cost of labor and relatively high
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 22 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
number of cabins reached by plane). Juneau recovers approximately two-thirds of its costs, most probably because of the cheaper-to-access cabins (i.e. road-based cabins) within the portfolio. Sitka recovers almost half and has one of the largest portfolios of cabins with the highest number of occupied nights. The districts that recuperate the most of their costs to operate (Juneau, Sitka, and Petersburg) achieve costs per occupied cabin night in the range of $54 to $81. Juneau operates at a per cabin cost of $54. 3.5 INDUSTRY STANDARD ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS In order to determine the cost of maintaining a sustainable cabin program for the future, Jacobs Engineering and CHM undertook a study to evaluate the total cost to operate the system. The total cost to operate was a summation of operating costs and includes neither central reservation fees (which were $29,079 in 2010) nor general administrative costs. The following table presents the items that were contemplated in the total cost of operation for the Tongass cabin portfolio: Exhibit 16 - Total Cost to Operate Calculation Cost Categories Basis Source Frequency Transportation Cost Fleet Based on mode of transportation, Ranger Districts Every trip hourly rate, and number of trips. Labor (time to transport Based on number of employees, Ranger Districts Every trip employees) hourly rate, and number of trips. Onsite Work - Operations Cabin Interior Labor, Materials RSMeans Every trip Cabin Exterior Labor, Materials RSMeans Every two years Outhouse Labor, Materials RSMeans Annually Woodstove Labor, Materials RSMeans Annually Oil Stove Labor, Materials RSMeans Open/close Trails Labor, Materials RSMeans Every two years Buoy Labor, Materials RSMeans Open/close Onsite Work - Maintenance Cabin Labor, Materials RSMeans Annual allocation Outhouse Labor, Materials RSMeans Annual allocation Woodshed Labor, Materials RSMeans Annual allocation Buoy Labor, Materials RSMeans Annual allocation Component Renewal Cabin INFRA USFS Prototype Cabins Annual allocation Outhouse INFRA USFS Prototype Cabins Annual allocation Woodshed INFRA USFS Prototype Cabins Annual allocation Buoy INFRA USFS Prototype Cabins Annual allocation
Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM, Jacobs Engineering, RSMeans, INFRA
In order to calculate the fleet cost, the primary mode of transportation to each cabin provided by each RD was used. For the majority of districts, hourly plane costs were also provided. In most
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 23 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product instances, boat costs were not provided, alluding to the fact that many RDs own their own boats to access cabins. For this reason, most cabins that are accessible by boat did not accrue a fleet cost in these calculations. The number of trips to each cabin was calculated based on the following: • Every cabin requires an opening maintenance trip • Cabins heated by oil require a closing maintenance trip • After 30 nights of occupancy, a trip should be made to the cabin The number of employees for each service trip was based on information received from the RDs. Labor teams ranged from two to four people. The hourly rate used was based on work plans provided by the districts, which provided daily rates. These daily rates were divided by eight hours to arrive at an hourly rate. The assumptions and calculations presented above resulted in the estimated costs presented in the following table. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were calculated separately than component renewal costs and the costs with and without component renewal are presented below. Component renewal is the investment required to eliminate deferred maintenance, and the cost has been spread across the life of the components to arrive at an annual cost. The majority of the costs represented in the provided work plans were for O&M expenses, although minor investment in deferred maintenance mitigation/component renewal may have been included. Because most of the costs in the work plans were not for component renewal, the comparison between estimated O&M costs and the operating costs from the work plans are a more direct comparison. However, the total expense of O&M plus component renewal is the cost that CHM would expect to be spent in order to operate the portfolio to industry standard. At current revenue levels, this would result in a cost recovery of 15 percent, as shown below. Exhibit 17 - Estimate of Total Cost to Operate Cabin Program Estimated Cost to Operate Operating Costs from Work Plans Operations & Cost O&M Plus Cost Current Cost to Cost Maintenance Recovery Component Recovery Operate Recovery Renewal Admiralty $138,215 11% $173,804 8% $178,200 8% Juneau $112,695 37% $139,987 29% $67,302 61% Sitka $243,660 26% $317,073 20% $144,638 44% Hoonah $26,318 14% $39,744 9% $4,500 82% Yakutat $126,707 11% $163,517 8% $258,264 5% Ketchikan $184,391 21% $232,336 17% $110,683 36% Prince of Wales $180,422 21% $226,642 17% $205,865 18% Petersburg $166,975 20% $221,691 15% $93,225 36% Wrangell $197,473 12% $258,496 9% $97,342 25% Total $1,376,855 20% $1,773,290 15% $1,160,019 24% Average $152,984 - $197,032 - $128,891 -
Source: USFS Tongass Ranger Districts, CHM, Jacobs Engineering, RSMeans, INFRA
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 24 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
3.6 SUB CONCLUSION – UNDERSTANDING THE PRODUCT This section has identified several issues of significance to the recreation cabin portfolio analysis. The observations from this section fall into the following categories: 1. Profile of cabin construction type; 2. Profile of means of access; 3. Low seasonal use for entire cabin inventory, yet focused use for a small percentage; 4. Reservation profile of use; 5. Revenue levels; 6. Current operating cost; and 7. Industry standard estimated operating cost. Profile of Cabin Construction Type The preponderance of the cabin inventory is Pan-abode, which will therefore have an impact on the forecasted replacement costs for this cabin type as part of the overall cabin portfolio. Since the profile of cabins will not change, the current profile will affect future cost decisions. Profile of Means of Access The location of the cabins is also fixed, and the preponderance of the inventory requires access via boat or plane. As such, identifying alternative methods to access these cabins (i.e. identifying service groupings that make geographic sense vs. administrative boundaries, determining whether maintenance should be done through public or private means, modifying air service contracts to include more than one district, etc.) should be considered. Low Seasonal use The utilization analysis has identified the low usage of a significant percentage of the cabin inventory during the operating season for which they are offered. Further research into usage identified that there are clearly peak months within the operating season but overall very low usage for the entire operating season. This would appear to indicate that a small percentage of the public is benefiting from the regional program. Reservation Profile of Use A review of the market segments patronizing the cabins illustrates that the primary usage of these cabins is by residents of the State of Alaska. This reinforces the importance of the recreation cabin program as part of Alaska residents’ outdoor recreational experience and provides an opportunity and challenge for future planning initiatives. The opportunity lies in the passion of the residents for the potential stewardship of these assets. This appears to have been demonstrated on several RDs, based upon fieldwork discussions. The challenge posed by an in-state usage profile is that the market is influenced by other in-state comparable price positioning. Revenue Levels Revenue is a variable to increase in order to recover more of the operating and maintenance costs, and options for increasing revenue are discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.4.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 25 CHM Government Services Section 3 – Understanding the Product
Current Operating Cost The current operating cost is calculated in order to compare it to the estimated operating cost that is required to operate and maintain the cabins to an industry standard. Understanding the true costs allocated to cabin operations and maintenance versus the planned cost is critical to quantify in the gap analysis. Industry Standard Estimated Operating Cost The industry standard estimated operating cost was found to be greater than the cost currently being represented from the work plan data provided by the districts. This suggests that much of the component renewal is not being managed, which is instrumental to maintaining a sustainable product. Committing to a higher cost to operate a more sustainable portfolio also increases the gap between the committed cost and current revenue levels. Section 5 discusses this gap in more detail and presents suggestions as to how to narrow the gap. The next section of the report will investigate the competitive and comparable market to understand the product offering, pricing and maintenance levels of these products, and how this will affect the market opportunity for the USFS recreation cabin inventory.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 26 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
4. MARKET OPPORTUNITY In order to understand any market opportunities available, a study of the surrounding market and alternative cabin options was undertaken. Numerous federal land management agencies aside from the U.S. Forest Service offer cabins on managed land, such as Alaska State Parks, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Other agencies that control tracts of land on which cabins are rented are cities and outdoor clubs, such as the City of Sitka and the Mountaineering Club near Denali, Alaska. 4.1 COMPETITIVE MARKET State and federal agencies in Alaska provide more than 300 public-use cabins, and over 83 percent of the cabins are managed by two public agencies (i.e. Alaska State Parks and the Forest Service). Cabins are located throughout Alaska on trails, lakes, streams, ocean shorelines, and in alpine areas. They are managed by different public agencies, each with its own guidelines for rental. Cabins have "rugged" accommodations: usually a heating stove, bunks/sleeping platforms, table and chairs, and an outhouse. Access to cabins is by plane, boat, trail, or a combination of these and must be organized separately from cabin reservations. Generally, a list of transportation operators permitted to provide services within the public land unit can be obtained from the managing agency. Most cabins are used year-round, although usage may be strongly discouraged during certain times of the year due to weather that causes some location of cabins to be inaccessible.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 27 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
The cabin inventory, rates, access, and reservation procedures are presented in the following table: Exhibit 18 - Comparable Cabins Agency Location(s) # Cabins Access Reservations Rate/Night US Forest Chugach National 40 Mostly by 180 days in advance on $25 - $45 Service Forest plane or boat NRRS System
Tongass National 150 Mostly by 180 days in advance on $25 - $45 Forest plane or boat NRRS System Alaska State 18 state parks, 60 Mostly by 7 months in advance for AK $25 - $75 Parks Fairbanks to plane or boat residents, 6 months for non- Ketchikan residents (phone or email) Bureau of Land White Mountains 12 Mostly in 30 days in advance $25 Management winter National Park Kenai Fjords 3 2 only summer, First-come, first-served $50 Service 1only winter Wrangell-St. Elias 14 Air taxi or First-come, first-served; 1 $0, $25 snow machine cabin is reservable Yukon-Charley 7 Mostly by First-come, first-served Free Rivers boat U.S. Fish & Kenai National 13 Mostly by 11 reservable, 2 First- $35 - $40 Wildlife Service Wildlife Refuge plane or boat come, first-served, converting to NRRS Kodiak 7 Mostly by Six months in advance on $45 plane or boat NRRS City of Sitka 20 miles south of 1 By boat 90 days in advance in $50 Sitka person at City Hall Mountaineering Chugach and 7 Mostly glacier Members only, no Free Club of Alaska Talkeetna travel reservations Mountains (near Denali) Total - 339 - - - Source: CHM
The map below depicts the general areas designated by land agencies that offer cabins available for rent to the general public. The green highlighted areas indicate the approximate area of the Tongass National Forest where the 150 subject cabins are located and the Chugach National Forest where 41 cabins are located.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 28 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Exhibit 19 - Map of Competitive Cabin Market General Areas
White Mountains BLM Yukon Charley Rivers NP
Denali (Mountaineering Club)
Chugach National Forest
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Wrangell-St. Elias NP
Kenai Fjords National Park Tongass National Forest
Kodiak
Source: MapPoint, CHM
Population Distribution The market segmentation identified that the majority of visitation for Forest Service recreation cabins was derived from in-state residents. To understand the population density of the state in relation to the competitive supply, the following exhibit was created. The most populous area in the north is Anchorage with a population of 260,283 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The most populous area in the south is Juneau with a population of 30,711 people. As illustrated below, the density of population is greater in the northern section of the state than the southern. Exhibit 20 - Relationship of Population and Recreation Cabin Supply Northern Area Southern Area (AK State Parks & Chugach) (Tongass)
