Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2910lMJ&~~& c ~00&®©@ Sus~cna Joint Venture Document Number ~· ., --29 lO rJ tJ r:. ' l Please Return To - DOt;• JMJ:rwr C,..'!j~~~,.·,-L. M\ . .L •• _c,._ I IJh f t1U SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LODGE OPERATOR SURVEY REPORT Report by Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power Authority Final Report June 1985 Docuaent No.. 2910 • ~J .... -"J t • l 1. ' J f : i_._ L L G{J£[ffi~~ c f§fiD£®@@ SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE ===========~~:----~=~==================================================~~==== 711 H STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 TEL (907) 272 5585 Mr. James B. Dischinger Prcject lfanager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 June 21, 1985 1.8.2/4.5.3 CONFIDENTIAL: PRIVILEGED WORK PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION; RESTRICTED DJSTRJEUTION -·-· Subject: Susi.tna Jlydroel~ectric Project Lod.ge Operator Survey Report • 1.. • Dear Mr. D~i.St;,q'J~ng~r: We have encloa·ed a draft final version of the subject report for your review and a.pJ•roval. In FY86 this report: will become a chapter in the Special Populattions Report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. James Thrall of our staff. mb Enc: a~ noted cc w/ En(;.~ w/o Enc: 426161/6 P. Berpann, HE J>. 0...\'lla·r HE J. Thra.ll, HE W. E. Larso Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Section/Title -- 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2~0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 DELINEATION OF TliE SURVEY AREA 2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ALL LODGES IN THE SURVEY AREA 2.3 DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE ~~ SURVEY 'TYPE 2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 2.5 INTERVIEWS WITH LODGE OPERATORS 2. 6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND REPORT PREPARATION 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 3.1 HISTORY OF LODGE OWNERSHIP AND OWNER/OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS 3.2 FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 3.3 CUSTOMERS AND THEIR USE OF THE PROJECT 3.4 SUM:t-f.ARY REFERENCES APPENDIX A Lodges Identified in the Survey Area APPENDIX B Sample Questionnaire 423174 850607 . 1. Page ] 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 10 10 11 13 18 22 24 r , --J Number Figure 2-1 [ ' ' Figure 2-2 Table 3-1 f.-..• ;..·1 ~-'1~· J Jr;;o;o J ._,~ 1 ~ t 423174 850607 lc:<l LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Title Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Resource Use and Survey Areas, Lodge Operator Survey Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Subunits of Resource Use Area Overnight Guests at Lodges by Activities . . ~~ Page 3 7 15 1 j 1 1 I i t ,1' p' ~ t r t ~ ' ... ' {I l I,, ~~ ~ {~ '· ! t I . ~-.... ~ ·" t._ ~ 'k ".:Jr .. _.·a :r.. .. ..:. ~-~:" ~ 4 I "·--" p, ~Y- t.,;, ';',1 L·.:.'l, ""·"' ~=~::# t::l-'<1 1.0 INTiODUCTIOH Lodge operators coanprise a special population/ occupation group potentially affected by the Sueitna Hydroelectric Project. This study, aimed at gathering informatit:ln about lodge operators and lodge operations that rely on the area in the vicinity of the pl"opoaed dams and access routes, has three objectives. The first objective is to develop an inventory and profile of lodge operators and lodge operations that rely in some way on the natural resources of: the study's resource use area. The second objective is to determine the economic importance of the lodge operations to t:he lodge owners., This prov:tdes a baseline for the numbers and character of the operations that mi11hf.: be affected by the Susitna Project. The finsl objective ia to obt~&in information from the lodge operators about hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities in the resource use area to supplement and co.rroborate terrestrial, aquatic, and recreation data for the area. To accomplis1h these objectives, appropriate lodge operators were contacted and intarviewed face-to-face during a ten-day period from August 23 to September 1, 15184. The definitiou of a :Lodge for the purposes of the study was as follows: any lpdging that offered indoor overnight accommodations where the owner/operator had sc~me knowledge of whether and where overnight customers hunted, fished, or x•ec~eated in the resource use area. This definition allowed the greatest number of loc.igings to be included in the study where the information obtaiii~d from the lodge operator most adequately addressed 2ll thre:e study object:ives. Since tilere is an ove1!."lap amtJng people who stay at lodges and who h'unt. and fi.sh with guides, this study focused on overnight guests who wert".! not guided. Information about guests who are guided in their recri:!ational activities is covered by the Guide Survey Report (1985). Ad~itionally, people who use air taxis to access the resource use area are accounted for in the Air Taxi Survey Report (1985). 