Loading...
2011-04-12 Special Work Session Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Special Work Session Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 7:30 p.m., Borough Assembly Chambers Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS LEAVE DATES: Fulp: Apr 15 -24; Apr 29 -May 2 (Personal) Stutes: Apr 8 -6 (Personal) Selby: Apr 26 -27 (AML /JIA); Apr 29 -May 4 (Lobbyist Meetings — Wash D.C.); May 17 -21 (WIR) Gifford: Apr 26 -27 (AML /JIA); Apr 29 -May 4 (Lobbyist Meetings — Wash D.C.) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH �►S SEMBLYyMfETING) Srese I 11 OClc. ass/ o t J Regular - Meeting of: 4- /CQA2 0/ WDiet< asciow Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name /I r e J Lks wL;:,, 7 ��� Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska DRAFT Prepared for: Kodiak Island Borough ®t McDowell Research -Based Consulting G R O U P Juneau Anchorage Prepared in association with: Coastwise Corporation February 2011 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska DRAFT Prepared for: Kodiak Island Borough Prepared by: pliIiMcDowell G R O U P Juneau • Anchorage Prepared in association with: Coastwise Corporation February 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Service Area Profile 1 Ferry Demand and Revenue Analysis 1 "Long- List" Transportation Concept Analysis 4 "Short- List" Transportation Concept Analysis 6 Roadway and Marine Terminal Cost Analysis 10 Funding Source Review 12 Conclusions 13 Introduction and Scope of Work 15 The Challenge 15 The Costs 16 The Benefits 16 Report Content 17 Chapter 1. Regional and Community Profiles 19 Kodiak Island Borough 19 Akhiok 19 Demographics 20 Economy 21 Karluk 22 Demographics 23 Economy 24 Larsen Bay 24 Demographics 25 Economy 26 Old Harbor 28 Demographics 28 Economy 29 Ouzinkie 30 Demographics 31 Economy 32 Port Lions 34 Demographics 34 Economy 35 Chapter 2. Existing Transportation Infrastructure and Services 38 Freight Service and Traffic 38 Other Traffic Trends and Volumes 41 Air Traffic (Passenger and Freight) 41 AMHS Service and Traffic 43 Chapter 3. Transportation Demand and Revenue Potential Analysis 45 Household Survey Results 45 Community of Kodiak Resident Survey Results 45 Outlying Community Resident Survey Results 47 Heavy Freight Transportation 49 Travel Demand and Revenue Modeling 50 Ferry Service Case Studies 51 Travel Demand Modeling Assumptions 53 Per Capita Revenues 56 Chapter 4: Transportation Infrastructure Cost Analysis 58 Roadway Cost Analysis 59 Chapter 5: Marine Service Analysis Methodology 64 Routes 64 Weather 68 Sea Keeping 70 Chapter 6: Transportation Service Improvement Concept Preliminary Analysis 73 Concept 1: Enhanced Tustumena Service 74 Concept 2: Dedicated 24 -Hour Ferry 75 Concept 3: Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel 77 Concept 4: Dedicated "Day- Boat" Ferry 78 Concept 5: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull 80 Concept 6: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran 82 Concept 7: Cargo -Only Landing Craft 83 Concept 8: Tug and Barge or Other Cargo -Only Vessel Service 84 Concept 9: Passenger -Only Ferry 85 Concept 10: Enhanced Airfreight Transportation Service 85 Chapter 7: Detailed Analysis of Select Transportation Improvement Concepts 88 Introduction 88 Enhanced Tustumena Service 88 New Vessel Configuration 89 Vessel Size 89 Vessel Capital Cost 92 System Operating Cost 102 Summary 105 Chapter 8: Surface Transportation Funding 106 Federal Funding Opportunities 108 Bureau of Indian Affairs 108 Denali Commission 110 Economic Development Administration 111 Federal Highway Administration 112 Federal Transit Administration 113 Federal Loans 114 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 116 State and Local Funding Opportunities 116 State Appropriations 116 Local Option Gasoline Tax 116 Public Financing 116 Chapter 9: Summary Analysis and Conclusions 118 Akhiok 119 Karluk 119 Larsen Bay 120 Old Harbor 120 Ouzinkie 120 Port Lions 120 Local Economic Benefits 121 Appendix 1 123 Marine Route Information 123 Introduction 123 Appendix 2 156 Kodiak Island Transportation Road Concept by PND Engineers, Inc. 156 List of Tables Table 1: Kodiak Island Ferry System Annual Revenue Potential 4 Table 2: Day -Boat and Landing Craft Annual Operating, Maintenance and Administrative Costs 9 Table 3: Road Segment Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates 11 Table 4: Outlying Community Dock Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates 11 Table 5: Akhiok Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 21 Table 6: Akhiok Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 22 Table 7: Akhiok Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 22 Table 8: Akhiok Local Employers, 2007 22 Table 9: Karluk Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 23 Table 10: Karluk Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 24 Table 11: Karluk Local Employers, 2007 24 Table 12: Larsen Bay Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 26 Table 13: Larsen Bay Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 27 Table 14: Larsen Bay Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 27 Table 15: Larsen Bay Local Employers, 2007 27 Table 16: Old Harbor Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 29 Table 1 7: Old Harbor Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 29 Table 18: Old Harbor Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 30 Table 19: Old Harbor Local Employers, 2007 30 Table 20: Ouzinkie Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 32 Table 21: Ouzinkie Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 32 Table 22: Ouzinkie Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 33 Table 23: Ouzinkie Local Employers, 2007 33 Table 24: Port Lions Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 35 Table 25: Port Lions Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 36 Table 26: Port Lions Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 36 Table 27: Port Lions Local Employers, 2007 36 Table 28: Old Harbor In -Bound Freight, 2004 -2008, Short Tons 40 Table 29: Freight Volumes to Selected Alaska Communities, 2008 40 Table 30: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Air Passenger Statistics, 2007 -2009 42 Table 31: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Air Passenger Boarding Statistics, 2005 -2009 42 Table 32: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Airfreight Statistics, 2007 -2009 43 Table 33: Typical Kodiak Island Seat Fare and Airfreight Rates, 2010 43 Table 34: Port Lions AMHS Passenger Traffic, 2000 -2009 44 Table 35: Port Lions AMHS Vehicle Traffic, 2000 -2009 44 Table 36: In the last 12 months, have you traveled to any of the following communities on Kodiak Island? Base: Kodiak residents 46 Table 37: Number of Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Base: Traveled to community 46 Table 38: Which of the following communities, if any, would you be likely to visit using the proposed ferry service? Base: Kodiak residents 46 Table 39: Number of Likely Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Using Proposed Ferry Service, May- September Base: Kodiak residents 47 Table 40: Primary Purpose of Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Using Proposed Ferry Service, May- September Base: Likely to travel to community 47 Table 41: Travel Mode for Trips from Outlying Communities to Kodiak 47 Table 42: Number of Likely Trips from Other Communities to Kodiak Using Proposed Ferry Service, May - September Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions 48 Table 43: Do you have family or friends currently living in the community of Kodiak that might choose to live in your community if such a ferry service existed? Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions 48 Table 44: Are you very supportive, supportive, opposed, or very opposed to regular ferry service between Kodiak and your community? Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions 49 Table 45: Port Lions AMHS Traffic Volume, 2008 and 2009 51 Table 46: Port Lions /Kodiak AMHS Revenue, 2008 and 2009 51 Table 47: Passenger and Vehicle Fares for Selected Alaska Routes, 2010 54 Table 48: Kodiak Island Ferry Fare Assumptions 55 Table 49: Kodiak Island Ferry Revenue Forecast (Travel Frequency and Average Fare Basis) 56 Table 50: Kodiak Island Ferry Annual Revenue Estimates (Per Capita Revenue Basis) 57 Table 51: Road Segment Cost Estimates 59 Table 52: Road Segment Cost Estimates 60 Table 53: Dock Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates 62 Table 54: Round - Island Route Length Summary 65 Table 55: Kodiak Direct Route Length Summary 66 Table 56: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Length Summary 67 Table 57: Enhanced Tustumena Service System Components 74 Table 58: Dedicated 24 -Hour Ferry System Components 76 Table 59: Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel System Components 77 Table 60: Dedicated Day -Boat Ferry System Components 78 Table 61: Dedicated Landing Craft, Conventional Hull System Components 80 Table 62: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry Catamaran System Components 82 Table 63: Cargo -Only Landing Craft System Components 83 Table 64: Selected Aircraft Employed in Alaska's Airfreight Transportation Sector 86 Table 65: Vessel Capital Costs 92 Table 66: Landing Craft Weekly Schedules 94 Table 67: Day Boat Weekly Schedules 96 Table 68: Landing Craft Annual Port Calls 100 Table 69: Day -Boat Annual Port Calls 101 Table 70: Vessel Operating Costs 104 Table 71: Summary of Alaska Surface Transportation Funding Options 107 Table 72: 2010 Indian Reservation Roads Program Tribal Shares 109 Table 73: Economic Development Administration Investment in 111 Table 74: Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund Awards in Alaska FY02 -FY10 113 Table 75: Non - Urbanized Area Program Funding 114 Table 76: Tribal Transit Program Funding 114 Table 77: Kodiak Island Transportation Improvements 118 Table 78: Round - Island Route Length Summary 124 Table 79: Kodiak Direct Route Length Summary 125 Table 80: Anton Larsen Bay Direct Route Length Summary 126 Table 81: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Length Summary 127 Table 82: Kodiak to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times 128 Table 83: Ouzinkie to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times 129 Table 84: Port Lions to Larsen Bay — Route Segments, Distances & Times 130 Table 85: Larsen Bay to Karkuk — Route Segments, Distances & Times 131 Table 86: Karluk to Akhiok — Route Segments, Distances & Times 132 Table 87: 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times 133 Table 88: 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times 1 34 Table 89: 7. Old Harbor to Kodiak — Route Segments, Distances & Times 135 Table 90: 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times 136 Table 91: 9-1. Kodiak to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times 137 Table 92: 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 138 Table 93: 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay — Route Segments, Distances & Times 139 Table 94: 11. Kodiak to Karluk — Route Segments, Distances & Times 140 Table 95: 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 141 Table 96: 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 143 Table 97: 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 144 Table 98: 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times 145 Table 99: 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 146 Table 100: 14. Anton Larsen Bay to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times 147 Table 101: 15. Anton Larsen Bay to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times 148 Table 102: 16. Anton Larsen Bay to Larsen Bay — Route Segments, Distances & Times 149 Table 103: 17. Anton Larsen Bay to Karluk — Route Segments, Distances & Times 150 Table 104: 18. Anton Larsen Bay to Akhiok — Route Segments, Distances & Times 151 Table 105: 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 152 Table 106: 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Strait) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 153 Table 107: 21-1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times 154 Table 108: 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 155 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Rendering of Conventional "Day- Boat" Ferry 6 Figure 2: Conceptual Rendering of Landing Craft Ferry 7 Figure 3: Kodiak Island Map 18 Figure 4: Aerial View of Akhiok 20 Figure 5: Akhiok Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 21 Figure 6: Akhiok School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 21 Figure 7: Karluk Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 23 Figure 8: Karluk School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 23 Figure 9: Aerial View of Larsen Bay 25 Figure 10: Larsen Bay Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 25 Figure 11: Larsen Bay School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 26 Figure 12: Old Harbor Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 28 Figure 13: Old Harbor School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 29 Figure 14: Aerial View of Ouzinkie 31 Figure 15: Ouzinkie Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 31 Figure 16: Ouzinkie School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 32 Figure 17: Aerial View of Port Lions 34 Figure 18: Port Lions Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 34 Figure 19: Port Lions School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 35 Figure 20: M/V Lazy Bay Landing Craft Freight Service 39 Figure 21: M/V PolarBearLanding Craft 39 Figure 22: Residents "Supportive" and "Very Supportive" of Ferry Service 49 Figure 23: Old Harbor Dock 62 Figure 24: Conceptual Rendering of Ouzinkie's Dock 63 Figure 25: Port Lions' Dock 63 Figure 26: Round - Island Route Overview 65 Figure 27: Kodiak Direct Route Overview 66 Figure 28: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Overview 67 Figure 29: North Pacific /Gulf of Alaska Area Image 68 Figure 30: Kodiak Area Weather Indicators 69 Figure 31: Average Wind Speed, Various Locations, by Month 69 Figure 32: Albatross Banks Average and Maximum Wind Speed, by Month 70 Figure 33: Average Significant Wave Heights, Shelikof Strait and Other Locations 71 Figure 34: Maximum Significant Wave Heights, Shelikof Strait and Other Locations 72 Figure 35: Rendering of the Tustumena 74 Figure 36: Rendering of the 24 -Hour Ferry 75 Figure 37: Rendering of Passenger /Cargo Vessel 77 Figure 38: Rendering of Day Boat Ferry 78 Figure 39: Rendering of Landing Craft with Conventional Hull 80 Figure 40: Rendering of Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran 82 Figure 41: Rendering of Cargo -Only Landing Craft 83 Figure 42: Rendering of Tug and Barge Service 84 Figure 43: Rendering of Alternative Freight -Only Concept 84 Figure 44: Conceptual Rendering of Passenger Ferry 85 Figure 45: Everts Air Cargo DC — 6 86 Figure 46: Ship Motions for Different Vessels 91 Figure 47: Round - Island Route Overview 124 Figure 48: Kodiak Direct Route Overview 125 Figure 49: Anton Larsen Bay Direct Route Overview 126 Figure 50: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Overview 127 Figure 51: 1. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 128 Figure 52: 2. Ouzinkie to Port Lions 129 Figure 53: 3. Port Lions to Larsen Bay 130 Figure 54: 4. Larsen Bay to Karluk 1 31 Figure 55: 5. Karkuk to Akhiok 132 Figure 56: 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor 133 Figure 57: 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor 134 Figure 58: 7. Old Harbor to Kodiak 135 Figure 59: 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 136 Figure 60: 9-1. Kodiak to Port Lions 137 Figure 61: 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) 138 Figure 62: 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay 139 Figure 63: 11. Kodiak to Karluk 140 Figure 64: 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) 141 Figure 65: 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) 143 Figure 66: 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) 144 Figure 67: 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor 145 Figure 68: 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 146 Figure 69: 14. Anton Larsen Bay to Ouzinkie 147 Figure 70: 15. Anton Larsen Bay to Port Lions 148 Figure 71: 16. Anton Larsen Bay to Larsen Bay 149 Figure 72: 17. Anton Larsen Bay to Karluk 150 Figure 73: 18. Anton Larsen Bay to Akhiok 151 Figure 74: 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) 152 Figure 75: 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Strait) 153 Figure 76: 21 -1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor 154 Figure 77: 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 155 Executive Summary The purpose of the Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island Alaska was to assess the feasibility of a Kodiak Island -wide transportation system connecting the Island's outlying communities to the city of Kodiak. The key component of this transportation system is a ferry dedicated to connecting the Island's outlying communities to the community of Kodiak. This transportation system is also envisioned to include road connections, road extensions, and new marine terminals (docks). This study considers the possible components of such a system, the cost to develop and maintain system components, the demand for such a system, and how much revenue it might generate. The executive summary compiles key findings from a comprehensive, detailed 100 -plus page technical report. Service Area Profile In considering the feasibility of a marine transportation system, three factors are critical; the size of the market (population base), travel times (distances) between ports of call, and sea conditions along routes between communities. Relevant characteristics of the Kodiak Island area include the following: • The proposed ferry system would link the community of Kodiak with the six outlying communities of Akhiok, Old Harbor, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Port Lions and Ouzinkie. These six communities had a total year -round population of approximately 730 residents in 2009. • Most communities have been experiencing declining populations over the past decade, including Port Lions (down 26 percent since 2000), Ouzinkie (down 25 percent), Old Harbor (down 22 percent), Larsen Bay (down 42 percent), and Akhiok (down 40 percent). • Kodiak Island's outlying communities are widely dispersed over a very large coastal area. Ouzinkie is nearest to the city of Kodiak, at 14 nautical miles from Kodiak. Akhiok is the most distant from Kodiak, at 134 nautical miles. A round - island ferry calling on all six communities and the city of Kodiak would travel a total distance of 350 nautical miles. • Marine travel around Kodiak Island includes exposure to long stretches of open water, strong currents, and ocean capes. This environment, coupled with high winds and cold temperatures, can result in severe marine operating conditions, especially during the winter. Sea keeping, the ability of a vessel to transit rough water safely and with minimal discomfort to passengers, is a substantial ferry system design challenge for many Kodiak Island vessel routes. Ferry Demand and Revenue Analysis The number of passengers and vehicles transported on any particular ferry system is the result of a complex blend of market size and characteristics, ferry service frequency, fare structure and travel time, and the cost of alternative modes of transportation. A variety of information was compiled to support the analysis of revenue potential for a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry. This information is summarized below. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 1 TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS • The primary market for a Kodiak Island ferry service is the residents of the Island's outlying communities. A telephone survey was conducted with a randomly- selected sample of Kodiak Island households, to gauge potential use of an Island -wide ferry system. A total of 419 Kodiak Island Borough households were surveyed in April 2010, including 301 households from the community of Kodiak and 118 households from the six outlying communities. Among residents of the outlying communities, the survey measured strong demand for ferry service and strong support for the concept of a ferry connection to their own communities. • The borough's population center around the community of Kodiak represents an additional source of passenger travel, as residents seek recreational opportunities and travel to visit with friends and relatives. Social and cultural ties exist between residents of the city and residents of outlying communities, and enhanced transportation infrastructure and service could spur additional personal travel as transportation costs and convenience barriers are reduced. FERRY SYSTEM CASE STUDY REVIEW Understanding the potential for a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service to generate revenue, regardless of actual fares or service frequency, can be framed by examination of revenue generated by ferry service in other small communities in coastal Alaska. This study included case study analysis of Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry service to Port Lions, dedicated AMHS service between Metlakatla and Ketchikan in Southeast Alaska, and dedicated Inter - Island Ferry Authority service between Prince of Wales Island and Ketchikan (also in Southeast Alaska). The focus of these case studies was on the revenue - generating implications of these ferry connections. These case studies also provided an indication of costs associated with ferry operations in Alaska. Case Study: Port Lions AMHS Service Port Lions, a community of about 200 residents, enjoys regular AMHS service. In 2009, the M/V Tustumena made a total of 117 sailings between Port Lions and Kodiak, a 48- nautical mile trip, including 55 trips from Kodiak to Port Lions and 62 trips from Port Lions to Kodiak. • Traffic between the two communities included a total of 929 passengers boarding in Port Lions and disembarking in Kodiak and a similar number (925) of passengers boarding in Kodiak and disembarking in Port Lions. Port Lions passenger traffic also included 427 passengers boarding in Port Lions and disembarking in Homer and 429 passengers doing the reverse. • AMHS ferry service between Port Lions and Kodiak in 2009 generated a total of $81,345 in revenue, including $30,080 in passenger fare revenue and $51,265 in car deck revenue. This data does not include revenue generated by passengers and vehicles traveling between Port Lions and Homer. If all the Port Lions /Homer traffic moved through Kodiak, one direction or the other, another $42,000 in annual revenue would be generated, based on average per passenger and per vehicle rates for travel between Port Lions and Kodiak in 2009. As such, frequent ferry service to Port Lions, the largest community in the study area, accounted for just under $125,000 in revenue in 2009. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 2 • Based on this level of total annual revenue, Port Lions generated approximately $625 in revenue for each of its 200 residents. Per capita revenue is a proxy measure that captures all household, government, and commercial traffic associated with ferry service to an individual community. Case Study: Metlakatla MN Lituya Service Metlakatla is a community of approximately 1,385 residents located in southern Southeast Alaska. Metlakatla is served by the M/V Lituya, a 181 -foot AMHS ferry with capacity for 149 passengers and 18 vehicles. The Iituya provides dedicated twice -daily round -trip service between Metlakatla and Ketchikan, over a one -way route of about 16 nautical miles. • In 2009, the Lituya made a total of 940 one -way sailings between Metlakatla and Ketchikan, carrying a total of 30,357 passengers and 10,637 vehicles. • In FY 2009, the Lituya generated total operating revenues of $639,000. In terms of per capita revenue (for Metlakatla's population of 1,385 residents), the Lituya's FY09 operating revenues were the equivalent of about $460 per person. • M/V Lituya annual operating expenditures totaled $1,189,000 in FY09. This does not include reservations, shore operations, administration or marine engineering costs associated with Lituya service between Metlakatla and Ketchikan. Lituya's operating revenue and expenditure performance in FY09 indicates a net operating subsidy of $550,000 was required. Case Study: Prince of Wales Island M/V Prince of Wales The Inter - Island Ferry Authority (WA) operates the M/V Prince of Wales, a 198 -foot ferry with capacity for 160 passengers and 30 vehicles. The Prince of Wales provides daily service between Hollis (on Prince of Wales Island) and Ketchikan, a 45- nautical mile voyage requiring about 3 hours. The IFA serves the residents of Prince of Wales Island (2009 population of 3,920), plus residents of Ketchikan traveling to Prince of Wales Island for business or recreation, as well as non - Alaskan visitors. • In 2009 the Prince of Wales carried 51,700 passengers and 11,400 vehicles. The ferry service generated service revenues of $3.68 million. IFA revenues are the equivalent of about $940 per capita for the Island's 3,920 residents. • WA expenses included $3.6 million in annual operations expenses and $745,000 in administration expenses for this one - vessel, two -port ferry service. Overview of Alaska Ferry Operations Economics Experience has shown public ferry systems in Alaska do not generate revenues sufficient to cover operating costs. The case studies described above illustrate this point, as does other AMHS data. For example, in FY09, the Tustumena generated $2,992,000 in total revenues, while costing $6,642,000 to operate, indicating an annual operating subsidy of $3,650,000. The AMHS overall generated $46.2 million in operating revenues in FY09, compared to expenditures of $124.5 million. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 3 DEDICATED KODIAK ISLAND FERRY SERVICE REVENUE POTENTIAL Two different modeling approaches were utilized to assess the revenue generating potential of a ferry that connects the outlying communities of Kodiak Island to the community of Kodiak. The first approach considered ranges of predicted resident travel frequency, fare assumptions (based on route distances), non- resident travel revenue generation, ratios of passengers to vehicles, and other factors. A second, simpler model was based on per capita - equivalent revenue assumptions. • Based on the travel frequency model, total potential annual revenues range between approximately $500,000 and $750,000. • Based on per capita revenue estimates ranging from $600 to $900, total potential annual revenues range between $440,000 and $657,000. Table 1: Kodiak Island Ferry System Annual Revenue Potential Passenger Car:Deck Revenue Revenue Total Revenue Travel Frequency Model 1 Low -Case $168,000 $337,000 $505,000 Mid -Case 210,000 421,000 631,000 High -Case 252,000 505,000 757,000 Per Capita Revenue Model Low -Case _ $146,000 $294,000 $440,000 Mid -Case _ _ _ 182,000 368,000 550,000 High -Case 215,000 442,000 657,000 It is important to recognize these estimates represent potential revenue. These levels of revenue are possible if all six outlying communities are served by regular, reasonably frequent ferry service (service similar to that currently enjoyed by the residents of Port Lions). These totals also assume all of the ferry revenue now generated by Port Lions would be earned by the dedicated ferry service (rather than the Tustumena). "Long- List" Transportation Concept Analysis A broad range of transportation enhancement concepts were identified for preliminary analysis and screening for detailed cost and service analysis. This "long- list" of concepts included: • Enhanced Tustumena Service • Dedicated 24 -Hour Ferry • Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel • Dedicated Conventional "Day -Boat" Ferry • Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull • Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran • Cargo -Only Landing Craft • Tug and Barge or Other Cargo -Only Vessel Service • Passenger -Only Ferry Island -I/14de Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 4 • Enhanced Airfreight Transportation Service Among the ten concepts considered, only three were carried forward for additional analysis. Those three were Enhanced Tustumena Service, Dedicated Conventional "Day -Boat" Ferry, and Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull. Reasons for eliminating other alternatives from more detailed analysis are summarized below. Dedicated 24 - Hour Ferry: This type of service would require a large crew and large vessel, including staterooms for passengers and crew. Crew costs for a ferry operating 24 hours a day (requires two full deck crews plus passenger /crew services personnel, plus relief crews) would be prohibitive in relation to the revenue potential for this market. This is the only service concept that could provide round - Island passenger service. Ferry construction /acquisition costs would also be very high. Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel: This alternative would provide service similar to existing regional cargo vessels, though also capable of passenger service. This type of vessel is now rarely built due to the high level of regulatory complexity required to safely support both cargo and passenger missions. Also operated on a 24 -hour basis, this concept involves operating costs significantly above potential revenue. Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran: The tall height of a catamaran makes beach landing more difficult than a conventional landing craft. The vessel would need to slow substantially when waves begin hitting the wet deck. It would be difficult to control this vessel on the beach in wind and current. This vessel would have limited service reliability as sea keeping limitations will force frequent trip cancelations. Cargo - Only Landing Craft: This concept would be contentious as it would be in direct competition with private sector operators. Because of this, public funding would be difficult to obtain. By not providing passenger transportation this concept fails to meet a key purpose of ferry service to outlying communities. Tug and Barge or Other Cargo - Only Vessel Service: This concept would be in direct competition with private sector freight carriers and therefore public funding would be difficult to obtain. This concept also fails to provide passenger transportation and, thus, meet a key purpose of ferry service to outlying communities. Passenger - Only Ferry: A high -speed (30 knots) passenger -only vessel would offer reduced transit times (relative to conventional hull passenger and vehicle ferries). However, this type and size of vessel would experience frequent weather - related trip cancelations and would generally be unable to provide service during the winter and shoulder seasons. If vessel size were increased to improve for sea keeping, fuel costs would rise sharply. It would compete with existing air taxi operators, who currently provide a high level of service. Because a passenger -only ferry could not carry vehicles and other heavy freight, it fails to satisfy a critical need for ferry service to outlying communities. Enhanced Airfreight Transportation Service: The cost to transport heavy airfreight in general is high relative to land or marine transport. Only large volumes of high - value, time - sensitive materials would warrant regular air cargo service to the outlying communities, beyond what is now available. Air transportation of fuel is a means of last resort and is employed in Alaska only when no other alternatives exist. Kodiak Island communities do have marine alternatives that are lower cost than air transport. islandWide Transportation Feasibi/ityStudy for Kodiak island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Rage .5 "Short- List" Transportation Concept Analysis Three ferry service concepts were carried forward for further consideration. Those three are Enhanced Tustumena Service, Dedicated Conventional "Day -Boat" Ferry, and Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull. These are described in more detail, below. TUSTUMENA SERVICE The Enhanced Tustumena Service concept requires little technical analysis. The vessel has proven itself successful over the course of almost 50 years of service to Kodiak Island. However, adding Kodiak Island port calls for the Tustumena will not be easy, because the vessel is already fully scheduled. Adding service to a new Kodiak port means reducing service somewhere else. Of course, AMHS managers must also consider the cost and revenue implications of reducing service in one area while increasing service in another. Tustumena service should play some role in any effort to improve marine transportation to Kodiak Island communities. Even if no effort is made to develop a dedicated Kodiak ferry service, Tustumena (or its replacement) will continue to serve Port Lions, and both Ouzinkie and Old Harbor will have docks suitable for serving the vessel. Coupled with development of a dedicated Kodiak ferry service, the Tustumena could provide needed service to Old Harbor (and Akhiok if it had a dock), while the dedicated vessel provided much more frequent service (utilizing a smaller vessel than would otherwise be required) to communities on the west side of the Island. DEDICATED CONVENTIONAL "DAY- BOAT" FERRY Figure 1: Conceptual Rendering of Conventional "Day -Boat" Ferry • • Concept advantages: The benefits of a day -boat are greatly reduced operating costs. A day -boat can be smaller than a 24 -hour ferry, allowing for slightly more appropriate sizing relative to the market demand. Vessel construction costs are significantly lower than the cost of a larger 24 -hour vessel. • Concept disadvantages: The most significant near -term disadvantage with this concept is its inability to serve Akhiok, Karluk and Larsen Bay (communities without suitable docks). In addition, with long distances between Kodiak Island communities, the service design challenge is finding routes acceptable for day -boat service. Route analysis indicates there are three possible day -boat routes: 1) Kodiak — Old Harbor, 2) Kodiak — Port Lions /Ouzinkie, 3) Kodiak — Larsen Bay /Karluk. Akhiok might be reached on a calm day with minimum current. Until improvements can be made to Island IMde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 6 reduce route distances, operation to Old Harbor (and perhaps Larsen Bay) will require the vessel and crew to overnight at the outlying port. Normally, a day -boat returns its crew to the original sailing port and the vessel is moored overnight at an unattended, floating dock, which provides vessel support services. • Concept Variations: Since route lengths are at the maximum allowed for one -way travel, roadway improvements and new terminal construction are required to deliver optimum day -boat benefits. A road connection between Karluk and Larsen Bay, a road east from Old Harbor to a new terminal location, and terminals at Anton Larsen, Pasagshak all have important implications for day -boat scheduling and frequency of service. The improvement with the largest benefit would be a floating terminal at Anton - Larsen Bay. A terminal in this location would reduce the distance to all north side communities, increase sailing frequency, eliminate ocean exposure, and provide for overnight mooring. A marine terminal to the east of Old Harbor and one located at Pasagshak would significantly reduce route length and reduce ocean exposure. These terminals would allow for very efficient day -boat operation to Old Harbor. However, terminal and road costs are high and there is concern a road to Bush Point may impact subsistence fishing. DEDICATED LANDING CRAFT FERRY This concept would provide passenger and vehicle ferry service to Kodiak Island communities using a 150 - foot conventional (slow speed) landing craft ferry. The vessel would have capacity of up to 150 passengers and 14 vehicles. It would operate as a day -boat, with a crew of five. Figure 2: Conceptual Rendering of Landing Craft Ferry cY ■•••••11- 113ZJ cr�1z_z�. • Concept advantages: A conventional style landing craft can provide service to all Kodiak Island communities, including those without piers. The vessel would require very minimal investment in dock /landing facilities. This concept involves relatively low vessel acquisition costs, at approximately $19 million for a newly constructed vessel. Annual operating costs would be approximately $1.7 million. The vessel could also generate revenue by providing one -time or occasional service to other areas of Kodiak Island (resource development camps, remote lodges, fish processing facilities, etc.) • Concept disadvantages: While versatile, a conventional landing craft is slow (less than 10 knots) and not a good sea keeping vessel, even at 150 feet in length. Poor sea keeping characteristics result in a /stand Wide Transportation FeasibifityStudy for Kodiak is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 7 comparatively unreliable service schedule and passenger discomfort while underway. The trade -off with this vessel is very versatile service at the cost of long, rough trips. Also, it will be difficult to control this vessel on the beach in wind and current and bow loading will require vehicles to back down the beach and go up the ramp in reverse. It is not possible to reach Akhiok in a 12 -hour operational day with this vessel. • Concept Variations: It may be possible to have the crew live aboard this vessel so it can overnight at any port, but still provide day -boat (12 hour) service with passengers. It may also be possible to have the vessel run to Akhiok (in excess of 12 hours) if it were only carrying cargo. FERRY OPERATING COSTS For Kodiak Island, the ferry service planning and operations challenge is to define a service model that maximizes revenue and minimizes ferry system operating costs, while still providing essential ferry service when and where it is needed most. This is a challenge for any ferry system serving coastal Alaska, where markets are small (sometimes very small), distances between ports sometimes great, and sea conditions such that vessel sizing is driven by sea keeping requirements (passenger comfort and safety) rather than expected passenger and vehicle traffic (average payload). Given the small market and limited revenue generating potential of the Kodiak Island service area, ferry system operating costs must be minimized. Crew and fuel are the largest sources of operating costs. Controlling crew costs is critical to achieve lowest - possible cost operations in a small- market service area. The most effective way to control crew costs is to limit service to day -boat operations, with one crew working for no more than 12 hours a day. This has important service frequency and port-call scheduling implications, as described in the following section of this summary report. Detailed operating cost analysis was conducted for the conventional day -boat ferry and the conventional landing craft ferry concepts. Key cost components include crew, totaling just over $400,000 annually for both the day -boat and landing craft. These costs are fully - loaded labor costs, including benefits and other labor overhead. Fuel is also a very large cost component, totaling $900,000 for the day -boat and just over $400,000 for the landing craft. The larger day -boat would burn fuel at about twice the rate of the landing craft (187 gallons per hour versus 96 gallons per hour). Fuel costs are based on a diesel price of $3.14 per gallon. Administrative overhead includes shore personnel (a system manager, bookkeeper, sales & procurement staff (1), and a night watchman). Shore personnel costs also include part-time salaries for ferry system representatives in each outlying community. Other administrative costs include contractual (rent, utilities, supplies, professional services) and insurance. In total, annual operating, maintenance and administrative costs for the day -boat are estimated at $2.3 million. Annual landing craft costs total $1.7 million. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 8 Table 2: Day -Boat and Landing Craft Annual Operating, Maintenance and Administrative Costs Da -Boat Landin • 'Craft Crew Cost Captain _ $105,000 $105,000 Mate 91,000 91,000 Engineer 84,000 84,000 Sr. Deckhand 70,000 70,000 Deckhand 56,000 56,000 Vessel Consumables Fuel Oil $900,300 $408,000 Lube Oil 6,000 3,000 Sewage Treatment and Slops 5,000 5,000 Shore power (evening layup) 20,000 15,000 Maintenance Cost Preventative Maintenance $50,000 $30,000 Annual Overhauls 400,000 280,000 I Admin Overhead Shore personnel $396,000 $396,000 Contractual 97,400 97,400 Insurance 60,000 60,000 Annual Total $2,340,700 $1,700,400 FERRY SERVICE SCHEDULES The day -boat, single -crew model has important scheduling and service frequency implications. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a 12 -hour limit on the time a crew can work, which results in three possible weekly manning schedules: • 5 days working 8 hours per day, followed by 2 days off = 40 -hour work week • 4 days working 10 hours per day, followed by 3 days off = 40 -hour work week • 7 days working 12 hour days, followed by 7 days off = 84 -hour work week. If it is assumed the crew requires six weeks of vacation and the vessel requires four weeks of overhaul, two of which can coincide with crew vacation, the number of weeks of total service can be determined for each manning system. • 40 -hour work week = 52 — 8 = 44 weeks service • 84 -hour work week = 26 — 4 = 22 weeks service. With this basic work day and work week framework defined, it is possible to develop service schedules and annual service plans, including the number of port calls each community might see during the year. The number of potential schedules is virtually limitless depending on how many port calls are desired for each community. Further, the conventional day -boat and the landing craft have different scheduling possibilities because they operate at different service speeds. In general, a conventional day boat provides more port calls Island - Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 9 because of its greater service speed (though of course it does not have the capacity to serve communities without docks). The landing craft must operate 84 -hour work weeks to reach out ports, meaning a week -off and week -on schedule is not as convenient as weekly service and will impact revenue generation. Detailed service schedule analysis is provided in the body of the report. For purposes of this summary, frequent service to Ouzinkie and Port Lions is possible with two to three stops per week for the day -boat. Service to Larsen Bay, Karluk and Old Harbor would be less due to the much longer travel times from Kodiak (perhaps with weekly or biweekly service). Akhiok would see the lowest level of service, due to its great distance from Kodiak. All of this presupposes suitable docking facilities are available. The issue of ferry service parity among the communities is a point of discussion. Total parity (all communities receive the same number of ferry calls) is possible only with the 24 -hour, 7 -days a week ferry service. This is the most expensive service option and the option that would likely generate the least revenue. Finding that optimal point where revenues are maximized and costs are minimized means providing more service in larger communities located closer the Kodiak and less service to small communities more distant from Kodiak. In other words, optimal ferry system operation does not lend itself to service parity. That being said, public ferry systems are not operated to optimize revenues and costs. AMHS scheduling, for example, is based in part on perceived community need, which is subjective and prone to political influence. In any case, scheduling a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry system would be driven by operational constraints (12 -hour work day, vessel speed limitations, etc.), revenue considerations, policy issues, and a number of other factors. Roadway and Marine Terminal Cost Analysis The economics of a ferry system serving the outlying communities of Kodiak Island could be enhanced by road connections between communities that could eliminate the need for costly dock development and /or reduce the length of ferry routes between communities. Further, docking facilities would be needed to accommodate ferry service to those communities that now lack such facilities. Several roadway and dock development projects were selected for cost analysis. These include: • Akhiok /Alitak single -lane road connection • Akhiok deepwater dock • Karluk /Larsen Bay single -lane road connection • Karluk deepwater dock • Larsen Bay deepwater dock • Old Harbor road extension and dock • Anton Larsen Bay two -lane road extension and dock (two options) • Anton Larsen Bay /Shakmanof Cove two -lane road and dock • Monashka Bay /Shakmanof Cove two -lane road and dock ROAD SEGMENT COST ANALYSIS For the various road segments analyzed in this study, total road construction costs ranged from a low of $750,000 per mile for a single unpaved road (Akhoik to Alitak) to a high of $1.2 million per mile for a two- Is/and Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 10 lane unpaved road (Anton Larsen to Shakmanof and Monashka Bay to Shakmanof). Total capital (construction) costs and annual maintenance cost are summarized in the following table. Table 3: Road Segment Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates !Description Capital Cost Annual Cost Road Segments I Akhiok /Alitak Road (7.3 miles) $5.4 million $55,000 Karluk /Larsen Bay Road (18.5 miles) $17.9 million $140,000 Old Harbor Extension (3.6 miles) _ $4.2 million $30,000 Anton Larsen Bay to Shakmanof (7.1 miles) $7.6 million $110,000 Monashka Bay to Shakmanof (10.6 miles) $11.4 million $160,000 Anton Larsen Extension - West Side (3.0 miles) $3.0 million $45,000 Anton Larsen Extension - East Side (9.6 miles) $9.0 million $145,000 MARINE TERMINAL COST ANALYSIS Akhiok, Karluk and Larsen Bay all lack docks suitable for conventional ferry service. For these communities, cost estimates were prepared for either a fixed -pier dock, a roll -on, roll -off floating (RO /RO) dock, or both. The fixed -pier dock would be suitable for the Tustumena, which has an on -board vehicle elevator. The RO /RO dock is similar to those employed in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska to serve AMHS vessels. (The conclusion from the analysis was the two types of docks are roughly equal in terms of construction cost.) Cost estimates do not include wave barriers, uplands development of any kind, or the cost to install piping for fuel transfer or other utilities. These dock construction cost estimates are based on charts and aerial photographs; determining the optimal location for a deepwater dock in any of these communities would require additional, detailed site investigation. Table 4: Outlying Community Dock Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates (Description 'Capital Cost Annual•Cost Akhiok Fixed -Pier Dock $6.6 million $65,000 Akhiok RO /RO Dock $6.4 million $95,000 Karluk Fixed -Pier Dock $13.8 million $135,000 Larsen Bay Fixed -Pier Dock $4.7 million $50,000 Larsen Bay RO /RO Dock $4.5 million $65,000 Shakmanof Fixed -Pier Dock $4.9 million $50,000 The cost to construct docks in areas not explicitly studied, including the various Anton Larsen Bay marine terminal locations, are all estimated to be in the $5 million to $7 million range, plus the cost of breakwaters and uplands development, which have highly site - specific costs. Dock construction or reconstruction projects in Ouzinkie and Old Harbor provide an indication of the cost to build docks in the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. Reconstruction of the Old Harbor dock has a total budget of $8.1 million. This includes the cost of piping for fuel transfer, electricity and lighting. Ouzinkie is replacing its old wooden dock with a rock and steel bulkhead facility that is slated to cost a total of $9.8 Islanc[Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 11 million. Planning is also underway for dock replacement at Port Lions, with a preliminary budget estimate of approximately $9 million to $10 million. Funding Source Review A wide variety of potential funding sources are available for surface transportation projects in Alaska. Several federal grant and loan scoring processes favor projects that serve geographically isolated areas, small communities, or achieve economic development goals. However, the majority of federal sources fund projects that are economically sustainable, assist the largest number of users, or are identified as state or national priorities. According to these criteria, applications for federal funding for surface transportation projects on Kodiak Island will likely need to justify construction costs in relation to the small population served. Projects supported through local or state matching funds are almost always more likely to receive federal funding. In addition to design, planning, and construction funding, possible transportation improvements for Kodiak Island would require an outside source of operating capital. A limited amount of operating capital is available from federal sources. This funding is dependent upon annual, competitive processes. Thus, federal sources for annual operating capital would not necessarily offer dependable funding for successive years. Aside from the Alaska Marine Highway System, two ferry systems in Alaska that have received public funding are the Inter- Island Ferry Authority and the Seldovia Bay (passenger -only) Ferry. • Inter - Island Ferry Authority: Six Southeast Alaska communities formed the IFA. Initial funding for WA ferries and infrastructure was obtained through Congressional earmarks ($12.6 million through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)) and loans. Loans were provided by the supporting communities as well as through the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority (AMBBA). A total of $2.1 million in loans was obtained including $1.45 million in revenue bonds to be paid back with revenue from ferry operations. The IFA has also obtained additional funding through a variety of sources including a U.S. Department of Agriculture — Rural Development (USDA -RD) Community Facilities Loan, a FTA Non - Urbanized Area Program grant for operating assistance and an Alaska legislative grant for debt retirement and assistance. In 2008 and 2009, approximately 25 percent of WA's revenue came from grant assistance. Generating adequate operating funding continues to be a challenge for IFA. • Seldovia Bay Ferry: This ferry provides passenger service between Homer and Seldovia. The project received approximately $8.5 million in federal appropriations for planning, design and construction of a ferry and infrastructure. The funding came from three sources: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FHWA Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund. The project received a $1.5 million legislative grant in 2007 as a state match to the federal funding. Additional FTA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding in 2010 assisted with infrastructure improvements. A FTA Tribal Transit Program grant in 2010 assisted with operating funding. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 12 Conclusions It is evident from this analysis the communities of Kodiak Island do not provide a potential traffic base large enough to sustain a self- supporting ferry system. This study has profiled two ferry system concepts that come the closest to meeting the needs of the outlying communities, at the lowest cost possible, employing vessels most suitable for the service area. However, revenues generated by these vessels would not match the cost to operate them. Analysis of both concepts indicates substantial annual operating subsidies (over $1 million) would be required to provide any meaningful level of regular ferry service. A variety of factors place significant limitations on a Kodiak Island ferry service's ability to be self- supporting. The most important factors are, in summary: • The outlying communities of Kodiak Island represent a very small market to support ferry operations. Even with seasonal non - resident travel to and from these communities, the service area population and economic base for a dedicated ferry is very small, certainly smaller than any other dedicated ferry system in Alaska. • Long distances and travel times increase vessel operating costs and limit the potential for frequent ferry service to some of the Island's outlying communities. Frequent service to Ouzinkie and Port Lions is possible, given those communities are in close proximity to Kodiak. However, the full day or more required to make a round -trip to each of the other four communities significantly reduces service opportunities to other communities. • The outlying communities of Kodiak Island already enjoy a high -level of relatively low -cost air taxi service. Pricing and revenue potential from passenger travel on a Kodiak Island ferry service would be constrained by convenient and competitive air travel opportunities. As described above, ferry services in Alaska are not self- supporting, and a Kodiak Island ferry service would be no exception. That fact alone does not necessarily preclude an effort to develop a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service. However, securing necessary funding to acquire and, more importantly, operate a ferry is likely to present a major obstacle. Each of the three "short-list" concepts has its advantages and disadvantages. In terms of meeting all the outlying communities marine transportation needs, development of a conventional hull day -boat ferry system is hampered by lack of docks in Akhiok, Karluk and Old Harbor. A landing craft ferry eliminates the need for docks in those communities, but is hampered by slow service speeds and poor sea keeping capacity. One clear course of action is to work with AMHS to secure some measure of service from the rustumena to Old Harbor and Ouzinkie, along with Port Lions. Though development of a self- sustaining Kodiak Island ferry service is unlikely under any circumstance, there are possibilities for improving the economics of the system. A variety of road extensions and connections would minimize ferry routes, shorten travel times, and reduce exposure to severe sea conditions. However, these improvements come at substantial cost. The total capital cost of full build -out of potential infrastructure improvements, including roads and docks is well over $50 million. This does not include the cost to purchase or build a suitable ferry. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 73 One final consideration in assessing the economics of a Kodiak Island ferry is the potential household and community level economic benefits. The financial feasibility of a Kodiak Island ferry service is a critical issue, of course, in considering how to enhance the transportation infrastructure connecting the Island's outlying communities to the community of Kodiak. However, decision- makers must also consider community economic, socioeconomic and public safety benefits that could stem from enhanced access. While it is not possible to quantify all the benefits of regular, reliable ferry service, they would likely include: • Lower cost for consumer goods, as the cost paid by consumers to ship goods is reduced. • Lower cost of residential and commercial construction, as costs paid by builders for shipping building supplies is reduced. • Enhanced business development opportunities as the cost of shipping goods into and out of communities is reduced. • Increase visitor travel to outlying communities, enhancing development opportunities for businesses serving non - resident visitors. • Greater social, educational, and recreational interaction among communities, as opportunities for safe travel are increased especially during the school year. It is also important to note the community of Kodiak could benefit economically from development and operation of a dedicated ferry system. The local economy would benefit directly from the 10 or so new jobs created to operate the ferry service, including vessel crew and shore -side administrative jobs. Longer -term, to the extent that regular ferry service to outlying communities stabilizes those economies, or perhaps stimulates growth, Kodiak would benefit as the Island's service and supply hub. Ideally, placing a dollar value on all present and future benefits would allow for objective comparison with the costs of building and maintaining necessary roads and docks, and operating a ferry system. However, while it is possible to predict the costs with a degree of certainty, it is not possible to measure all the potential future economic and social benefits. The communities with the weakest existing surface transportation infrastructure, Akhiok and Karluk, may have the most to lose (like many other very small remote villages throughout Alaska) if the cost of moving goods into communities cannot be reduced. Some of these villages will continue a slow decline or at best exist precariously on the edge of sustainability. The slightly larger communities; Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, and Ouzinkie, all have a basic foundation for sustainability and may actually have the most to gain (in terms of economic development) from transportation enhancement. They are at or near a critical mass of government and business sustainability that can support a healthy community. Enhanced transportation infrastructure for these communities will strengthen that sustainability and could potentially result in real economic growth. This is the conundrum of transportation development in rural Alaska. Clearly, enhanced transportation services and infrastructure can play a critical role in rural community sustainability and development (though that alone cannot ensure sustainability). However, the monetary cost of creating and providing that enhanced service can be very high. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 14 Introduction and Scope of Work The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a Kodiak Island -wide transportation system connecting the Island's outlying communities to the city of Kodiak. This transportation system was initially conceived to include some combination of ferry links, road connections, road extensions, and new marine terminals (docks). This study considers the possible components of such a system, the cost to develop and maintain system components individually and together, the traffic demand for such a system, how much revenue it might generate, and what the economic benefits might be. The Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study centers on the costs and benefits of an intra - island ferry service. Vessel construction, maintenance and operation costs, port/terminal construction and maintenance costs, and system management costs are measured. Ferry system revenues are estimated, including revenues related to diverted and induced traffic. Economic and qualitative benefits to communities, organizations /agencies, businesses, and households are considered. This study was funded by the Denali Commission and administered by the Kodiak Island Borough. Transportation infrastructure and service challenges faced by Kodiak Island's small, outlying communities have been a priority issue for the Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership (KARRL) Forum since its inception. The initial impetus for this study came from the KARRL Forum and as such the study team provided detailed study updates and the results of preliminary research and analyses to the Forum on three occasions, February 2010, September 2010 and most recently in February 2011. The Challenge Rural Kodiak Island's transportation infrastructure development challenge is to define a transportation system that links six widely dispersed, small communities in extreme marine environments, to the city of Kodiak, the island's population center as well as its service and supply hub. The six communities, Akhiok, Old Harbor, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Port Lions and Ouzinkie have a total year -round population of about 730 residents. These communities lie in one of the most challenging marine environments in the world, with routine exposure to sea conditions that keep even AMHS ships tied at the dock. The extremely rugged geography of Kodiak Island makes road connections between communities and the city of Kodiak completely impractical. These communities, like many rural Alaska communities, are struggling with the high cost of transportation, especially the cost of moving heavy freight (vehicles, building supplies, etc.) and fuel. In fact, the long -term sustainability of the smallest communities is in question. Most communities have been experiencing declining population, including Port Lions (down 26 percent since 2000), Ouzinkie (also down 25 percent), Old Harbor (down 22 percent), Larsen Bay (down 42 percent), and Akhiok (down 40 percent). Improved transportation infrastructure and services alone cannot make communities economically sustainable, but it is a critically important part of the equation. Each community in the study area has its own set of transportation challenges. Two communities (Akhiok and Karluk) have no dock at all and must rely on landing craft service for fuel and freight delivery. Old Harbor's deepwater dock is currently being replaced, as is Ouzinkie's. Detailed engineering and design work is Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 15 underway for replacement of Port Lion's aging dock (Port Lions is the only community of the six that receives AMHS service). Larsen Bay has no community owned dock, though a private seafood processing facility located in the community receives occasional freight service directly from Seattle. A common challenge for all communities is the cost and availability of heavy freight transportation services. Heavy freight transportation is now provided primarily by a private firm, based in Kodiak, operating a 100 - foot landing craft on an as- demand - warrants basis. The cost and infrequency of this service are viewed by many residents as a constraint on commerce, not adequately meeting the needs of households, and in general a major impediment to community sustainability and growth. The villages of Kodiak Island enjoy comparatively well - developed air transportation infrastructure, and air service has come to play a vital role in moving passengers and light freight into and out of these communities. The Costs As in any feasibility study, a central question in transportation infrastructure development is the cost of building a new transportation system, and the cost to operate and maintain that system. For the communities of Kodiak Island, enhancing transportation of freight, fuel and people could include: • Constructing roads from communities without docks to communities with docks • Constructing roads to shorten marine links between communities • Building deepwater docks or other marine terminals • Acquiring and operating a ferry or ferries, capable of carrying vehicles as well as passengers In terms of system costs, the challenge is to design, at the conceptual level, infrastructure and other assets that match most closely and appropriately the needs of the communities. For example, given expected traffic volumes, single -lane gravel roads (with pull -outs) would be sufficient in some cases where road extensions /connections might be warranted. In other instances, two -lane roads would be required. The issue of "right- sizing" assets is particularly important in the analysis of potential ferry service. While the expected demand for ferry service could be met by a relatively small vessel, safe and reasonably reliable service in the waters around Kodiak Island would require a much larger vessel. Because multi -modal transportation systems are being considered, specialized expertise is required for cost analyses. Coastwise Corporation, an Alaska marine engineering and naval architecture firm, was retained to analyze a range of marine transportation service options, including capital and operating costs for a number of vessel types. PND Engineers, an Alaska -based civil engineering firm, prepared cost estimates for roads and marine terminals. The Benefits Any investment in transportation infrastructure must be weighed against the expected benefits. From a system feasibility perspective, revenues generated by user fees are a particularly important consideration. There are other potential benefits to consider as well; lower cost of living in outlying communities, for Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 76 example. Improved transportation could also lower costs to the various organizations and agencies that provide services to the residents of these outlying communities. Education, health, social services, and public safety, could all be enhanced with a more reliable, less costly transportation system. Another aspect of this concept is a more fully developed role for Kodiak as the island's service and supply hub. It plays that role now, but the community may have more to offer in this regard. If transportation economics permit, increasing Kodiak's role as a hub would benefit a range of local businesses and organizations, as well as local residents, with ties to the outlying communities. Report Content This report begins with an overview of socioeconomic conditions in the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. The existing transportation infrastructure and services are profiled in Chapter 2. Transportation demand and revenue potential are addressed in Chapter 3. This includes the results of a survey of Kodiak Island households. In Chapter 4, road and dock construction alternatives are identified and costs estimated. Chapter 5 describes some of the methodological issues considered in the marine services analysis. Chapter 6 summarizes the range of marine transportation service concepts considered. From this long -list of possible service concepts, a short-list of concepts was identified and carried forward for detailed analysis in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 discusses potential funding sources for transportation infrastructure development. Finally, Chapter 9 provides a summary of key study findings and conclusions. Is /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 17 Figure 3: Kodiak Island Map r ' _es"; assrw ., e c : � ' • �'' ����� ti ' e i Ouzinkie on • 1,, 4- " Port L l n ` � ' < d . t Anton ( ) Larsen t " - ,t ' } \ q } � �1 K od�alc Karluk ."------ Y s�fi� 9 ���, L'arsen ( y i at .e. ' ' Old Har bot ±' `� a Pa saas h ak� wvirrua e Y O ~ It 4 ! pp � ' :gn rs`s u a}' >i� > . rwnrC� /��,,��� r% tr � sAr 7r. (4,4 ac IslandWide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 18 Chapter 'O. Regional and Community Profiles Kodiak island Borough Kodiak Island Borough is a 2n Class Borough encompassing Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, and dozens of smaller islands all located approximately 250 air miles south of Anchorage. The borough's population totaled 13,860 residents in 2009, according to Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development data. Approximately 80 percent of the Island's population resides on the road system in or around the City of Kodiak. Ten percent of the borough's population (1,321 residents) resides at Kodiak Station, a U.S. Coast Guard base, also on the road system. The remainder of the borough's population is scattered in small communities with populations ranging from a few dozen to several hundred. Following are brief profiles of the study area communities that are the primary focus of this transportation feasibility study: Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions. There are other population centers in the borough, notably Chiniak and Aleneva. Chiniak is connected by road to the community of Kodiak, therefore is not specifically included in this analysis. Aleneva, with a population of 67 residents (in 2009), is located on Afognak Island. The community is a Russian Old Believer settlement, where Russian is the first language. Because of residents' desire for isolation, Aleneva was not treated as a community seeking stronger transportation connections with the community of Kodiak (though of course with appropriate marine terminal development, the community could be added as a ferry port -of -call, should ferry service be implemented). The population of Aleneva has been quite variable over the past ten years (according to ADOLWD data) ranging from a high of 96 in 2002 to a low of 44 in 2004. The following community profiles provide data on population, income, the economy, and other information. For any business or infrastructure feasibility study it is important to understand the size of the market to be served and trends in that market. The purpose of these profiles is to summarize the size and character of the market potentially served by an intra - Island ferry service and related infrastructure. Akhiok Akhiok is located near the southern end of Kodiak Island at Alitak Bay. It is the southernmost and most remote village on Kodiak Island. A second -class city, Akhiok was incorporated in 1972. The site became a permanent settlement in the late 19th century, gaining populations from nearby Alutiiq otter hunting settlements and displaced residents from the tsunami of the 1964 earthquake. Akhiok has two federally - recognized tribal councils, Akhiok Traditional Tribal Council and Kaguyak Tribal Council. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak /s /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 19 Located 80 air miles southwest of Kodiak and 340 miles southwest of Anchorage, Akhiok is accessible only by air or water. There is a State -owned 3,120 foot gravel runway. Regular scheduled and chartered flights are available from Kodiak. Servant Air has one scheduled flight to Akhiok on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. In addition, they will extend any of three daily scheduled Old Harbor flights to Akhiok as long as two or more seat fares are purchased. Island Air has no scheduled flights to Akhiok, but will extend the Sunday Old Harbor flight if two or more seat fares are purchased. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. Freight service is provided by landing craft (M /V Lazy Bay sporadically (two to three times a year) from Kodiak. Fuel also arrives by landing craft, the M/V Polar Bear, once a year. Figure 4: Aerial View of Akhiok W .bc p o ' w - J bniw • Near -by transportation infrastructure includes that at Alitak, located a few miles south of Akhiok (but only accessible by water). Alitak is an Ocean Beauty Seafoods -owned seasonal cannery operation first established in 1917. Alitak has deepwater docking facilities and receives fuel barge service (four to five deliveries during the operating season), and freight service through Northland Services and Coastal Transportation. Approximately 200 workers are employed at the Alitak facility at the peak season. There is also a seaplane dock located at a cannery site in Moser Bay, north of Akhiok. Akhiok residents travel by private boat to buy fuel and shop at the cannery store. Demographics According to ADOLWD, the 2009 population of Akhiok was estimated to be 51 residents. The community's population declined 34 percent from 2000 to 2009, though it increased by 6.3 percent from 2008 to 2009. Approximately 86 percent of Akhiok residents identify themselves as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. Akhiok School had enrollment for fiscal year (FY) 2010 of 18 students. School enrollment has been trending up over the past several years. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 20 Figure 5: Akhiok Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 100 77 80 80 60 1 57 49 51 57 48 51 42 41 36 40 j 1 1 1111 20 1 ; I 0 T I I I ' I ', I , 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Figure 6: Akhiok School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 30 25 20 20 14 14 16 17 16 15 14 16 1R 15 1 { 11 ' i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 5: Akhiok Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 (Count iPercentage Population of one race 74 92.5% White alone 2 2.5 Alaska Native alone 69 86.3 Population of two or more races 6 7.5 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Economy Nearly all Akhiok residents depend in some way on subsistence food sources from fishing and hunting. The median household income was $33,438 per year, with per capita income of $8.472, in 1999. In 1999, this was 35 percent below the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. Commercial fishing earnings have varied in recent years ranging from a low of $31,000 in 2007 to a high of $180,000 in 2004. The earnings mainly come from gillnetting. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 21 Table 6: Akhiok Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 Number of Number of Total 'Estimated 'Estimated Year Permit (Fishermen Pounds 'Gross Earnings :Holders :Who!Fished Landed lEarnings 'PerPound 2000 5 7 84,468 $67,739 $0.80 2001 5 5 58,972 $35,560 $0.60 2002 6 1 * ** * ** * ** 2003 7 7 99,187 $45,369 $0.46 2004 7 8 362,096 $179,700 $0.50 2005 5 5 207,995 $147,577 $0.71 2006 5 4 81,803 $40,240 $0.49 2007 5 4 42,179 $31,499 $0.75 2008 5 5 126,577 $129,810 $1.03 ** *Due to less than three permits fishing, by law data is kept confidential. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. The number of crew member licenses have fluctuated from 2000 through 2008. In 2008, five licenses were issued to Akhiok residents. This was down from 12 in 2000, but above the low of two in 2007. Table 7: Akhiok Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 - 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ,2005 2006 ,2007 2008 Number of crew 12 * ** 9 6 7 4 6 2 5 member licenses * ** Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were two employers in Akhiok in 2007. The Kodiak Area Native Association was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of seven and an average annual employment of five. Table 8: Akhiok Local Employers, 2007 Employers Peak Monthly Average Annual Employment (Employment Kodiak Area Native Association 7 5 City of Akhiok 6 2 Total 13 7 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. Karluk Located on the west coast of Kodiak Island near the mouth of the Karluk River, Karluk is an unincorporated city. The majority of the population is Alutiiq, who live a subsistence lifestyle. The physical site of the village of Karluk changed locations throughout the years. The present -day site of Karluk was established in 1978 after relocation was necessary due to flooding at the old location near the mouth of the river. Karluk has over 30 registered archaeological sites. Island-Wick Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 22 Located 88 air miles west of Kodiak and 301 miles southwest of Anchorage, Karluk is accessible only by small plane or water. There is a State -owned 2,000 -foot gravel airstrip. Island Air Service offers one scheduled flight on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. Demographics Karluk's population in 2009 was estimated at 38 residents. The community's population has increased since 2000, but is well below the 1990 population of 71 residents. As of 2000, nearly all of the population of Karluk identified itself as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. Karluk School has grades kindergarten through 12th grade with (FY) 2010 enrollment of 13 students. The school was closed for the 1999 -2000 and 2002 through 2005 school years due to low enrollment. Figure 7: Karluk Population, 1990 and 2000 - 2009 80 71 70 60 50 j j1 38 38 30 27 29 27 28 32 ' ! 10 IN I= HMO ME PM 0 1 �. 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Figure 8: Karluk School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 20 15 13 13 12 13 10 10 10 10 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 9: Karluk Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 :Count lRercentage Population of one race 27 100.0% Alaska Native alone 26 96.3 Asian alone 1 3.7 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 23 Economy Karluk's economy includes heavy dependence on subsistence, with cash income provided by tribal and other government employment. The median household income was $19,167 per year in 1999, with per capita income of $13,736. In 1999, this was 63 percent below the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. There is no data available for commercial fishing permits and participation for the years 2000 through 2008, except for one permit holder and one fisherman who fished in 2004. Crew member licenses have remained low from 2000 through 2008. In 2007 and 2008, zero licenses were issued. This was down from five in 2000. Table 10: Karluk Residents' Crew Member licenses, 2000 - 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ,2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of crew 5 * ** 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 member licenses *`* Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were four employers in Karluk in 2007. The Karluk IRA Tribal Council was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of ten and an average annual employment of eight. Table 11: Karluk Local Employers, 2007 Employers Peak Monthly Average Annual Employment Employment Karluk IRA Tribal Council 10 8 Kodiak Area Native Association 2 1 US Postal Service _ 2 1 Karluk RPSU 2 0 Total 16 10 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. Larsen Bay Located on the northwest coast of Kodiak Island on Larsen Bay, the community of Larsen Bay was incorporated as a second -class city in 1974. The majority of the population is Alutiiq. Larsen Bay is within the boundaries of Kodiak Island Borough and Koniag Regional Corporation. The Alaska Natives of Larsen Bay Tribal Council is recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the official governing body for the Native Village of Larsen Bay. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 24 Figure 9: Aerial View of Larsen Bay U yZy .YA t _ . Located 60 air miles southwest of Kodiak and 283 miles southwest of Anchorage, Larsen Bay is accessible only by air or water. There is a State -owned 2,700 foot gravel airstrip (with plans for runway extension to 3,300 feet) and a seaplane base. Regular scheduled and chartered flights are available from Kodiak. During the summer, Island Air Service offers three flights daily Monday through Saturday, with an additional flight on Sunday. During the winter months, there are two flights daily Monday through Saturday. Servant Air does not offer scheduled service, but will stop there when two or more seat fares are purchased. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. Construction was completed in 2002 on the boat harbor, which has a breakwater and dock. The Icicle Seafood cannery has deepwater docking facilities and receives occasional freight and fuel barge service from Seattle. Demographics ADOLWD estimated the 2009 population of Larsen Bay to be 79 residents. The community's population declined 31 percent from 2000 to 2009, though it increased between 2008 and 2009. Over three - quarters of the population of Larsen Bay identifies itself as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. lust over 20 percent identifies itself as white. The Larsen Bay School had total K through 12 enrollment of 11 students in FY 2010. Enrollment has been variable in recent years, dropping sharply since 2007, when 21 students were enrolled. Figure 10: Larsen Bay Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 160 147 140 115 113 107 120 95 96 97 100 I 83 89 79 �� j : MI .111 =I all MI ao 0 , 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 25 Figure 11: Larsen Bay School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 30 24 25 25 20 21 20 IS 17 15 17 17 15 I 13 fl • 10 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 12: Larsen Bay Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 Count Percentage Population of one race 114 99.1% White alone 24 20.9 Alaska Native alone 90 78.3 Population of two or more races 1 0.9 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Of these households, 65 percent were family households, while 35 percent were nonfamily households. The average family size was 2.88 people. Economy The economy of Larsen Bay is based primarily on fishing, seafood processing and non - resident sportfishing and hunting. Most year -round residents depend in some way on subsistence food sources. The median household income was $48,833 per year with per capita income of $16,227. In 1999, this was 5 percent below the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. In commercial fishing, the number of permit holders decreased from 17 in 2000 to 10 in 2008, as has the number of fishermen who fished, slipping from 14 to 4. Gross earnings decreased from $692,000 in 2000 to $228,000 in 2008, though earnings have been reasonably stable over the past four years, and well above the low -point in 2002. Commercial fishing earnings come from seining and gillnetting. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 26 Table 13: Larsen Bay Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 iNumberiof iNunibefiof Total !Estimated.. Estimated • ' Permit , 1Fishermen (Pounds Cross • , (Earnings ` (Holders yWholEished !Landed IEarriings iPer'Pound` 2000 17 14 1,682,704 $691,972 $0.41 2001 12 10 1,175,283 333,200 $0.28 2002 11 7 315,012 82,955 $0.26 2003 11 6 375,356 149,041 $0.40 2004 12 9 551,380 168,166 $0.30 2005 9 7 480,599 211,964 $0.44 2006 10 7 851,448 241,779 $0.28 2007 10 7 404,342 215,469 $0.53 2008 10 4 351,146 228,346 $0.65 Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. The number of crew member licenses declined from 2000 through 2008. In 2007 and 2008, eight licenses were issued. This was down from 24 in 2000. Due to problems with the data, crew- member was unavailable for 2001. Table 14: Larsen Bay Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 -2008 :2000 ' 2001 2002 .2003 .2004 2005 2006 .2007 .2008 Number of crew 24 * ** 15 20 19 19 12 8 8 member licenses * ** Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were ten employers in Larsen Bay in 2007. Icicle Seafoods was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of 223 and an average annual employment of 52. Table 15: Larsen Bay Local Employers, 2007 Employers PeakiMontlily /Average- Annual Employment (Employment Icicle Seafoods Inc. 223 52 Larsen Bay City Council 15 10 Larsen Bay Tribal Council 11 8 Larsen Bay Lodge Inc. 16 7 Kodiak Area Native Association 13 7 Kodiak Lodge at Larsen Bay Ltd. 12 3 Larsen Bay Utility Company 4 2 US Postal Service 3 2 Uyak Bay Lodge 7 1 Shelikof Trading Company 3 1 Total 307 93 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 27 There are five sportfishing lodges in the Larsen Bay area including the Larsen Bay Lodge, Uyak Bay Lodge, and the Kodiak Island Resort. Old Harbor Located on the southeast coast of Kodiak Island, Old Harbor was incorporated as a second -class city in 1966. Old Harbor is the site of the first Russian colony in Alaska. Like many communities, Old Harbor was destroyed by the 1964 earthquake, but was rebuilt in the same location. The majority of the population is Alutiiq. The Old Harbor Tribal Council is the official governing body for the Native Village of Old Harbor. Old Harbor is located 70 air miles southwest of Kodiak and 322 miles southwest of Anchorage. The community has a State -owned 2,750 foot gravel runway and a seaplane base. Regular scheduled and chartered flights are available from Kodiak. Island Air Service offers two flights per day Monday through Saturday, and an additional flight on Sunday during the summer months. Servant Air offers three scheduled flights per day Monday through Saturday, summer and winter. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. Demographics ADOLWD estimated the 2009 population of Old Harbor at 193 residents. The community's population declined 19 percent from 2000 to 2009, but has been reasonably steady over the past six years and increased slightly from 2008 to 2009. Nearly three - quarters of the population of Old Harbor identifies itself as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. Old Harbor School had enrollment in fiscal year (FY) 2010 of 47 students. This has been an enrollment drop of about 20 percent, or 13 students, since 2005. Figure 12: Old Harbor Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 300 7R4 250 237 236 77A i 198 200 179 201 185 200 193 I 100 - '- a 'al ,- 0 - 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Stacy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 28 Figure 13: Old Harbor School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 67 70 61 64 62 58 60 56 b0 55 50 j S0 qS 47 I 40 ,l .� OI = al j a '�� r a 20 la a I � I� a 'a �la a -a ; I I= a Ia f a ,a i Ia a j a o i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 16: Old Harbor Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 Count 'Percentage Population of one race 204 86.1% White alone 31 1 3.1 Alaska Native alone 173 73.0 Population of two or more races 33 13.9 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Economy • The economy of Old Harbor is based primarily on commercial fishing, though non - resident sportfishing is also a source of income for local residents. Nearly all residents depend in some way on subsistence food sources. The median household income was $32,500 per year, with per capita income of $14,265. In 1999, this was 37 percent below the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. Income from commercial fishing has remained fairly steady in recent years, with ex- vessel income ranging between $1.5 million and $2.1 million annually. The number of permit holders declined from 32 in 2000 to 25 in 2008, as did the number of fishermen who fished, from 19 to 13. Table 17: Old Harbor Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 . INunibenof 1Nunibenof Total :Estimated !Estimated Year Permit (Fishermen iPounds (Gross - ;Earnings ,Holders 'WhotFished ;Landed Earnings (Per Pound 2000 32 19 4,570,688 $1,721,753 $0.38 2001 30 14 5,610,228 1,311,336 $0.23 2002 25 9 4,820,811 883,558 $0.18 2003 26 13 4,717,449 1,167,168 $0.25 2004 22 9 5,029,818 1,527,691 $0.30 2005 23 11 7,749,687 1,765,028 $0.23 2006 24 12 7,809,211 1,929,670 $0.25 2007 26 13 6,838,005 1,893,875 $0.28 2008 25 13 3,788,021 2,128,846 $0.56 Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. Island! Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDokwill Group, Inc. • Page 29 The number of crew member licenses held by local residents declined from 2000 through 2008. In 2008, 39 licenses were issued. This was down from 52 in 2000, but above the low of 28 in 2005. Table 18: Old Harbor Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 - 2008 .2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ,2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of crew 52 * ** 40 45 43 28 37 34 39 member licenses *** Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were six employers in Old Harbor in 2007. The Old Harbor Tribal Council was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of 25 and an average annual employment of 21. There are several wilderness and sportfishing lodges in the Old Harbor area including Kodiak Sportsman Lodge, Ocean View Lodge, and Sitkalidak Lodge. Table 19: Old Harbor Local Employers, 2007 +PeakiMontlily .Average Annual Employers Employment +Employment Old Harbor Tribal Council 25 21 City of Old Harbor 17 10 Kodiak Area Native Association 17 9 Kodiak Sportsman Lodge LLC 11 5 US Postal Service 3 3 Old Harbor Shuttle Service 3 1 Total 76 48 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. Ouzinkie On the west coast of Spruce Island, just north of Kodiak Island, lies the community of Ouzinkie. It was incorporated as a second -class city in 1967. Originally a retirement community for the Russian American Company, the site was also used over the years for cannery operations. The majority of the population is Alutiiq. The Ouzinkie Traditional Tribal Council is recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the community's official tribal governing body. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 30 Figure 14: Aerial View of Ouzinkie Y� ' y r' .' P I f' ` �" ' rlti'i t; ti.rte i Atf ' ° U " i� V / '( t 1�� k\ • ' +g Ouzinkie is located approximately 12 miles northwest of Kodiak and 247 miles southwest of Anchorage. There is a new 3,300 foot state -owned airstrip. Seaplanes have access to a seaplane landing area in Ouzinkie Harbor. Regular scheduled and chartered flights are available from Kodiak. Island Air Service offers two scheduled flights per day Monday through Saturday, and an additional flight on Sunday during the summer months. Servant Air offers two scheduled flights per day Monday through Saturday, summer and winter. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. Demographics The 2009 population of Ouzinkie was estimated to be 170. The community's population in 2009 was 24 percent below the 2000 level, though it has increased slightly from 2007 to 2009. Eight in ten people in Ouzinkie identified themselves as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. One in ten people identified themselves as either white or two or more races. Ouzinkie's school had enrollment for fiscal year (FY) 2010 of 30 students. Enrollment has been declining over the past two years. Figure 15: Ouzinkie Population, 1990 and 2000 - 2009 250 225 209 204 200 189 172 187 189 It 2�6�1'b8 - 170 — 150 , �i■ 11 I 100 50 ,. {■- '■ ! ■ a 111 .11 �■ ,■ 11111 i 01� ■E ■ 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 31 Figure 16: Ouzinkie School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 60 51 5p J3 50 49 11 44 44 `K' 40 3c 30 --'a---'-. 10 - a a . a - a - '..