Population 484,311 73,082 Cabins 100 150 Capita per Cabin 4,843 487 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, USFS, Alaska DNR As the market opportunity for demand is evaluated, understanding the size of the market from which to draw will need to be considered. Even though the population density is greater near the
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 29 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Chugach National Forest, there are approximately three times as many cabins in the Tongass National Forest. The population distribution is a large factor in the occupancy profiles and revenue-generating ability of cabins at each forest. As discussed below, the Chugach National Forest cabins achieve a higher rate as well as higher occupancy. Under separate cover, CHM has provided maps to the USFS to illustrate cabin occupancy in the Tongass Forest in relation to each cabin’s specific location. Chugach National Forest The Chugach National Forest is located near Anchorage and has approximately 40 cabins in three districts: Copper River Delta, Eastern Kenai Peninsula, and Prince William Sound. Cabins can be reserved 180 days in advance through the NRRS system. The Chugach cabin program generated approximately $187,000 in total fees in 2010 with 40 cabins. The average cabin generated approximately $4,600 in 2010, over two times higher than the average revenue generated per cabin in the Tongass in 2010. The average daily cabin rate per night (including recreation.gov fees) was $41.00 (approximately 12 percent higher than the Tongass). Occupancy across the portfolio is approximately 30 percent. Alaska State Parks Alaska State Parks is the steward of the second-largest inventory of cabins to the Forest Service cabin system, with approximately 60 cabins. Rates vary between peak and non-peak seasons, defined as the following: • Peak season: May 1st through September 30th as well as Friday and Saturday night rentals from October 1st to April 30th. Additionally, peak rates are charged during the holiday periods of December 15th to January 6th and March 15th to 31st. • Non-peak season: October 1st through April 30th except for Friday and Saturday nights, as well as during peak holiday periods of December 15th through January 6th and March 15th through the 31st. Peak rates range from $25 to $75 per night, and non-peak rates range from $20 to $60 per night. Approximately 60 percent of the cabins (16 cabins) charge $45 or greater during peak times, and over 30 percent (19 cabins) charge $65 or greater during peak times. Most cabins are accessible year-round by floatplane, wheel plane, boat, or trail; and only four cabins are accessible by road. Designs vary, and only the Shuyak Island cabins have dishware, a propane stove, and lights (these four cabins charge the highest rate in the system of $75 per night during the peak season and $60 per night during the off-peak season). Some of the newer cabins have oil stoves, and occasionally there is a supply of firewood for woodstoves, but it is not provided at most cabins.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 30 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
The following map outlines the location of the State Park cabins: Exhibit 21 - Map of Alaska State Park Cabin General Areas
Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 31 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
The Department of Natural Resources does not formally track cabin occupancy in central database that can be queried. However, CHM undertook interviews with representatives of Alaska State Parks and they were able to provide a usage estimate based upon their review of their reservation system. The following chart presents these estimates per season: Exhibit 22 - Map of Alaska State Park Cabin General Areas
Occupancy Area # Cabins Summer Spring/Fall Winter Chena River State Recreation Area 7 90% 35% 45% Birch Lake State Recreation Site 1 0% 45% 15% Salcha River State Recreation Site 1 0% 20% 40% Quartz Lake State Recreation Area 2 N/A N/A 25% Fielding Lake State Recreation Area 1 100% 45% 20% Denali State Park 3 100% 75% 80% Nancy Lake State Recreation Area 13 100% 80% 90% Chugach State Park 2 100% 55% 100% Kachemak Bay State Park 6 100% 85% 10% Caines Head State Recreation Area 2 100% 85% 20% Thumb Cove State Marine Park 2 100% 85% 20% Shuyak Island State Park 4 50% 5% N/A Afognak Island State Park 2 15% 20% N/A Shoup Bay State Marine Park 2 80% 55% 0% Whittier 2 100% 55% 0% Southeast Area 6 100% 55% 45% Gulf Coast Area 2 5% 10% 0% TOTAL 58
Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Comparison of Tongass, Chugach and State Park cabin systems Of the Tongass, Chugach and State Park cabin systems, the State Park cabins have the highest occupancy by far. According to the estimates presented above, the State Park cabin system is 57 percent occupied overall and generates over 12,000 cabin nights per year. As a comparison, in 2010, the Tongass cabin system and the Chugach cabin system generated approximately 8,600 and 4,500 cabin nights per year, respectively.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 32 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
It is interesting to note the relationship between demand for cabin nights and supply of cabins with the core sample of public recreation cabin providers (e.g. Alaska State Parks and Forest Service). As the following chart illustrates, there is an imbalance between the supply of cabins and the demand they accommodated. The data illustrates that the Tongass appears to have a larger supply than its demand profile would warrant. The percentages presented above “Occupied Cabin Nights” are the percent occupancies of each cabin system. Exhibit 23 - Alaska Cabin Programs – Accommodated Demand
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000 57% 16% 10,000 30%
0 Tongass Chugach State Park
Available Cabin Nights Occupied Cabin Nights
Note: Available cabin nights are calculated as the number of cabins multiplied by 365 days, even though not all cabins are accessible the entire year. Source: USFS, DNR, CHM Bureau of Land Management The White Mountains National Recreation Area has over 200 miles of winter trails with several log cabins built at scenic locations along the trail system. These remote cabins are used by skiers, dog mushers and snow machiners. The wet and marshy trail conditions allow only one of these cabins, Lee's Cabin, to be suitable for summer use. Some cabins are available on a "first-come, first-served" basis, while others need to be reserved in advance. BLM recently converted from white gas to propane cook stoves and lanterns. In addition to the remote cabins system, the Fred Blixt Cabin is located off the Elliott Highway. This road-accessible cabin, like those on the trail system, is still rustic and has only basic facilities such as an outhouse and no running water. National Park Service Generally, cabin permits are issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Most cabins are used year round, although usage may be strongly discouraged during certain times of the year. Kenai Fjords National Park has two coastal cabins open only during the summer months, accessible by plane and boat. The park also has one cabin at Exit Glacier open for public use only in winter when the Exit Glacier Road is closed (usually late December through March depending on snowfall). Reservations can be made by phone.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 33 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve has seven public use cabins that are available on a first come, first served basis. Most can be accessed from the Yukon River, while some require some hiking off river. Most of the cabins at Wrangell-St. Elias were old mining, trapping, or hunting cabins that are located on public land and have been restored by the National Park Service. All cabins are in remote locations. Most of these cabins are accessible only by aircraft. One cabin, located at Peavine Bar, is wheelchair accessible. Most of the public use cabins are available to everyone on a first-come, first-served basis, and presently do not require reservations and are not reserve- able. Four of the cabins must be reserved by phone. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Fish and Wildlife Service is converting their reservation system for their 20 cabins, beginning December 1, 2011, to the online NRRS reservation system through www.recreation.gov. Prior to that, reservations could be made by phone or in person. In the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, three 16’ by 18’ trapper-style log cabins were constructed for public use. The remaining cabins were built around the turn of the century. Amenities of the cabins are similar to those of the Forest Service, except that pre-cut firewood is not provided. Private Inventory Private cabins are a particularly important data point to explore, as more often than not, services offered in the private sector are priced to cover total maintenance and operational costs. However, private cabin rates generally require various adjustments for location, privacy, access, physical characteristics, and amenities in order to make true comparisons to their federal agency counterparts. According to the Public Use Cabin Fees Market Survey for the Tongass National Forest report written in 2007, indications from the private market from several rustic cabins found in remote/semi-remote locations are meaningful: rates charged for these private cabins are significantly higher than the current rates charged by the U.S. Forest Service and are a reflection of the high costs and high demand associated with managing cabins in remote areas. For example, a private rustic cabin accessible by boat/hiking on Middle Island in Sitka Sound rents for $75 per night for four people with a $10 additional charge per night for each additional guest. A floatplane accessible cabin located in Hawk Inlet on Wheeler Creek (Admiralty Westside Lodge) rents for $200 per person per night and sleeps two people. The aforementioned report found 28 private cabins in the Juneau / Admiralty / Sitka / Hoonah/ Yakutat districts and 34 private cabins in the Petersburg / Wrangell / Ketchikan / Craig/ Thorne Bay districts. Of those 62 private cabins, approximately 60 percent charge a fee for each additional person on top of the nightly rental fee. Of these cabins, only six offer no utilities. The non-utilities cabins average $98 per night during the peak season, ranging from $40 to $180. Four of the six cabins charge an additional fee per person of $10 per night. Twenty-six cabins offer limited utilities; the rates of those cabins average $137 during the peak season. Of the 26 cabins, 62 percent charge a fee per additional person per night, averaging $63 per person per night.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 34 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
4.2 COMPARABLE MARKETS Wilderness cabin systems exist within other Forest Service Units outside of Alaska as well as in systems managed by other state, international and nonprofit entities. CHM evaluated other Forest Service units that have cabin programs. However, none match the comprehensive inventory of the units located within the Tongass National Forest nor did they match the forest’s somewhat consistent product type. Additionally, the pricing strategies are similar to what is provided on the Tongass. Therefore, when evaluating comparability, CHM sought out other cabin systems to look at bringing new practices to Region Ten’s recreational cabin program. The systems discussed below include systems in Norway, New Zealand, Colorado, and New England. Hut-to-Hut Systems Hut-to-hut systems offer similar experiences as typical public-use cabins, although they are connected by a network of trails and distances between huts are typically in the approximate range of ten miles. Norway and New Zealand offer extensive hut-to-hut systems, as well as the State of Colorado and the Appalachian Trail. Norway Many huts are owned and operated by the non-profit national or local touring associations (turistforeninger, sometimes translated as trekking association). These are open to members and non-members alike and reasonably priced. The DNT (Den Norske Turistforeningen, the Norwegian Trekking Association) is the national umbrella organization that coordinates the local and regional groups. Three standards of service categorize the huts: full-service, self-service, and unserviced. • Full-service huts: relatively large, with 40 to 100 beds, serve meals, and usually have other comforts including showers and over-the-counter snacks, soda, wine and beer. These are fully open only in summer and at Easter time, but most have a self-service annex that is accessible the rest of the year. • Self-service huts: huts are usually in the eight to 20 bed range, have cooking facilities including propane stoves, pots and pans, plates, and utensils, and are stocked with canned and dried food. Mattresses, quilts, and firewood for warming the hut are included. • Unserviced huts: these huts are most comparable to U.S. Forest Service cabins, as huts can have as few as four but typically eight to 16 beds and no food. Most of these have wood heat, cooking facilities, mattresses, and quilts, but some in the system do not. Self-service and unserviced huts are usually locked with a standard padlock. A single key that will open nearly all the huts in the country can be obtained by leaving a deposit at one of the touring associations’ offices. There are sometimes caretakers during busy times, but generally it is completely on honor system. Individuals keep track of their overnight fees and the food taken from the storage room and leave the money or a credit card slip in a locked steel strongbox. Most full-service huts convert to self-service use outside of the summer (from late June until early September) and Easter week peak periods. Generally you can only reserve a room at full- service huts for three nights or more, while others cannot be reserved. The main hut-to-hut routes often travel from valley to valley over low passes, avoiding the summits. Many Norwegian trails are simply marked with stone markers and red T signs. Some follow farm roads and herd paths long-used by farmers, family, and livestock to travel from the