423174 850618 1 •· ' 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The study approach to survey lodge operators included a number of steps. These steps, outlined here and described in detail below, are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 .. Delineation of the Survey Area Ide:~1tification of All Lodges in the Survey Area Det,ermination of a Sample Size and Survey Type Development of the Questionnaire Interviews with Lodge Operators Analysis of Results and Report Preparation 2.1 DELINEATION OF THE SURVEY AREA The most important criteria for establishing the limits of the survey area was the proximity of lodges to the proposed dam and access road locations (project sites). Relatively direct access to the area surrounding these sites via roadways or waterways by potential resource users from the lodges defined the limits for including lodges in the survey. The lodges along the Denali Highway (from Cantwell to Paxson north of the project sites) were included because the Denali Highway provides important roadway access to the resource use area as outlined in Figure 2-le Lodges in Paxson and around Lake Louise (off the Glenn Highway) were also included because of the relatively easy roadway access via the Denali Highway (for Paxson) and direct waterway access to the Susitna River via Lake Louise and Susitna and Tyone Lakes (for Lake Louise). To the west of the project sites, lodges from Healy south to the Talkeetna Spur Road on the Parks Highway were included; again, because of direct roadway access to the Denali Highway and direct waterway access to the Susitna River where the river passes under the Parks Highway at Milepost 104 and at boat launches in Talkeetna. Also, remote, fly-in lodges found within the boundaries of the 4-23174 850607 2 f t. .• z • • c.o z • ,., (C) z • N (Q SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RESOURCE USE AND SURVEY AREAS LODGE OPERATOR SUR·VEY ~-· ... \ ' ·= ,o ,ca .~ \S 1;!. , ".) ~~ -\ . l ' \ I .- t I . ·------~~ : ,..,·~.,..ai .r, _LJ:GEND ,~-cf ~\~ .-" . t ~. # ~qj : ~ ... --.-....... -~~ \:f : . . . . . . • . . . --· 0 40 80 MILES ~Z~:~~~~;J RESOURC;E USE AREA SCALE ~~ ~~1!!~ .... 1!_:4-al~_.-.;.=.=.=.=rrCJ.' lllltttllta SURVEY AREAS FIGIJRF-2""1 061285 1 \ ll SusitDta Hydroelectric P:rojece Sltudy area ~~~e included. Lodges along the Gteth1 1Iigh11141 to the eauth of !;he l:'esourc~ use at""e~ ~ere ~JCcluded from the study because it is unlikely that customers -stould use these lodges to stage Froui these l~dg~s it: rmp . .tire~ t.~av.el of grnat dis t4t~ces alcmg the roadways or across wilderness a.rems t;o mccess the resource use area. Figure 2-1 shows the geogriphica.l relatio}j\ships of the roads and water..rays to the resource use area. 2. 2 IDENTIFICATION OF ALl, LODGES IN THE SURVEY AREA The Milepost (1984) traVf!l guide for Alaska and Western Canada was the main source of inform.atiou. used to compile the directory of lodges in the survey area. This list was cross-refe~e~ced with and expanded using information from the Anchorage and Mat-Su V~lley visitor~' guides (1984) and from telephone direct·~rieo ( 1984) e l:he final list of lodges, drawn from secondary sources, included what facili.ties were available and what services I (i.e., guiding) were offered in conju111ction with the lodges, the names of the owners or operators, the highway ruile where the lodge was located, and the telephone numbet" <)r adldress of the lodge. In all, there were 38 lodges (including four identi.fied during the fieldwoZ"k) included in the survey area (see Appendix A). 2. 3 DETERMINATION OF SAMP~~ SIZE AND SURVE~Y TYPE -· All lodge operators associated with tbg 38 lodges identified in Step 2 were contacted. Howevex·, screening questions were used to dE!termine whether a full interview was warranted since tne focus of the sti.Idy was on 1) lodge.s that derivf! economic beneM!its from custoulElrs or services that make use of the resource use area, and 2) lodge opE~l.'ators who are aware of and can describe the resource use area activitie~u pursued by thelir customers. If the lodge operator had some knowledge of where overnight customers 4~a3174 850618 4 t t . recreated and whether that recreation took place in the resource use area (as outlined in Figure 2-1), then a full interview was conducted. Otherwise, a notation was made that no significant; economic b~nefit~ t¥Qlll customers using the resource use area could be identified and the interview was stopped. This screening process was selected for two reasons. First~ general information suggested that wilderness-oriented lodges along the Denali Highway and in remote locations (accessible onl~ by air) in the project area wert'! the most likely to have customers who put·sued recreational activities in the resourc~ use area. Therefore, it was assumed that the lodge operators associated with those lodges could provide the most detailed information necessary to meet the objectives of the study and that it was desirable to seek their input. Second, it was expected that many lodge operations (particularly those located along major tourist routes where moat customers would likely be tourists simply passing thrc>ugh the area) did not derive economic b~nefits from customer use of the resource use area and therefore, those lodge operators would be un.able to meaningfully contribute to the survey. .. A face-to-face interview approach was chosen because c>f the detailed nature of the information required to meet the objectives of .the study. This technique was feasible because the estimated number of lodges with customers using the resource use area was small. 