- 0 : , 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 20: Ouzinkie Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 Count Percentage Population of one race 207 92.0% White alone 25 11.1 Alaska Native alone 182 80.9 Population of two or more races 18 8.0 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Economy Ouzinkie's economy is based primarily on commercial fishing and nearly all residents depend in some way on subsistence food sources. The median household income was $52,500 per year in 1999, which was 2 percent above the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. Per capita income was $19,324. The number of Ouzinkie resident commercial fishing permit holders declined slightly from 26 in 2000 to 22 in 2008, as did the number of fishermen who fished, from 19 to 12. However, gross earnings increased from $602,000 in 2000 to $802,000 in 2008. Table 21: Ouzinkie Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 - 2008 Number of Number of Total /Estimated Estimated Year :Permit (Fishermen Pounds /Gross Earnings :Holders Who?Fished Landed :Earnings lPeriPound 2000 26 19 1,233,602 $602,479 $0.49 2001 27 15 2,033,367 582,638 $0.29 2002 26 19 1,452,030 464,710 $0.32 2003 25 18 1,052,850 464,535 $0.44 2004 24 14 1,297,077 582,586 $0.45 2005 23 15 1,746,405 597,757 $0.34 2006 23 13 956,275 600,985 $0.63 2007 23 12 1,648,241 793,570 $0.48 2008 22 12 943,893 802,180 $0.85 Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 32 Crew member licenses issues to local residents remained fairly stable from 2000 through 2008. In 2008, 22 licenses were issued. This was down From 28 in 2000, but above the low of 20 in 2002 and 2003. Table 22: Ouzinkie Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 - 2008 2000 2001 2002 :2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of crew 28 _= 20 20 29 25 26 24 22 member licenses * ** Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were eight employers in Ouzinkie in 2007. The Ouzinkie Tribal Council was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of 20 and an average annual employment of 18. Table 23: Ouzinkie Local Employers, 2007 Employers :Peak 'Monthly Average Annual Employment Employment Ouzinkie Tribal Council 20 18 City of Ouzinkie 23 15 Ouzinkie Native Corporation 14 9 Kodiak Area Native Association 15 7 Ouzinkie Water and Sewer 9 3 US Postal Service 2 2 Spruce Island Supply Inc. 3 2 Spruce Island Development Corporation (SIDCO) 1 1 Total 87 57 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 33 Port Lions Located on the north coast of Kodiak Island in Settler Cove, Port Lions was incorporated as a second -class city in 1966. Founded in 1964 by Afognak's displaced residents from the tsunami of the Good Friday Earthquake, the majority of the population is Alutiiq. The Native Village of Port Lions is the federally- recognized tribe for the community. Figure 17: Aerial View of Port Lions rr� v s 1 1.4 J i :.4 Port Lions is located 19 air miles west of Kodiak and 249 miles southwest of Anchorage. There is a State - owned 2,600 foot airstrip (with planning in place for extension to 3,300 feet). Seaplanes have access to the City -owned dock. Regular scheduled and chartered flights are available from Kodiak. Servant Air offers two scheduled flights per day Monday through Saturday, summer and winter. Island Air service offers the same schedule, though with an additional flight on Sunday during the summer months. Chartered flights are available through several other operators. The State Ferry, M/V Tustumena, operates twice weekly from Kodiak. Demographics The population of Port Lions was estimated at 200 residents in 2009. The community's population declined 22 percent from 2000 to 2009, though it increased by about 5 percent from 2008 to 2009. Nearly two- thirds of the population of Port Lions identifies itself as being of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. Port Lions School had enrollment in fiscal year (FY) 2010 of 36 students. This is 38 percent, or 22 students, below the 1999 level. Figure 18: Port Lions Population, 1990 and 2000 -2009 300 256 246 250 —222 227 233 240 2.20 196 193 191 200 200 150 a 100 . .a l. 0 , 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADOLWD, 2009 Island -tide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 34 Figure 19: Port Lions School Enrollment, 1999 -2009 70 58 60 50 11 43 48 14 47 39 38 30 - • a - '- ! i 36 20 j- f� a 11.1 a a • �� ;♦ 0 I 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: ADEED, FY 1999 through FY 2010 Table 24: Port Lions Race by Count and Percentage, 2000 'Count Percentage Population of one race 251 98.0% White alone 89 34.8 Alaska Native alone 162 63.3 Population of two or more races 5 2.0 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Economy The Port Lions economy is based primarily on commercial fishing, tourism and local government. Many residents depend in some way on subsistence food sources. The median household income was $39,107 per year, with per capita income of 517,492, in 1999. This was 24 percent below the state -wide average median household income of $51,571 per year. Commercial fishing income for local residents has remained fairly steady in recent years. The number of permit holders declined from 24 in 2000 to 17 in 2008, as has the number of fishermen who fished from 16 to 13. However, gross earnings have remained between $1.1 million and $1.3 million. The earnings come mainly from seining and halibut long -line. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 35 Table 25: Port Lions Residents' Commercial Fishing Activity, 2000 -2008 Number of Number of Total 'Estimated Estimated Year PPermit Fishermen Pounds Gross Earnings !Holders Who :Fished Landed 'Earnings P Pound 2000 24 16 2,276,925 $1,027,875 $0.45 2001 20 11 3,842,795 868,191 $0.23 2002 19 11 4,976,294 740,018 $0.15 2003 19 13 4,070,465 812,785 $0.20 2004 18 12 4,984,141 987,560 $0.20 2005 18 12 6,304,024 1,301,196 $0.21 2006 16 11 3,898,233 1,079,263 $0.28 2007 17 12 4,287,550 1,297,515 $0.30 2008 17 13 1,866,772 1,098,399 $0.59 Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. Crew member licenses have remained stable from 2000 through 2008. In 2008, 20 licenses were issued. This was down from 24 in 2000, but above the low of 16 in 2006. Table 26: Port Lions Residents' Crew Member Licenses, 2000 - 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of crew 24 * ** 24 23 20 20 16 20 20 member licenses * ** Due to problems with the data, crew member licenses are unavailable for 2001. Source: CFEC, 2000 through 2008. According to ADOLWD, there were eleven employers in Port Lions in 2007. The Native Village of Port Lions was the largest employer with a peak monthly employment of 18 and an average annual employment of 14. Table 27: Port Lions Local Employers, 2007 Employers Peak :Monthly Average Annual Employment Employment Native Village of Port Lions 18 14 City of Port Lions 10 8 Kodiak Area Native Association 6 5 US Postal Service 3 3 Kizhuyak Oil Sales 4 3 City of Port Lions Health Facility 6 2 Port Lions Clinic 6 2 Kodiak Electric Association 2 1 Kodiak Paradise Lodge LLC 8 1 Telalaska Inc. 1 1 Wilderness Lodge 5 1 Total 69 40 Source: ADOLWD, unpublished data, 2007. is /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Stun)/ for Kodiak is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 36 There are several wilderness and sportfishing lodges in the Port Lions area including Kodiak Paradise Lodge, Whale Pass Lodge, Soho -Nook Lodge, Kodiak Wilderness Lodge, and Wilderness Beach Lodge. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT MCDOrswll Group, Inc • Page 37 Chapter 2. Existing Transportation Infrastructure and Services The outlying communities of Kodiak Island depend on a range of transportation providers to meet their household, commercial and government transportation needs. Air taxis support most of the passenger travel to these communities with relatively frequent scheduled service with single and twin- engine aircraft. Private sector operators provide unscheduled marine freight transportation services. Port Lions is the only outlying community currently served by AMHS. Freight Service and Traffic Movement of freight is a particular challenge for the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. As recently as 2005, some of the small Kodiak Island communities enjoyed direct freight service from Seattle via Western Pioneer, Inc., which operated a fleet of four small freighters (ranging in length from 165 to 192 feet) between Seattle and numerous Alaska ports. This included regular or occasional stops in Port Lions, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie and Old Harbor. Western Pioneer also served communities in Southeast Alaska and western Alaska. Western Pioneer hauled furniture and household freight, groceries, building materials, vehicles and other break -bulk freight north -bound and frozen fish southbound. However, Western Pioneer suspended shipping operations in June 2005 and sold its vessels shortly thereafter. While northbound freight volumes were good, declining volumes of south -bound fish was blamed for the demise of the operation. Today, Coastal Transportation is the only shipping company offering freighter service to the smaller communities of western Alaska. Icicle Seafoods' plant in Larsen Bay and Ocean Beauty's plant in Alitak are among the ports served seasonally by Coastal Transportation. Coastal's fleet of six vessels range from 176 to 240 feet in length, with average hold capacity of 70,000 cubic feet. According to a company representative, freight generating approximately $30,000 in revenue would be required for Coastal Transportation to make an unscheduled port call, perhaps somewhat more or less depending on the location of the port. Depending on the nature of the freight, this could be about 200,000 pounds of freight. For a community to secure regularly scheduled service, it would need to generate approximately that volume (value) of freight on a monthly or quarterly basis. Coastal Transportation's rates for scheduled shipping from Seattle to its coastal Alaska customers include (as of December 6, 2010): • Chill Fruits & Vegetables and Refrigerated Freight NOS: $34.12 cwt (per hundred - weight) for shipments less than 1,000 lbs. and $30.71 cwt for shipments greater than 1,000 lbs. • Beverages and Foodstuffs: $17.50 cwt for shipments less than 5,000 lbs. and $14.50 for shipments greater than 5,000 lbs. • Clothing and Household Goods: $5.50 per cubic foot. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 38 • Appliances and Furniture: $4.80 per cubic foot. • Lumber and Timbers: $16.00 cwt for shipments less than 5,000 lbs. and $14.48 cwt for shipments greater than 5,000 lbs. If demand for freight service from Seattle to Kodiak Island communities were sufficient to support profitable freighter service, that service would be available today. It is worth noting re- initiation of direct freight service from Seattle to one of more Kodiak Island communities would come at the expense of Kodiak and other Alaska businesses that are now selling goods to customers in those communities. Figure 20: M/V Lazy Bay Landing Craft Freight Service - 1 /1Cy� ,_ • -- - �� lrty_ • d _ r tit :' `, .4: r . -.j' ,,. '' rr. , Since the loss of Western Pioneer freight service directly from Seattle, Kodiak Island's outlying communities' heavy freight needs have been meet by a number of landing craft operators providing service from Kodiak. Some residents transport their own freight in private vessels ranging from small skiffs to large commercial fishing vessels. Island Provider Transportation Company operated the M/V Lady Nina. Currently M/V Lazy Bay LLC provides on- demand freight service with a 100 -foot landing craft (87 -foot on vessel doc data, built in 1968, 21 foot beam). It carries a forklift to load and unload none - mobile freight. The M/V Polar Bear, a 153 - foot landing craft also provides freight and fuel service on demand. Figure 21: M/V Polar Bear Landing Craft . ;;;;;;;;.t.,:-Iii . :} �+. '�--" -.fir J...� Fuel is provided by barge or landing craft. Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Port Lions have docks with fuel headers. In Larsen Bay the fuel barge lies at anchor while offloading fuel. The fuel supply transportation needs of Akhiok and Karluk are met by landing craft. Petro Marine Services delivers and Crowley provides fuel via tug and fuel barge. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 39 There is very little useful published or available unpublished data concerning the volume of freight shipped into (or out of) the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. Data compiled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center includes data for Old Harbor, which is summarized in the following table. The data is interesting in it shows the drop in non - petroleum freight volume to Old Harbor when Western Pioneer freighter service ceased mid -year 2005. This data indicates just over 425,000 pounds of non -fuel related freight was shipped into Old Harbor in 2004 from Seattle. Of course data after 2005 does not include freight delivered to the community via landing craft from Kodiak. Table 28: Old Harbor In -Bound Freight, 2004 -2008, Short Tons 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 All Commodities 753 613 404 443 494 Petroleum Products 539 523 404 443 494 All Other Goods 214 90 0 0 0 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. Freight data from other Alaska communities provides an indication of the total volume of freight likely moving into the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. In the following table, in -bound marine freight is presented for six communities of various sizes, ranging in population from about 800 (Hoonah) to nearly 9,000 (Sitka). Total freight is a measure of in -bound lumber, groceries, other food items, alcoholic beverages, paper products, manufactured products (furniture and appliances), vehicles, and boats shipped into these communities via barge in 2008. The data indicates in -bound freight in these categories ranges from about 1,700 pounds per person in the smallest community to about 5,800 pounds per person in the largest community. In these same categories, freight shipped into Old Harbor in 2004 was about 1,500 pounds, per capita. Higher per capita volumes of freight into larger communities are to be expected. Larger communities typically have higher per capita personal income, with greater per capita spending on durable and non- durable consumer goods. Further, in Alaska, small rural communities have a much higher level of dependence on subsistence resources (meaning lower per capita purchases of groceries). Table 29: Freight Volumes to Selected Alaska Communities, 2008 2008 Total Freight iFreight Per !Po.ulation (Ibs) Ca.ita (Ibs) Cordova 2,155 9,728,000 4,514 Metlakatla 1,370 3,152,000 2,301 Hoonah 819 1,366,000 1,668 Nome 3,565 11,534,000 3,235 Sitka 8,641 50,568,000 5,852 Wrangell 1,939 5,484,000 2,828 • Total /Average 18,489 81,832,000 4,426 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. Compiled by McDowell Group. Based on this data, the volume of freight moving in to the six outlying communities of Kodiak Island is likely in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds per person annually. For the communities' total population (in 2009) of 730 residents, in bound freight is likely in the range of 1.1 million to 1.5 million pounds (SS0 to 750 short tons). Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 40 This freight is currently moving into Kodiak Island communities in several ways, including small plane, the Lazy Bay, private boat, and, for Port Lions residents, in personal vehicles carried aboard the Tustumena. (Much of this freight would have been carried by Western Pioneer prior to that company's departure from the Alaska market). It is important to note not all freight is included in these figures. Of course fuel is not included. COE data also records a variety of one -time or infrequent freight shipments, such as concrete, paints, explosives, chemical products, etc, which are not included in the figures in the preceding table. Other Traffic Trends and Volumes Air Traffic (Passenger and Freight) Air traffic data provides an indication of transportation market size and trends. Data from the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) indicates passenger and freight volumes. Data for 2007, 2008 and 2009 are reported here. Old Harbor is the largest air taxi market among the six communities, with total in -bound and out -bound traffic of 6,638 passengers in 2009. Ouzinkie and Larsen Bay are a close second and third, with 6,375 and 6,124 passengers respectively in 2009. Karluk, the smallest of the had total in -bound and out -bound traffic of 733 passengers in 2009 (which is significantly below the 2008 level of more than 1,100 passengers). On a per capita equivalent basis, Larsen Bay generates the highest level of air passenger traffic. Per capita equivalent traffic ranges from a low of about 10 round -trips in Karluk to a high of about 39 round -trips in Larsen Bay. Larsen Bay traffic is high due to the relatively large numbers of non- resident visitors to the community (mostly related to the large fish processing facility located in Larsen Bay, as well as guided non- resident fishermen and hunters). Akhiok traffic is also influence by travel to and from the Alitak cannery. Port Lions is at the low end of the range because it enjoys frequent AMHS ferry service. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 41 Table 30: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Air Passenger Statistics, 2007 -2009 2007 2008 2009 2009 Per Capita Passenger Volume I Kodiak - Akhiok 895 1,015 1,198 23 Akhiok- Kodiak 962 1,026 1,180 23 Kodiak - Larsen Bay 3,133 3,086 2,996 38 Larsen Bay - Kodiak 2,995 2,882 3,128 40 Kodiak -Old Harbor 3,136 3,294 3,202 17 Old Harbor - Kodiak 2,921 3,170 3,436 18 Kodiak - Karluk 658 604 332 9 Karluk- Kodiak 587 547 401 11 Kodiak - Ouzinkie 2,288 2,487 2,920 17 Ouzinkie- Kodiak 1,835 2,072 3,455 20 Kodiak -Port Lions 2,165 2,184 3,056 15 Port Lions - Kodiak 2,334 2,563 2,591 13 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics Federal Aviation Administration (FM) data measuring total embarkations for each community is generally consistent with the BTS data. Data back to 2005 shows a general increase in passenger traffic at all the communities, with the exception of Karluk. Table 31: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Air Passenger Boarding Statistics, 2005 - 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Akhiok 1,153 1,190 1,054 1,220 1,356 Karluk 666 586 697 505 376 Larsen Bay 2,581 2,699 2,944 2,933 3,009 Old Harbor 2,266 2,620 2,946 3,282 3,226 Ouzinkie 1,684 1,695 1,914 2,071 2,999 Port Lions 1,907 2,162 2,311 2,386 2,666 Source: FAA Airfreight statistics show (not surprisingly) disproportionate volumes of in -bound freight. BTS data indicates the highest level of air freight volume at Old Harbor, with 523,000 pounds, including 462,000 pounds of in- bound freight. Karluk has the lowest volume, totaling 54,000 pounds in 2009, including 52,000 pounds of in -bound freight. On a per- capita equivalent basis, Akhiok is highest, with over 2,800 pounds of in -bound freight per capita. Port Lions is lowest in terms of per capita in -bound freight at 860 pounds, which reflects the availability of AMHS service to the community. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 42 Table 32: Kodiak Island Outlying Community Airfreight Statistics, 2007 -2009 - 2007 2008 2009 ' 2009 I Freight Volume (Ibs) Per Capita I Kodiak - Akhiok 73,974 107,153 145,542 2,854 Akhiok - Kodiak 8,465 20,141 23,737 465 Kodiak - Larsen Bay 264,315 221,812 191,236 2,421 Larsen Bay- Kodiak 15,400 17,628 25,394 321 Kodiak -Old Harbor 354,343 416,523 461,772 2,393 Old Harbor - Kodiak 35,287 52,715 61,581 319 Kodiak - Karluk 80,281 73,221 52,080 1,371 Karluk- Kodiak 2,221 5,510 2,069 54 Kodiak - Ouzinkie 186,711 189,838 292,789 1,722 Ouzinkie- Kodiak 6,672 14,104 24,470 144 Kodiak -Port Lions 160,584 168,292 171,976 860 Port Lions - Kodiak 9,344 8,943 18,650 93 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics Typical seat fares for scheduled air travel from Kodiak to the outlying communities are presented in the following table. Freight rates are also presented (on Island Air passengers can take 50 pounds of freight free of charge). Table 33: Typical Kodiak Island Seat Fare and Airfreight Rates, 2010 !Freight (Kodiaksto: AirlMiles SeatlFare '($Jlb) Port Lions 19 $50 0.44 Ouzinkie 11 $50 0.44 Larsen Bay 64 $99 0.65 Karluk 79 $127 0.79 Old Harbor 70 $90 0.65 Akhiok 90 $133 0.83 Source: Island Air. AMHS Service and Traffic Port Lions is the only outlying community on Kodiak Island served by the AMHS. The M/V Tustumena provides ferry service year around (the other AMHS vessel serving Kodiak and southwest Alaska, the M/V Kennicott, is too large to call on Port Lions). Departures vary, but are often twice weekly. Passenger and vehicle traffic remained fairly constant 2000 through 2005, then increased sharply (more than doubling) when an increase in port calls in 2006 resulted and the loss of Western Pioneer freight service to Port Lions. Passenger traffic peaked in 2007 then declined slightly in 2008 and 2009. Vehicle traffic has been somewhat more stable since 2007. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibi/ity Stu* for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 43 Table 34: Port Lions AMHS Passenger Traffic, 2000 -2009 Year (Embarking Disembarking 2000 417 503 2001 420 571 2002 433 415 2003 326 399 2004 423 460 2005 418 520 2006 1,020 1,178 2007 1,471 1,525 2008 1,405 1,430 2009 1,357 1,355 Source: AMHS Annual Traffic Report, 2000 -2009. Table 35: Port Lions AMHS Vehicle Traffic, 2000 -2009 Year Embarking Disembarking 2000 182 202 2001 207 245 2002 155 162 2003 141 167 2004 173 225 2005 187 219 2006 419 482 2007 566 634 2008 598 615 2009 572 613 Source: AMHS Annual Traffic Report, 2000 -2009. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 44 Chapter 3. Transportation Demand and Revenue Potential Analysis In Chapter 2, information concerning current movement of passengers and freight to and from the outlying communities of Kodiak Island was presented. This, however, does not necessarily represent the total demand for transportation services or the number of passengers and volume of freight that would move on an enhanced transportation system serving some or all of these communities. The purpose of this chapter is to assess potential traffic and revenue from enhanced surface transportation infrastructure, including regularly scheduled marine transportation service. This chapter begins with a summary of the results of a telephone survey conducted with a randomly selected sample of Kodiak Island Borough households. The primary purpose of the survey was to gauge anticipated use, among Kodiak Island Borough residents, of a regularly scheduled ferry service connecting the community of Kodiak with the Island's outlying communities. This chapter also includes an overview of ferry system case studies, which describes the basic economics of operating ferry systems in Alaska. The chapter concludes with an analysis of revenue potential for a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry system. Household Survey Results A total of 419 randomly - selected Kodiak Island Borough households were surveyed in April 2010. The sample included 301 households from the community of Kodiak and 118 households from the six study area communities in the outlying areas of the borough. While most of the demand for ferry service to outlying communities would come from the residents of those communities, the borough's population center around the community of Kodiak represents a potentially significant source of passenger travel, as residents seek recreational opportunities and travel to visit with friends and relatives. Strong cultural ties exist between residents of the city and residents of outlying communities, and enhanced transportation infrastructure and service could spur additional personal travel as transportation cost and convenience barriers are reduced. Community of Kodiak Resident Survey Results Just over three quarters of the adult residents of the community of Kodiak had not visited any of the outlying communities in the preceding 12 months. Visitation to Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor was approximately equal, with about one in ten Kodiak residents visiting each of these communities, either for personal or business reasons. Among residents traveling to the outlying communities, some made just one trip during the past 12 months while others made numerous trips to one or more communities. For example, residents that traveled to Port Lions made an average of 3.6 trips. Kodiak residents that traveled to Ouzinkie, the community geographically closest to Kodiak, made an average of 6.5 trips. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 45 Table 36: In the last 12 months, have you traveled to any of the following communities on Kodiak Island? Base: Kodiak residents 0 /0 ofiKodiak n =301 Port Lions 11% Ouzinkie 11 Larsen Bay 10 Old Harbor 9 Akhiok 5 Karluk 4 None 76 Table 37: Number of Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Base: Traveled to community 1 trip 2 trips 3 -10 trips 11+'trips Average Port Lions (n =33) 58% 21% 15% 6% 3.6 Ouzinkie (n =33) 39 24 24 12 6.5 Larsen Bay (n=28) 46 18 18 18 6.3 Old Harbor (n =26) 65 8 15 12 4.4 Akhiok (n =15) 53 7 33 7 5.3 Karluk(n =11) 36 18 27 18 5.0 Among all Kodiak residents, there was generally equal interest in visiting the larger outlying communities if ferry service were available. Potential ferry service was described to survey respondents as such: "One option for improved transportation to these [Kodiak Island] communities is a passenger and vehicle ferry that would travel between Kodiak and each community twice a week between May and September, and less frequently during the winter months." Residents were asked "Which of the following communities, if any, would you be likely to visit using the proposed ferry service ?" Residents expressed about equal interest in visiting Old Harbor (28 percent would be likely to visit), Larsen Bay (26 percent), and Ouzinkie (25 percent). Of course, Kodiak residents can already visit Port Lions via ferry. Table 38: Which of the following communities, if any, would you be likely to visit using the proposed ferry service? Base: Kodiak residents '% ofrKodiak in =30,1 Old Harbor 28% Larsen Bay 26 Ouzinkie 25 Karluk 15 Akhiok 15 None 41 Don't know /refused 7 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 46 While most travelers to outlying communities would make just one trip, others would expect to make multiple trips to one or more outlying communities using the proposed ferry service. Most trips would be for recreation ( "vacation /pleasure "); however, business travel, visiting friends and relatives and fishing /hunting combined would be expected to account for a quarter to a third of the ferry travel to outlying communities, among Kodiak residents. Table 39: Number of Likely Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Using Proposed Ferry Service, May- September Base: Kodiak residents 0 trips 1 drip 2'trips 3- 10(trips 11 +trips Ouzinkie (n=81) 75% 11% 8% 5% 1% Larsen Bay (n =87) 74 15 7 4 - Old Harbor (n =89) 72 19 7 3 - Akhiok (n =49) 85 10 3 2 <1 Karluk (n =52) 85 10 3 2 - Table 40: Primary Purpose of Trips from Kodiak to Other Communities Using Proposed Ferry Service, May- September Base: Likely to travel to community Visit • Vacation/ B usiness (Friends/ {Fish /Hunt - (Pleasure !Family Ouzinkie (n =72) 69% 14% 11% 6% Larsen Bay (n =73) 70 11 11 8 Old Harbor (n =80) 68 6 14 13 Akhiok (n =45) 71 13 7 9 Karluk (n =46) 74 7 4 15 Outlying Community Resident Survey Results Residents of the six outlying communities of Kodiak Island make frequent trips to the community of Kodiak. As Kodiak Island's service, supply, government and transportation hub, residents travel to Kodiak for a broad range of trip purposes. Table 41: Travel Mode for Trips from Outlying Communities to Kodiak • • Averages# 'Average #- , . tAveragef# ,Average Total Median Total stripsiby tripssby state itnpslby air (privatewessel (ferry • .Trips Trips Port Lions (n =38) 10.8 4.0 8.6 23.4 20.0 Ouzinkie (n=21) 16.5 11.1 n/a 27.6 24.0 Larsen Bay (n =9) 10.9 0.0 n/a - 10.9 8.0 Old Harbor (n =31) 10.9 0.3 n/a 11.2 6.0 Akhiok (n =13) 8.8 0.0 n/a 8.8 6.0 Karluk (n =5) 12.4 0.0 n/a 12.4 9.0 Residents would continue to rely heavily on air service for their travel to Kodiak, but a substantial amount of travel would occur on a new intra - island ferry service. Residents would expect to make an average of between Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 47 seven (among Old Harbor residents) and 13 (among Ouzinkie residents) trips to Kodiak on the ferry. With the small sample sizes from these communities, average values have high error margins. Median values (the most frequent values) are considered a better representation of typical household travel. Median values range from five trips (Larsen Bay and Old Harbor residents) to 10 trips (Ouzinkie residents). These are measures of predicted summer travel (May through September). While surveys measuring anticipated travel typically indicate greater travel frequency than would actually be the case, these survey results (which gauge seasonal travel) appear to be reasonably consistent with AMHS ferry travel frequencies for Port Lions residents. AMHS data indicates about 70 percent of the AMHS passenger embarkations and disembarkations at Port Lions are Port Lions residents, which is the equivalent of about five AMHS round -trips per year per resident. Table 42: Number of Likely Trips from Other Communities to Kodiak Using Proposed Ferry Service, May- September Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions 11 -20 0 trips 1 -2 trips 3 -10 trips trips 21+ trips Average Median Ouzinkie(n =21) 5 10 52 19 14 13.2 10.0 Larsen Bay (n =9) - - 89 11 - 8.2 5.0 Old Harbor (n =31) 10 12 65 6 3 6.7 5.0 Akhiok (n =13) 8 - 69 23 - 8.0 6.0 Karluk (n =5) - 25 50 25 - 9.0 7.0 One of the challenges associated with assessing traffic on new transportation services is predicting induced travel. This is travel that would not occur in the absence of the new transportation service. One component of induced travel is that travel related to population growth that might occur in the outlying communities if it were easier to travel to the community. It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty if and by how much the population might grow in communities enjoying new ferry service. However, 30 percent of the residents of the outlying communities have family or friends currently living in Kodiak that might choose to live in one of the smaller communities if ferry service existed. Table 43: Do you have family or friends currently living in the community of Kodiak that might choose to live in your community if such a ferry service existed? Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions of Villages n =7,9 Yes 30% No 49 Maybe 11 Don't know /refused 9 Residents of the outlying communities were asked about their support for regular ferry service between Kodiak and their community. This can be an important question. Some small, remote communities in Alaska, while interested in better access for local residents, would prefer to not see an increase in non - resident traffic to and through their communities. Competition for local fish and game resources is one reason why some residents might rather not see an increase in traffic to their community. Loss of privacy is another potential Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 48 concern. Of course the flip -side of that are the potential economic benefits associated with increased non- resident travel to the outlying communities. In any case, the residents of all of the outlying communities expressed support for regular ferry service. Overall, two- thirds of residents are "very supportive" and one -third "supportive ". Virtually no one surveyed expressed opposition to the concept of regular ferry service to their community. Figure 22: Residents "Supportive" and "Very Supportive" of Ferry Service Akhiok 46%0 toitalmoillsigestw Karluk ' ML 6 0Wo - � r E " " 40% '"'°""' Ouzinkie 67 29% 0 1 Larsen Ba 67 % 33% Old Harbor 0111.PalltL, 77% u """"' 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% S Very Supportive 0 Supportive Table 44: Are you very supportive, supportive, opposed, or very opposed to regular ferry service between Kodiak and your community? Base: Village residents, not including Port Lions '% of Villages m =79 Very supportive 67% Supportive 32 Opposed - Very opposed Don't know /refused 1 Heavy Freight Transportation The survey of Kodiak Island residents provides measures of ferry passenger travel demand for personal and business reasons. At least as important from a community economics perspective is the need for marine transportation of materials, equipment, and other freight that cannot be moved cost - effectively (or at all) by aircraft. This includes building materials, construction equipment and other vehicles, and fuel, among other things. The cost to transport this freight has important implications for the cost of doing business in a community, and the cost of living overall. The largest government users of ferry service would include the various local governments that occasionally need to transport equipment for road maintenance, building materials and parts for maintenance of public Island -Wide Trans Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 49 facilities ,and other heavy freight. Similarly, organizations such as the Kodiak Island School District and Kodiak Island Housing Authority (KIHA) also have heavy freight transportation needs. (KIHA has expended an average of about $80,000 a year on shipping charges for freight to outlying communities over the past several years.) As indicated previously in the report, there is no data available on the volume of heavy freight moving into the outlying communities on Kodiak Island (volume and value of freight hauled by the M/V Lazy Bay to and from the outlying communities is proprietary information). However, as described in Chapter 3, modeling based on freight data for other Alaska communities suggests the volume of freight that would move into the six outlying communities of Kodiak Island (on a regularly schedule marine freight service) is likely in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds per person annually. For the communities' total population On 2009) of 730 residents, in bound freight is likely in the range of 1.1 million to 1.5 million pounds (550 to 750 short tons). The volume of freight represents a significant amount of revenue to the businesses that now transport it, perhaps half a million to three - quarters of a million dollars annually (depending on many different factors). A dedicated ferry serving Kodiak Island communities would play a significant role in meeting the freight transportation needs of households, businesses and government organizations. However, it would meet those needs indirectly. Ferries are generally not equipped to deal with break bulk cargo. Freight that is moved is in personal vehicles, in container vans, on flat -bed trucks, and the like. Therefore with respect to revenues, the key measure for a proposed ferry system is not pounds of freight moved but number of vehicles carried on the ferry. This is discussed further in a following section of this report. Travel Demand and Revenue Modeling The actual number of passengers and vehicles transported on any particular ferry system is the result of a complex blend of market size and characteristics, ferry service frequency, fare structure and travel time, and the cost of alternative modes of transportation. Logically, lower -cost, higher- frequency service will stimulate more travel than higher -cost, lower- frequency service. The ferry service planning and operations challenge is to find the fare structure and service frequency that maximizes revenue while minimizing ferry system operating costs. This is a particularly challenging task for ferry systems serving coastal Alaska, where markets are small (sometimes very small), distances between ports sometimes great, and sea conditions such that vessel sizing is driven by sea keeping requirements (passenger comfort and safety) rather than expected passenger and vehicle traffic. A number of important factors frame the analysis of revenue potential for a Kodiak Island ferry system. Most important is the size of the market. The six study area communities have a combined total population of about 700 residents. Some additional travel demand would come from residents of the city of Kodiak, as well as from non - Kodiak Island residents, but nevertheless the primary market for a dedicated Kodiak ferry service is small, far smaller than any other dedicated ferry service in Alaska. Understanding the potential for dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service to generate revenue, regardless of actual fares or service frequency, can be framed by examination of revenue generated by ferry service to other small communities in coastal Alaska. Following are case study profiles of ferry service to Port Lions, Metlakatla, and Prince of Wales Island, with a focus on revenue - generating implications of ferry service to these communities Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility _Quay for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page SO and regions. These case studies also provide an indication of costs associated with ferry operations in Alaska, which are discussed in more detail in following chapters. Ferry Service Case Studies CASE STUDY: PORT LIONS AMHS SERVICE Port Lions, a community of about 200 residents, enjoys regular AMHS service. In 2009, the M/V Tustumena made a total 117 sailings between Port Lions and Kodiak, a 48 nautical mile trip, including 55 trips from Kodiak to Port Lions and 62 trips from Port Lions to Kodiak. AMHS service frequency between Port Lions and Kodiak in 2009 was slightly lower than in 2008, when a total of 133 trips were made, including 63 trips from Kodiak to Port Lions and 70 trips from Port Lions to Kodiak. Traffic between the two communities included a total of 929 passengers boarding in Port Lions and disembarking in Kodiak and a similar number (925) of passengers boarding in Kodiak and disembarking in Port Lions. Port Lions passenger traffic also included 427 passengers boarding in Port Lions and disembarking in Homer and 429 passengers doing the reverse. The following table presents this traffic data and similar vehicle traffic data for 2008 and 2009 Table 45: Port Lions AMHS Traffic Volume, 2008 and 2009 'On /Off On /Off , On /Off On /Off /Port llions - PortLions -" - (Kodiak- (Homer 'Kodiak 'Homer :Port'Lions 1Port Lions 1 1 2008 Passengers 1,074 331 1,076 351 Vehicles 437 160 441 172 1 2009 Passengers 929 427 925 429 Vehicles 384 188 385 228 AMHS passengers and vehicle traffic between Port Lions and Kodiak in 2009 generated a total $81,345 in revenue, including $30,080 in passenger fare revenue and $51,265 in car deck revenue. The passenger fare structure for ferry service between Port Lions and Kodiak includes discounted rates for children under 12 and seniors, but is typified by the adult fare of $33. Vehicle fares depend on the length of the vehicle, typified by the $68 rate for vehicles longer than 15 feet and up to 19 feet. Table 46: Port Lions /Kodiak AMHS Revenue, 2008 and 2009 IPassen'ers iCarlDeck. Total i 2008 I Kodiak - Port Lions $16,598 $31,560 $46,158 Port Lions - Kodiak $16,543 $30,020 $46,563 Total $33,141 $61,580 $92,721 2009 Kodiak - Port Lions $14,563 $25,532 $40,095 Port Lions - Kodiak $15,517 $25,733 $41,250 Total $30,080 $51,265 $81,345 Source: AMHS. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 51 These figures provide a partial measure of revenue - generation potential of a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service, providing regular service to Port Lions (as well as other outlying communities). This data does not include any revenue generated by passengers and vehicles traveling between Port Lions and Homer. If all the Port Lions /Homer traffic moved through Kodiak, one direction of the other, another $42,000 in annual revenue would be generated, based on average per passenger and per vehicle rates for travel between Port Lions and Kodiak in 2009. There was a lower volume of Port Lions /Homer traffic in 2008, with $34,000 in revenue if all of that year's Port Lion's traffic moved through Kodiak. In total, based on recent AMHS traffic and revenue related to Port Lions, the upper -end revenue potential of a dedicated ferry service linking Port Lions and Kodiak, along with other communities and Kodiak, is approximately $125,000 annually, perhaps as high as $150,000 if it is assumed that fares on a dedicated ferry service would be somewhat higher. This should be considered to be at the upper -end of revenue potential for Port Lions, as AMHS service has been very good (133 and 117 trips, bidirectional, in 2008 and 2009, respectively), including opportunities for same -day, round -trip travel. At an annual revenue total of $150,000, the per capita equivalent rate is about $750. It should also be noted $150,000 in annual revenue from Port Lions service would only result if direct Tustumena service to the community were discontinued, a prospect that would likely not be popular among Port Lions residents. CASE STUDY: METLAKATLA M/V LITUYA SERVICE Metlakatla is a community of approximately 1,385 residents located in southern Southeast Alaska. Metlakatla is served by the M/V Lituya, a 181 -foot AMHS ferry with capacity of 149 passengers and 18 vehicles. The Lituya provides dedicated twice -daily round -trip service between Metlakatla and Ketchikan, over a one -way route of about 16 nautical miles. In 2009, the Lituya made a total of 940 one -way railings between Metlakatla and Ketchikan, carrying a total of 30,357 passengers and 10,637 vehicles. Traffic in 2008 included 1,038 one -way trips (519 each way), with a total of 32,030 passengers and 9,185 vehicles. In Fiscal Year 2009, the Lituya generated total operating revenues of $639,000. In terms of per capita revenue (for Metlakatla's population of 1,385 residents), the Lituya's FY09 operating revenues were the equivalent of about $460 per person. It should be noted that Metlakatla receives regular barge service, therefore the community's per capita expenditure rate for ferry service is lower than would be the case for a community without barge service. Ferry system operating costs are discussed in detail in the following chapters of this report. However, it is important to note that MN Lituya annual operating expenditures totaled $1,189,000 in FY09. This does not include reservations, shore operations, administration or marine engineering costs associated with Lituya service between Metlakatla and Ketchikan. The Lituya's operating revenue and expenditure performance in FY09 indicates a net operating subsidy of $550,000 was required. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 52 CASE STUDY: PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND M/V PRINCE OF WALES SERVICE The Inter - Island Ferry Authority (IFA) operates the M/V Prince of Wales, a 198 - foot ferry with capacity for 160 passengers and 30 vehicles. The Prince of Wa /es provides daily service between Hollis (on Prince of Wales Island) and Ketchikan, a 45 nautical mile voyage requiring about 3 hours. The IFA serves the residents of Prince of Wales Island (2009 population of 3,920), plus residents of Ketchikan traveling to Prince of Wales Island for business or recreation, as well as non - Alaskan visitors. IFA also operated a second vessel (M /V Stikine, sister ship of the Prince of Wales) on a northern Prince of Wales Island route, between Coffman Cove, Wrangell and Mitkof Island (connected by road to Petersburg). The Stikine operated from Summer 2006 through January 2008, when the service was suspended due to low traffic volumes. In 2009 the Prince of Wales carried 51,700 passengers and 11,400 vehicles. The ferry service generated service revenues of $3.68 million. IFA revenues are the equivalent of about $940 per capita for the Island's 3,920 residents. Expenses included $3.2 million in vessel operations, $361,000 in shore -side operations, and $1.2 million in depreciation expense. IFA administration expenses for this one - vessel, two -port ferry service totaled $745,000 in 2009, including $498,000 in personnel services, $83,000 in professional fees, $64,000 in office expense, $15,000 in travel, $20,000 in insurance, and $66,000 in "other" expenses. OVERVIEW OF ALASKA FERRY OPERATIONS ECONOMICS As described previously in this report, ferry system operations in Alaska are challenged by small markets, long routes, and difficult sea conditions. Vessels are sized to ensure passenger safety and comfort, and a high level of scheduled service reliability. Smaller ships could generally meet passenger and vehicle demand, and would be somewhat less expensive to acquire and operate. But vessels sized to meet market demand would not provide adequate sea keeping characteristics. Experience has shown that public ferry systems in Alaska do not generate revenues sufficient to cover operating costs. The case studies described above illustrate that point, as does other AMHS data. For example, in FY09, the Tustumena generated $2,992,000 in total revenues, while costing $6,642,000 to operate, indicating an annual operating subsidy of $3,650,000. The AMHS overall generated $46.2 million in operating revenues in FY09, compared to expenditures of $124.5 million. Travel Demand Modeling Assumptions As described above, the potential for a new transportation system to generate traffic and revenues depends on a variety of factors. With respect to ferry service, the cost, frequency and convenience of the service dictates how often travelers will use the service. These factors, coupled with the size of the market being served, determine the number of travelers and the revenue generated by that travel. Four key factors place important limitations on the traffic and revenue potential from a Kodiak Island ferry service. These include: Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 53 • Long distances and travel times limit the potential for frequent ferry service to some of the Island's outlying communities. Very frequent service (daily or better) to Ouzinkie and Port Lions would be possible, given those communities close proximity to Kodiak, if that service were to those communities exclusively (or nearly so). However, the full day or more required to make a round -trip to each of the other four communities indicates that weekly trips would be about the highest level of service frequency possible, if all communities were to receive equal levels of ferry service. In reality, given the geography and demographics of the Kodiak Island communities, equal service is likely not a realistic goal, nor would it generate the highest possible revenue from this market. • The outlying communities of Kodiak Island represent a very small market to support ferry operations. With populations ranging between 50 and 200 residents, the total number of primary ferry system users (residents in the outlying communities) is about 700. Even adding seasonal non- resident travel to and from these communities, the service area population and economic base for a dedicated ferry is very small, certainly smaller than any other dedicated ferry system in Alaska. • Given the small market and limited revenue generating potential of the service area, ferry system operating costs must be minimized. Crew is the largest source of operating costs. Controlling crew costs would be critical to lowest - possible operating costs in a small- market service area. That means limiting service to day -boat operations, to the maximum extent possible. • The outlying communities of Kodiak Island already enjoy a high -level of relatively low -cost air taxi service. Pricing and revenue potential from passenger travel on a Kodiak Island ferry service would be constrained by convenient and competitive air travel opportunities. PASSENGER AND VEHICLE FARES It is assumed that fares for passenger and vehicle on a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry would generally be consistent with or slightly higher than fares charged for ferry service elsewhere in Alaska. The following table provides passenger and vehicle fares for a variety of routes served by AMHS, plus WA's Ketchikan - Hollis route. Table 47: Passenger and Vehicle Fares for Selected Alaska Routes, 2010 !Nautical (Passenger Vehicle .Fare Passenger Vehicle Gost Miles lFare'(Adult) ;(15- �191ft) Cost ;Mile , periMile ;Mile Metlakatla - Ketchikan 16 $25 $40 $1.56 $2.50 Homer - Seldovia 17 $33 $54 $1.94 $3.18 Ketchikan- Hollis 40 $37 $85 $0.93 $2.13 Port Lions - Kodiak 48 $33 $68 $0.69 $1.42 Juneau - Hoonah 48 $33 $68 $0.69 $1.42 Angoon -Sitka 67 $35 $75 $0.52 $1.12 Chenega - Whittier 67 $89 $190 $1.33 $2.84 Juneau -Kake 114 $66 $167 $0.58 $1.46 Port Lions -Homer 134 $74 $1 $0.55 $1.34 Chignik -Sand Pt. 138 $66 $157 $0.48 $1.14 Juneau- Wrangell 164 $87 $214 $0.53 $1.30 Kodiak- Chignik 249 $111 $295 $0.45 $1.18 Notes: The Kodiak /Port Lions route is 27nm if inside Spruce Island. island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 54 This fare information is reasonably consistent in illustrating that per mile costs decrease with route distance. A notable exception is AMHS service between Chenega and Whittier, which is priced substantially higher on a per -mile basis than routes of equal distance. In any case, these prices guide the discussion about pricing for a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service. Due to the small traffic base over which to spread operating and administrative costs, per -mile pricing for a dedicated Kodiak Island service would necessarily be higher than for routes served by AMHS or the WA. Still, pricing could not be established at a level that would provide for self- sustaining ferry operations. For purposes of this study, the following basic rate structure is used to predict revenue potential for a Kodiak Island ferry. These fares should of course be viewed as approximate only. Route distances may vary depending on the location of terminals. For example, a terminal in Anton Larsen would reduce the route distance to Port Lions from Kodiak. Similarly, road extensions /connections in other communities would serve to reduce ferry route distances. Table 48: Kodiak Island Ferry Fare Assumptions (Route Adult qv Vehicle iFrom(Kodiakito: Distance !Passenger giFare (nm) (Tare Akhiok 134 $90 $200 Karluk 88 $70 $150 Larsen Bay 85 $70 $150 Old Harbor 95 $70 $150 Ouzinkie 14 $30 $70 Port Lions 27 $35 $80 Based on these fare assumptions and the results of the household survey it possible to develop an estimate of annual revenue for a dedicated ferry system. In the following table the results of a revenue modeling exercise are presented. The model blends predicted travel frequency (based in part on survey results), and the fare assumptions described above. Other important assumptions made in this revenue modeling exercise include the following: • Average fares would be about 60 percent of the adult fare. (Average passenger fares are lower than adult passenger fares, as children and seniors would likely be offered discounted rates.) • Non - resident travelers would account for 30 percent of passenger revenues. • The number of vehicles carried would equal approximately 40 percent of the number of passengers and total revenues from vehicles would equal about twice total passenger fares. This analysis indicates that potential annual revenues could range from approximately $500,000 to about $750,000. The Low Case figures presented in the following table are resident travel frequencies approximately 20 percent below the Mid -Case, while the High -Case is based on resident travel frequencies about 20 percent above the Mid -Case. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 55 Table 49: Kodiak Island Ferry Revenue Forecast (Travel Frequency and Average Fare Basis) Passenger Car Deck Total !Revenue iRevenue Revenue Low Case I Akhiok $11,200 $23,200 $34,400 Karluk 9,600 20,000 29,600 Larsen Bay 20,800 41,600 62,400 Old Harbor 50,400 100,800 151,200 Ouzinkie 32,000 64,000 96,000 Port Lions 44,000 87,200 131,200 Total $168,000 $336,800 $504,800 Mid Case Akhiok $14,000 $29,000 $43,000 Karluk 12,000 25,000 37,000 Larsen Bay 26,000 52,000 78,000 Old Harbor 63,000 126,000 189,000 Ouzinkie 40,000 80,000 120,000 _ Port Lions 55,000 109,000 164,000 Total $210,000 $421,000 $631,000 High Case Akhiok 16,800 34,800 51,600 Karluk 14,400 30,000 44,400 Larsen Bay 31,200 62,400 93,600 Old Harbor 75,600 151,200 226,800 Ouzinkie 48,000 96,000 144,000 Port Lions 66,000 130,800 196,800 Total $252,000 $505,200 $757,200 It is important to recognize the uncertainty in this analysis, particularly at the community level. Each community in the study area has a unique socioeconomic and geographic profile, with different propensity to utilize ferry service. Nevertheless, the modeling assumptions made here are considered reasonable for gauging Island -wide revenue. Per Capita Revenues Another revenue modeling approach is to consider per capita - equivalent expenditures on ferry travel. Per capita revenue is a proxy measure intended to capture all personal, government and commercial traffic associated with ferry service to an individual community. Total population is an excellent indicator of the relative size of an economy; local, regional, or otherwise. The two figures together can provide a measure of total community -level ferry revenue. An important modeling assumption is that per capita expenditures will be, in general, approximately equal among the outlying communities. In other words, more frequent lower cost travel to and from communities closer to Kodiak will be matched by higher cost less frequent travel from the more distant communities. An additional modeling assumption is that car deck revenues will be about twice the amount of passenger Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 56 revenues. Both these assumptions are derived from analysis of revenue generation from ferry service to other communities in Alaska. Predicting traffic for an entirely new transportation service is subject to considerable uncertainty. Given that uncertainty, per capita revenue estimates ranging from $600 (Low- Case), to $750 (Mid -Case) to $900 (High - Case) are assumed to generate low -case, mid -case and high -case revenues estimates. This modeling exercise produces a range of annual revenues of between $440,000 and $657,000. Table 50: Kodiak Island Ferry Annual Revenue Estimates (Per Capita Revenue Basis) (Passenger Car'Deck Total !Revenue 'Revenue Revenue Low Case I Akhiok $10,000 $21,000 $31,000 Karluk 8,000 15,000 23,000 Larsen Bay 16,000 32,000 48,000 Old Harbor 38,000 78,000 116,000 Ouzinkie 34,000 68,000 102,000 Port Lions 40,000 80,000 120,000 Total $146,000 $294,000 $440,000 I Mid Case Akhiok 13,000 26,000 39,000 Karluk 9,000 19,000 28,000 Larsen Bay 20,000 40,000 60,000 Old Harbor 48,000 97,000 145,000 Ouzinkie 42,000 85,000 127,000 Port Lions 50,000 101,000 151,000 Total $182,000 $368,000 $550,000 High Case __I Akhiok 15,000 31,000 46,000 Karluk 11,000 23,000 34,000 Larsen Bay 23,000 48,000 71,000 Old Harbor 57,000 116,000 . 173,000 Ouzinkie 50,000 103,000 153,000 Port Lions 59,000 121,000 180,000 Total $215,000 $442,000 $657,000 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 57 Chapter 4: Transportation Infrastructure Cost Analysis The economics of a ferry system serving the outlying communities of Kodiak Island could be substantially enhanced by road connections between communities that could eliminate the need for costly dock development and /or reduce the length of ferry routes between communities. Also docking facilities would be needed to accommodate a ferry in those communities that now lack such facilities. A variety of roadway and dock development projects were selected for cost analysis. These are described below. • Akhiok /Alitak Road Connection: Akhiok has no deepwater or barge docking facilities of any kind. Alitak is an Ocean Beauty Seafoods -owned cannery operation located about seven miles south of Akhiok. Alitak has deepwater docking facilities and receives fuel barge service, and freight service through Northland Services and Coastal Transportation. Residents of Akhiok now purchase, and transport in small boats, small volumes of fuel from Alitak. A road connection between Akhiok and Alitak has the potential to give Akhiok access to lower -cost fuel and regular barge service from Seattle. • Akhiok Deepwater Dock: In the absence of road access to Alitak, a newly constructed deepwater dock would be required at Akhiok to accommodate ferry or conventional barge service (Akhiok's heavy freight and fuel supply is now provided by landing craft). • Karluk /Larsen Bay Road Connection: Karluk also lacks deepwater or barge docking facilities of any kind. Further, the exposed shoreline near Karluk would make construction of a dock in the area very expensive. A 20 -mile road up the Karluk River drainage and along the shore of Larsen Bay would connect Karluk to the community of Larsen Bay. While the community of Larsen Bay lacks a deepwater dock, it does have fuel barge service. A local cannery receives freight barge service. Fuel and freight could be trucked from Larsen Bay to Karluk, precluding the need for a dock in Karluk. • Karluk Deepwater Dock: Like Akhiok, Karluk's heavy freight and fuel is currently supplied via landing craft. Though the coastal environment in the Karluk area is challenging, deepwater dock construction is technically possible. An alternative to a road connection with Larsen Bay is construction of such a dock. • Larsen Bay Deepwater Dock: While the cannery at Larsen Bay has barge service from Seattle, the community itself lacks a barge dock or deepwater dock of any kind. Fuel is pumped to storage tanks from a barge at anchor. A deepwater dock is at the top of the community's capital improvement priorities list, and such a dock would be required to serve a ferry calling on the community. • Old Harbor Road Extension and Dock: The community of Old Harbor has a deepwater dock that is now being reconstructed. As such Old Harbor will have the infrastructure to serve ferries calling on the community. However, a road extension to the northeast to the Bush Point area, and construction Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 58 of a marine terminal, would significantly shorten the very exposed ferry route between Old Harbor and Kodiak by eliminating the run around Sitkalidak Island. • Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension and Dock (two options): A ferry terminal somewhere in the vicinity of Anton Larsen Bay connecting the Kodiak road system would substantially reduce ferry travel times to communities on the north and western side of Kodiak Island (Karluk, Larsen Bay, Port Lions and Ouzinkie). Winter icing conditions within Anton Larsen Bay prohibit ferry terminal construction within the bay. Therefore road extensions would be required, either along the eastern side of Anton Larsen Bay, or to the northwest along the eastern side of the bay, to a suitable deepwater dock location. • Anton Larsen Bay /Shakmanof Cove Road and Dock: Another option for a west -side ferry terminal is at Shakmanof Cove, where Koniag Inc. is developing a commercial rock quarry. Though the sheet pile dock planned for development in Shakmanof Cove to support the quarry will not be suitable for a ferry landing, this location could offer construction efficiencies and cost savings associated with access to rock fill and infrastructure at the quarry. • Monashka Bay /Shakmanof Cove Road and Dock: A fourth option for access to a west -side ferry terminal is a road from the existing road terminus at Monashka Bay extending about 11 miles to Shakmanof Cove. Roadway Cost Analysis PND Engineers was retained to prepare cost estimates for potential roadway and dock improvements. Unit costs used in the development of road construction cost estimates are provided in the following table. In summary, a single -lane, unpaved roadway, with pullouts, costs approximately half a million dollars per mile to construct. Two -lane unpaved roadways cost about twice that amount to construct. The full cost of any particular road segment also depends on the number of bridges, culvert, pull -outs and other factors. Cost estimates include a 10 percent mobilization /demobilization cost factor, plus 30 percent contingency factor. Table 51: Road Segment Cost Estimates (Description (Units %UnitiCost One -Lane Road Mile $346,000 to $435,000 Two -Lane Road Mile $518,000 Culverts Each $4,000 - $4,200 One -Lane Bridge Lineal Feet $6,000 Pullouts Each $2,300 - $3,000 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $21,500 Mobilization /Demobilization _- 10% Contingency -- 30% Source: PND Engineers For the various road segments analyzed in the study, total road construction costs ranged from a low of $750,000 per mile for a single unpaved road (Akhiok to Alitak) to a high of $1.2 million per mile for a two - lane unpaved road (Anton Larsen to Shakmanof and Monashka Bay to Shakmanof). Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 59 The 7.3 -mile single lane Akhiok /Alitak road would have an estimated total construction cost of $5.4 million. It should be noted that this road would traverse Akhiok- Kaguyak Inc. land and therefore would presumably be available for development for this purpose. (Concerns about access to the immediate Alitak cannery property are discussed later in this report.) Maintenance of this road would cost approximately $110,000 annually, based on an average cost of $7,500 per lane -mile per year. Annual maintenance costs would be reduced if the road were only maintained seasonally. An 18.5 -mile single -lane gravel road connection between Karluk and Larsen Bay would cost approximately $17.9 million, with annual maintenance costs of about $140,000. There is a somewhat higher level of uncertainty associated with this cost estimate, as great care would be required to minimize any potential adverse effects on the Karluk River, a very rich salmon rearing area. This road would traverse land owned by Koniag, Inc. The Old Harbor road extension would be approximately 3.6 miles in length, with a construction cost of $4.2 million. Annual maintenance would cost approximately $30,000. There is uncertainty in this estimate associated with optimal location of a marine terminal in the vicinity of Bush Point. More detailed investigation could result in a somewhat longer roadway, necessary to reach suitably deep water. Table 52: Road Segment Cost Estimates Description CapitalCost Annual Cost Road Segments Akhiok /Alitak Road (7.3 miles) $5.4 million $55,000 Karluk /Larsen Bay Road (18.5 miles) $17.9 million $140,000 Old Harbor Extension (3.6 miles) $4.2 million $30,000 Anton Larsen Bay to Shakmanof (7.1 miles) $7.6 million $110,000 Monashka Bay to Shakmanof (10.6 miles) $11.4 million $160,000 Anton Larsen Extension - West Side (3.0 miles) $3.0 million $45,000 Anton Larsen Extension - East Side (9.6 miles) $9.0 million $145,000 Source: Capital costs from PND Engineers. Maintenance costs are McDowell Group estimates. There are several options for extending a roadway from the existing Kodiak road system to a west -side location suitable for development of a marine terminal to support ferry operations. A small - vessel float and gangway already exists in Anton Larson Bay, located near the end of the Anton Larsen Bay road. However, because the bay typically freezes during the winter this location is not suitable for a ferry terminal. As such the road would need to be developed to the nearest best - suited location for a year -round dock. This new roadway could either be an extension of the existing road to a location on the west side of Anton Larsen Bay (or thereabouts), or a spur road from the head of Anton Larsen Bay to a location on the east side of the Bay, or to the north in Shakmanof Cove. Construction costs for the options range from $3 million (West Side option) to $9 million (East Side option). These costs are based on construction of a two -lane unpaved roadway. Unlike the very isolated roadways in Akhiok and Karluk, these Anton Larsen options all extend the existing Kodiak area road system and therefore would experience much higher traffic volumes. Therefore two -lane roads would be required rather than the one -lane roads that would be adequate for the small remote communities. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 60 An additional option for access to a west -side ferry terminal is extension of the highway that now terminates at Monashka Bay. The roadway extension would be approximately 10.6 miles to a marine terminal location in Shakmanof Cove. This two -lane option has an estimated cost of $19.7 million. The cost to construct docks, suitable for ferry and barge traffic, was also estimated for several locations. PND Engineers estimated dock construction costs for locations, including Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Shakmanof. PND prepared two cost estimates for Akhiok and Larsen Bay, one for a fixed -pier dock, the other for a roll -on, roll -off floating (RO /RO) dock. The fixed -pier dock would be suitable for the Tustumena, which has an on -board vehicle elevator. The RO /RO dock is similar to those employed in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska to serve AMHS vessels. The conclusion from the analysis was that the two types of docks are roughly equal in terms of construction cost. Construction of a dock at Karluk would be the most costly, at approximately $13.8 million. This estimate does not include uplands development of any kind, or the cost to install piping for fuel transfer. A comparatively long trestle would be required to reach sufficiently deep water. This cost estimate does not include installation of any form of breakwater or other wave barrier to shelter the face of the dock. Without such protection the dock would likely frequently be unavailable for use, due to its exposure to weather from the north. One conclusion from this analysis is that the cost to construct a dock at Karluk, coupled with the cost to install a breakwater, develop necessary uplands staging areas, and install fuel transfer facilities, would equal or exceed the cost to build a road to Larsen Bay. Constructing a fixed -pier dock in Akhiok, in the vicinity of Prior Point, would cost approximately $6.6 million. While the Prior Point area appears to be a reasonable location for a dock, based on charts and aerial photographs, determining the optimal location for a deepwater dock in the Akhiok area would require additional detailed site investigation. Again, uplands development and fuel transfer facilities would increase the cost of dock development in Akhiok. These total costs would also exceed the cost to construct a road to Alitak. A Larsen Bay fixed -pier dock would cost approximately $4.7 million. The preliminary dock location is inside Larsen Bay in the general area of the existing fuel headers. The total cost to fully develop a dock in Larsen Bay, including uplands staging areas, fuel transfer facilities, and lighting would likely approach the cost of the Old Harbor dock. A Shakmanof fixed -pier dock has an estimated construction cost of $4.9 million. If constructed after development of the Koniag's Shakmanof quarry, the cost to develop a ferry dock in Shakmanof would be lower than would otherwise be the case. The cost to construct docks in areas not explicitly studied by PND, including the various Anton Larsen Bay marine terminal locations, are all estimated to be in the $5 million to $7 million range. These estimates do not include wave barriers or uplands development, which have highly site - specific costs. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 61 Table 53: Dock Construction and Maintenance Cost Estimates Description CapitahCost :Annual Cost ; Akhiok Fixed -Pier Dock $6.6 million $65,000 Akhiok RO /RO Dock _ $6.4 million $95,000 Karluk Fixed -Pier Dock $13.8 million $135,000 Larsen Bay Fixed -Pier Dock $4.7 million $50,000 Larsen Bay RO /RO Dock $4.5 million _ $65,000 Shakmanof Fixed -Pier Dock $4.9 million $50,000 Source: PND Engineers and McDowell Group. PND's detailed roadway and dock construction documentation is provided in the appendices. Dock construction or reconstruction projects in Ouzinkie and Old Harbor provide a good indication of the cost to build docks in the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. Planning is also underway for a new dock in Port Lions. Old Harbor Dock: Reconstruction of the Old Harbor dock has a total budget of $8.1 million. This includes the cost of piping for fuel transfer, electricity and lighting. The new dock will be 56 feet wide and 102 feet long with three fenders along the dock face and three mooring dolphins connected to the dock by catwalks. The dock will be accessed by an 18 -foot wide by 280 -foot long pile supported trestle connected to shore by a 50 foot by 70 -foot gravel abutment. Utilities include 600 linear feet of power line for general lighting and navigation lights, and 825 linear feet of fuel pipe and a fuel header to allow fuel barges to offload fuel to the fuel tank farm.: Figure 23: Old Harbor Dock t� D O' 'Q" oto zi � • h ' SP•1� *0 d �� ,•f likbr t https: / /www.denali.gov see project database. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 62 Ouzinkie is replacing its old wooden dock with a rock and steel bulkhead facility that is slated to cost a total of $9.8 million. Phase I of that project was launched in 2010. Figure 24: Conceptual Rendering of Ouzinkie's Dock ,r t_. t 5 3+Ste �'v �,A$x Port Lions Dock Replacement: Port Lions' deepwater dock is in a state of serious disrepair and in need of replacement. Engineering and design work for a replacement dock is underway. Several options were identified in a 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planning -level study.2 Alternatives considered included: • Steel pipe pile and concrete multipurpose dock with mooring and breasting dolphins, and an access trestle, with an estimated 2008 cost of $8.8 million. This dock would provide 9,400 square feet of dock space and a 100 -foot mooring face. • A modified diaphragm sheet pile dock with fenders for the M/V Tustumena and an armored gravel access causeway, with an estimated 2008 cost of $10 million • A steel pipe pile and concrete deck trestle with mooring and breasting dolphins designed for the M/V Tustumena with an estimated 2008 cost of $6.4 million. The Corps also estimated the cost to construct a concrete launch ramp located at the site of the existing launch ramp at approximately $540,000. The Corps estimates that engineering and project administration will add about 20 percent to all of this cost estimates. The Corps is now engaged in a more detailed "preliminary design up to 20%" for a dock that will accommodate freight and fuel barges and the Tustumena via a trestle. This work will produce a more precise construction cost estimate. Figure 25: Port Lions' Dock :> 4 4 11. 4 '11 ;7 $�n " ' ' y 2 City Dock and Ferry Terminal Repairs Technical Report, Port Lions, Alaska October 2009. ' Island Wide Transportation Feasibi/ityStudy for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 63 Chapter 5: Marine Service Analysis Methodology Improving transportation to the outlying communities of Kodiak Island is a challenging technical problem due to the severe wind and wave environment, the long distances between communities, and the limited infrastructure development at each port. In Chapter 6, a long list of possible transportation solutions, or concepts, is presented and described briefly in terms of service potential and costs. Then, each concept on the long list is evaluated against the goals of this study and its basic practicality. Only those concepts that are fully consistent with the goals of this study and are reasonably practicable are carried forward to a short list analysis, where each is subject to additional, more detailed study. First, however, it is important to consider the factors that are relevant in developing marine transportation service solutions. With respect to vessels, critical factors include route characteristics, weather and sea keeping requirements. Routes To begin the investigation of marine transportation around Kodiak Island, vessel routes between communities were identified and approximate vessel courses placed on charts. The vessel routes were discussed with AMHS vessel captains and other local vessel operators. The captains made it clear that vessel courses are approximate and depend on size of vessel, tides, and weather. However, it was generally agreed that these courses are a good representation of how actual vessels would operate. After the courses were laid down, route distances were calculated. Representative time between ports was calculated for two vessel speeds: 9 knots and 13.5 knots. These speeds were chosen to account for the effect of wind, waves, and current. It is important to note that times between ports in this table cannot be used as vessel sailing times because they do not contain time for maneuvering, mooring, or loading /unloading. The route data have been organized into two general groups: a) a Round Island scenario based on a continuous counter - clockwise loop proceeding from one community to the next; and b) a Hub scenario in which individual community routes originate at a terminal hub near the city of Kodiak. Hub routes are "direct" routes between the hub and each community. The Hub group is further divided into three subgroups. The first Hub alternative uses the existing central Kodiak terminal as an origin point. The second and third Hub alternatives are each based on potential new terminals located at Anton Larsen Bay and Pasagshak Bay, with new or improved road access. An Anton Larsen Bay terminal would potentially serve northern routes, whereas the Pasagshak Bay terminal would potentially serve routes along the south coast of Kodiak Island. An overview map and associated Route Length Summary table for the Round Island, Kodiak Direct, Anton Larsen Bay Direct and Pasagshak Bay Direct groups are given in the following figures. Additional supporting route information is provided in the appendices to this report. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 64 Figure 26: Round - Island Route Overview •^ :- ' -- - r. - 3 L 2 . Ouzinkie � '� : �.�, ,: -..- . ,. i — Pb (� i..:. q . - �• _ �' } 4 j 4/?ac is P .. Karluk , ,, . • - _"-� . „� j '� nnar , .'_ --„�. 0=11 i Larso .:_ w } ��'” • ,• _ ".. Old•Harbor .t .I. „ .c t o y c s Table 54: Round - Island Route Length Summary Routes Distancei(nm) Timeat'9iknots Time at :13.5 (knots 1. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 13.4 1:29 0:59 2. Ouzinkie to Port Lions 13.2 1:28 0:58 3. Port Lions to Larsen Bay 65.3 7:15 4:50 4. Larsen Bay to Karluk 27.8 3:05 2:03 5 Karluk to Akhiok 69.5 7:43 5:08 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor 64.9 7:12 4:48 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor 151.0 16:46 11:11 7. Old Harbor to Kodiak 95.4 10:36 7:04 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 65 Figure 27: Kodiak Direct Route Overview - h ; - - t-- 9 . z ,= — - :. _ .,. fi i .., k { / F i 121.- KaAuk i • Larsen`9a � � - , F ; �J --r-‘ �.V Busk. ..-sr5..Z13.111 N •, :� Y l\ P mt� °-., Old Harbor y . v 1 Nl .. f T '"° 3:1 s / m. Table 55: Kodiak Direct Route Length Summary ,Routes Distance (nm) Time.at 9 knots Time at 13.5 knots I 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 13.4 1:29 0:59 9 -1. Kodiak to Port Lions 26.5 2:56 1:57 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) 34.0 3:46 2:31 _ 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay 85.1 9:27 6:18 11. Kodiak to Karluk 88.3 _ 9:48 6:32 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) 159.0 17:40 11:46 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) 214.0 23:46 15:51 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) 134.0 14:53 9:55 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor 95.4 10:36 7:04 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 69.2 7:41 5:07 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - OR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 66 Figure 28: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Overview -, \1LY-w�a ! .'ni rte e . -cs. .. i !"- Ouxl�cie _" .,- m..Karig& : A . ."` —_ " i V _ r s �_ La _ pasagshe _ - 1-6, { , ._.0 i. \:.,.* - OId Harbo , r � � - -,'.�r a,Cr � W ` / ljl � ` � J �� Mh ''�' . A • ..,„,,,,,<„,_ cr.,,,:_•: .... ..4-....,,,,,...; 2 7 .,••....„,,,,,.,.,. mi., ...is:, „...,..., _ ...... . ,, . ., ......_ .,. , ,... 0... c_,.._.., .., • .., ... .... Table 56: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Length Summary Routes I.Distancei(nm) T ime'at9'knots Timeatd3:5 (knots 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) 178.0 19:46 13:11 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Str.) 93.8 10:25 6:56 21 -1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor 60.5 6:43 4:28 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 32.4 3:36 2:24 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. The route length information yielded some very important information. Distances between outlying communities and Kodiak vary greatly, but many routes are very long•in terms of passenger ferry operation. Another finding is obvious: most Kodiak Island routes contain portions of full North Pacific Ocean exposure. The hub routes provide a substantial improvement in system efficiency by reducing route length and ocean exposure. Island-Wde Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 67 Weather Kodiak weather is notoriously difficult from a vessel operations perspective. In their description of the Kodiak Airport weather station, the NOM National Climate Data Center says, "Although the prevailing wind direction is northwesterly every month except May, June, and July, and the average speed is about 10 knots, these data may be misleading because of the extreme variability in both direction and speed. Maximum gusts of over 90 knots have been recorded. Coast Guard Cutters docked in Womens Bay have reported williwaw winds off Old Womens Mountain in excess of 120 knots. Gusts of over 50 knots have occurred during each month of the year, but are most likely to occur in the winter months." Figure 29: North Pacific /Gulf of Alaska Area Image .. § c1 S � i Anaraape 21 ti irS r m 3 P t:, a r.r:2Mi Pen f& {Y . -y :. �T l I � 9 , .,(? tr , .+ . y r* B worn esa ' y • 4 t h GW a�nr ! - ,Naci,107peN"� `• , r` Sound r• jp ar y Kt , y ' .l s L' l . as ' r r < @KalmarP rk ■ it y }* ` d. $h C :it Albatro . 7) R - f 'tc t i. Kodiak is located southwest of Anchorage in the Gulf of Alaska, at latitude 57 degrees north. Good weather data is available from nearby airports and weather buoys. See Figure 29. Kodiak ambient temperatures range from a summer average of about 55 degrees F. to a winter average of about 28 degrees F. Temperatures vary considerably according to marine weather patterns in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. Figure 30 shows typical annual temperatures for Kodiak airport. Any marine vessel working in the Kodiak vicinity year -round should be prepared to operate in a temperature range from 80 degrees F to 0 degrees F, with freezing spray. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 68 Figure 30: Kodiak Area Weather Indicators Temperature Dew Point Normal High /Low C 75 r 24 bff . te T 16 30 - I� 1'i4 rimasrtorrGPFaSeti A^'L `i :;-,- W t y ti� 15 - { t5 r .18 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Kodiak 2008_2009 air temperatures. (Weather Underground based on Kodiak airport readings.) Kodiak wind speeds vary considerably according to location. Figure 31 indicates average winds in Kodiak and also in nearby waters. Figure 32 demonstrates the difference between an average wind speed reading and a maximum wind speed, which is greater than a factor of two. This means that a vessel working year -round near Kodiak Island would be subject to winds of 50 to 60 knots, and as noted previously, local weather phenomenon could realistically generate gusts greater than 60 knots. Figure 31: Average Wind Speed, Various Locations, by Month 2, ft le to — s • — -.a-Albatross Banks -..- Anchorage - a-Kodiak -..-prince William Sound + Sholikot Strait • umury F.INUn5 Math Apra Mry Iw J,* 1 .1n0 LP•mb" 0[I0bn Nw•mbn OnmA, Source: National Data Buoy Center and Alaska Climate Research Center. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility _quay for Kodiak Island, Alaska – DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 69 Figure 32: Albatross Banks Average and Maximum Wind Speed, by Month • -- - - -- 3� — — — a e 9 C 3 y ^+ 15 + Alba boss Banks Average + - Albatross Ranks Maximum a l...v. i,tnvv Watt — Ms in is, +..r Sett eitt Damn rm.nnl. o..rMe. Sea Keeping As discussed in the route section, many of the vessel routes around Kodiak Island are exposed to long stretches of open water, strong currents, and ocean capes. This type of environment, coupled with high winds and cold temperatures can result in severe marine operating conditions. Sea keeping, the ability of a vessel to transit rough water safely and with minimal discomfort to passengers, is a substantial challenge for many Kodiak Island vessel routes. is /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 70 Figure 33: Average Significant Wave Heights, Shelikof Strait and Other Locations 12 -a-Albatross Banks (2004 - 2008) Shalt&Strait (2005 - 2008) -a-Prince William Sound (1995 2001) ro e 2 a / I 0 gown r.e.,w. March Aprd ruv /um. My August s.ptna.r Clatter ncvemw Diane. A limited amount of historical wave data is available for Shelikof Strait and the west side of Kodiak Island (Albatross Banks). Since ocean waves consist of a random combination of wave trains, wave information is usually provided statistically. For example "Significant Wave Height" is a measure of the average height (from trough to crest) of the one -third highest waves. This is not the height of the largest wave seen during the measurement interval. If a sample of waves has a significant wave height of H, of 12 ft, then 1 in 100 waves in that sample would be greater than 18.12 ft. Average significant wave heights for Shelikof Strait and Albatross Banks are shown in Figure 33. Prince William Sound wave data is included for comparison. Data that averages significant wave height over a long period of time does not indicate wave heights from storm events. Figure 34 indicates maximum significant wave height for the same locations. The two graphs provided in this study do not address the numerous complexities associated with measuring waves and wave direction. However, they do give a good indication of the severity of winter wave environment around Kodiak Island. For operation on the southeast side of the island, winter significant wave height exceeds 30 feet, meaning some waves would be above 40 feet in height. For winter operation in Shelikof Strait, significant wave height exceeds 15 feet, with some waves being above 20 feet. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDokse/l Group, Inc. • Page 71 Figure 34: Maximum Significant Wave Heights, Shelikof Strait and Other Locations aa -e- Albatross Banks 12004 - 200111 - .- Shellkal Strait (2005 - 2008) -.- Prince William Sound 199S -20011 m L tS E it 9 1 rtmary AWN £p(l May rune holy august Septemter. Ottlter pwenbel CeEMIK. The implications of this wave data on vessel sea keeping are complicated. Generally, the type of vessel is the first consideration of sea keeping. If a vessel is carrying only cargo and crew, it can be designed to have larger motions. If a vessel is carrying passengers, including children and elders, it must be designed to keep motions to a minimum. This difference is important. Vessel motions that are acceptable for a young crew of crab fishermen would cause acute sickness and injuries if allowed to occur on a typical passenger vessel. Vessel size is another primary sea keeping indicator. Larger vessels generally provide much better sea keeping. For Kodiak Island routes, the size of a vessel will likely be based on sea keeping ability, rather than payload requirements, which will result in a payload much larger than is required. The selection of vessel size for the long list of alternatives is based on the characteristics of existing successful vessels. For example, the Tustumena has many years of successful service around Kodiak Island. Later in the study, a more rigorous examination of vessel size and sea keeping is presented. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 72 Chapter 6: Transportation Service Improvement Concept Preliminary Analysis The process of identifying optimal solutions for enhancing transportation infrastructure on Kodiak Island - especially marine transportation infrastructure - began with identification of a variety of potential solutions. The "long- list" of potential solutions (characterized here as "concepts") were subject to a screening process, where concepts that appear to be impractical are set aside and concepts worthy of further consideration are carried forward for more detailed analysis. The long -list of transportation concepts included the following: • Concept 1: Enhanced Tustumena Service • Concept 2: Dedicated 24 -Hour Ferry • Concept 3: Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel • Concept 4: Dedicated "Day- Boat" Ferry • Concept 5: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull • Concept 6: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran • Concept 7: Cargo -Only Landing Craft • Concept 8: Tug and Barge or Other Cargo -Only Vessel Service • Concept 9: Passenger Only Ferry • Concept 10: Enhanced Airfreight Transportation Service This long list of concepts, developed through input from stakeholders, community meetings, and by the study team, includes a broad number and variety of possible transportation improvements for Kodiak Island. This list of alternatives is intended to encompass a full range of potential transportation improvements, regardless of perceived likelihood of viability. Each concept summary includes a description of the vessel, proposed system service, concept advantages and disadvantaged, cost implications, and possible variations. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 73 Concept 1: Enhanced Tustumena Service Description: This concept includes passenger and vehicle ferry service to Kodiak Island communities through rescheduling of the M/V Tustumena. The Tustumena is the AMHS ferry dedicated to Gulf of Alaska service and has a vehicle elevator which allows it to service piers. Figure 35: Rendering of the Tustumena C . �Jis {{ �� �•e�ry am -- •. ms i �` �� �1$% +aacoonnoao act ac - , 'e - eenc� lim.% ni -; Imo— ° ° o° pinto o'% ° ° --a °' ° ' _ I u�fr t : i fir hlunr....�_. m mim uunonnuuu� i. ruutntiodnmrmuuunnuuu Table 57: Enhanced Tustumena Service System Components Vessel Length 295 feet Speed 13.8 knots Passenger capacity 174 Passenger cabins 26 cabins Crew capacity 37 Crew cabins 34 cabins Cargo capacity 36 vehicles Cargo gear Vehicle elevator Service Operation 24 hours per day with 2 -3 visits per summer Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor Infrastructure needs Piers required at Larsen Bay, Akhiok, Karluk Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Acceptable Discussion: Among the outlying communities, only Port Lions is currently served by the Tustumena. Port Lions received 62 port calls in 2009. During the summer of 2011, the AMHS plans to increase the Tustumena's number of Aleutian trips to twice per month, and supplement Homer- Kodiak service with the Kennicott Concept advantages: This concept is advantageous for residents of KIB because it would come at no cost to them, other than user fees (fares), as the Tustumena is a state - operated ferry. A dedicated ferry serving only Kodiak Island communities would come only at substantial capital and operating cost. Another advantage is the Tustumena's proven sea keeping capacity for the service area. Finally, with new dock construction at Old Harbor and Ouzinkie, the Tustumena would be capable of serving the three largest outlying communities. Concept disadvantages: Requires redeployment /rescheduling of an already fully - utilized AMHS asset. Adding communities to the Tustumena itinerary would result in some decline in service frequency to communities Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 74 now being served by the Tustumena (or additional vessel resources be provided). This trade -off is usually resolved politically. Additional Tustumena service to Kodiak Island communities would likely be limited to several times per summer. In the absence of suitable dock facilities, the Tustumena cannot serve Larsen Bay, Akhiok, and Karluk. Concept variations: Since the Tustumena is large enough to withstand ocean conditions, it could be used to provide service to outlying communities on the more exposed and demanding southern routes. This service could be provided in conjunction with a smaller day -boat service for the communities on the more sheltered northern side of the island. This plan would maximize the utilization of the Tustumena's capabilities and use a more cost efficient vessel for the communities with shorter and more sheltered marine routes. The AMHS vessel Kennicott is also equipped with a vehicle elevator and could provide service from the mainland to Kodiak, while the Tustumena could focus primarily on Southwest service. The Kennicott is too large to dock at most of the outlying Kodiak Island communities. Concept 2: Dedicated 24 - Hour Ferry Concept Description: This concept would provide a dedicated 24- hour /day passenger and vehicle ferry to service Kodiak Island communities with deepwater piers. This service would be similar to the Tustumena, but dedicated primarily to Kodiak Island. The vessel would include /require on -board overnight accommodations for passengers and crew. This ferry could operate on a round - island circuit basis (rather than hub and spoke basis). Figure 36: Rendering of the 24 -Hour Ferry Artaishiginf 'AQO ab P G lA AA L1 000t ~, a i.1 u7iC Y�1alai�Yi p eaan ` 3 un euG 1 • O man= M Iy I I . I �I h � I I I Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak /s /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 7S Table 58: Dedicated 24 -Hour Ferry System Components Vessel Length 195 feet Speed 14.5 knots Passenger capacity 174 Passenger cabins 26 cabins Crew capacity 37 Crew cabins 34 cabins Cargo capacity 36 vehicles Cargo gear Vehicle elevator Service Operation 24 hours per day with 2 -3 visits per summer Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor Infrastructure needs Piers required at Larsen Bay, Akhiok, Karluk Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Acceptable Cost: Construction of a new Tustumena -class vessel would cost over $100 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $7 million. Concept advantages: This alternative would provide frequent and reliable year -round ferry service to Kodiak Island communities. Similar to the Tustumena, this vessel would have good speed, sea keeping, and excess payload capacity. As a vessel crewed for 24 -hour operations, this vessel could serve all communities (with suitable piers) on Kodiak Island. This type of service could generate some additional seasonal revenue from the non - resident visitor market. A service connection to Homer could enhance the economics of this concept. Concept disadvantages: This service concept requires a very large capital investment for the vessel and is very expensive to operate. A large annual subsidy (approximately $6 million) would be required. Before this service could be provided to Larsen Bay, Akhiok, and Karluk, construction of deepwater piers would be required. Variations: This transportation alternative could also serve Southwest Alaska. This variation would substantially improve transportation to both regions, but would not significantly change the magnitude of the required annual operating subsidy. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 76 Concept 3: Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel Concept Description: This concept would provide a passenger- carrying cargo vessel for Kodiak Island. This system would provide 24 -hour passenger and containerized cargo service to communities with deepwater piers. Figure 37: Rendering of Passenger /Cargo Vessel '°o ) r _ c _1, A _ % au 4 - rm C . tieifx r r ,LI I I - 4 + . � r i Table 59: Dedicated Passenger /Cargo Vessel System Components Vessel Length 295 feet Speed 14.5 knots Passenger capacity 150 Passenger cabins 22 cabins Crew capacity 35 Crew cabins 30 cabins Cargo capacity 90 vehicles Cargo gear Open Hatch Service Operation 24 hours per day with 2 -3 visits per week Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor Infrastructure needs Piers required at Larsen Bay, Akhiok, Karluk Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Acceptable Discussion: This alternative would provide service similar to existing regional cargo vessels, but also provide passenger service. For efficiency purposes, a modern cargo vessel usually carries containers, instead of loose ( "break bulk ") cargo. The vessel required for this service is a combination passenger cargo vessel. These vessels were commonplace in the past, however they are now rarely built due to the high level of regulatory complexity required to safely support both cargo and passenger missions. The resulting vessel cannot usually be employed in a cost effective manner and is much less efficient than a dedicated cargo or dedicated passenger vessel. Cost: Construction of a new passenger- carrying cargo vessel would cost about $120 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $7 million. Concept advantages: This concept would provide regular, reliable year -round passenger and cargo transportation. Vehicles could be transported inside containers. The concept vessel has good speed, sea keeping, and excess payload capacity. As a vessel crewed for 24 —hour operations, this vessel could serve all Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 77 communities on Kodiak Island. For communities without piers, this vessel could provide lightering service with small landing craft barges. Concept disadvantages: This service concept requires a very large capital investment for the vessel and would require large operating subsidies. Variations: The proposed vessel could also be employed in a transportation alternative that includes service out the Aleutian Chain and up the coast of Southwest Alaska. This service would be similar to the route of the old "North Star" cargo vessels. Expanding the range of the vessel would decrease the frequency of service to Kodiak Island communities but improve system revenue generation. Concept 4: Dedicated "Day- Boat" Ferry Description: This concept provides passenger and vehicle ferry service to Kodiak communities that are within one day's sailing from Kodiak. This concept would provide daily, or every other day, service on a 2 or 3 week schedule. A Kodiak Island day -boat ferry would have to alternately operate on the south side of the Kodiak Island, then reposition and operate on the north side of the Island. Figure 38: Rendering of Day Boat Ferry - ueu refer (ft 'i�_ „ i ∎•••I r , S NA NO i ' Table 60: Dedicated Day -Boat Ferry System Components • Vessel Length 263 feet Speed 14.5 knots Passenger capacity 150 Passenger cabins 0 cabins Crew capacity 7 Crew cabins 4 cabins Cargo capacity 28 vehicles Cargo gear Vehicle Elevator Service Operation 12 hours per day, 1 town per day Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor Infrastructure needs Piers required at Larsen Bay, Akhiok, Karluk Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Acceptable Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 78 Discussion: This service concept takes advantage of USCG manning regulations (for passenger vessels that operate less than 12 hours per day) to greatly reduce crew size. Because crew members are not on a two - watch system and not living on the vessel, additional crew positions such as cooks and stewards are eliminated and crew and passenger accommodations are not needed. The challenge of a day -boat is to find routes that can be serviced in less than 12 hours. Since day -boats do not require accommodations they are less expensive than overnight ferries. In the case of a Kodiak Island day -boat, vessel length would need to be increased for sea keeping, but the cost of this increase could be mitigated by using an open or partially open car deck. Cost: Construction of a new day -boat ferry would cost about $50 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $3 million. Concept advantages: The benefits of a day -boat are greatly reduced operating costs and service is provided only during daytime hours (when people usually prefer to travel.) A day -boat can be smaller than a 24 -hour ferry, allowing for slightly more appropriate sizing relative the market demand. Vessel construction costs are significantly lower than the cost of a larger 24 -hour vessel. Concept disadvantages: Since distances between Kodiak Island communities are large, the challenge is finding routes that are acceptable for day -boat service. The Route study indicates there are three possible day - boat routes: 1) Kodiak — Old Harbor, 2) Kodiak — Port Lions /Ouzinkie, 3) Kodiak — Larsen Bay /Karluk. Akhiok might be reached on a calm day with minimum current. Until improvements can be made to reduce route distances, operation to Old Harbor (and perhaps Larsen Bay) will require the vessel and crew to overnight at the outlying port. Normally, a day -boat returns its crew to the original sailing port and the vessel is moored overnight at an unattended, floating, dock which provides vessel support services. It may require special dispensation from the USCG to allow the crew to live aboard a day -boat at night and then provide 12 -hour passenger service the next day. Concept Variations: Since route lengths are at the maximum allowed for one -way travel, roadway improvements and new terminal construction are required to deliver the optimum day -boat benefits. A road connection between Karluk and Larsen Bay, a road east from Old Harbor to a new terminal location, and terminals at Anton Larsen, Pasagshak all have important implications for day -boat scheduling and frequency of service. The improvement with the largest benefit would be a floating terminal at Anton - Larsen Bay. A terminal in this location would reduce the distance to all north side communities, increase sailing frequency, eliminate ocean exposure, and provide for overnight mooring. New floating terminals at the east side of Old Harbor and at Pasagshak would also improve this concept. A marine terminal to the east of Old Harbor and one located at Pasagshak would significantly reduce route length and reduce ocean exposure. These terminals would allow for very efficient day -boat operation to Old Harbor. However, terminal and road costs are high and there is concern that a road to Bush Point may impact subsistence fishing. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 79 Concept 5: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Conventional Hull Concept Description: This concept would provide passenger vehicle ferry service to Kodiak Island communities using a conventional (slow speed) landing craft ferry. Figure 39: Rendering of Landing Craft with Conventional Hull i r .: L atl i = fffffffff A° 111111111111111111111111. �% .. : . Table 61: Dedicated Landing Craft, Conventional Hull System Components I Vessel Length 150 feet Speed 9.5 knots Passenger capacity 150 Passenger cabins 0 cabins Crew capacity 5 Crew cabins 4 cabins Cargo capacity 14 vehicles Cargo gear Forward Ramp Service Operation 12 hours per day, 1 -2 per week Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, Karluk, Akhiok (limited) Sea keeping Summer: Acceptable, Winter: Marginal Discussion: While versatile, a conventional landing craft is slow and not a good sea keeping vessel, even at 150 feet in length. It is not possible to get to Akhiok in a 12 -hour operational day with this vessel. Cost: Construction of a new conventional style landing craft would cost about $15 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $2 million. Concept advantages: A conventional style landing craft can provide service to all Kodiak Island communities, including those without piers. The vessel requires very minimal investment in dock /landing facilities. This concept involves relatively low vessel acquisition costs. The vessel could also generate revenue by providing one -time or occasional service to other areas of Kodiak Island (resource development camps, lodges, fish processing facilities, etc.) Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 80 Concept disadvantages: Poor sea keeping characteristics result in comparatively unreliable service schedule and passenger discomfort while underway. This vessel provides very versatile service though at the cost of long, rough trips. It will be difficult to control this vessel on the beach in wind and current and bow loading will require vehicles to back down the beach and go up the ramp in reverse. This type of service may not be attractive to visitors or economical for time - sensitive cargo. Concept Variations: It may be possible to have the crew live aboard this vessel so it can overnight at any port, but still provide day-boat (12 hour) service with passengers. It may also be possible to have the vessel run to Akhiok On excess of 12 hours) if it were only carrying cargo. A variation of freight -only landing craft service would be subsidizing private landing craft operators to provide scheduled service, through a competitive contracting arrangement. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 81 • Concept 6: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran Description: This alternative provides passenger vehicle ferry service to Kodiak Island communities using a catamaran (medium speed) landing craft ferry. This alternative is similar to the conventional landing craft, except it uses a twin hull vessel to increase vessel speed to 15 knots. Figure 40: Rendering of Landing Craft Ferry, Catamaran lF - l a 1111.11r0 Table 62: Dedicated Landing Craft Ferry Catamaran System Components Vessel Length 140 feet Speed 14.5 knots Passenger capacity 150 Passenger cabins 0 cabins Crew capacity 5 Crew cabins 4 cabins Cargo capacity 14 vehicles Cargo gear Forward Ramp Service Operation 12 hours per day, 2 -3 per week Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, Karluk, Akhiok (limited) Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Poor Cost: Construction of a new catamaran style landing craft would cost about $25 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $3 million. Concept advantages: A catamaran style landing craft can provide service to all Kodiak Island communities, including those without piers. The vessel's faster speed (15 knots) would allow day -boat service to all ports except Akhiok. Concept disadvantages: The tall height of a catamaran makes beach landing more difficult and the vessel will need to slow substantially when waves begin hitting the wet deck. It will be difficult to control this vessel on the beach in wind and current. It has an extremely wide bow area, which will not fit on conventional boat ramps. Bow loading will require vehicles to back down the beach and go up the ramp in reverse. This vessel will not be reliable in the winter as sea keeping limitations will force trip cancelations. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 82 Variations: It may be possible to have the crew live aboard this vessel so it can overnight at any port, but still provide day -boat (12 hour) service with passengers. One -way trips to Akhiok might be possible in reasonably calm seas with minimal current. Discussion: This vessel has some major draw backs due to the height of the main deck above the water. The main deck needs to be as high as possible to facilitate clearance between the water and the underside of the hull connecting structure (wetdeck), because catamaran speed and sea keeping ability deteriorate rapidly once water hits the wetdeck. But beach landing operations require the main deck to be as low as possible to the water so that ramp lengths are minimal and ramp angles do not cause vehicles to bottom out. In Kodiak waters, sea keeping requirements will drive the wetdeck of a catamaran up too high to be a viable landing craft. There is an experimental vessel that attempts to resolve this trade -off using a large movable wetdeck and hydraulic lifting systems, but this type of vessel is very expensive to build and has not yet been proven in service. Therefore the catamaran landing craft is not a recommended concept. Concept 7: Cargo - Only Landing Craft Description: This concept consists of a conventional landing craft cargo vessel that provides cargo service (no passengers) to Kodiak Island communities. This concept is similar to several existing marine cargo operations around Kodiak Island and Southcentral Alaska. Figure 41: Rendering of Cargo -Only Landing Craft Ne t -_ : lir 0;• i lfir a Table 63: Cargo -Only Landing Craft System Components Vessel Length 130 feet Speed 9.5 knots Passenger capacity 0 Passenger cabins 0 cabins Crew capacity 5 Crew cabins 4 cabins Cargo capacity 14 containers Cargo gear Forward Ramp Service Operation 24 hours per day, 2 -3 per month Ports of call Kodiak, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, Karluk, Akhiok Sea keeping Summer: Good, Winter: Marginal Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 83 Cost: Construction of a new cargo -only landing craft would cost about $12 million. Annual operating costs would be approximately $1 million. Concept advantages: This is a low cost concept with the same advantages of other landing craft options, including the capacity to serve communities without piers. This alternative would provide more reliable freight service than is now provided by the private sector. To the extent that service could be subsidized, the communities might enjoy lower freight costs. Concept disadvantages: While costs to the outlying communities might be lower (if the service is subsidized) the total cost of moving freight would not be substantially different assuming a publicly funded freight service could not be as efficient as a private sector effort. This concept would be contentious as the vessel would be in direct competition with private sector operators. Because of this, public funding would be difficult to obtain. Finally, this concept fails to meet a key purpose and need for ferry service to outlying communities, passenger transportation. Concept 8: Tug and Barge or Other Cargo -Only Vessel Service Description: This concept includes using a tug and barge or some other type of cargo vessel to provide cargo service to Kodiak Island communities. Figure 42: Rendering of Tug and Barge Service _ � IrIC� b�',. r Figure 43: Rendering of Alternative Freight -Only Concept o b ' / \ I I 1 rp— ) L • _ � -- 'axut --- Discussion: This concept is similar to several existing marine cargo operations around Kodiak Island and Southcentral Alaska. Since it would be dedicated to Kodiak Island, service frequency and reliability would increase. This alternative would provide more reliable freight service than is now available but at a much higher overall cost (due to low cargo volumes and the inefficiencies of public operation). This concept would Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 84 be in direct competition with private sector freight carriers. Public funding would be difficult to obtain. This concept also fails to meet a key purpose for ferry service to outlying communities, passenger transportation Concept 9: Passenger - Only Ferry Description: This concept includes providing passenger -only service to communities around Kodiak Island. This alternative would use a high -speed vessel to carry passengers on day -boat routes. Very limited freight would be carried. This concept does not provide needed vehicle or cargo service. Figure 44: Conceptual Rendering of Passenger Ferry ar Discussion: The high speed (30 knots) of the vessel would greatly reduce transit times, but the vessel's small size would make it impossible to operate in even moderate sea states. If vessel size were greatly increased to improve for sea keeping, fuel costs would rise sharply. This type and size of vessel would see frequent weather - related trip cancelations and would not be able to provide service during the winter and shoulder seasons. It would compete with existing air taxi operators, which currently provide a high level of service. Because a passenger -only ferry could not carry vehicles and other heavy freight, it fails to satisfy a key purpose and need for ferry service to outlying communities. Concept 10: Enhanced Airfreight Transportation Service Description: This concept involves expanding the facilities and services necessary to support delivery of fuel and larger freight items by air. This could include runway expansions and contracted (subsidized) scheduled or on- demand airfreight service. This concept does not include provisions to enhance passenger service. A variety of aircraft are used to fly freight in Alaska, ranging from small single engine aircraft to jets. Aircraft capable of hauling large volumes of fuel or heavy freight have runway requirements that often preclude their use in many small communities. Runway length is a constraining factor for Kodiak Island's outlying communities. The runways of the six communities vary in length from 2,000 feet to 3,300 feet. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 85 Table 64: Selected Aircraft Employed in Alaska's Airfreight Transportation Sector Average !Minimum /Aircraft Rayload:(Ibs) Runway •Len thi(ft) DC -6* 28,000 3,500 L382 Hercules* _ 48,000 3,900 C -46* _ 12,000 3,500 DHC -8 -100 7,500 3,200 DC -3 7,500 2,600 Britten - Norman Islander 3,000 1,115 EMB 120 7,000 4,500 Beech 1900 _ 7,150 3,000 Cessna Caravan 2,800 2,500 DC -9 32,000 5,900 737 -200 30,000 5,000 "Lynden Air Cargo can carry 6,400 gallons of fuel on its C130 Hercules aircraft. Everts Air Fuel can carry 5,000 gallons on a DC -6 tanker and 2,000 gallons on a C- 46. Other aircraft can carry fuel in barrels. While it may be technically possible to extend runways to suitable lengths, the basic economics of flying fuel and heavy freight to communities that have marine access preclude any serious consideration of flying fuel into the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. In fact, elsewhere in rural Alaska, fuel is flown in only in emergency situations where no other option is available (truck or barge). Costs vary with volume and distance to destination, but flying can easily add five dollars to the cost of a gallon of fuel, significantly more than any marine or other service option. Figure 45: Everts Air Cargo DC — 6 Ou The cost to transport heavy airfreight in general is high relative to land or marine transport. For example, to transport a vehicle from Anchorage to Dillingham (roughly the same distance as Anchorage to Kodiak) Everts Air Cargo charges approximately $225 per foot for vehicles up to 18 feet and $3,600 for a 16 -foot vehicle, plus fuel surcharges (17%) and Federal Transportation tax (6.25 %). Ace Air Cargo, which flies Raytheon Beech 1900C aircraft and serves communities throughout Alaska from its Anchorage hub, charges about 65 cents a pound for shipment from Anchorage to Kodiak. Everts rates for airfreight from Anchorage to Island -lade Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 86 Dillingham (for example) range from 60 cents per pound to 70 cents per pound. These rates are for regularly scheduled service. Charter rates are higher. Kodiak Island is fortunate to have the Britten - Norman Islander aircraft as part of the fleet of aircraft that serves the outlying communities. These versatile twin - engine aircraft have good freight hauling capacity. As of 2010, airfreight rates ranged from 44 cents per pound for Kodiak /Port Lions and Kodiak /Ouzinkie service, up to 83 cents per pound for Kodiak /Akhiok service. (Island Air's published rates also included 65 cents per pound for Kodiak /Old Harbor and Kodiak /Larsen Bay service, and 79 cents per pound for Kodiak /Karluk service.) Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 87 Chapter 7: Detailed Analysis of Select Transportation Improvement Concepts Introduction In the previous chapter, this study examined a wide variety of transportation concepts for improvement of transportation on Kodiak Island. After considering challenges related to severe environment, long distances, and limited infrastructure, three ferry concepts were selected for further study: 1) enhanced Tustumena service, 2) day -boat ferry, and 3) conventional landing craft ferry. This chapter provides a brief discussion of additional Tustumena service. The new concept ferry systems are examined more closely. Each new vessel concept will be examined with regard to its ability to meet system requirements such as payload, speed, and sea keeping. Analysis of each system included generating possible operating schedules so that total annual service can be compared. After comparison of possible ferry system schedules, the capital cost for each vessel and the operational cost for each concept ferry system were calculated. In Chapter 3, it was indicated that the revenue generation potential of a Kodiak Island Ferry System is very limited, even when compared to other small Alaska ferry systems. This means any Kodiak Island ferry system will require an operational subsidy. Because of the difficulty of obtaining this subsidy, it is imperative that any Kodiak Island System be designed to operate with a minimum of operational funds. Thus, the primary focus of system design must be on minimizing operational cost. Enhanced Tustumena Service Enhanced service by the AMHS ferry M/V Tustumena is an option for improving ferry service to Kodiak Island. The vessel has proven successful over the course of almost 50 years of service to Kodiak Island and will be the benchmark for any future ferry service. Since the Tustumena is operated by the State of Alaska, it operates at essentially no cost to Kodiak Island (other than fares paid by travelers). From a Kodiak Island economic benefit perspective, the Tustumena would be dedicated to Kodiak to the greatest extent possible. However, additional Tustumena service would not be easy to . obtain because the vessel is already fully scheduled. To add service to a new Kodiak port means decreased service elsewhere. This effect can be somewhat mitigated by deploying AMHS's second ocean -going vessel, the Kennicott. For example, during the summer of 2011, the AMHS will be providing two trips out the Aleutian Chain per month. In this case, the Kennicott is helping provide some of the service to Kodiak that is lost to provide the Aleutian Chain trips. The Kennicott is limited in this role because it is too large to get into many of the smaller Kodiak Island ports. The Tustumena and the Kennicott are very valuable marine transportation assets. It is extremely costly and difficult to provide USCG approved ocean -going passenger and vehicle service to unimproved ports, so Tustumena and Kennicott ferry service is important and very difficult to replace. The scheduling of the Tustumena and Kennicott is a complicated matter, because the AMHS is under pressure to keep operating Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 88 costs at a minimum, something that is difficult on long ocean routes which are not great revenue generators. Any requests for additional Tustumena service should be made with an emphasis on efficiency. The Tustumena's effectiveness could be enhanced by the addition of a new Kodiak Island Ferry System. If a small regional system could handle the majority of ferry service around Kodiak Island, the Tustumena could be freed -up to provide more main land, Kodiak and Aleutian Chain service. The goal of this concept would be to provide more service to the smaller communities using a much less costly ferry, saving Tustumena service for the long ocean routes (including perhaps Old Harbor service) where it is most capable. This division of service allows each vessel and ferry system to operate at higher efficiencies. From a long - term perspective, a small regional Kodiak ferry might even be viewed as beneficial to the AMHS, if such a system would increase regional service and not greatly increase operating subsidies. New Vessel Configuration The configuration of any new Kodiak Island ferry vessel needs to be optimized for safety and least cost. Both of the vessels brought forward for additional study are day- boats, meaning ferries that operate for less than 12 hours daily with one crew. In this case, vessel configuration is fairly simple because there are no passenger staterooms, galleys, bars, or cafeterias. Since USCG manning requirements require a crew member for each passenger deck, these vessels have been arranged for only one main passenger deck, in addition to the main car deck. Since this space will be above the 15' -6" car deck, it will need to be serviced by a small elevator. Main passenger space will consist of theater and booth seating, restroom facilities, and food services by vending machine /microwave oven. A small amount of crew accommodations are planned for each vessel. These accommodations are intended to serve as sleeping quarters for the crew when the vessel is secured for the night at out ports, not as a system for having two crews aboard the vessel. Crew food service is not planned for a normal 8, 10, or 12 hour work day. In the case of overnights at out ports, food service would need to be catered with items that can be warmed without a galley. There is no plan for the day -boats to have cooks, stewards, or pursers. Any night watch will occur in the wheelhouse. The proposed vessels share many characteristics; however they differ greatly in vehicle handling methods. The landing craft would land on beaches with minimal improvements (such as a boat launch ramp) and cars and people would move off the vessel using the forward ramp. The day -boat would moor at piers and use a vehicle elevator, similar to the Tustumena to unload, although floating docks would allow much faster turnaround. The versatility of a landing craft is offset by the challenges posed by beach landing: ramp angles frequently exceed regulation, vehicle traffic must back down the ramp in one direction, and controlling a large vessel on the beach can be very difficult in wind or current and as cargo load varies. Vessel Size Usually, the size of a ferry vessel is determined by the expected payload of passengers and vehicles. Since Kodiak Island ferry payloads would be small, a least -cost ferry designed for this system would be relatively short in length, for example less than 100 feet long. However, this type of vessel design solution is not Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak /s /and, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 89 acceptable for Kodiak Island, because the resulting vessel would be too small to meet the sea keeping requirements of year -round Kodiak Island service. Previously, the severity of Kodiak Island weather was discussed. This type of marine environment is not just an inconvenience; but is a serious threat to vessel survivability. One of the first missions of a Kodiak Island ferry must be the ability to survive a typical storm and be able to seek shelter safely. Secondly, passenger comfort must be within reasonable and safe limits. The amount of vessel motion and time of exposure that causes sea sickness is reasonably well defined. However, there are often public misconceptions about this topic due to the widespread familiarity with televised commercial fishing programs. These programs depict vessel crew members subject to extreme vessel accelerations and wave force. This type of sea keeping is unrealistic for a public ferry system. If even half of the motions depicted on those programs were allowed to occur in a passenger vessel, there would be very serious sickness and passenger injury. A Kodiak Island ferry must be designed to safely transport children and elders on a year -round basis. Because sea keeping and vessel motions in a large seaway are extremely complicated, it is difficult to exactly determine the correct length of a Kodiak Island ferry. A detailed sea keeping analysis of multiple vessels is beyond the scope of this report. However, due to almost 50 years of successful service, the sea keeping ability of the Tustumena is a very good benchmark from which to compare possible Kodiak Island vessels. Using a relatively simple form of sea keeping software, it is possible to compare ship motions for different vessels that are on a single heading, at the same speed, in a similar wave environment. Three vessels were analyzed: the 295 -foot Tustumena, the 263 -foot day -boat ferry, and the 180 -foot ferry Lituya. Assuming a wave field similar to a large storm (10.66 foot significant wave height, 0.7 second period, JONSWAP sea spectrum) calculations were made for crew /passenger motion sickness incidence and are shown in Figure 46. /s /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 90 Figure 46: Ship Motions for Different Vessels 4 3.5 30 min Exposure ( Tustumena- _Lituya ryr� Day -boat 2 m �g 1.5 r% �SJ 1 0.5 o , 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Encounter Frequency (rad/s) Compared to the Tustumena, the graph of motion sickness incidence indicates that the day -boat has a similar, but moderate increase in the chance of severe discomfort. When the Tustumena is compared to the much smaller Lituya, the analysis indicates a significantly larger chance of severe discomfort with the smaller vessel. Another measure of motion sickness was calculated called "subjective magnitude." On a scale of moderate to intolerable, the Tustumena and the day -boat were rated "serious" and the Lituya was rated "severe: necessary to hang on ". This study did not attempt to model other measures of severe vessel motions such as bow slamming or propeller emergence. However it is likely that these measures would also be much worse for the smaller vessel. It is reasonable