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 35 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity year-round farm down into the valley to the summer farm at treeline or to the alpine grazing areas above. Only the most heavily used trails are actually built and regularly maintained. For DNT members, lodging discounts and priority are given, as well as the ability to borrow cabin keys against a deposit. Unserviced cabin rates are approximately $50 per night for non- members and $33 per night for members. Day visitors are also charged $10 for members and $12 for non-members. The following chart presents the 2011 DNT membership rates. Exhibit 24 - Norwegian Trekking Association Membership Rates Type Description Price Annual memberships Dollars* Individual Ordinary membership for one adult $90 Student/youth (19-26) Reduced rate for persons born 1985-1992 $50 School age (13-18) Reduced rate for persons born 1993-1998 $30 Senior Reduced rate for persons born 1944 or earlier $70 Family Reduced rate for persons of a family in which one is an individual, $41 student/youth or senior member Children’s Trekking Club Reduced rate for persons born 1999 or later $17 (0 – 12) Life membership Individual 25 times ordinary membership for one adult $2,260 Surcharges (optional) Postage For members residing outside Norway receiving 'Yearbook' and 'Fjell & $17 Vidde' Yearbook For hardcover copy $9 *Currency exchange rate calculated from Norwegian Krone to US Dollars at 5.86 NOK to $1.00. Source: Norwegian Trekking Association
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 36 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
New Zealand The Department of Conservation (DOC) manages a network of over 900 backcountry huts in conservation areas in New Zealand. Five standard hut types are available within the New Zealand system: • Great Walk huts (GW) are the most comfortable, most require booking and have maximum stay periods. Some services may not be available in winter. • Serviced huts (SV) have heaters and fuel. • Serviced Alpine huts (SVA) cater to climbers in Aoraki / Mt. Cook, Westland Tai Poutini and Mt. Aspiring National Parks. • Standard huts (ST) only have wood heaters at locations below the bush line. • Basic huts (B) offer very basic shelter with limited facilities. The chart below summarizes what can be found at these facilities: Exhibit 25 - New Zealand Hut Amenities
Source: Department of Conservation of New Zealand Most backcountry huts and campsites do not require reservations and operate on a first-come first served basis. Bookings for most Great Walk huts are required in peak season and can be made through the DOC website or at DOC visitor centers. The peak season is considered to be October 1st through April 30th. Some huts date from the late 1800s, many were built in the 1930s to 1950s and the majority was built during the 1960s and 1970s for deer culling. Since the late 1970s new huts have been purpose-built for recreation. Fees are charged per person, per night for the use of huts and vary depending on the facilities and services provided. Hut passes are required in addition to the per night charge. The hut pass rates are summarized below:
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 37 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Exhibit 26 - New Zealand Backcountry Hut Pass Rates Adult Youth Backcountry Hut Pass/Hut Tickets orders (NZ and Australia only) Price US$ Price US$ Backcountry Hut Pass - (12 months) $95 $48 Backcountry Hut Pass - (6 months) $72 $36 Member price - (12 months) $66 $33 Backcountry Hut Tickets $4 $2 *Currency exchange rate calculated from New Zealand Dollar to US Dollars at 1.28 NZD to $1.00. Source: Department of Conservation of New Zealand As mentioned previously, nightly rates are generally charged in addition to the hut pass charges. The following table summarizes nightly hut rates for the New Zealand hut system: Exhibit 27 - New Zealand Nightly Hut Rate Structures
Adult 18 + Youth 11 - Child 5 - Infant 0 - Hut Category yrs 17yrs 10yrs 4yrs Great Walk Hut Great Walk Hut Pass required $15 - $52 Free Free Free Serviced Alpine Hut Hut Ticket required $14 - $36 $10 - $18 $10 - $18 Free Serviced Hut Hut Pass / Hut Ticket required $15 $5 Free Free Campsite at Serviced Hut Hut Pass / Hut Ticket required $5 $2.50 Free Free Standard Hut Hut Pass / Hut Ticket required $5 $2.50 Free Free Campsite at Standard Hut No Ticket required Free Basic Hut or Campsite Free Backcountry campsites away from Free - $8 Free - $4.50 huts Source: Department of Conservation of New Zealand
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 38 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Colorado The 10th Mountain Division Hut Association manages a system of 29 backcountry huts in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, connected by 350 miles of suggested routes. Reservations can be made for a variety huts, ranging from cabins located within a few miles of a trailhead, to backcountry shelters. These include huts owned and operated by the Braun and Friends hut systems, as well as the Summit Huts Association; a 501-C3 non-profit organization. Most of the huts sleep sixteen people, but size ranges from three to twenty beds. Beds are usually divided among three or four shared sleeping rooms. Huts are booked to capacity and are often shared by more than one group. Overflow camping around the huts is not permitted. 10th Mountain owned huts are equipped with wood burning stoves for heating and cooking, firewood and starter paper, matches, propane burners for cooking, photovoltaic lighting, cooking and eating utensils, toilet paper, mattresses, pillows, and decks. Users bring a sleeping bag, food, personal items, and emergency gear. Hut users melt snow for water in the winter and collect water from streams in the summer and are responsible for drinking water purification. Amenities vary greatly hut to hut. The huts do not have resident caretakers; however, 10th Mountain field personnel may be encountered on the trails or at the huts. The average route between huts is six to seven miles long and climbs 1,500 to 2,500 feet in elevation from a trailhead that is at 8,000 feet or higher. Most reservations for the huts are taken by phone, with the exception of the lottery, which is conducted by mail and fax. Winter reservations for huts in the 10th Mountain system begin in the spring each year through a lottery followed by a call-in booking period. 10th Mountain and Summit Huts Association members can participate in this early booking system. This process is an attempt to fairly allocate the limited winter hut space available in the huts each year. Membership dues go to support 10th Mountain education programs, as well as supplying and maintaining the huts. In late-December or early-January each year, 10th Mountain mails lottery entry forms to all members. Members complete these forms by listing an unlimited number of options for trips that they would be interested in taking during the next winter. Every member is welcome to submit one lottery entry to receive up to one itinerary (this can be for a multiple night trip, to more than one hut, and/or for multiple people). Entry forms are drawn and each member’s choices are read through, working in order of their preference to try and book a trip. If one of the member's choices is available, the trip is booked, the credit card is charged, and confirmation materials are mailed. Each year, more than 1,000 entries are received and approximately 87 percent of entrants receive a trip. After the lottery, members have the option to book more trips during an early call-in booking period during the months of April and May. Regular ($25) members can reserve up to two additional trips by calling on or after the first business day of April (or three, if they did not receive a trip in the lottery). Leader ($100) and Lifetime ($1,000) members can reserve an unlimited number of additional trips. Non-members can begin reserving trips on the first business day of June.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 39 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Appalachian Mountain Club in the Northeast The Appalachian Mountain Club offers a network of mountain huts as well as eight self-service cabin locations in New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Huts have capacities of approximately 40 to 90 people in co-ed bunkrooms. During the peak season, breakfast and dinner are provided, but during the “self-service” season, guests pack their own food and have use of the stove. Additionally, during the peak season, a hut naturalist offers programs before and after dinner. Self-service cabins sleep approximately six to 24 people and have different rates for weekend v. weeknight, members v. non-members, peak season v. off-season, and small v. large party sizes. Some cabins are rented on a weekly basis, and many cabins require that if someone rents during the weekend, both nights must be reserved. Reservations are made by phone or email. The following is a sample of rates charged for the Northwest Camp, a rustic and secluded cabin located in a very remote section of the northwestern corner of Connecticut, with many hiking trails leading to New York and Massachusetts. Exhibit 28 - Appalachian Mountain Club – Northwest Camp Rates Northwest Camp (Sleeps 6) Rates: September-May Nightly Rates AMC Member Nonmember Weekends (Fri. & Sat. nights) $70/weekend $100/weekend Holiday Weekends $100/weekend $145/weekend Weeknights (Sun. - Thurs.) $25/day $35/day Rates: June-August Nightly Rates AMC Member Nonmember Weekends (Fri. and Sat. nights) $60/weekend $90/weekend Holiday Weekends $90/weekend $135/weekend Weeknights (Sun. - Thurs.) $20/day $30/day Source: Appalachian Mountain Club
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 40 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
4.2 ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES OBSERVED IN MARKET The previous sections summarized similar cabin systems operated by various entities and outlined certain practices that other entities undertake. Various practices may be beneficial to consider in regards to the U.S. Forest Service cabin program in order to capture more demand and/or revenue from the market and help sustain the program. The following topics should be explored: • Service stratification: for certain types of cabins, it may make sense to look at reducing services. Stocking firewood, for example, may be seen as an extra service. An alternative to this would be requiring guests to bring their own. • No reservations: for low-usage cabins, switching to a first come, first served model may make sense. This would save the reservation fee of $6.35 per online reservation, $9.98 per call reservation, and $2.80 per field reservation, which is currently being paid each time a cabin is reserved on NRRS to ReserveAmerica. These dollar figures do not take USFS labor hours pertaining to phone reservations into account. • Locks: on certain cabins that experience low use, locks may be a practice worth considering, which could be modeled after the Norwegian practice of allowing members to obtain a key (with a deposit) to certain locked cabins in the system. This may require the honor system in order to track room nights and fees, but may be a practice that saves on operating costs. If locked cabins are a concern because of emergency shelter, this practice may be able to be implemented at those cabins that are already near official shelters. Keys could also be obtained as a precaution by those who plan to travel through remote locations. • Annual pass: investigating the plausibility of an annual pass in addition to nightly rates in order to be able to reserve cabins or to have certain benefits should be undertaken. Certain benefits could be given to annual pass-holders such as longer reservation windows, a more generous maximum night stay, a discounted rate, etc. This would also potentially allow for collection of fees from people who do not use the cabins when originally planned which would result in additional revenue to the Forest Service. • Charging per person: many of the entities studied charged a nightly fee plus an additional fee per person, some as reasonable as $10 per additional person per night. • Yield management: Yield management is the practice of maximizing revenue generation, specifically in regards to inventory that is highly perishable (cabin nights) and encounters high and low demand (peak and non-peak seasons). Some rudimentary forms of yield management are being practiced in the Alaska cabin market, such as requiring a minimum night stay during especially busy periods/weekends as well as implementing tiered fee systems during periods of high, medium, and low demand. Requiring a minimum night stay saves in reservation costs as well as wear and tear that comes from switching between guest parties frequently. A tiered fee system encourages occupancy in lower-demand times.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 41 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