2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE A questionnaire (see Appendix B) was prepared to serve as a guide in the face-to-face interviews. The following topics were discussed by representatives of the Susitna Project's terrestrial, aquatic, recreation, and socioeconomic subtasks before specific questions were formulated: 1. Demographic characteristics of lodge operators 2. Description of lodge facilities and activities 423174 850618 5 r . :1 ~ . I \\ ~.: ··'If 3 • 4. Numbers and characteristics of customers/guests Overnignt guests' activities in the resource use area 5. Expectations of lodge owners about future plans for their lodges (e.g., sell, expand) Internal review of the questions insured that the collected data would be appropriate for future analyses. In the questionnaire, questions were grouped into thre~~ categories: 1) history of lodge ownership and inform{!.tion about the owner/operator, 2) facilities and operations of the lodge, and 3) eustomers and their use of the resource use area. To aid lodge operators in identifying resource use by customers, an acetate overlay was developed for a USGS topographic map of the Susitna River Basin. The overlay outlined the resource use area and divided it into 15 subunits along topographic features (see Figure 2-2). The number and location of the areal units were based on kno~1ledge of big game movements, prel~ent use patterns, and the location of proposed project facilities. The units were numbered so that answers to recreational activity/resource use questions could be linked to a numbered area rather than to an exact place. This allowed lodge operators (who might also be guides) to protect the exact location of their hunting or fishing activity while still providing useful information for the study. 2.5 INTERVIEWS WITH LODGE OPERATORS Interviews were conducted by a single interviewer over a 10-day period from August 23 to September 1, 1984. During that time, an attempt was made to contact the owner/operator of each of the 38 lodges in the survey ar~a. The following is a summary of contacts with mmers/operators of the l• .. ,dges. o Eleven full interviews were completed where the lodge operator had knowledge of customers' activities in the resource use area. 423174 850607 6 • z • N «D z ••• ... • .. .. •• •• .. •• .. ... •• •• •• r r.~ r r r r r ~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUBUNITS OF RESOURCE US·E AREA ' : \ .. •• •• .,,. o• •• •• •• •• •• ... I " • ' ... , ' '---· ,,, . Pai;or•'' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' ' • \ ' ~ ' I ' " ' y,.,.,. c, ••• \ #' ' , \ I --' 6 I ',~--------e;. . -. . ,. ' . -__ C> .. I • ,, . I : • • 0 • • • • • • • • 0 • ...... ~--·----·-·-··· ~ 0 • • II , : z 'ANCHORAGE i • • • ~s·~ 2~'~w--'-~~~~~~------J----~-=~~·~·L-~~~----F--~~.~~--.-d 150 1 w 14-8 1 w 148 w lEGEND f}'---·· f .. CD RESOURCE USE AREA. NUMBER DEt40TES SUBUNIT 0 40 .80 MILElS SCALE lliiii=·--~~~~~~----! r:1ni1RF ?-? I L L l L L L l l 0 0 0 0 0 Elev~n lodge qperators had no knowledge of customers going into tb~ ~e~ource use area while staying at the lodge and felt that if auy r.:ustome?s did~ the number was extremely small. Otu! lodge was no longer operating and six lodges were not rent io.g cabins/rooms at the time of the survey. Four remote lodges were strictly associated with guiding businesses and therefore w~re included in the study of guides and guide business,es. Three lodges identified through secondary sources either no longer existed or could not be found by the name or location listed in the reference materials~ One remote lodge had been leased out for Susitna project-related studies for the last five years, and therefore., the Ow"tler could not contribute information which would help meet the study's objectives. One lodge owner along the Denali Highway refused to participate in the survey. The 11 full interviews took from one to four hours to com1'llete de·pending on the extent of the knowledge lodge operators had about customers' acti- vities. 2.6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND REPOR! PREPARATION ~--~ The resule.s of the 11 full interviews were compiled and co•ilpared. The analysis focused on the identification of qualitative similarities and differences among responses. The description of results found in this report presents rsngea of responnJes w:lere there were extensive variations among responses and tallies where similar responses could be grouped 423174 850618 8 L l. ~ .. ~ l l l . ~ ~ l L L l L1 "' r l ~~ ~ '" ~ ~ together. Unusual or isolated responses highlight the differences in the character of the lodges included in the study, The results provide baseline information about lodges that could pot'entLally be affected by the Sueit:na Hydroelectric Project. Conclusions about the extent to which these lodges could be affected are not included here. Such information will be contained in a forthcoming report on special populations. 423174 9 850618 L L 3.0 DESCRIPTION Ol IESULTS This section presents baseline information for the 11 full interviews where the operator had information about customer use af the resource use area. Those lodges were located throughout the survey area. Four were along the Denali Highwayt three were in and around Cantwell; two were in Talkeetna; and two were located at Lake Louise. 