4.3 DESIRES OF ALASKAN RESIDENTS The opportunity for the future of Forest Service cabins is in part based upon understanding the market’s needs and desires regarding cabins. Absent direct consumer research regarding this issue, other secondary resources can be evaluated. CHM evaluated the recently completed Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) which included primary market research as well as studies that have been completed by the Forest Service in the communities located on the Tongass as part of the Forest Service Sustainable Recreation Strategy. The following paragraphs will outline perspectives of the market that have been gathered from these initiatives. SCORP Alaskan residents were surveyed by the State of Alaska as a part of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), issued in September of 2009 by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). According to the SCORP, Alaskans participate in wildland recreation at twice the rate of the rest of the United States. In regards to community priorities, survey respondents scored public use cabins as a high priority, along with campgrounds, trails, rehabilitation of facilities, and playgrounds. The DNR found that “facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads, cabins, boat launches, and other facilities are often the critical link between users and otherwise “wild” and inaccessible lands, especially along the road system and in the railbelt region. In many parts of the state, facilities, even if primitive or limited in number, make the difference between a potential outdoor experience and a reality.” When asked about price tolerance, the majority of the respondents selected the cheapest price offered for each of the categories except cabin rental, where 78 percent of those who gave an answer were willing to pay $21 or more. The following exhibit displays the data from respondents who answered the question, “What is the most amount of money that you are willing to spend on the overnight use of a cabin?” Exhibit 29 - Cabin Price Tolerance
Source: Alaska SCORP
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 42 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Although the above survey question gets to part of the answer as to what cabin program participants are willing to pay, if the answer choices had been worded differently, the distribution would be different, and perhaps more telling. For example, if the lowest amount available to choose was $20 to $30, then perhaps it would have triggered the respondents to choose what they were willing to pay if the option of utilizing a recreational cabin was not free. Additionally, in the SCORP, Alaska residents provided feedback that more recreational facilities accessible by road were desirable and that road-accessible facilities are often filled to capacity, although cabins were not discussed specifically in regards to road access. Ability of Residents to Pay In addition to the willingness of residents to pay for cabin recreation, there is also the ability of residents to pay for cabin recreation experiences. Research on resident expenditures in the area was pulled from Esri, a database that overlays demographic data on top of geographical elements. The table and chart below depict the household budget expenditures by area on travel and entertainment/recreation as compared to the 2011 median household income. Expenditures included in entertainment/recreation are items such as movies, party supplies, dating services, and memberships. These expenditures represent the spending capacity of disposable income in each area. Juneau and Sitka currently spend the most on these items, while Yakutat and Prince of Wales spend the least. The average annual amount spent per resident on these expenditures is $5,504. By way of comparison, one night at the average cabin rate of $34.00 is equal to 0.6 percent of the average travel/entertainment/recreation budget and a any new increases in rate which may result in an average cabin rate of approximately $45.00 would still only represent 0.8 percent of the average travel/entertainment/recreation budget. CHM’s analysis would appear to indicate that the ability for the user market to pay increased prices at the price points that the Forest Service is considering, should not have a major impact on the visitor market.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 43 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Exhibit 30 - Residents’ Average Amount Spent for Travel & Entertainment/Recreation 2011 Median Total as Household Entertainment/ % of Income Travel Recreation Total Income Juneau/ Admiralty $71,126 $2,381 $3,951 $6,332 8.9% Sitka $62,526 $2,264 $3,773 $6,037 9.7% Hoonah $54,859 $1,911 $3,679 $5,590 10.2% Yakutat $51,473 $1,583 $2,943 $4,526 8.8% Ketchikan-Misty $57,950 $2,067 $3,495 $5,562 9.6% Prince of Wales $51,857 $1,763 $3,202 $4,965 9.6% Petersburg $57,335 $2,003 $3,540 $5,543 9.7% Wrangell $56,296 $1,934 $3,547 $5,481 9.7% Average $57,928 $1,988 $3,516 $5,504 9.5% $7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0 Juneau/ Ketchikan- Prince of Sitka Hoonah Yakutat Petersburg Wrangell Admiralty Misty Wales $6,332 $6,037 $5,590 $4,526 $5,562 $4,965 $5,543 $5,481
Source: Esri Surveys A series of Sustainable Outdoor Recreation Plans have been completed in conjunction with the Forest Service for the communities of Sitka, Yakutat, and Wrangell in 2010, 2011 and 2012. These studies are focused on identifying the potential for communities to partner to enhance the sustainability of communities from an economic, social and environmental perspective. As part of these studies, surveys and focus groups are held with communities which address desires for recreational amenities. The findings from these reports specifically as it relates to desire of residents for cabin facilities are outlined on the following pages.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 44 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
Sitka The draft plan for Sitka surveyed the community to identify key gaps in the Sitka outdoor recreation system, and recreation cabins were one type of facility that were researched in the study. The study found that the community desired more hike-in cabins located just past the edge of town in locations that can be reached by hiking from the road system. The study indicated that hike-in locations help minimize vandalism as compared to road-based cabins and provide wilderness options without the cost and logistics of a plane or boat. The study also found interest in including one larger capacity overnight cabin, to accommodate groups. Yakutat The Yakutat plan is completed and findings show that to the Yakutat community, “sustainability” refers primarily to how long project infrastructure (i.e., facilities, programs, information resources) lasts, the ability of project partners to meet ongoing costs, and that partners are committed to maintaining the project infrastructure. It is also clear that the community identifies recent cabin maintenance (e.g. new roofs, stoves, floors, bunks) as a community success. The project priority list includes installing a Sea Otter Cabin. This is a cabin which has been built but would need to be brought up to code and also installed at the selected location and would need to be added to the cabin maintenance program. Wrangell The Wrangell community members who participated in the survey listed USFS cabins as fourth of the top five activities. These activities (in order of most frequent to least frequent) were the following: hiking, beach walking, camping, USFS cabins, and saltwater fishing. The survey also indicated that linking cabins by trails and kayaking routes to increase connectivity was of interest. The most-used cabins in the district were reported to be Middle Ridge and Virginia. This is consistent with occupancy data provided by the USFS, as Middle Ridge and Virginia Lake cabins are the most-used cabins in the district. The project priority list for this plan does not specifically include any new cabin infrastructure to be built. It does speak to the importance of adding facilities to support sea kayaking trails.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 45 CHM Government Services Section 4 – Market Opportunity
4.4 SUB CONCLUSION – MARKET OPPORTUNITY Cabin occupancy across the Tongass National Forest is low in comparison to the Chugach National Forest cabin system and the Alaska State Parks cabin system. The Tongass cabin portfolio occupancy is approximately 16 percent, with some cabins never being occupied and some generating as many as 266 room nights per year (occupancy of 73 percent over a 365-day period). The Chugach National Forest maintains approximately 40 cabins and across the portfolio and has an occupancy of approximately 30 percent, or approximately one-third of the inventory of the Tongass and double the occupancy. Talks with the representatives of Alaska State Parks revealed similar occupancy characteristics to the Chugach. This may be due in most part to the population distribution in relation to each of these cabin systems (i.e. the population is greater surrounding the Chugach and the State Park cabin systems than it is surrounding the Tongass). CHM’s preliminary findings would indicate that the Tongass inventory is overbuilt and that the demand does not support some of the cabins that currently exist. However, because of the history of the cabins and their original purpose as safe havens for the public that may happen to be stranded in the wilderness, decommissioning of cabins may be difficult to justify. However, removing them from the reservation system and eliminating maintenance on them may be an option. Cabin demand is derived in large majority (over two-thirds) from Alaskan residents. Demand may be able to be increased through different programs or practices, or the cost to maintain cabins that are under-utilized may be able to be decreased. An example of programs and practices to increase cabin demand may be marketing cabins to Alaskans as well as non-residents, special resident programs, groupings of lower-use cabins into different packages, etc. For example, if a sub-network of cabins was created of lower-use cabins and a pass could be bought for seven nights to be used in any of those cabins, it may attract more demand. Similarly, if the higher-use cabins rates were increased by a meaningful amount and the lower-use cabins’ rates were held constant, they may attract more price-conscious travelers, depending on the cost of accessing the cabins. Rental rates for these public-use cabins have been a topic of high contention for a number of years. To some, these cabins are seen as amenities that it is fair to pay a premium for, while others see use of the cabins as a right by the public with little or no payment. Data in support of rate increases and/or for charges for additional people on the reservation is strong. The high expense of maintaining and operating these cabins requires a large subsidy to be committed by the U.S. Forest Service. As the Tongass cabin system is the largest in the state, decisions made for the system will arguably be influential throughout the other systems in Alaska. Achieving sustainability at the Tongass may lead to smart decisions throughout the state in regards to cabin pricing, maintenance, and service levels, ultimately benefitting the recreating public in the long term.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 46 CHM Government Services Section 5 – Gap Analysis
5. GAP ANALYSIS The Gap Analysis phase is focused on comparing the “baseline” or current operations against the potential “market opportunity”. This phase assembles the data collected from the “Understanding the Product” phase and compares it against the “Market Opportunity” findings. The resulting findings provide opportunities for “closing the gap”. To synthesize the findings, CHM has developed a SWOT analysis. Following the SWOT analysis will be an overview of potential strategies that are available for closing the gap.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 47 CHM Government Services Section 5 – Gap Analysis
5.1 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS The following Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis details the current positioning of the portfolio: Exhibit 31 - SWOT Analysis
Strengths Opportunities • Market Position • Pricing Strategies o Largest cabin portfolio in the state—little o Price increases competition in the Tongass area o Charging for additional people on the reservation o Unmatchable locations o Packaging cabin rentals o Unparalleled adventure experience o Requiring minimum night stays o Diverse locations (alpine, shoreline, lake, road- o Creating a required pass/membership based) o Have guests pay separately for reservation fees o Some cabins accessible year-round • Market and Marketing o Expanding targeted marketing in key market areas o Leveraging Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”) capacity in working with reservation vendor to test “push marketing” o Packing and Branding Cabins within the Portfolio as a “hut to hut” system that must be “done” o High recreation participation rate in the state o Opportunity for enhanced marketing through next Recreation.gov contract • Inventory Management and Cost Containment o Developing new availability dates for cabins reducing access outside of non use times. o Cut down on reservation fees by not allowing reservations on certain cabins (the fees are currently imbedded) • Stewardship • Community interest in shared stewardship appears to exist. Weaknesses Threats • Maintenance costs relative to demand • Economic • Access requires boat or planes not many road based o Economic trends may place downward pressure on increasing the cabin rental rates cabins • Political • Oversupply relative to demand o Political pressure to reduce government funding puts appropriated fund contribution at • Current maintenance methods require skill sets that must risk be maintained for efficiency • Environmental o Environmental conditions settings may put some sites at risk Source: CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 48 CHM Government Services Section 5 – Gap Analysis
5.2 STRATEGIES FOR CLOSING THE GAP Based upon the SWOT findings, it appears that there exists a variety of strategies available to the USFS in increasing their financial sustainability for the cabin program. As outlined in the Introduction, CHM has been tasked with evaluating strategies to reduce the difference between what it costs to operate the cabin system and the revenues generated by the program with recognition of the market opportunity for the program. Throughout this report, CHM has highlighted various best practices and suggestions for the program. Below is a summary of items that CHM feels are worth considering for possible ways to narrow the gap, categorized by revenue strategies, inventory strategies, and cost management strategies: As discussed in Section 3.4, the total cost that is currently being spent to operate and maintain the cabin system is estimated to be $1.2 million. Revenues in 2010 to help cover this cost were approximately $273,000 (which include the deduction of reservation fees). This leads to a calculated loss of approximately $887,000, or a cost recovery of 24 percent. The total cost of ownership analysis completed by Jacobs Engineering and CHM resulted in a total cost to operate of $1.8 million, as discussed in Section 3.5. This results in a cost recovery of 15 percent when applied to 2010 revenue figures. CHM has outlined strategies under three categories: 1 Revenue; 2 Facility; and 3 Cost Management Revenue Strategies 1. Yield Management: Instead of simply raising rates across the board, yield management practices could be used to increase rates on highly utilized cabins, in essence charging a premium for highly-desirable locations. This could increase revenues through higher rates as well as increased demand to lesser-used cabins that have less expensive rates. Additionally, requiring a minimum night stay during especially busy periods and/or weekends would increase occupied nights, leading to increased revenue and a more utilized cabin program. 2. Cabin Guest Program: Various programs for cabin guests could increase cabin usage and revenues. An annual pass program or a membership program where cabin guests could choose to pay a fixed amount per year and get so many nights in their package could be a way for cabin guests to support the program as well as feel that they are getting value. Benefits for these cabin guests may be longer reservation windows, a more generous maximum night stay, a discounted rate, etc. 3. Fee Structures: Differing fee structures could also be considered, for example charging an additional fee per person if more than two people will be on the reservation. 4. Reservation Fee Payment as Separate Payment: Presently, the reservation fee is embedded into the cost shown to the client as opposed to a standalone reservation fee. This cost is then taken out of the revenue and provided to the reservation provider. This is not the case with other recreation cabins in the Forest Service. This scenario would involve pulling out that “hidden” cost and setting the rates appropriately with the reservation fee then added on top.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 49 CHM Government Services Section 5 – Gap Analysis
Facility Strategies 5. Decommission Cabins: CHM’s findings would indicate that the Tongass inventory is overbuilt and that the demand does not support some of the cabins that currently exist. Running certain cabins to failure and/or converting under-utilized cabins to shelters would shrink the cabin inventory and allow cabin resources to be focused on those cabins that serve the most people. 6. Re-Group Cabins: An evaluation of the grouping of cabins should be considered. It may make sense for cabins with specific maintenance needs (based on type of work and geographical location) to be maintained by a certain RD rather than those cabins scattered throughout the districts. As a purely illustrative example, Eagle Lake Cabin is currently serviced by the Wrangell RD, but is also near the Ketchikan/Misty-Fjords RD. Both Eagle Lake Cabin and Reflection Lake Cabin (a cabin currently serviced by the Ketchikan/Misty-Fjords RD that is in the vicinity of Eagle Lake Cabin) are on a lake, accessed by plane, and heated by a woodstove. After an evaluation, one might find that re-distributing these cabins to be in the same district may make sense from a maintenance perspective. 7. Capital Investments: Making certain capital investments may lead to efficiencies that could payback over the long-term. For example, outhouses associated with certain cabins that often trigger a maintenance trip could be modified with larger pits or double outhouses or boats could be purchased that would be dedicated to the cabin program if necessary. Cost Management Strategies 8. Standardizing Service Frequency: Enacting a standard that generally dictates maintenance trips to cabins based on cabin usage is a logical provision. This may also vary by how expensive it is to get to the cabin. For instance, the general standard may be that after the opening maintenance trip, for every 30 occupied nights, one trip is scheduled. For cabins accessed by planes, the number of occupied nights may increase. 9. Labor Efficiencies: As discussed in Section 3.4, labor rates vary widely across districts. This suggests that some districts may have the option to staff certain tasks with more cost- effective labor categories. 10. Limiting Services: For certain types of cabins, it may make sense to look at reducing services. Stocking firewood, for example, may be seen as an extra service. An alternative to this would be requiring guests to bring their own. 11. Limiting Reservations: For low-usage cabins, switching to a first come, first served model may make sense. This would save the reservation fee of $6.35 per online reservation, $9.98 per call reservation, and $2.80 per field reservation, which is currently being paid each time a cabin is reserved on NRRS to ReserveAmerica. 12. Contracting: Contracting certain maintenance activities could be a way of managing costs. For example, if certain cabins are more difficult for the RD to access, but there are private contractors in the area, they may be able to charge less for the service than how much it would cost the RD. Additionally, obtaining one contract for multiple RDs for flight time and other services may give the RDs more buying power in the market and could help drive down costs.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 50 CHM Government Services Section 5 – Gap Analysis
13. Partnerships: Partnerships with local volunteers, avid cabin users, non-profit groups, other public agencies, etc. could help cut down on maintenance trips to cabins. Although interviews during the site visit revealed that the cabin non-profit groups were in their infancy, current relationships can be expanded upon and new ones can be found. There are current partnerships with the Boy Scouts, local groups, families, etc., and goals can be made for RDs to partner with additional groups within the community for labor, materials, transportation, etc. 14. Concessions: One option for consideration is to transfer a select number of cabins to a special use permit. This could include either an entire district’s inventory or a sampling of cabins in similar geographic areas. CHM is of the opinion that there is one district (Sitka) that has the concentration of cabins, the utilization profile, and the geographic setting that would allow for transfer to a special use permit. By choosing this option, the Forest Service could remove the appropriated fund allocation to these cabins. However, what would need to be analyzed is whether the revenue loss could be offset by a portion of the permit fee. Based upon these options for consideration, the Forest Service has identified which of these strategies they would like to further evaluate in a financial analysis. Their decisions are reflected in the next section, Portfolio Strategy Analysis
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 51 CHM Government Services Section 6 – Portfolio Strategy Analysis
6. PORTFOLIO STRATEGY ANALYSIS This section is focused on the decisions made by the USFS in regards to the strategies available to close the gap. Section 5 presented suggestions and opportunities for the USFS to consider in regards to building an analysis to show different strategies that the USFS may want to execute. The Forest Service reviewed the fourteen options and identified seven options that they desired to evaluate. CHM’s scenario analysis is designed to allow for a “baseline” and “options/scenario” framework. Three of the options identified were included as part of the “baseline” analysis and the remaining four were included as variables that could be tested iteratively. Baseline Options Included: 1. Standardizing service frequency: As indicated in the previous chapter, CHM is of the opinion that the service frequency should be standardized on the cabin portfolio. CHM has assumed in addition to an opening trip, a closing trip if the cabin is oil-heated plus a trip every 30 occupied days. 2. Labor efficiencies: CHM has recognized that each district staffs their cabins program with different staffing grades. As such, there is variation in the costs to service the cabins. For the baseline, CHM has assumed an average labor rate of $27.41. 3. Partnerships: Presently, the Forest Service has relationships with non profits to assist with miscellaneous maintenance needs and upkeep of cabins. This includes examples such as the Prince of Wales Off-Road Club, US Coast Guard volunteers, Boy Scouts, Stikine Sportsmen Association, local volunteers, etc. CHM has assumed that these same partnerships/volunteer relationships continue. Options/Scenarios Tested: 4. Decommissioning of cabins: CHM and the Forest Service identified five cabin utilization thresholds for decommissioning. It was asked that the first three levels (less than 15 nights, 15 to 30 nights and, 30 to 45 nights) be evaluated in relation to their fiscal impact. 5. Reduction of CMFC allocations: Based upon recent and potential appropriated fund trends, the Forest Service requested that CHM evaluate the impact on the cabin program assuming a minimum of a 20 percent reduction in the CMFC cabin allocation. 6. New recreation cabin pricing: The Forest Service had worked with Mr. Martin Wild in 2005 to undertake estimates of price increases that suggested by district and cabin type. They provided these prices to CHM for use in evaluating changes to the cabin rental rates. 7. Customer payment of reservation fee as a separate charge: This scenario recognizes the costs that were historically embedded into the pricing and adds them back as a separate cost to the customer, not a deduct from the existing price/revenues.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 52 CHM Government Services Section 6 – Portfolio Strategy Analysis
6.1 OPTIONS EVALUATED The following outlines the details supporting the four options/scenarios that were tested. Each option/scenario can be considered individually or combined for different scenario combinations. All of the below options were evaluated and added or subtracted to the base case/baseline operation. The baseline is CHM’s estimate of status quo over the next five years. The annual net deficit is currently estimated to be ($563,000), or more than ($2.8 million) over five years. 1. Decommissioning of Cabins: Three scenarios for reducing cabin inventory were evaluated, each with a larger number of decommissioned cabins (Level 1 through Level 3). The decision of which cabins to decommission was made based on annual occupied nights. The occupied nights used was an average of five years of data (2007 through 2011) in order to adjust for any years that may have misrepresented cabin popularity. The following tables summarize each level of decommission and the estimation of their impact on revenue and expense reduction: Exhibit 32 - Three Scenarios to Decommission Cabins Decommission Cabins - Level 1 # of Occupied Nights Threshold 15 Nights & Under # of Cabins Decommissioned 19 Total Revenue Association $4,188 Total Expense Association $197,038 Net Impact/Expense Reduction $192,850 Decommission Cabins - Level 2 # of Occupied Nights Threshold 30 Nights & Under # of Cabins Decommissioned 49 (Includes Level 1) Total Revenue Association $22,711 Total Expense Association $549,028 Net Impact/Expense Reduction $526,317 Decommission Cabins - Level 3 # of Occupied Nights Threshold 45 Nights & Under # of Cabins Decommissioned 71 (Includes Level 1&2) Total Revenue Association $47,611 Total Expense Association $777,969 Net Impact/Expense Reduction $730,358
Source: CHM • Reduction of CMFC Funding: This scenario predicts the effect of a 20 percent CMFC budget reduction indefinitely. The current total CMFC budget was calculated based on the districts’ CMFC workplans for fiscal year 2011 and was then reduced by 20 percent for future funding. Current CMFC funding totaled to approximately $611,000 and is estimated to be approximately $489,000 e.g. 20 percent lower) going forward. • New Cabin Rates: This option estimates the revenue effect of implementing new cabin rental rates throughout the system and is based on a report completed by Martin Wild. From monthly occupancy data, a distribution of demand was calculated to apply to revenue in order to estimate how much revenue is generated in the peak versus off-peak season. After arriving at a revenue figure for peak and off-peak times, an average rate increase (from Martin Wild’s recommendations) was calculated by district, by season
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 53 CHM Government Services Section 6 – Portfolio Strategy Analysis
(peak and off-peak). This percentage increase (or decrease, in some cases) was applied to the revenue of the district by season. The base case calculates an average, portfolio- wide rate of approximately $34.00, and implementing the recommended new cabin rates would raise the average rate to approximately $45.00 which is an increase of approximately 33 percent. It is important to note that CHM understands that cabin rates have not been increased over at least the last five years. Inflationary adjustments alone would support an increase of thirteen percent. Note that in this scenario, occupancy was held constant even as rates change. In addition, CHM performed a “test case” projecting cabin revenue with the increased rates by cabin for the Petersburg district. Calculating total revenue by cabin with each cabin’s individual proposed rate and demand distribution by season resulted in higher revenue for the Petersburg district than the calculation described in the preceding paragraph. This suggests that the method used in CHM’s analysis could be a conservative approach to revenue projections. • Reservation Fee Recovery: This option evaluates the deduction of the reservation fee from the expenses of the portfolio. Reservation fees (from ReserveAmerica) total to approximately $31,000.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 54 CHM Government Services Section 6 – Portfolio Strategy Analysis