3.1 HISTORY OF LODGE Ow~RSHIP AND OWNER/OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS ---------------~~~----~--------~---~~~~~~~--~----------- The oldest. of the 11 lodges l.n the survey was built in 1917 as a residt=nce and rem.odeled in 1930 &s a roadhouse. Four were built in the late 1940's . and 1950's; five others were constructed after 1960. The construction date of one lodge was unknown. Three lodges were owned by the original builders; the oldest of these was coustructed in 1957. Tbe remaining lodges had changed hands an average of four times; one, as many as eight times. Despite the frequency 0f I turnou,rer, the everage and median number of years present owners owned their lodge!J were 12 and 8 ye~rs, respectively. Present owners ope,:ated 9 of the 11 ].edges while 1 was run by a son leasing his father's interest and anoth"r, by a hired manager. Only two lodge owners/operators declared places of residenc~ different from the locations of their lodges. One of the~e, an operator, came from Petersburg, Alaska; the ~econd, an owner, considered himself in transit without an official residence because he worked seasonally on the North Slope and elsewhere. To assess a family's involvement with the lodge, owners/operat~rs were asked what other household members were involved with lodge activities. Five had no other family members involved while five had spouses as co-owners and/or co-managers. At the oldest family-owned and operated lodge, the husband and 423174 850618 10 i l i 11 ~ r 1 i.L wife were ass1isted by three children who did kitchen, domestic, and outside chores a 3.2 FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS These questions focused on lodge capacity and operating period, facilities and services associated with the lodge, number of employees, and how dependent the owner/operator was on lodge business as a aourc:e of income. The characters and offerings of the lodges were extremely 117aried. At one extreme, a lodge consisted of one cabin and rental roo~s with a capacity for (6even persons in addition to RV hook-ups, a laundromat :• and hardware supplies. At the other extreme, one lodge had seven cabins and a bunkhouse with a total capacity of 58 persons and included a lounge, bar, restaurant, liquor store! and polling place while also selling boat and aviation gasoline. Tile average capacity for all 11 lodges was 30 persons and typical. facilities and services were lounges, bars, and restaurants. Additional facilities a11d services included airstrips (at four lodges), boat docks (at three lodges), gas stations (at three lodges), and a bake1~y. I The three lodges with docks and two others that did not provide dock, had an average of three boats each, available to customers. The boats were m..'inly riverboat:.B a11d airboats of aluminum and fiberglass construction. At least two boats did not have motors and were used for lake fishing. To asses·s th1e full range of the services that the lodges provided, ownelrs were asked if' guide, air taxi or boating services were affiliated with their lodges. One lodge offered all three services plus horseback riding stables; another offered &ir taxiing and fishing. Finally, each of three lodges had one of the following; guiding, boating or rafting services. The p~rmanence of the lodge businesses and ownership was addressed by questions on plans for expansion and plans to sell. Five lodge owners had plans for facility expansion. The types of expe.nsi.on planned ranged from 423174 850618 ll t L, ~. ,' L t: f L lodge (cafe, lounge, bar) enlargement a.nd cabin additions, to the install,.ation of a new marina, sauna, and hot tub. According to persons interviewed, the timing of this expansion depended on many factors.. One lodge was continually expanding; another planned to expand in 1985. Two owners expected to build as demand increased and one owner stated that: expansion was dependent on the outcome of Susitna Project plans. Four lodge owners bad plans to sell and get out of the lodge business. These owners cited retirement and problems with attracting new business ~s reasons for selling their lodges. Questions about the amount of time the owners/operators spend on lodge business, opening and closing dates for the lodge a, numbers of employees, and the percent of an owner•s total income derived from the business addressed tue issue of economic dependence on and benefits from lodge operations.. :':he eight lodges located on the Parks and Richardson/Denali Highways, in Talkeetna, and at Lake Louise wer·e open year-round. The three lodges that closed during the winter were located along the Denali Highway which is not maintained during winter. Here, two owners arrived as much as two weeks before opening (the end of ~lay and beginning of June) to make I preparations. Another owner had no set opening dates, but generally opened the lodge the day he arrived. In 198l~o, the lodge opened in April. All three Denali High~ay lodge owners stayed for approximately two weeks in late September-early Octobar to shut down operations. The number of persons employed by the lodges varied greatly. For example, one Denali Highway lodge had t.\o employees while another had 10 full-time summer and 1 full-time year-round employees. Together, the ll lodges employed 24 persons full-time year-round, 28 persons full-time seasonal, and 4 persons part._time seasonal. Most h.ad some cOtDbination of full-and part- time workers. OWners/ operators and their family members were not ir1cluded in the employee count. Owners/operators were asked what percentage of their time was spent on lodge business in one year a 423174 850618 Six owners of the lodges which were open all year 12 I L L 1 L t L b .. ! t I \: K answered 100 percent year-round; two others answered 10 and 80 percent. The responses; from the owners of the th:r.ee seasonal lodges were 100 percent for five months, 100 percent for four months (of combined lodge and hunting operations), and 70 percent averaged for the year. With re·gard to the pf!rcent of the o.mer' ~1 total income that came solely from lodge C.)perations (nc't including guiding, air taxiing or boating services), five o,wners respond,ed 100 percent. Ot:hers estimated 8, 10~ 60, and 90 perceo.ts; one did not know; and one refused to answer. Jobs such as postmclster/utilities manager, heavy· equipment operator, guide, and general contr.actor provided additional sources of income as did retirement pensions. 