6.2 SCENARIO OUTCOMES & CONCLUSION The following exhibit presents the options evaluated above and their impact on the profit/(deficit) of the cabin system. The scenarios are separated into three tables, each one showing a different level of cabins decommissioned. The impact for each scenario is presented as well as the cumulative impact as scenarios are added. Exhibit 33 - Scenario Outcomes Resultant Resultant Profit/ Decommission Cabins - Level 1 - Scenarios Impact (Deficit) Baseline Annual Deficit ($563,106) Decommission Cabins - Level 1 Impact $192,850 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($370,256) Reduce CMFC Funding by 20% Impact ($122,239) Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($492,495) New Cabin Rates $95,084 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($397,411) Reservation Fee $31,032 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($366,379) Total Resultant Impact $196,727 ($366,379)
Resultant Resultant Profit/ Decommission Cabins - Level 2 - Scenarios Impact (Deficit) Baseline Annual Deficit ($563,106) Decommission Cabins - Level 2 Impact $526,317 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($36,789) Reduce CMFC Funding by 20% Impact ($122,239) Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($159,028) New Cabin Rates $91,249 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($67,779) Reservation Fee $31,032 Cumulative Profit/(Deficit) ($36,747) Total Resultant Impact $526,359 ($36,747)
Resultant Resultant Profit/ Decommission Cabins - Level 3 - Scenarios Impact (Deficit) Baseline Annual Deficit ($563,106) Decommission Cabins - Level 3 Impact $730,358 Cumulative Deficit $167,252 Reduce CMFC Funding by 20% Impact ($122,239) Cumulative Deficit $45,014 New Cabin Rates $86,073 Cumulative Deficit $131,086 Reservation Fee $31,032 Cumulative Deficit $162,118 Total Resultant Impact $725,224 $162,118 Source: CHM
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 55 CHM Government Services Section 6 – Portfolio Strategy Analysis
Each of the various scenarios for the Tongass Forest recreation cabin system results in a different fiscal impact on the agency. However, CHM recognizes that this is just one element in the agency’s decision matrix. As the Forest Service continues to manage the cabin system, it is understood that a balance has to be struck between visitor services, stewardship of physical assets, and stewardship of agency financial assets represented by the operational costs to maintain the program. . The information presented herein was gathered to help the USFS think about ways to manage a more sustainable cabin system that will last well into the future with the long-term health of recreation program of the Tongass National Forest in mind.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 56 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
7. APPENDIX
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 57 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
7.1 CABIN OCCUPANCY BY CABIN
Total Total Total Total Total Nights Nights Nights Nights Nights Use Use Use Use Use Average Average
Cabin Name 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Nights Occupancy Binkley Slough Cabin 2 2 0 1 0 1 0% Square Lake Cabin 7 0 0 0 0 1 0% Distin Lake Cabin 7 0 2 0 0 2 0% Sergief Island Cabin 1 6 6 5 1 4 1% Anan Lake Cabin 11 14 1 2 0 6 2% Gut Island #2 Cabin 3 4 12 5 6 6 2% Davidof Lake Cabin 8 8 6 11 0 7 2% Marten Lake Cabin 2 3 4 10 15 7 2% De Boer Lake Cabin 9 22 8 0 0 8 2% Middle Dangerous River 11 6 2 6 16 2% Cabin 8 Lower Dangerous River 9 6 0 18 10 2% Cabin 9 Eagle Lake Cabin 8 15 12 9 9 11 3% Winstanley Lake Cabin 19 0 16 12 10 11 3% Koknuk Cabin 11 9 13 12 17 12 3% Suloia Lake Cabin 14 10 10 13 18 13 4% Avoss Lake Cabin 39 3 8 8 8 13 4% Checats Lake Cabin 21 18 9 19 2 14 4% Goulding Lake Cabin 10 5 24 19 12 14 4% Towers Arm Cabin 21 17 15 7 11 14 4% Gut Island #1 Cabin 16 20 16 16 11 16 4% Harvey Lake Cabin 14 18 18 18 11 16 4% Honker Lake Cabin 17 27 10 18 14 17 5% Shipley Bay Cabin 23 14 30 5 15 17 5% Hugh Smith Lake Cabin 31 39 9 0 10 18 5% Hasselborg Creek Cabin 6 28 36 4 18 18 5% Pybus Bay Cabin 14 7 25 31 15 18 5% Josephine Lake Cabin 14 28 21 16 18 19 5% Ella Narrows Cabin 14 17 15 28 27 20 6% Tanis Mesa South Cabin 41 20 29 7 6 21 6% Frosty Bay Cabin 9 24 22 19 30 21 6% Lake Alexander Cabin 26 13 37 10 19 21 6% Sportsmen Cabin 32 17 30 28 0 21 6% Tanis Mesa North Cabin 33 27 27 11 10 22 6% Turner Lake (East) Cabin 16 33 15 18 26 22 6% Situk Lake Cabin 25 15 29 23 18 22 6%
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 58 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Plotnikof Lake Cabin 36 27 21 16 11 22 6% Jim's Lake Cabin 22 27 13 19 31 22 6% Plenty Cutthroat Cabin 20 17 7 34 34 22 6% Barnes Lake Cabin 31 13 35 11 23 23 6% Raven's Roost Cabin 10 32 14 26 31 23 6% Black Bear Lake Cabin 17 29 19 17 35 23 6% Kook Lake Cabin 31 11 32 29 15 24 6% Baranof Lake Cabin 29 21 8 24 42 25 7% Little Shaheen Cabin 27 33 37 14 15 25 7% Greentop Cabin 35 20 32 20 23 26 7% Sitkoh Lake (West) Cabin 33 20 10 39 33 27 7% Garnet Ledge Cabin 27 22 26 27 36 28 8% Humpback Lake Cabin 48 29 20 20 22 28 8% Little Dry Island Cabin 30 31 27 20 32 28 8% Portage Bay Cabin 10 22 38 42 39 30 8% Taku Glacier Cabin 27 23 27 36 39 30 8% Wilson View Cabin 44 28 20 19 41 30 8% Denver Caboose Cabin 25 30 27 39 36 31 9% Laughton Glacier Cabin 17 26 43 38 34 32 9% Patching Lake Cabin 44 33 28 28 26 32 9% Alsek River Cabin 42 20 30 40 28 32 9% Devil's Elbow Cabin 29 16 25 52 50 34 9% Kathleen Lake Cabin 0 22 45 37 36 35 10% Sitkoh Lake (East) Cabin 35 31 14 35 61 35 10% Young Lake (South) Cabin 40 38 22 50 32 36 10% Shakes Slough 1 Cabin 35 36 44 36 38 38 10% Troller's Cove Cabin 23 29 46 65 32 39 11% Florence Lake (East) Cabin 53 55 30 24 34 39 11% Wilson Narrows Cabin 60 54 20 31 31 39 11% Mallard Slough Cabin 27 37 52 44 41 40 11% Young Lake (North) Cabin 63 63 30 16 44 43 12% Spurt Cove Cabin 45 32 56 36 49 44 12% Mount Flemer Cabin 34 54 34 45 54 44 12% Reflection Lake Cabin 39 53 35 57 38 44 12% Harding River Cabin 36 51 72 15 51 45 12% Salmon Bay Lake Cabin 56 41 47 28 53 45 12% Mount Rynda Cabin 49 50 38 23 69 46 13% Alava Bay Cabin 41 42 48 52 49 46 13% Anchor Pass Cabin 56 51 58 44 24 47 13% Big John Bay Cabin 49 47 39 55 44 47 13% Blind Pass Cabin 40 38 45 56 56 47 13%
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 59 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Church Bight Cabin 31 48 51 40 70 48 13% Redoubt Lake Cabin 81 62 32 45 24 49 13% Kegan Creek Cabin 42 67 35 47 56 49 14% Manzanita Lake Cabin 51 49 31 69 47 49 14% Southeast Heckman Cabin 73 55 40 33 48 50 14% Kadake Bay Cabin 69 54 39 66 23 50 14% Salt Chuck East Cabin 45 58 42 37 75 51 14% Kegan Cove Cabin 80 84 0 1 95 52 14% Shakes Slough 2 Cabin 67 50 59 51 48 55 15% Phocena Bay Cabin 54 54 57 43 68 55 15% Red Bay Lake Cabin 69 53 35 67 59 57 16% Twin Lakes Cabin 56 53 81 65 30 57 16% Big Shaheen Cabin 78 59 63 37 51 58 16% Kah Sheets Bay Cabin 67 74 36 63 50 58 16% Steamer Bay Cabin 57 36 90 51 64 60 16% Sweetwater Lake Cabin 7 91 79 64 63 61 17% Castle Flats Cabin 57 58 73 69 49 61 17% Anan Bay Cabin 56 60 69 80 42 61 17% Appleton Cove Cabin 72 62 61 37 75 61 17% Kah Sheets Lake Cabin 57 46 63 79 65 62 17% Heckman Lake Cabin 68 73 60 54 58 63 17% Berg Bay Cabin 38 39 84 87 78 65 18% Sarkar Lake Cabin 71 44 68 67 76 65 18% Turner Lake (West) Cabin 70 53 57 78 68 65 18% Point Amargura Cabin 49 35 94 68 85 66 18% Salmon Lake Cabin 88 53 72 73 69 19% Thorne Bay 71 Swan Lake Cabin 83 81 78 84 45 20% Petersburg 74 Eight Fathom Cabin 0 0 0 77 75 76 21% Control Lake Cabin 87 73 41 88 92 76 21% Lake Eva Cabin 71 74 74 96 70 77 21% Petersburg Lake Cabin 72 71 81 82 85 78 21% Cascade Creek Cabin 82 89 67 86 84 82 22% Breiland Slough Cabin 94 103 91 66 57 82 23% Winstanley Island Cabin 126 104 70 49 65 83 23% Italio River Cabin 75 89 69 93 89 83 23% Kanga Bay Cabin 92 95 79 71 81 84 23% Castle River Cabin 90 71 89 89 82 84 23% Helm Creek Cabin 79 86 80 90 93 86 23% Beecher Pass Cabin 98 74 77 86 108 89 24% Salmon Lake Cabin Sitka 87 105 95 88 74 90 25%
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 60 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Sevenfathom Bay Cabin 90 91 97 94 86 92 25% Shelikof Cabin 118 87 101 92 68 93 26% Virginia Lake Cabin 75 103 110 88 98 95 26% Eagle Cabin 107 99 90 119 85 100 27% Raven Cabin 92 107 117 112 78 101 28% White Sulphur Springs 90 121 119 96 86 28% Cabin 102 Mcdonald Lake Cabin 130 108 78 95 117 106 29% West Point Cabin 125 108 85 108 104 106 29% Helm Bay Cabin 108 121 105 95 116 109 30% North Beach Cabin 110 129 109 107 104 112 31% Karta River Cabin 125 141 85 115 110 115 32% Middle Ridge Cabin 0 0 0 Built in 116 32% 2010 116 Jordan Lake Cabin 119 112 114 115 123 117 32% Admiralty Cove Cabin 123 126 116 129 106 120 33% Karta Lake Cabin 113 130 118 114 126 120 33% Staney Creek Cabin 116 163 134 134 135 136 37% Fish Creek Cabin 157 125 137 138 126 137 37% Piper Island Cabin 141 152 138 123 136 138 38% Samsing Cove Cabin 123 142 141 152 142 140 38% Brent's Beach Cabin 132 138 140 158 139 141 39% Moser Island Cabin 149 137 152 154 151 149 41% Twelvemile Cabin 0 0 123 141 186 150 41% Berners Bay Cabin 136 162 136 160 168 152 42% Peterson Lake Cabin 146 160 149 164 164 157 43% Dan Moller Cabin 124 156 166 93 252 158 43% Eagle Glacier Cabin 158 145 134 178 182 159 44% Fred's Creek Cabin 150 183 174 154 149 162 44% Allan Point Cabin 177 205 197 188 197 193 53% John Muir Cabin 182 178 191 187 250 198 54% Windfall Lake Cabin 201 226 220 267 273 237 65%
TOTAL 8,265 8,289 8,069 8,254 8,704 8,316 16%
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 61 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
7.2 RATES APPLIED BY CABIN The following rates were provided to CHM by the USFS. CHM has used the “Proposed Fees” in our Scenario Analysis. CHM has assumed based upon notes provided that the “Proposed Fees” are presented in 2011 value dollars. Craig & Thorne Bay RD Cabin Name Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Notes: Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Barnes Lake $25 $25 16 $25 $25 $0 $0 Low Use Cabin Consider for conversion to an emergency Black Bear Lake $25 $25 14 $25 $25 $0 $0 shelter. Popular - slight increase and charge $50 year Control Lake $45 $25 18 $50 $35 $5 $10 round. Essowah Lake $25 $25 0 Taken off reservation list - destroyed
Honker $25 $25 17 $15 $15 -$10 $0 Consider for conversion to shelter or removal.
Josephine Lake $25 $25 16 $15 $15 -$10 $0 Consider for conversion to shelter or removal. Karta Lake $45 $25 19 $50 $25 $5 $0 Popular - slight increase. Karta River $45 $25 19 $60 $25 $15 $0 Popular - slight increase. Popular - no increase until reconstructed - Kegan Cove $45 $25 16 $45 $25 $0 $0 raise to $50. Kegan Creek $35 $25 16 $35 $25 $0 $0 Moderately popular - leave as-is. New cabin - slight increase for facility Pt. Amargura $35 $25 19 $45 $25 $10 $0 improvements. Red Bay Lake $45 $25 15 $50 $25 $5 $0 Popular - slight increase. Salmon Bay Lake $35 $25 14 $35 $25 $0 $0 Popular subsistence cabin - no increase Salmon Lake $35 $25 15 $35 $25 $0 $0 Popular, but in poor conditions - no change. Sarkar Lake $35 $25 17 $40 $25 $5 $0 Popular - slight increase. Shipley Bay $25 $25 16 $15 $25 -$10 $0 Low Use Cabin - Serves as a H&S site. Popular - slight increase and charge $50 year Staney Creek $45 $25 16 $50 $35 $5 $10 round. Sweetwater Lake $35 $25 17 $50 $25 $15 $0 Popular - moderate increase. Troller's Cove $25 $25 12 $15 $25 -$10 $0 Low Use Cabin - Serves as a H&S site. New cabin - consider increasing once Twelve Mile Arm $45 $45 15 $50 $35 $5 -$10 established.
Cabin Current Rating Proposedoff Season Prop. change Use 4 yr avg Rationale for fee Admiralty NM P N/P Admiralty Cove $35 17 55 $45 $20 $10 138 major impv in 08 justify higher cost Big Shaheen $45 17 55 $45 $10 $0 81 not comfortable raising more than $10/yr Church Bight $35 14 45 $35 $10 $0 50 not comfortable raising more than $10/yr no change, not willing to go above $25/nite/take off Distin Lake $25 14 25 15 0 -$10 1 reservation system Florence $35 14 45 35 $10 $0 88 more use w/ lower cabin rate? Hasselborg $25 14 25 15 0 -$10 12 brings up to lower $ of rating range Jim's Lake $35 16 45 35 $10 $0 23 not comfortable raising more than $10/yr Lake Kathleen $25 13 25 25 0 $0 49 brings up to lower $ of rating range Lake Alexander $35 14 40 30 $5 -$5 26 more use w/ lower cabin rate? Little Shaheen $35 14 40 $30 $5 -$5 44 more use w/ lower cabin rate? Pybus $35 13 40 $30 $5 -$5 23 more use w/ lower cabin rate? Sportsman $35 15 40 30 $5 -$5 27 more use w/ lower cabin rate? Young Lak e North $35 17 45 $35 $10 $0 63 major impv in 08 justify higher cost Young Lake South $35 14 45 $35 $10 $0 50 major impv in 08 justify higher cost bold and italics = top 10% italics = top 25%
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 62 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Juneau Ranger District Cabin Pricing List Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Cabin Name Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Note s: Berners Bay $35.00 15 $50.00 $35.00 +15 0 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010; $50 in 2011 Dan Moller $35.00 11 $60.00 $60.00 +25 25 $50 in 2009; $55 in 2010; $60 in 2011 Denver Caboose $35.00 9 $50.00 $35.00 +15 0.00 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010; $50 in 2011 Eagle Glacier $35.00 16 $60.00 $60.00 +25 25 $50 in 2009; $55 in 2010; $60 in 2011 John Muir $35.00 14 $60.00 $60.00 +25 25 $50 in 2009; $55 in 2010; $60 in 2011 Laughton Glacier $35.00 9 $45.00 $35.00 +10 0 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010 Peterson Lake $35.00 19 $60.00 $60.00 +25 25 $50 in 2009; $55 in 2010; $60 in 2011 Taku Glacier $35.00 16 $50.00 $35.00 +15 0 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010; $50 in 2011 East Turner $35.00 14 $50.00 $35.00 +15 0 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010; $50 in 2011 West Turner $35.00 21 $50.00 $35.00 +15 0 $40 in 2009; $45 in 2010; $50 in 2011 Windfall Lake $35.00 22 $60.00 $60.00 +25 25 $50 in 2009; $55 in 2010; $60 in 2011
*increased the minimum to $30 Non-peak season is October-April
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Cabin Pricing List Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Cabin Name Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Note s: ALAVA BAY $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 ANCHOR PASS $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 non-reservable for 2-5 years for fish BAKEWELL LAKE project BEAVER $25.00 $25.00 14 $25.00 $25.00 0 0 BLIND PASS $35.00 $25.00 15 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 CHECATS LAKE $25.00 $25.00 14 $25.00 $25.00 0 0 ELLA NARROWS $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 FISH CREEK $45.00 $25.00 19 $50.00 $35.00 5 +10 Popular site-new construction in 08 HECKMAN LAKE $35.00 $25.00 19 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 HELM BAY $45.00 $25.00 20 $55.00 $35.00 10 10 High Use-$50 year round several woodshed filling trips throught HELM CREEK $45.00 $25.00 17 $45.00 $35.00 0 10 year HUGH SMITH LAKE $25.00 $25.00 14 $25.00 $25.00 0 0 HUMPBACK LAKE $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 JORDAN LAKE $35.00 $25.00 19 $45.00 $35.00 10 +10 High use year round MANZANITA LAKE $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 Extremely high use in summer, fall, MCDONALD LAKE $35.00 $25.00 21 $50.00 $35.00 +15 10 spring PATCHING LAKE $25.00 $25.00 15 $25.00 $25.00 0 0 PHOCENA BAY $35.00 $25.00 15 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 PLENTY CUTTHROAT $35.00 $25.00 15 $35.00 $25.00 0 0 RAINBOW LAKE decommissioning RED ALDERS $25.00 $25.00 14 $25.00 $25.00 0 0 REFLECTION LAKE $25.00 $25.00 15 $35.00 $25.00 +10 0 increase in use SOUTHEAST HECKMAN $45.00 $25.00 18 $50.00 $35.00 5 +10 WILSON NARROWS $25.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 10 0 WILSON VIEW $25.00 $25.00 15 $35.00 $25.00 10 0 WINSTANLEY ISLAND $35.00 $25.00 17 $45.00 $35.00 +10 +10 several woodshed fillings in wilderness WINSTANLEY LAKE $35.00 $25.00 14 $35.00 $25.00 0 0
Non-peak season is October-April
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 63 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Final Petersburg RD Cabin Name Rating Current Fee Proposed Fee Proposed Change Note s: Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter swan lake 19 $35 $35 $50 $35 $15 $0 accessible, top 25% west point 15 $35 $25 $50 $25 $15 $0 accessible, top 25% beecher pass 15 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 top 25% breiland slough 15 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 top 25% castle river 15 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 top 25% petersburg lake 15 $35 $25 $50 $25 $15 $0 castle flats 15 $35 $25 $35 $25 $0 $0 kah sheets lake 15 $35 $25 $35 $25 $0 $0 accessible big john bay 15 $35 $25 $35 $25 $0 $0 salt chuck east 15 $35 $25 $35 $25 $0 $0 harvey lake 15 $35 $25 $15 $15 -$20 -$10 possible conversion to open shelter, low use cascade 14 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 kadake bay 14 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 devil's elbow 14 $25 $25 $30 $25 $5 $0 low use towers arm 14 $25 $25 $30 $25 $5 $0 low use kah sheets bay 13 $35 $25 $40 $25 $5 $0 de boer 13 $25 $25 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 low use, potential decommission spurt cove 12 $25 $25 $35 $25 $10 $0 portage bay 11 $25 $25 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 low use, low fee raven's roost 10 $35 $35 $20 $35 -$15 $0 low use, low fee
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 64 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Wrangell RD
Cabin Name Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Notes: Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Popular, high-use cabin; raise fee to $50 Anan Bay $35 $25 17 $50 $25 $15 $0 during summer Low use cabin; slight fee increase during Anan Lake $25 $25 14 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Berg Bay $35 $25 15 $40 $25 $5 $0 Popular; slight fee increase during summer Low use cabin; decreased fee, proposed to Binkley Slough $25 $25 9 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 decommission Low use cabin; slight fee increase during Eagle Lake $25 $25 14 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Frosty Bay $35 $25 11 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Garnet Ledge $25 $25 10 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Gut Island #1 $35 $25 10 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Low use cabin: decreased fee, proposed to Gut Island #2 $25 $25 9 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 decommision Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Harding River $25 $25 8 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Low use cabin; slight fee increase during Koknuk $25 $25 9 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Little Dry Island $35 $25 11 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Mallard Slough $35 $25 12 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Low use cabin; slight fee increase during Marten Lake $25 $25 14 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Mount Flemer $25 $25 10 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Mount Rynda $35 $25 10 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Low use cabin; decreased fee, consider for Sergief $25 $25 9 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 decommission Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Shakes Slough #1 $25 $25 9 $35 $25 $10 $0 summer Shakes Slough #2 $35 $25 13 $40 $25 $5 $0 Popular; slight fee increase during summer Popular; high-use cabin; raise fee to $45 Steamer Bay $35 $25 17 $50 $25 $15 $0 during summer Moderately popular; slight fee increase during Twin Lakes $35 $25 11 $40 $25 $5 $0 summer Popular; high-use cabin; raise fee to $45 Virginia Lake $35 $25 21 $50 $25 $15 $0 during summer
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 65 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Sitka Ranger District Cabin Pricing List Current Cabin Name Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Peak Non Peak Peak Non Peak Allan Point $45.00 21 $65.00 $45.00 $20.00 $0.00 Appleton Cove $35.00 12 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Avoss Lake $35.00 16 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 Baranof Lake $35.00 12 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 Brent's Beach $35.00 16 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $0.00 Davidof Lake $35.00 15 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 Fred's Creek $35.00 20 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $0.00 Goulding Lake $35.00 15 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 Kanga Bay $35.00 11 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Kook Lake $35.00 14 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Lake Eva $35.00 16 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $0.00 Moser Island $35.00 16 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $0.00 North Beach $35.00 14 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Piper Island $35.00 16 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $0.00 Plotnikof Lake $35.00 17 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 Redoubt Lake $35.00 15 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Salmon Lake $35.00 15 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Samsing Cove $45.00 19 $65.00 $45.00 $20.00 $0.00 Sevenfathom Bay $35.00 15 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Shelikof $35.00 14 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Sitkoh Lake East $35.00 12 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Sitkoh Lake West $35.00 14 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00 Starrigavan Creek $0.00 17 $65.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 Suloia Lake $35.00 15 $40.00 $30.00 $5.00 -$5.00 White Sulphur $35.00 13 $50.00 $35.00 $15.00 $0.00
Hoonah Ranger District Cabin Pricing List Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Cabin Name Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Peak Non-peak Note s: Greentop Harbor $35.00 $35.00 17 $50.00 $35.00 15 0 Fees will be phased on $5 per year
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 66 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
Yakutat RD Cabin Name Current Fee Rating Proposed Fee Proposed Change Notes: Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Eagle Cabin (YRD) $35 $35 19 $45 $35 $10 $0 Current cabin fee. Raven Cabin (YRD) $35 $35 19 $45 $35 $10 $0 Current cabin fee. Situk Lake (YRD) $35 $35 19 $45 $35 $10 $0 Current cabin fee. Lower Dangerous River Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 15 $30 $25 $5 $0 Minimum cabin fee. Middle Dangerous River Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 14 $30 $25 $5 $0 Minimum cabin fee. Harlequin Lake Northe Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 13 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 Minimum cabin fee. Harlequin Lake South Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 13 $15 $15 -$10 -$10 Minimum cabin fee. Italio River Cabin (YRD) $35 $35 19 $50 $35 $15 $0 Current cabin fee. Square Lake Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 16 $30 $25 $5 $0 Minimum cabin fee. Tanis Mesa North Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 14 $30 $25 $5 $0 Minimum cabin fee. Tanis Mesa South Cabin (YRD) $25 $25 14 $30 $25 $5 $0 Minimum cabin fee. Alsek River Cabin (YRD) $35 $35 18 $35 $35 $0 $0 Current cabin fee.
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 67 CHM Government Services Section 7 –Appendix
7.2 MAPS BY CABIN
Alaska Region Public Use Recreation Cabin Program Financial Sustainability Strategy 68 CHM Government Services p
^ jk p p p 1 DAN MOLLER FunterFunter BayBay StateStatep MarineMarine ParkPark 1 0 ss 0 5 M ii i uu ll e R a d ii u s d i aa d ADMIRALTY COVE RR ii ll ee 5 MM NORTH YOUNG LAKE 22 00 SOUTH YOUNG LAKE p p Juneau 3 jkp 3 ^pp Oliver Inlet State Marine Park TakuTaku HarborHarbor StatepState MarineMarine ParkPark
i uu ss aa dd i ll ee RR 3 0 MM ii Cube Cove
LAKE KATHLEEN 3 050 100 200 u ss Miles aa dd ii u i ll ee RR 44 00 MM i EAST FLORENCE LAKE 3 Tenakee Springs pjk ii uu ss RR aa dd ii ll ee 5 00 MM BIG SHAHEEN 2 5 LITTLE SHAHEEN 3 KOOK LAKE LAKE ALEXANDER HASSELBORG CREEK 2 2 SPORTSMEN 2 2 1 JIMS LAKE 2
p EAST SITKOH LAKE WEST SITKOH LAKE p 2 3 p APPLETON COVE jk 4 Angoon CHURCH BIGHT Hobart Bay LAKE EVA 3 p 4 Sitka PYBUS BAY 2
p
jk p BARANOF LAKE pp^ Sitka Natl Hist Park 2 WEST POINT 4 p jk p Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. Admiralty National Monument/ Juneau Ranger District 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year U.S. Forest Service jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. Miles p 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year I Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. Recreation Cabin Locations p Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year Juneau R.D. p p
p SHIPLEY BAY Whale Pass 2 5 0 M BARNES LAKE i l e p 2 p R a Edna Bay d p SWEETWATER LAKE i u s p 4 s p p
Naukati Bay
p HONKER LAKE STANEY CREEK 2 5 p
Meyersp Chuck
CONTROL LAKE 4 p^
SALMON LAKE - TBRD p p 4 KARTA LAKE KARTA RIVER Kasaan p BLACK BEAR LAKE 5 4 p 2 p Hollis pCraig p jk POINT AMARGURA p^ 4 Grindall Island State Marine P
p TWELVEMILE CABIN pp 1 TROLLERS COVE 1 0 ss 5 3 p p M ii ll e dd ii uu 2 e R aa jk 0 M p i l l e JOSEPHINE LAKE R a 2 d ii u u s p
3 0 0 M M i l e R a d d ii u s
KEGAN COVE 3 3 4 0 M M ii ll e e R a a d ii u s
050 100 200 Miles
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Craig Ranger District Transportation - Roads 0 10 20 40 Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service jk Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year I Miles Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. p Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year Juneau R.D. Saint James Bay State Marine P ii uu ss Saint James Bay State Marine P aa dd RR EAGLE GLACIER ee ii ll 5 MM 44 00 EarnestEarnest GrueningGruening StateState HistoriHistori Glacier Bay Natl Park and Pres p ss p uu ShelterShelter IslandIsland StateState MarineMarine PaPa d ii PETERSON LAKE a d Gustavus a p p 5 JOHN MUIR RR ee Juneau 5 ^ ii ll MM jk ss p 00 ii uu p 33 aa dd RR Wickershamp State Historic Site llee ii DAN MOLLER MM i u s aa d i u s FunterFunter BayBay StateStatep MarineMarine ParkPark 5 RR 050 100 200 00 ii ll ee 22 MM Miles p Elfin Cove p 00 ADMIRALTY COVE 11 5 NORTH YOUNG LAKE SOUTH YOUNG LAKE p 3 p jkp 3 ^Hoonahpp Oliver Inlet State Marine Park Whitestone Logging Camp p Game Creek EIGHT-FATHOM CABIN 4
pPelicanjk Cube Cove
LAKE KATHLEEN 3 GREENTOP 2
GOULDING LAKE EAST FLORENCE LAKE WHITE SULPHER SPRINGS 1 3 4 pTenakeejk Springs
MOSER ISLAND BIG SHAHEEN 2 5 LITTLE SHAHEEN 3 KOOK LAKE HASSELBORG CREEK 2 SPORTSMEN 2 2 1 5 5 0 Sitka JIMS LAKE M 2 i l e R a p EAST SITKOH LAKE a d WEST SITKOH LAKE ii u 3 p u s 2 p APPLETON COVE 4 jk Angoon SULOIA LAKE Big Bear-Baby Bear State Marine Park 1 LAKE EVA PIPER ISLAND 4 5
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office District Name Petersburg R.D. ^ 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Hoonah Ranger District Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year U.S. Forest Service Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. I Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Juneau R.D.