3.3 CUSTOMERS AND TIIEIR USE OF THE RESOURCE USE AREA Questions regarding customers and their use of the resource use area pert.ained only t;o customers who were overnight guests at the lodges. Qver:night guests who used the resource use area provided the ].ink between ~be resource use area and the businese success of the area lodges (as I opposed to customers who only stopped for food and/or gas.) Furthermore, it was assumed that lodge owners would be more likely to know if the overnight guests (es:pecially those who returned year after year) recreated in the resource u~e area, what activities they pursued, and where, since owners/ operators often socialized with the overni,ght guest:s in community dining rOOtii;S and lounges a !.,odg~e owners/operators were ask.ed to esti~"""lte the number of overnight cust:omers they had in 1984 and their a'Terag lenl~th of stay. Three owners did not know and could not provide estimates. A fourth owner said the lodge was 100 percent full during that summer with workers constructing the Intt!rtie traaumi.ssion line. A fifth owner/ operator indicated the lodge was o~ll tc drop-in guests, but at the same time, the lodge was near to Ot' at capa.cLty with Intertie workers. Year-round estimates were set at 100, 350, 630 1, 1,200, and 3, 725 guests by the remaining five owners. The 11th ownet· 423174 85(JI~H8 13 [ l L t r t I 1,: \' ' ~ /, \: j {. ! J, L L had not owned the lodge for a full year, so estimated 1,600 guests for the 10 months they had been in operation. Those owners that provided number estimates differed as to whether the number was typical fo1r all years. One owner of a Denali Highway lodge said the number was "way down. 11 Three felt the numbers were typica 1, although one owner qualified hi.s re~ponse by saying it was only typical since 1971 when the Parks Highway wras built and his business dropped by 40 percent as tourists and others bega11 using that highway instead of the Denali Highway. Two other owners said the numbers were increasing. For all lodges, the average length of a guE~St! 1 s stay was one to two nights. When asked to categorize overnight guests according to the activities they pursued, lodge owners provided a -"ide range of percentages for numerous categories. in Table 3-1. The percentages assigned to discrete categories are presented Table 3-1 shows that SQ to 90 percent of the overnight guests (who were not guided) at 8 t:~f the 11 lodges were touring, sightseeing, photographing I and/or bird watching. Government workers comprised the greatest percentage of guests (50%) at another lodge in Talkeetna. The majority (60%) of the guests at a lodge on the Denali Highway were fishing. A lodge on the Pat<ks Highway had guests fairly evenly distributed among construction workers (20%) 9 rafters/ canoeists (25%), tourists (30%), and hunte,rs/ fishermen (25%). To get an idea of the permanent residences of the different categories of guests (as defined by ~heir activities), owners were asked to identify the residences of their guests. For example, if an owner responded that 20 percent of the lodge's guests were hunters, the owner was asked to estimate what percen,tages of these hunters were from Alaska, the Lower 48 or from forei&n countries. Estimating residence was .Jifficult for all owners,. Two owners could not estimaee residences for any c~tegories of guests. Of the nine owners who estimated the residences af hunters who stayed at the lodges, 423174 14 850618 l l f f l .. [ l t t t ' 1 ~. N:riVrr! Tab1e 3-1 OVEm«OO QJESTS A'l: I.aXZS BY ACl'IVI'I'IES (Pe!:cent) - ILDF-3 - Lake Lcci.se Tallceetna Parks Hi pay Denali Highway 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lblting 20 1 8 5 5 5 --:ll ~ I Fishing ~ 5 20 15 35 5 10 -60 Touring 40 -40 30 -33 sd!J sd!J 1rYY Si31tseeing 10 20 so -60 Rafting/Caooeing --1 5 -25 ---7ri!l laY Picture Tak.{ng -1 3 - - 10 33!1 - Bird Watching --2 - - 20 - Cross-comtty Skiing -24 2) - f -- ---- SrQimbiling ----I -- - --- qMushing ---------- I Working Miners ------... -33 . CcT.AStructioo Wo·.rkers ------20 - - Gr-pemnent Workers ---50 ----- -"-1 100 1UrAtS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 - Source: Ha~--Ebasco 1985. lodge Operator Survery IBta. 423174 850607 Percentage does not total 100 dte to ra.nding. !I Percentage represents ~ canbinatioo of sightseeing, picture taking, and bird wtching. 'El Percentage represents a canbination of touring and si~tseeing. Ef Percentage represent5 a caubination of touring, rafting/canoeing, picture taking, and bird watching. Ef Percentage represents a canbination of hunting and fishing. !I Percentage reprt--::-_;.~ts a canbinatial of sightseeing, picture taking, cmd bird watching. ~ Percentage represents a ccmbinatioo of picture taking, bird watching, cross-comtry skiing, SOOWIJX)bilin.g, and dog ll1l8hing. 15 11 2 25 50 - - ~ - - - 100 t t r ,. f I ! 1 f I !