jk p pp LAUGHTON GLACIER 3 WP AND YR DENVER CABOOSE 3 p Skagway Klondikejkp Gold Rush NHP
Lutak
Haines p p jk
Chilkat State Park
050 100 200 Mud Bay Miles 5 0 M ii ll e R R a d ii u s Atlin Provincial Park
Chilkat Islands State Marine P
4 0 M i l e p i l e R a d ii u s
SullivanSullivan IslandIsland StateState MarineMarine PP
3 0 M ii ll e R a d ii u s
BERNERS BAY 5
2 0 M ii ll e R a d PointPoint BridgetBridget StateState ParkPark ii u s
SaintSaint JamesJames BayBay StateState MarineMarine PP
Glacier Bay Natl Park and Pres Juneau EAGLE GLACIER 5 1 0 M ii l e l e R WINDFALL LAKE a * d i 5 i u EarnestEarnest GrueningGruening StateState HistoriHistori s p p Shelter Island State Marine Pa Shelter Island State Marine PaPETERSON LAKE Gustavus p p 5 JOHN MUIR 5 ^ TAKU GLACIER jk 3 p
p WEST TURNER LAKE EAST TURNER LAKE Wickershamp State Historic Site 4 2
DAN MOLLER FunterFunter BayBay StateStatep MarineMarine ParkPark 5 Legend USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. Cabin Occupancy District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Juneau Ranger District Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service jk Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. I 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. Recreation Cabin Locations p Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year Juneau R.D. p jk p p^p p p jkp
1
FROSTY BAY CABIN EAGLE LAKE 2 1
REFLECTION LAKE ss d ii uu 3 aa d ANCHOR PASS RR ii ll ee 3 MM MCDONALD LAKE 00 4 p 55 d ii uu ss p R aa d BLIND PASS ii ll ee R p MM 3 44 00
PLENTY CUTTHROAT 2 d ii uu ss RR aa d ii ll ee Meyersp Chuck MM 33 00 p^ HELM CREEK l e R a d ii u s 4 MM ii l 00 PATCHING LAKE 4 22 JORDAN LAKE 3 SALMON LAKE - TBRD p MANZANITA LAKE 4 HECKMAN LAKE 3 p 4 KARTA LAKE KARTA RIVER 4 Kasaan 3 5 4 p WILSON VIEW Hollis 3 aa dd ii u s ELLA NARROWS CHECATS LAKE jk RR WILSON NARROWS p ll ee 2 1 ii 3 MM WINSTANLEY ISLAND Grindall Island State Marine P 4 00 WINSTANLEY LAKE CABIN 11 TotemTotem BightBight StateState HistoricalHistorical PP 1 FISH CREEK p 5 TROLLERS COVE pp 3 p^Ketchikanp jk Saxman p
JOSEPHINE LAKE
2 ALAVA BAY p 3 PHOCENA 3 Dall Bay State Marine Park jk Metlakatlap HUGH SMITH p 2
KEGAN COVE p HUMPBACK LAKE 3 3 2
050 100 200 Miles
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office Ketchikan- Misty Fjords Ranger District ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 Transportation - Roads 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. I Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Transportation - Airports and Runways Juneau R.D. Yakutat Ranger Office p p p ^ p p p kjp
p p pkj p p
p
Juneau Rangerp District p p p Juneau kj ^p p p p p p Hoonah Ranger District kjp p p ^pp p pkj
pkj
p p pkj p p kj Sitka Rangerp District ^pp pkjp p Petersburg Ranger District ^pkjp
Wrangell District Office ^kjpp p pp p p p p p p p p p p p Thorne pBay Ranger District ^p p p Craigp Ranger Districtp p p pkj ^p Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger District p ppkj p ^ p kjp pp
0 100 200 400 Miles
Legend USFS Recreation Cabins Hoonah R.D. Thorne Bay R.D. ^District Office District Name Juneau R.D. Wrangell R.D. Vicinity Map of USFS Ranger Districts Admiralty National Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. Yakutat R.D. 0 50 100 200 Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Monument Petersburg R.D. I Miles and Recreation Cabin Locations kj Transportation - Ferry Ports Craig R.D. Sitka R.D. p Transportation - Airports and Runways CHURCH BIGHT 3 p uu ss Hobart Bay R a d ii u s dd ii 4 0 M ii ll e RR aa ee II ll MM 00 55 p s ii ll e R a d ii u s 33 00 MM
R a d ii u s DEBOER LAKE i ll ee R 1 MM i 050 100 200 2 00 Miles 2 SPURT COVE SWAN LAKE WEST POINT 3 4 CASCADE CREEK 4 p 4 jk p PORTAGE BAY ii ll e R a d ii u s 3 MM 11 00
p SALT CHUCK EAST PETERSBURG LAKE 3 4 BIG JOHN BAY TOWERS ARM 3 1 jk Kupreanofp^ KADAKE BAY p 3 RAVENS ROOST 2 Petersburg MALLARD SLOUGH SHAKES SLOUGH #2 3 TWIN LAKES 3 SHAKES SLOUGH #1 3 3 MOUNT RYNDA DEVILS ELBOW CASTLE FLATS MOUNT FLEMER CASTLE RIVER BREILAND SLOUGH 3 3 4 3 4 4 LITTLE DRY ISLAND 1 2 SERGIEF ISLAND 2 1 BEECHER PASS Beecher Pass State Marine Park 1 GARNET LEDGE HARVEY LAKE 1 4 KAH SHEETS LAKE 2 2 4 KAH SHEETS BAY 3 p VIRGINIA LAKE pjk^ 4
Wrangell p BERG BAY MIDDLE RIDGE CABIN 4 Pointp Baker 4 Portp Protection
MARTEN LAKE SALMON BAY LAKE 1 RED BAY LAKE 3 p 3
Thoms Place ANAN BAY Thom'sThom's PlacePlace StateState MarineMarine ParkPark STEAMER BAY 3 4 Whale Pass
Legend Cabin Occupancy p USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office Petersburg Ranger District ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year 0 10 20 40 Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. I 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Transportation - Airports and Runways Juneau R.D. p p jkp^
Pointp Baker Wrangell 4 Portp Protection
MARTEN LAKE SALMON BAY LAKE 4 0 M ii ll e R 1 RED BAY LAKE R a d ii u s 3 3
HARDING RIVER Thoms Place ANAN BAY 3 STEAMER BAY Thom'sThom's PlacePlace StateState MarineMarine ParkPark 4 3 ANAN LAKE 3 0 M ii ll e Whale Pass p e R a d 1 SHIPLEY BAY ii u s 2 FROSTY BAY CABIN EAGLE LAKE 2 1
BARNES LAKE REFLECTION LAKE 2 p 3 2 0 M ANCHOR PASS Edna Bay M ii ll e R p SWEETWATER LAKE R a d 3 d ii u 050MCDONALD 100 LAKE 200 4 u s p s Miles 4p p BLIND PASS Naukati Bay 3 p HONKER LAKE 1 0 M PLENTY CUTTHROAT STANEY CREEK ii ll e 2 R R a 2 5 a d d i p i u s Meyersp Chuck
CONTROL LAKE 4 p^ HELM CREEK 4 PATCHING LAKE 4 JORDAN LAKE 3 SALMON LAKE - TBRD p 4 HECKMAN LAKE p 4 KARTA LAKE KARTA RIVER 4 Kasaan 3 p BLACK BEAR LAKE 5 4 p 2 p Hollis pCraig p jk POINT AMARGURA p^ 4 Grindall Island State Marine P TotemTotem BightBight StateState HistoricalHistorical PP p TWELVEMILE CABIN TROLLERS COVE pp 5 3 p^Ketchikanp jk Saxman p 5 5 0 JOSEPHINE LAKE 0 M 2 i l e p R PHOCENA a d 3 Dall Bay State Marine Park i u Dall Bay State Marine Park u s jk Metlakatlap
p p
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Prince of Wales Area/ Thorne Bay Ranger District Transportation - Roads 0 10 20 40 Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service jk Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year I Miles Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations p Transportation - Airports and Runways Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year Juneau R.D. p
jkp p
pjk
2
GOULDING LAKE EAST FLORENCE LAKE WHITE SULPHER SPRINGS 1 3 4 pTenakeejk Springs
MOSER ISLAND 2 5 LITTLE SHAHEEN 3 KOOK LAKE
2 SPORTSMEN 2 ss 1 ii uu aa dd JIMS LAKE RR 2 ee ii ll MM p EAST SITKOH LAKE ss WEST SITKOH LAKE p 00 uu 3 55 dd ii 2 p aa APPLETON COVE R jk R 4 llee Angoon ii SULOIA LAKE MM Big Bear-Baby Bear State Marine Park 1 LAKE EVA PIPER ISLAND 00 4 44 5
ss iiuu dd aa RR Sitka ee ALLAN POINT ll ii 5 MM
NORTH BEACH 00 SHELIKOF 4 3 3 4 BRENTS BEACH Magoun Islands State Marine Pa5 jk Old Sitka State Historical Par
BARANOF LAKE p
2 FREDS CREEK 2 5 2 0 0 pSitkap^ Natl Hist Park
MM 1 SAMSING COVE ii 0 l 5 p e M SALMON LAKE - SITKA p e i i l REDOUBT LAKE 4 R e R 3 a a d ii u d u s KANGA BAY i p i u 4 s SecuritySecurity BayBay StateState MarineMarine ParkPark
SEVENFATHOM BAY 4
AVOSS LAKE 1
DAVIDOF LAKE 050 100 200 1 Miles PLOTNIKOF LAKE 2
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office Sitka Ranger District ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year 0 10 20 40 Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year U.S. Forest Service k Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. Miles j 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year I Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. Recreation Cabin Locations Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Juneau R.D.
p
p p jkp^
Pointp Baker Wrangell 4 Portp Protection
MARTEN LAKE SALMON BAY LAKE i l e R a d i u RED BAY LAKE 4 0 M i l e R a d i u s 1 3 3
HARDING RIVER Thoms Place ANAN BAY 3 Thom's Place State Marine Park STEAMER BAY Thom's Place State Marine Park 4 3 3 0 M ANAN LAKE Whale Pass p M ii ll e 1 SHIPLEY BAY R a d 2 d ii u u s FROSTY BAY CABIN EAGLE LAKE 2 1
BARNES LAKE REFLECTION LAKE 2 p 3 2 0 M ii ll e R ANCHOR PASS Edna Bay 2 0 R a d ii u s p SWEETWATER LAKE 3 050 100 200 p 4 MCDONALD LAKE p4 Miles p BLIND PASS Naukati Bay 3 p HONKER LAKE 1 0 M PLENTY CUTTHROAT STANEY CREEK ii ll e 2 R a 2 5 a d p i u s Meyersp Chuck
CONTROL LAKE 4 p^ HELM CREEK 4 PATCHING LAKE 4 p JORDAN LAKE 3 SALMON LAKE - TBRD 4 HECKMAN LAKE p 4 4 KARTA LAKE KARTA RIVER 3 Kasaan p BLACK BEAR LAKE 5 4 p 2 p Hollis pCraig p jk POINT AMARGURA p^ 4 Grindall Island State Marine P TotemTotem BightBight StateState HistoricalHistorical PP p TWELVEMILE CABIN TROLLERS COVE pp 5 3 p^Ketchikanp jk Saxman 5 p 5 0 0 M JOSEPHINE LAKE i 2 l e R p a PHOCENA d i u 3 u s Dall Bay State Marine Park jk Metlakatlap
p p
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Thorne Bay Ranger District Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service jk Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year I Miles Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Recreation Cabin Locations p Transportation - Airports and Runways Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year Juneau R.D. p
DEBOER LAKE
1 5 0 SPURT COVE 0 SWAN LAKE M 4 0 M M i WEST POINT 3 ii l l e 4 l e R e CASCADE CREEK R a d R 4 d ii u a 4 u s d i PORTAGE BAY i u s 3 3 0 M i i ll e R a d SALT CHUCK EAST PETERSBURG LAKE d ii u s 3 4 TOWERS ARM 1 jk Kupreanofp^p RAVENS ROOST 2 2 0 M ii ll e R a d i 2 i u s Petersburg MALLARD SLOUGH SHAKES SLOUGH #1 3 TWIN LAKES 3 3 3 MOUNT RYNDA
CASTLE RIVER CASTLE FLATS MOUNT FLEMER BREILAND SLOUGH 3 4 4 LITTLE DRY ISLAND 3 4 BINKLEY SLOUGH 1 0 M i 2 SERGIEF ISLAND i ll e 2 1 1 R BEECHER PASS Beecher Pass State Marine Park R Beecher Pass State Marine Park 1 GARNET LEDGE a HARVEY LAKE 1 d 4 i KAH SHEETS LAKE 2 i u 2 s 4 KAH SHEETS BAY 3 p VIRGINIA LAKE pjk^ 4
Wrangell
BERG BAY p MIDDLE RIDGE CABIN 4 p 4
MARTEN LAKE
SALMON BAY LAKE RED BAY LAKE 1 3 3
HARDING RIVER Thoms Place ANAN BAY 3 Thom's Place State Marine Park STEAMER BAY Thom's Place State Marine Park 4 3 ANAN LAKE
Whale Pass p 1 SHIPLEY BAY
2 FROSTY BAY CABIN EAGLE LAKE
2 1
BARNES LAKE REFLECTION LAKE p 2 p 3 ANCHOR PASS p SWEETWATER LAKE 3 MCDONALD LAKE p 4 4p p BLIND PASS
050 100 200 Naukati Bay 3 Miles p HONKER LAKE PLENTY CUTTHROAT STANEY CREEK 5 2 2
Legend Cabin Occupancy p USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year Wrangell Ranger District Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 0 10 20 40 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year p Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year I Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. Recreation Cabin Locations Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Juneau R.D. p^
p
p
pp p Kluane National Park Reserve
5 0 4 4 0 M M i 3 M i l 0 i l e M i e l e R R R R a R a a a a d d d d d i 2 0 i u i i u M ii l u s u u l e s s R a s d i u s
1 0 M i i ll e R a d i u SITUK LAKE u s s 2
p RAVEN CABIN ^ 4pEAGLE CABIN Yakutat 4 p
LOWER DANGEROUS RIVERpMIDDLE DANGEROUS RIVERp 1 1
ITALIO RIVER 4
TANIS MESA N/S
SQUARE LAKE p2 1 ALSEK RIVER 3p
Glacier Bay Natl Park and Pres p
050 100 200 Miles
Legend Cabin Occupancy USFS Recreation Cabins Ketchikan-Misty Fiords R.D. District Office Yakutat Ranger District ^ District Name Petersburg R.D. 1 - Under 15 Nights per Year 0 10 20 40 Transportation - Roads Admiralty National Sitka R.D. 2 - 15 to 29 Nights per Year Admiralty National Monument Thorne Bay R.D. U.S. Forest Service Transportation - Ferry Ports 3 - 30 to 59 Nights per Year Miles jk Craig R.D. Wrangell R.D. I 4 - 60 to 119 Nights per Year Hoonah R.D. Yakutat R.D. Recreation Cabin Locations Transportation - Airports and Runways 5 - 120 Nights and Over per Year p Juneau R.D.