• only three had non-Alaskan unguided hunters as guests and nearly all of these were from the Lower 48. Germans ·were noted as the few hunters who came from abroad. (See the Guide Sur,Tey Report, Harza-Ebasco 1985 for details on hunters who were guided). Wit:h regard to f.ishermen, three owners did not know the residences of fishermen or had only Alaskans fishermen stayed at their lodges. as guests. Six owners said non-Alaskan Again, most of these were from the Lower 48; only one lodge had international fishermen. Where the remaining categories of guests were concerned, one lodge in the survey had rafters/canoeists from the Lower 48 and another had cross-country skiers from the Lower 48. The majority of rafters/canoeists and cross- country skiers were from Alaska. Non-Alaskan photographers, bird watchers, sightseers and tourists also stayed at eight different lodges. Four owners specified that they had a few international guests . pursu~ng activities .. For example, Germans and English came to bird watch. French, German and Japanese people came to climb and a variety of international peoples including Australians and Germans came as tourists. When asked what percent of the lodges' overnight guests used the Susitna. River, owners responded as follows: two did not know; three said none; one estimated 3 percent; one estimated 5 percent; two estimated 10 percent; on1a estimated 27 percent; and one estimated 60 percent. The two lodges with the greatest percentages wer'e located in Talkeetna and at Lake Louise. Owners responded that the activities most frequently pursued at the Sueitna River were hunting and fishing, although, other activities like hiking along the riverbank and sightseeing were mentioned. Most of those who used the Susitna River obtained access by boat, but a few used planes, snowmobiles, ATVs or came in by foot. These sportsmen were reported to get to the river along four access routes. These were, by the Mat-Su Borough boat landing in Talkeetna, by the Denali Highway Bridge across the Susitna River at Milepost 79, by walking down the railroad tracks 423174 850607 16 ··r' l ~ . I ., f f. I ~ through Chulitna Pl!lSS, and by boating up the Tyone River. Hunters vere reported mast ofte11 to hunt for moose, but black bear, brown bear, and caribou were also mentioned. ~ .. ishermen were reported to fish in the tributaries of thee Susitna for grayling, salmon, rainbow trout, and whitefish. Lodge owners were asked two other specific: questions about the Susitna River. The first wns whether they knew of navigational problems that guests encountered and, th1! se.cond was t."ilether they knew of winter river uae. One owner cited occacic,nal sandbars as a problem on the Susitna. Two other owners cited the density of weeds in Tyone Lake and unspecified obstructions in the channel between Lake Louise and Lake Susitna enroute to the Susitna River as problema. Seven lodge owners mentioned winter ri.ver uses. These uses, which all received equal attention, were snowmobiling, trapping, cross-country skiing, dog mushing, and ice fishing. In addition, to ge~t a broader picture of the use of the entire resource use area, lodge owt1ers were asked to point out the numbered subunits on the map where guests were known to recreate. Subunit 1, which is a corridor I along the Denali Highway, was mentioned more than twice as often as the other individual subunits 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 13. Then, they were asked what they knew about hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities in the resource use area by anyone from their regions. The following summarizes t:.he responses: 1. 2. 3. 423174 850618 There is considerable hunting along the MacLaren River drainage. There is considerable activity at Deadman, Snodgrass, Butte, and Big Lakes; some fly-in activity from Anchorage at Deadman Lake; ATV' use (in summer) in su:bunits 1, 3, 4, and a little in subunit s. Photography is growing as an activity in the project area and more locals are using the areaa 17 r l I I 1 l [ t r 4. 5. 6. Ptalrmigan hunting occur::. in sttlbuni ts 7 and 1.3. Amateur movie-ol!aking hau been introduced to the area. Chu.nilna Creek (up the 'll:alkeEttna RivE!r in subunit 13) is a very popular fishing spot. 3.4 SUMMARY It is difficult to generalize inf•Jrmation about 1:he 11 lodges in the survey area because chey are located i1:1 different res;ions, they offered varied facilities and services, and they attracted or caJ~ered to people with a wide variety of interests or needs. About half of the lodges were built in 1the 1950au or before; the other half were not built until after 1960. ThretS! lodges were owned by the original builders; the remaining ones changed hattds as many as eight times. All but one were operated by the present: owne1~s or their family members and all owners but two declared their lodg,es as their place of residence. I .. With regard to facilities and services, one lodge with a capacity of seven persons provided RV hookups, a l~~undramat, and a hardware store. Another lodge with cabins for 58 persons had a liquor store, restaurant, polling place, and boats for rent. In. addition, five lodges offered or were associated with air taxis, or hunting, fishing and/or boating guide serv~.ces. Eight. lodges were open year-round. The three that: closed during the winter are located along the Denali Highway. At thte Denali Highway lodges, only two owners arrived early to prepare for the summer while three stayed for .about two weeks after the season to secure the lodges for the winter. Given the wide r.·ange in f.;tcilities and servic:es offered by the 11 lodges, it was not surprising that there was also a great range in the 'Q.utnber of 4:t3174 8!)0618 18 r r I I I I I ' ,. I " r· employees each lodge hired. One lodge had no employees, another had 10 full-time summer people and 1 full-time year-round employee. All eleven lodges together employ 2l!-full-time year-round, 28 full-t:ime seasonal, and four part-time seasonal employees. At the same time, six owners themselves spent 100 percent of their time year-round on their businesses, two others spent 10 to 80 percent of their time year-round on the businesses. The owners of the three seasonal lodges spent 33 to 70 percent of their time for a year on their lodge businesses. The percent of the owners' incomes that came from, their businesses also varied. Five owners indicated 100 percent of their incomes came from the lodges; other owners indicated a range from 8 to 90 percent. Two lodges were full or nearly full in 1984. with workers constructing the Intertie transmission line. The number of guests that three other lodges had in 1984 could not be estimated by the Oi7ners. Of the owners who could estima.te numbers of gue~t:s, estimates ranged from 100 persons to 3, 725 persons for 1984, and the average length of stay was one to two nights. The majority of the people who stayed at the lodges were tourists, I sightseers, photographers, bird watchers, fishermen: or government workers an~ they came from other parts of Alaska, the Lower 48 and from abroad. The activities that drew people to area lodges from abroad were hunting, fishing, bird watching, mountain climbing, and touring. These and other activities like cross-country skiing and rafting/canoeing also drew people from the Lower 48. The region of the resource use area most often used by guests at the lodges was the corridor along both sides of the Denali Highway. The areas that attracted other, but lower, use were subunits 2~ 3~ 7$ 8, 10, and 13. As for use of the Susitna River, lodge owners estimated that between 3 and 60 percent of their guests used the river corridor for hunting (mainly moose), fishing the tributaries (for grayling, salmon, trout, and whitefish), and for hiking and sightseeing. The lodges with the greatest 423174 85061.8 19 r . r I I I l. l I t percent of guests who used the area were in Talkeetna and Lake Louise. These guests accesse:d the Susitna River by the boat landing in Talkeetna, the Denali Highway across the river, by hiking the railroad tracks over Chulitna Pass, or by boating up the Tyone River. Unguided lodge guests from some lodges use the resource use area more than 'the guests from other lodges and, on the whole, this use was most concentrated along the Denali Highway. Also, owners estimated that the majority of the visitors to the area were pursuing nonconsumptive activities like sightseeing and photography. 423174 850618 20 "' ·' ., ... ·1\ ~' I I I I 1 f. j t iERIEHCES Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau. 1984. Anchorage Visitors Guide. Alaska Media Services, Inc. Anch~rage, Alaska. Harza-'F~basco. 1985. Air Taxi Survey Report. Anchorage, Alaska. Harza-Ebascoo 1985. Guide Survey Report. Anchorage, Al~aka. Henning, Bob. 1984. The Milepost --Alaska and Western Canada. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. Anchorage, Alaska. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1984. A Guide for the Visit.or. Mapmakers Press. Palmer! Alaska. Telephone directories. 1984. Fairbanks and Vicinity, Palmer, Glennallen. 423174 850618 21 I I I i I I l I f APPElfDU A Lodgesll Identified In The Survey Area Stephan Lake Lodge Tsusena Lake Lodge Watana Lodge Alaska Wilderness Enterpri~es Lodge High Lake Lodge Lake Louise Lodge Tyone Lake Lodge Evergreen Lodge Wolverine Lodge Summit Lake Lodge Paxson Lodge Tangle River Inn Tangle Lakes Lodge Maclaren River Lodge Susitna Lodge Gracious House Adventvres Unlimited Moore's Camp Healy Roadhouse McKinley Chalet McKinley Village Grizzly Bear C~per Park Denali Cabins McKinley Wilderness Lodge Trapper Creek Trading Post Big Su Lodge Forks Roadhouse H and H Cafe 423!74 850618 22 I 11 I I I I I I J Cache Creek Lodge Backwoods Enterprises Reindeer Mt. Lodge Chulitna River Lodge Carlo Creek Lodge Fairview Inn Latitude 62° Talkeetna Motel Swiss Ala~ka Inn Talkeetna Roadhouse 1/ All lodges included in the survey area provided indoor accommodations. 423174 850618 23 f .APPENDIX B LODGE OPERATOR SURVEY -I QUESTIONNAIRE I. DESCRIPTION A..liiD HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP I 1. When was th~ lodge built? By whom? ________ ~----------·---------------------------------------------- I How many different owners have there been? -------------------------------- I 2. What is the operator.'s relationship to the lodge? Employee ------- I Ownership interest --------Othe> (specify) ----------------------------------------~·--------------- If not owner; who is? -------------------------------------------------I How long has the owner owned the lodge? ----·---------------------------------- I How long has the operator been affiliated with the lodge? ------------------- I I ·I rt l I How many years of previous exper~ence .has the operator had with lodges? In what capacities? i. a. What is the operator's place of resiuenee? --------------------------------- a Its relationship to the lodge?_·---- ~. b. What other household members are involved with lodge activities? ~------------In ~rhat capacity?----------------------- I " ,, " " I If 11 ' II. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 1. When did the lodge open this year? ------------------------------------------ I. \~en will it close? ----------------------------------------------------- ~. Are these times the same for other years? Yes No If no, why? ---------------- J I n u ~ .. Lodge Operator Survey Page 2 2, What facilities are there? _______________ Lounge Bar C&fe Restaurant -------------------- _____________ R.V. Hook-ups Other ----------------------- Number of cabins and their capacities _______ capacities __________ ~--------- capacities ____________________ _ capacities ____________________ _ Number of rooms and their capacities ________ capacities ____________________ _ capacities --------------------- capacities _____________________ _ Is there a dock? ------------------------ Boat(s) How many? Types ------------~---------------------------------------------- Is the lodge associated with any of the following: _______ Air taxi service; type of association ______ -------------------------- ______ Guide service; type of association __________________________________ _ ________ Boat service; type of association ______________ ---------------------- Are there plans for lodge/facilities expansion? Yes __________ No If yes, when?----------------------------------------------------------------- What kind of expansion? ------------------------------------------------------ How many new rooms? Other? ---------------------------------------------------- Are there plans to sell? Yes No --------------------------- If yes, does the owner plan to open elsewhere?------------------------------- Where? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. What percentage of the owner's/operator's time is spent on lodge business in a year? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the operator arrive before opening date?------------------------------- How long before? -------------------------------------------------------------- n I ~ I a 1 ! 0 i l u I u I u u f I w Lodge Operator Survey Page 3 Does the operator stay after closing? ___________________________________ __ How long after? ------------------------------------·------------------------- What percent of total work is this business? _________________________________ ___ What percent of the operator's total income comes from this business? ----- ------~------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is it the operator's total source of income? _____________________ ~--------~~ ~That other jobs does the operator have? 4. How many employees are there? (by season) No. Season Full-time Part-time -------------------------------------------------- Are they full-time seasonal or part-time? *Full-time = over 34 hrs per week Part-time = 34 hrs or less per wk. III. CLIENTS (Emphasize only those staying overnight/using facilities and not being guided) 1. How could the clients be categorized according to the activity they pursue? (Circle below) What percentage of clients fall into the categories in one year? % of total in Re~ident _t_h_i_s ___ ~_a_t_e_g~o_r~y ______ of AK Hunters Non .. res. From where What Months ---------------------------------------------------------- Fishermen -------------------------------------------------------- Floaters ----------------------------------------------------------- Photographers Bird Watchers -------------------------------------------------------- Sightseers __________________________________________________________ ___ I I 0 1 a a 0 D u u u u f ~ u u u Lodge Operator Survey Page 4 % of total in Res. of Non-~es. What this cat ego:-..... 7:-_A_l_a.;,;;...s;;,..k_a ___ Wh_e_r_e_f_r_o_m ____ M_on_t_h_s Tourists Other 3. By category, where do they come from? (Alaska, Lower 48, International) 4. By category, du·ring wha.t months do they pursue each activity? 5. How many clients did the lodge have last year? 6.. Is this a •typica.l number? -------------------- 7. What is the average length of stay? ------------------------------------ 8. What areas on this map do the guests use? ---------------------------------- 9. What percent of clients use the .. Susitna Rivet? ----------------------------- 10. How do they get to the river? Plane Horses --------------------------------- Boat Foot ·--------~~--------------------- ATV Other ----------------------------------- Of those who use th~ Susitna River, what activities do they ~nurs:ue? What Species Access Points Routes Hunting Fishing Floating/boating Other What access points do the different groups use? Show on map. What routes do they take? Are these usual routes? If boats are used, what types are they? _______________ ·---------- ----~--. ------------------------------- D l D 0 r'j u 0 0 r.r.··1. u D rt u u f I ~ Lodge Operator Survey P~: 5 Do they encounter navigational problems? Where? (be specific) ----------------------·----------------------------- When? --------------~--------------------------~----------------------------- What kinds of river uses occur in winter by clients or others in the area? During any particular months? --------------------------------------~====~ times? ~-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------~--------------locations? ------------------------------------------ Is there airplane use? ----------------------------- 11. What other hunting, fishing and recreational activities is the operator aware of in the resource use area? Area No. Activity------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the operator keep an activity log? ________ _ With records of fish and animal harvests? Results? ------------------------------------------------------- 12. How many other lodge.s (including those not operating) are. located in the study area (especially remote lodges using the ~esource use area)? Designate on map.