to conclude that a vessel in the size range of the day -boat (265 ft) or the Tustumena (292 ft) is required to provide a prudent level of sea keeping ability, at 13.5 knots, for a year -round Kodiak Island ferry. If a Kodiak Island ferry were intended to operate only on the north side of the island, its size could be reduced. A similar sea keeping analysis was conducted on the landing craft but was not conclusive, because the vessel operates at significantly slower speed (9 knots) and has a shape that necessitates additional bow slamming and propeller emergence analysis. For planning purposes, it is prudent to continue to assume that a Kodiak Island -144de Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 91 Island landing craft ferry will need to be around 150 feet in length, based on existing successful landing crafts operating in the Gulf of Alaska. Further analysis of all sea keeping issues is warranted during any future stage of vessel or system design. Vessel Capital Cost Acquiring a Kodiak Island ferry will most likely require new construction, because it is very unlikely that a vessel suitable for the specific mission of Kodiak ferry service will exist on the used vessel market. Cargo and fishing vessels generally cannot be converted to passenger vessels because passenger vessels require specific watertight subdivision. Using the size and characteristics of the Kodiak Island concept ferries, a price to construct each vessel can be estimated. For this study, a new vessel construction price analysis was undertaken using a proprietary vessel construction cost model. This model uses vessel size, volume of spaces, type of spaces, propulsion horsepower, electrical power, and list of specialized equipment as input. Then this model uses typical construction costs per unit to calculate construction cost. The results of this analysis and the projected construction cost of each vessel are shown below. Table 65: Vessel Capital Costs Vessel Capital Costs Kodiak Island Landing Craft Landing Craft Kodiak Island Passenger Day-boat Ferry Ferry Cargo Ferry Landing Craft Cargo Vessel (Conventional) (Catamaran) A) Hull Structure (Below M Dk) 16,793,145 15,578,583 11,969,990 3,100,893 7,263,373 2,501,308 B) Superstructure (Above M Dk) 1 Superstructure u 6,549777 _ 7,131,158 2,802,962 1,275_74 _ 1,287,480 422,432 2 Enclosed car deck 7,386,332 8,012,817 2,135,319 • C) Accommodation Outfit f Low density Spaces 3,206,995 5,550,243 4,239,477 1,511,730 1,263,476 823,500 2 High density Spaces 31,179,7 32,664,804 4,043,398 5,044,197 _5.606,356_ _1_647,652 3 Car Deck 6,324,933 3,873,989 1,7 75,479 729,502 729,502 D) Machinery - — _ - -- - _ ._ . - — 1 Engines,propulsion, etc 8,214,450 12,321,674 4,978,454 2489,227 4.978,454 2,489_227 2 Elevator! Crane 8,000,000 6,000,000 6 - .000 1',500,000 1',500,000 3 Electrical 7,223,532 14,447,063 3 2 2 1,289,916 Subtotal 94,878,878 '107,580,331' 41,169,870: 17,301,152 24,778,502 _10,674,036 E),_ Eng. / Testing( Delivery Cast - 9,013,493 IQ22Q131 3911,138 1,643,609 2,353958 - 1,014,033 Total Vessel Capital Cost (S) .1 103,900,000 1 117,800,0001 45,100,000 1 18,900,000 1 21,100,0001 11,700,000 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 92 VESSEL SPEED AND SCHEDULES In a traditional ferry system, the speed of each vessel can be optimized for primary routes. In the case of a Kodiak Island ferry, distances are large and there would be no incentive to pay for the fuel consumed to provide extra speed. The approach used on the Kodiak Island vessels was to establish maximum efficient vessel speed, commonly called "hull speed ", then determine the maximum service that could be provided. Given that the two hull types in consideration are taken from variations of existing vessels, speed can be reliably predicted. A speed of about 14.5 knots is possible for the day -boat and a speed of 9.5 for the conventional landing craft. Scheduled speeds are slightly lower, 13.5 and 9 knots respectively, to account for the effects of wind, waves, and current. WEEKLY MANNING PLANS With speed known, schedules for a landing craft and day -boat alternative can be determined. This process is extremely complicated for Kodiak Island because the system requires a least cost approach. This means that the schedules have to reflect only one crew operating the vessel. Many different schemes can be concocted for scheduling crews, but the bottom line is that a full -time employee cannot work much more than 40 hours per week on a consistent basis. Since the USCG has a 12 -hour limit on the time a crew can work, this results in three possible weekly manning schedules: 1. 5 days working 8 hours per day, followed by 2 days off = 40 hour work week 2. 4 days working 10 hours per day, followed by 3 days off = 40 hour work week 3. 7 days working 12 hour days, followed by 7 days off = 84 hour work week. SERVICE WEEKS PER YEAR If it is assumed that the crew requires six weeks of vacation and the vessel requires four weeks of overhaul, two of which can coincide with crew vacation, it is possible to determine the number of weeks of total service each manning system can provide. 1. 40 hour work week = 55 —8 = 44 weeks service 2. 84 hour work week = 26 — 4 = 22 weeks service. Note that using an 84 hour work week results in a week -on week -off service, which cuts in half the number of weeks of vessel service. POSSIBLE WEEKLY SCHEDULES: Using vessel schedule speed and the route information in the appendices, weekly vessel schedules were created. Each schedule used a 1 /2 hour loading time and a 1 /2 hour unloading time and included 0.5 nautical mile reduced speed (for maneuvering) at each port. There are an almost unlimited number of weekly schedules that could be created for Kodiak Island. Based on the premise of maximum efficiency, many schedules were generated and abandoned, if the schedule did not efficiently use one week of crew service. After much iteration, the following schedules are provided for possible Kodiak Island ferry service. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 93 Table 66: Landing Craft Weekly Schedules Landing,Craft: Weekly Schedules Weekly schedule Sample w Home Hours Port. per week Sunday (Monday 'Tuesday (Wednesday (Thursday !Friday (Saturday Dp KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00 Op KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar,OUZ 9 :36 Kodiak 40 DP 01210:36 OP OUZ 10:36 DP 01210 :36 DP 01210:36 x (4 - 10's) Ar PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 c A Op PRL 13:10 Dp PRL : 13:10 Dp PRL 13:10 Op PRL 13:10 Ar KOD 16:12 Ar KOD 16:12 Ar KOD 16:12 Ar KOD 16:12 co Y Vessel Hrs/day 9.20 920 9.20 9.20 ' Ports Served _ 2 Ports 2 Ports 2 Ports _ 2 Pods Pods Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Pod 4.00 . -4.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 Op KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8 :00 Dp LRB 8:00 Dp 1(0D 8:00 • Op K00 8:00 bp KOD 8:00 Dp LRB 8:00 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar LRB 17:33 Ar KOD 17:33 Ar 012 9:36 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar LRB 17:33 Ar K0017:33 DP012 10:36 DP 01210:36 DP OUZ 10:36 m Kodiak gq Ar PRL 12:10 Ai PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 m Op PRL 13:10 Dp PRL 13:10 Op PRL 13:10 Ar OUZ 14:44 Ar OUZ 14:44 Ar01214:44 8 -7 DP OUZ 15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 3 Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Vessel Hrs/day 10.33 7055 10.55 10.33 7033 10.55 7055 Pods Served _ 3 Ports , 1/2 Port 7/2 Port 3 Pods .3 Pods 1/2 Pod 1/2 Port Pods Served OUZ PRL LRB 0141? KAR AKH Calls Per Pat 6.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 Dp ROD 8:00 by OHR 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00- DP KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00. Dp OHR 8:00 Op KOD 8:00 Ar OHR 18:42 Ar KOD 18:42 Ar OUZ 9:36 Al OUZ 9:36 Ar OHR 1E12 Ar KM 18:42 Ar OUZ 9:36 DP01Z10:36 DP OUZ 10:36 OP OUZ 10:36 o Kodiak 84 Ar PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10 Op PRL 13:10 Op PRL 13:10 Op PRL 13:10 = ArOUZ14:44 Ar OUZ 14:44 Ar OUZ 14:44 OPOUZ15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 N o Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Vessel Hrs/day 11.70 11 :70 '10.33 70.33 11.70 11:70 1033 Ports Served 1/2 Port . 1/2 Port 3 Pods 3 Pods , 1/2 Pod 7/2 Pod .3 Ports Pods Served OUZ PRL IRS 01-11?' KAR AKH Calls Per Pon . 6.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 000 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 94 LandingCraft: Weekly Schedules Sample Weekly schedule Week Home Hours Port per week Sunday Monday Tuesday (Wednesday Thursday. Friday Saturday Dp KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00 Dp OHR 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 Dp OHR 8.00 Dp KOD 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar OHR 18:42 Ar AKH 15:19 Ar OHR 15:19 Ar KOD 18:42 Ar OUZ 9:36 Ar OUZ 9:36 DP OUZ 10:36 DP OUZ 10:36 DP OUZ 10:36 Kodiak 84 n1 AT PRL 12:10 Ar PRL 12:10. Ar PRL 12:10 o Op PRL 13:10 Op PRL 13:10 Dp PRL 13:10 L 1 ¢ Ar OUZ 14:44 Ar OUZ 14 ;44 Ar OUZ 14:44 0 m DP OUZ 15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 DP OUZ 15:44 o Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Ar KOD 17:20 Vessel Hrs/day 70.33 71.70 8.32 8.32 11.70 10.33 10.33 Polls Served 3 Ports 7/2 Ports 1/2 Ports _ 3 Ports 3 Ports Pons Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR •KAR AKH Calls Per Poo 6.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Dp'ANT 8:00' Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00' Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 CD ArOUZ8:52 ArOUZ8:52 ArOUZ8:52 ArOUZ8:52' ArOUZ8:52 Anton 40 Dp OUZ 9:52 Dp OUZ 9:52 Dp0129:52 Dp 0UZ 9:52 Dp0129:52 n Larsen o Bay (5 - 8's) Ar PRL 11:26 Ar PRL 11:26 Ar PRL 11:26 Ar PRL 11:26 Ar PRL 11:26 T E B Op PRL 12:26 Op PRL 12:26 Dp PRL 12:26 Dp PRL 12:26 Dp PRL 12:26 co Ar ANT 13:27 Ar ANT 13:27 Ar ANT 13:27 Ar ANT 13:27 Ar ANT 13:27 N 3 VesselHrs/day 6.45 645 645 6:45 6.45 `o Pons Served 2 Pons 2 Pons 2 Pons 2 Pons 2 Pons c a Ports Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Port 500 5.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 • ;Anton 40 DD ANT 800 DpLRB8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp LRB 8:00 Larse 4 -10's Li Bay (4 Ar LRB 15:34 Ar ANT 15:34 Ar LRB 15:34 Ar ANT 15:34 F d Vessel Hrs/day 8,57 8.57 8.57 857 Pons Served 1/2 Port _ 1/2 Pon 1/2 Pon 1/2 Pun o Ports Served OUZ PRL LRB 011R KAR AKH Calls Per Pon 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 000 E Pasagsh 40 Dp PAS 8:00 Op OHR 8:00 Dp PAS 8:00 Dp OHR 8:00 I ak Ba4 ' (4 -1 0's) Ar OHR 14:49 Ar PAS 14:49 Ar OHR 14:49 Ar PAS 14 :49 o' Vessel Hrs/day 7.82 7.82 7.82 7.82 ;,' Pons Served 1/2 Pon 1/2 Poll 1/2 Pon 1/2 Pon L ,co Pons Served 0(/Z PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH a Calls Per Port 0.00 0.00 0.00 200 ' 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 40 0p Op AHK8:00 o , ArAHK22:49 Ar KOD 22:49 H a' Vessel His/day 15.98 15.98 2 • 'Potts Served 1/2 Port 1/2 Pon . 8 Pons Served OU2 PRL' LRB 011R KAR AKH Calls Per Port 0.00 000 000 0.00 0.00 1.00 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDone /l Group, Inc. • Page 95 Landing Craft: Weekly Schedules Weekly schedule Sample Week Home Hours Port per week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday (Thursday Friday (Saturday Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Op ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Ar OUZ 8:52 Ar PRL 9:01 Ar OUZ 8:52 Ar PRL 9:01 Ar OUZ 8:52 Ar PRL 9:01 Ar CUZ 8:52 Dp OUZ 9:52 Dp PRL 10:01 Dp OUZ 9:52 Dp PRL 10:01 Dp OUZ 9:52 Dp PRL 10:01 Dp OUZ 9:52 Ar ANT 10:44 Ar ANT 11:02 Ar ANT 10:44 Ar ANT 11:02 Ar ANT 10:44 Ar ANT 11:02 Ar ANT 10:44 Dp ANT 11:44 Dp ANT 12:02 Dp ANT 11:44 Dp ANT 12:02 Dp ANT 11:44 Dp ANT 12:02 Dp ANT 11:44 •, Anton Ar PRL 12:45 Ar OUZ 12:54 Ar PRL 12:45 Ar 012 12:54 Ar PRL 12:45 Ar OUZ 12:54 Ar PRL 12:45 Eg Larsen 84 o Bay Dp PRL 13:45 Dp OUZ 13:54 Dp PRL 13:45 Op OUZ 13:54 Op PRL 13:45 Dp OUZ 13 :54 Dp PRL 13:45 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 Ar ANT 14:46 5i Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Dp ANT 15:46 Ar OUZ 16:38 Ar PRL 16:47 Ar OUZ 16:38 Ar PRL 16:47 Ar OUZ 16:38 Ar PRL 16:47 Ar 012 16:38 Dp 012 17:38 Dp PRL 17:47 Dp 012 17:38 Dp PRL 17:47 Dp 012 17:38 Dp PRL 17:47 Dp OUZ 17:38 Ar ANT 18:30 Ar ANT 18:48 Ar ANT 18:30 Ar ANT 18:48 Ar ANT 18:30 Ar ANT 18:48 Ar ANT 18:30 Vessel Hrs/day 11.50 17.80 11.50 11.80 11.50 11.80 11.50 Ports Served 3 Ports 3 Ports 3 Ports 3 Ports 3 Ports 3 Ports 3 Ports Ports Served 0117 PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Port 11.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1) Stop in Old Harbor is an overnight only. Vessel is not considered to be unloaded. Old Harbor is considered to have no port calls in this schedule 2) Schedule H requires significant overtime and may require an additional crew memeber. For a 40 hour week equivalent, only one trip to Akhiok can be completed. This schedule is for cargo only. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibi/lty Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 96 Table 67: Day Boat Weekly Schedules Day - boat: Weekly Schedules Sample Hours per Weekly schedule Week Home Port week. Sunday 'Monday 'Tuesday 'Wednesday (Thursday. .'Friday 'Saturday OpK0D8:00 Dp LRB 8:00. OpKOD8:00 OpKOD DpLRB8:00 Ar LRB 14:22 Ar K00 14:22 A'r OUZ 9:03 Ar LRB 14:22 Ar K0D 14:22 r Kodiak 40 DP OUZ 10:03 m (5 -8's) , Ar PRL 11:05 c e ! OPPRL12:05 .A 3 ' . Ar KOD 14:06 al 8 Vessel Hts/day • 7.37 737 110 7.37 7.37 Pons Saved 1/2 pod 1/2 port ?ports 1/2 pod 1/2 pat Pods Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Port 1.00. 1:00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dp1(0D8:00 Op OHR 8:00 Pp 1(008:00 Pp1(0D8:00 Dp OHR 8:00 Ar OHR 15:07 ArKOD 15:07 Ar 01119:03 Ar OHR 15:07 At KOD 15:07 40 DP OUZ 10:03 f Kodiak , (5 - 8's) ArPRL11:05 a Up PRL 12:05 B o Ar K0014:06 4 L8 Vessel Hrs/day • 8.12 8.12 7 10 8.12 8.12 Ports Served 1/2 pon 1/2 port 2 ports .1/2 port 1/2 port Pods Served 01)2 PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Pod 1.00 1.00 0.00 .2,00 0.00 0.00 ' Op KOD 8:00 Op 1(008:00 Op 1(00BA0 Dp1(008:00 Op Roo 8:00 Ar0UZ9:03 Ar OUZ 9:03 ArOUZ9:03 ArOUZ9:03 Ar. OUZ 9.03 Kodiak 40 DP OUZ 10:03 DP 012 10:03 DP OUZ 10:03 DP OUZ 10:03 DP 0UZ 1083 • I (5. 8's) 1 Ar PRL 11:05 Ar PRL 11:05 Ar PRL 11:05 Ar PRL 11:05 Ar PRL 11:05 Op PRL 12:05 Op PRL 12:05. Op PRL 12:05 Dp PRL 12:05 Dp PRL 12:05 . Ar K0014:06 Ar KOD 14:06 Ar MOD 14:06 Ar K0D 14:06 At K0014:06 m '$ Vessel firs /day. Z 10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7,10 Y Pons Saved 2 ports ?ports 2 pons ?ports 2 pods Pats Served 0112 PRI LRB , OHR • KAR AKH Calls Per Pat 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 Dp KOD 8:00 Op KOD 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 Dp KOD 8:00 Ar OUZ 9:03 Ar AKH 17:59 ArK k OUZ 9:03 Kodiak 40 DP OUZ 10:03 DP OUZ 10:03 se a' (4- 10's) Ar PRL 11:05 Ar PRL 11:05 Dp PRL 12:05 Dp PRL 12:05 D co ArK0014:06 ArKOD14:06 a '' . Vessel Hrs/day • 7 10 10.98 10.98 7.10 Pats Served . 2ports . 1/2 pod_ 1/2 pod .2 ports _ Pods Saved OUZ "PRL ' • 'LRB OHR 'KAR AKH Calls Pei Pon 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 000 1.00 • Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 97 Day -boat: Weekly Schedules Sample Hours per Weekly schedule Week Home Port week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday IThursday Friday (Saturday Op ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Op ALRB 8:00 Op ANT 8:0P Op ANT 8:00 @ Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar LRB 13:02 Ar Ant 13:02 Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar012 8:34 m d Anton 40 Op OUZ 9:34 Dp OUZ 9:34 Op OUZ 9:34 10.. ▪ Larsen Bay (5 - 8's) Ar PRL 10:36 Ar PRL 10:36 Ar PRL 10:36 m Dp PRL 11:36 Dp PRL 11:36 Dp PRL 11:36 E m ArANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 c e Vessel / lrs/day 527 6.03 6.03 5.27 5.27 co ▪ Ports Served 2 ports 7/2 poll 1/2 port 2 ports 2ports 0 a Ports Served 002 PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Port 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar PLR 8:40 Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar PLR 8:40 Op OUZ 9:34 Dp PLR 9:40 Op OUZ 9:34 Dp PLR 9:40 Ar ANT 10:08 At ANT 10:20 Ar ANT 10:08 Ar ANT 10:20 Dp ANT 11:08 Dp ANT 11:20 Dp ANT 11:08 Dp ANT 11:20 N e? Anton 40 Ar PRL 11:48 Ar OUZ 11:54 Ar PRL 11:48 Ar OUZ 1154 m Larsen Bay (4 - 10's) Op PRL 12:48 Op OUZ 12:54 Dp PRL 12:48 Dp 012 12:54 Ar ANT 13:28 Ar ANT 13:28 Ar ANT 13:28 Ar ANT 13:28 F Dp ANT 14:28 Dp ANT 14:28 Dp ANT 14:28 Dp ANT 14:28 c 00 Ar OUZ 15:02 Ar PLR 15:08 Ar OUZ 15:02 Ar PLR 15:08 c a Op 012 16:02 Op PLR 16:08 Dp OUZ 16:02 Dp PLR 16:08 Ar ANT 16:36 Ar ANT 16:48 Ar ANT 16:36 Ar ANT 16:48 Vessel Hrslday 9.60 9.80 g60 9.80 Ports Served _ 3 Ports 3 Pats 3 Ports 3 Ports Ports Served 01/1 PRL LRB 011R KAR AKH Calls Per Pon 600 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 - Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Op ANT 8:00 Op ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Ar LRB 13:02 Ar OUZ8:34 Ar LRB 13:02 Ar OUZ8:34 Ar LRB 13:02 Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar OUZ 8:34 Dp LRB 14:02 Op012 9:34 Dp LRB 14:02 Op OUZ 9:34 Op LRB 14:02. Dp OUZ 9:34 Dp0129:34 Ar ANT 19:04 Ar PRL 10:36 Ar ANT 19:04 Ar PRL 10:36 Ar ANT 19:04 Ar PRL 10:36 Ar PRL 10:36 Op PRL 11:36 Dp PRL 11:36 Op PRL 11:36 Dp PRL 11:36 Anton 84 Ar ANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 a Larsen Bay Dp ANT 13:16 Dp ANT 13:16 Dp ANT 13:16 Dp ANT 13:16 c co Ar OUZ 13:50 Ar OUZ 13:50 Ar012 13:50 Ar OUZ 13:50 G 3 Dp 012 14:50 Op OUZ 74:50 Op 012 14:50 Dp OUZ 74:50 Ar PRL 15 Ar PRL 15:52. Ar PRL 15:52 Ar PRL 15:52 Dp PRL 16:52 Dp PRL 16:52 Dp PRL 16:52 Dp PRL 16:52 Ar ANT 17:32 Ar ANT 17:32 Ar ANT 17:32 Ar ANT 17:32 VesselHr_s/day 12.07 7053 1207 10.53 - 1207 70.53 10.53 Ports Served 1 pat 4 ports I port 4 ports 1 part 4 ports 4 ports Pods Served 001 PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Pon B 00 8.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /s /and tlfde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 98 Day -boat: Weekly Schedules Sample Hours er Weekly schedule Week p Home Port week Sunday 'Monday 'Tuesday 'Wednesday 'Thursday • 'Friday ISaturday Op PAS 8:00 Do PAS 8:00 Op PAS 8:00 ' Op PAS 8:00 ' Dp PAS 8:00 Dp PAS 8:00 Op PAS 8:00 c Pasagshak Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 1233' Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 r 84 a Bay Dp OHR 13:33 Dp OHR 13:33 Dp OHR 13:33 Op OHR 13:33 Dp DHR 13:33 Dp OHR 13:33 Dp OHR 13:33 O Ar PAS'18:06 Ar PAS 18:06 Ar PAS 18:06 Ar PAS 18:06 Ar PAS•18:06 Ar PAS 18:06 Ar PAS•18:06 H m Y Vessel Hrs/day 11.10 11.70 11.10 11.10 11.10 1 HO 11.10 Ports Served 1 port 7 port 1 port 1 port 7 port 7 port 1 port in Ports Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR KAR AKH a Calls Per Port 000 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 000 Dp KOD 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 Op 1(008:00 Dp AKH 8:00 DpKOD8:00 Op AKH 8:00 Kodiak 84 0 Ar AKH 17:59 Ar K0D 17:59 Ar AKH 17:59 Ar K00 17:59 Ar AKH 17:59 Ar KW 17:59 la VesselHrs/day 1098 10.98 10.98 1098 10.98 10.98 I a Ports Served 1/2 ports 7/2 ports 1/2 pons 1/2 ports 7 /2potts 1/2 pons Pons S erved 0112 PRL ' LR8 OHR KAR AKH Calls Per Port 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8 :00 • Dp ANT 8:00 Op ANT 800 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 Ar LRB 13:02 Ar OUZ 8:34 Ar LRB 13:02 .Ar 0112 8:34 Ar LRB 13:02 At AKH 18:30' Ar ANT 1 &.30 Dp LRB 14:02 Op 012 9:34 Dp LRB 14:02 Op 002 9:34 Dp LRB 14:02 Ar ANT 19:04 Ar PRL 10:36 At ANT 19:04 AT PRL 10:36 Ar ANT 19:04 Dp PRL 11:36 Op PRL 11:36 Anton Ar ANT 12:16 Ar ANT 12:16 8 Larsen By Do ANT 13:16 Op ANT 13:16 L J . • Ar OUZ 13:50 Ar OUZ 13:50 o Dp OUZ 14:50 Op OUZ 14:50 ¢` Ar PRL 15:52 Ar PRL 15:52 Do PRL 16:52 Op PRL 16:52 Ar ANT 17:32 Ar ANT 17:32 VesselHn✓dy 1207 10.53 1207 10.53 1207 11.50 11.50 Ports Served 1 pat 4 ports 1 port 4 pans 1 port 1/2 pons .1/2 ports Pods'Served OUZ PRL LRB OHR ' KAR ,4101 Calls Per Pod 4.00 4.00 3.00 000 0.00 100 Dp ANT 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 Op PAS 8:00 Op PAS 8:00 . DP PAS 8:00 Dp PAS 8:00 Dp AKH 8:00 • Anton Ar AKH 18:30 Ar PAS 15:0• Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 Ar OHR 12:33 Ar AKH 15:00 Ar ANT 18:30 m La B ay Op OHR 13:33 Op OHR 13:3• Op OHR 13:33 • N .2 Ar PAS 18:06 Ar PAS 18:06 , Ar PAS 18:06. K n (2' Vesselflrs/day 11.50 8.00 17.10 11.70 11.70 8.00 11.50 $ . Ports Served .1/2 pods 1/2 ports 1 pod _ 1 port 1 port :1!2 pods 7/2. pods Z Pons Served OUZ PRI. LRB 0/IR KAR AKH Calls Per Port .000 .0.00 0.00 .3.00 0.00 2.00 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 99 SUMMARY OF SYSTEM PORT CALLS: Based on the schedule information presented in the previous section, it was possible to select different weekly schedules and create one year -long service plan for a Kodiak Island ferry system. In the case of this analysis, each system must consist of only 40 -hour work week schedules, or only 84 -hour work week schedules. It is theoretically possible to mix the work week schedules, but it is very complicated, difficult on system personnel, and makes for a confusing operation schedule. Once an annual service plan is determined, it is possible to calculate the number of port calls that each community would see during the year. This analysis was conducted for several Kodiak Island ferry service plans, assuming 44 service weeks for 40 -hour work week systems and 22 service weeks for 84 -hour work week systems, and is shown in the following figures. Table 68: Landing Craft Annual Port Calls Landing.Craft: Annual Port Calls Hours Sample Home Port Per Week N0 ' Ports Served Week Schedule Weeks OUZI PRL I LRBI OHRI KAR T •AKH System 1: Kodiak homepat,Tustumena Serves Old Harbor A 44 4 4 (1 0 0 0 Kodak 40 (4 -10's) • 44 service week total 44 176 176 0 0 0 . 0 System 2: Kodiak homeport, 84 hour operation B 14 6 3 2 0 0 0 Kodak 84 C 8 6 3 0 2 0 0 22 service week total , 22 132 66 26 : 16 0 . 0 System 3: Kodiak homeport, Service to Akhiok B 10 6 3 2 0 0 0 Kodiak 84 C B 6 3 0 2 0 :0 D 4 6 3 0 0 0 1 22 service week total 22 132 66 .20 , 16 . . 0 . 4 System 4: Anton Larsen Bay homeport, Tustumena serves OId•Harbor Anton 40 E 30 ' • '5 5 ' 0 0 0 •0 Larsen Bay (F is,4 • F 14 0 0 2 0 0 0 1(Ys) 44 service week total 44. _ 150 , 150: :28:. 0 0 0 1) Distance to Karluk is similar to distancedo Larsen Bay. A trip to Larsen Bay can be replaced with a ,trip to Karluk, Foi simplicity, only trips to Larsen Bay are shown Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 100 Table 69: Day -Boat Annual Port Calls .Day -boat: Annual Port Calls Hou .Sample s P e r No. Of Horne Port • Week i Ports Served. Week ' Weeks . Schedule , OUZI PRL I LRBj OHRI KAR 'I kW System P. Kodiak Homeport, Service 16 Larsen Bay and Old Harbor, no service to Akhiok . ,A 11 1 1, '2 0, 0 0 Kodiak 40 B 11 1 1! 0 .2 0 •0 C- 22 I 5 5t 0 0 0 9 44 seri4ce week total ' 44 I 132 132 ! 22 • 22 ' 0 0 System 2: Kodiak Homepoit Service to Akhiok,. Old Harbor and LasemBay ' • A- 11 1 1' 2 0 0 0 40. B 11 1 1 6 2 0 0 Kodiak (D is 4' ' 10's) C 18 5 5 0 0 0 0 D .4 2 2 0_ .0 0 1 - . 44 sefice week total :44 ! ___ '120 _ 120_ . 22 __ -22 ! _ . 0 _ 4 System 3: Anton •Lasen' Bay, Pasagshak,Split • Anton G 15 8 '8 3' 0 0 0 Larsen -Bay'- 84 K 7 0 0 0 3 0 2 Pasagshak Split - 22 service week total _ 22 , _ 120 120 , . 45 ,_ 21 _0 .14 System 4: Antontarsen Bay Homeport, Larsen Bay Service, Tustumena serves Old Harbor, No Akhiok Service Anton 40. E 22 ' 3 3 • 1 0' 0 0 Larsen Bay (F is 4- F- 22 6 6 0 0 0 0 10's) 44 service week total '. 4.4 198. 198 r 22 •. 0 0 0 System 5: Anton'Larse•Bay.84hr week, Service to Larsen bayind Akhiok, Tustumeha services Old . Harbor G 18 • 8 8' 3 0 0 0 'Anton. 84 Larsen.Bay J 4 4 4 3 0 0 1 22 service week total 22 160 - 160 ' 66 - ,0 0 - 4 " 1) Distance to Karluk is similar to distance to Larsen Bay. A Pip to Larsen Bay can be replaced with a • I trip to Karluk For simplicity, only trips ro.Lasen Bay are shown' Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page /01 SCHEDULE DISCUSSION The above schedule analysis demonstrates the complexity of a Kodiak Island ferry system. Even assuming relatively simple weekly schedules, there are an almost unlimited number of ways to configure a Kodiak Island ferry system, each with its own positive and negative impacts on each community. By necessity, a Kodiak Island ferry schedule will need to maximize revenue and this type of scheduling will not provide equitable service to each community. Smaller communities, further from Kodiak, will not receive as many port calls. Another lesson learned from the scheduling exercise is that the day -boat concept (rather than the landing craft) provides significantly more port calls, due to vessel speed. For systems serving the same number of communities the day -boat provides 42 more port calls to Ouzinkie and Port Lions and 8 more trips to Larsen Bay or Old Harbor than the landing craft. The day -boat can get to Akhiok in one day and it reduces the number of overnights at out ports, which saves system cost. However, the day -boat concept assumes that a pier will be built at Larsen Bay and at other communities, before service can commence. The schedules also demonstrate that the landing craft must operate 84 -hour work weeks to reach out ports. An 84 -hour work week necessitates a week -off and week -on service schedule that is not as convenient as weekly service and will reduce revenue generation. Landing craft beach operation (unloading and loading) is conservatively scheduled for one hour total, however beach landing is likely to be less efficient, subject to weather delays, and cause increased system operational costs. All of the options assume overnight terminal /dock space can be found in Kodiak harbor. Schedules were also completed for terminals at Anton Larsen and Pasagshak. These schedules demonstrate the effectiveness of using road segments to reduce marine route lengths. The terminal at Anton Larsen is particularly effective for communities on the north side of the island because it allows multiple trips to Port Lions and Ouzinkie during one day of service and it eliminates an ocean cape. System Operating Cost Previous sections of this chapter identified two possible Kodiak Island ferry vessels, a landing craft and a day - boat, and determined the acquisition cost of these vessels. Subsequently, the most cost efficient vessel operating systems were discussed. Using the operating parameters of each system it was possible to calculate the cost to operate each ferry system. PERSONNEL The number of crew on a passenger vessel is determined by the USCG based on the number of passengers, number of decks, lifesaving needs, and hours of operation. Based on these rules, the number of crew required for each vessel was determined. Previously, the concept of a maximum 12 -hour operating day (day -boat) was introduced as a means to limit the number of crews on a vessel. Since a Kodiak Island system needs to operate at minimum cost, this analysis assumes that only one full -time crew will be used. This means that the vessel will not operate when its crew needs to take vacation or if the crew requires compensation time as a result of an unusual sailing. Sick Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 102 days will be addressed by using cross - trained crew, licensed for alternate positions, and temporally hiring non - skilled workers, such as deck hands. Using wage comparisons for similar full -time maritime employment, salaries were determined for each crew position. These salaries are comparable with current Alaska coastal marine transportation employees, but are somewhat less than open ocean sailing rates, for example those established on the AMHS. A burden rate of 40% was added to each salary for benefits. CONSUMABLES Vessel consumables were estimated by volume and cost per unit volume. Fuel is the largest single consumable. Fuel consumption was estimated based on the size of vessel engines using a 12 hour operating day, reduced for port time and maneuvering. Fuel cost was estimated to be $3.14 per gallon, based on the 2010 Kodiak marine fuel price. Since the vessel will not be used during the night, a cost is included for minimal shore power. MAINTENANCE Maintenance costs were calculated in two parts: preventative maintenance and annual overhauls. Preventive maintenance, such as oil change out, was calculated based on engine hours. Annual overhaul, such as shipyard haul -out and painting, were based on a single annual event using prices from similar shipyard contracts. OVERHEAD The minimum number of operating personnel for typical small ferry system shore -side operations was established and typical salaries estimated for these positions. A cost for part -time terminal agents was included as were typical contractual costs such as rent, utilities, and marketing. /slandviide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 103 Using this methodology, described above, day -boat and landing craft system operating costs were calculated. Table 70: Vessel Operating Costs Vessel Operating Costs 1 Day -boat 1. 'Landing Craft A) Crew Cost Captain $ 75,000 0.4 $ 105,000 0.4 $ 105,000 Mate $ 65,000 0.4 1 $ 91;000. 0.4 $ 91,000 Engineer $ 60,000 0.4 $ 84,000 0.4 $ 84,000 Sr. Deckhand $ 50,000 0.4 $. 70,000 0.4 $ 70,000 Deckhand $ 40,000 0.4 $ 56;000 0.4 $ 56,000 To -- - - ------- tal Crew Cost $- "-- 4116 ;0 0 4110;0771" 8). Vessel Consumables' Installed Hp 4000 1 2000 Vessel operating hours 1800 1800 1) Fuel 011, Fuel Oil'Consumption Rate (gal /hr) 187.4 1 96.2 Operating Profile 0.85 0.75 Fuel Consumption (gal) 286722 129870 Annual Fuel cost 3.14 $900,307 3.14 $ 407, 792 2) Lube Oil _ Lube Oil Consumption'Rate (gal /Hp -hr) 0.0002 1 _ 0.0002 Lube Oil Consumption (gal) 1332 r _ _ 666 _ Annual Lube oil cost 4.50 1 $ 5,993 4.50 .$ 2,997 3) Sewage Treatment and Slops I $ 5,000 $ 5,000 4) Shore,power(evening • layup) I $ 20,000 $ 15,000 Total operating Cost _ $ 931,300 - $ 430,788 D) Maintenance Cost 1) Preventative Maintenance $ 507000 $ 10,000 2) Annual Overhauls. - ; $ 400,000 $ 280,000 Total Maintenance cost $ 450,000, $ 310,000 E) Overhead 1) Shore personal Manager $ 85,000 0-4 1 $ 119,0_00 _ 0.4 $ 119,000 Bookkeeper /accountant $ 65,000 0.4 $ 91 0.4 $ 11,000 Sales /Procurement. $ 50,000 0.4 $_70,000 0,4 $ 70,000 Nightwatchman $ 40,000 0.4 $ 56,000 0.4 $ '56,000 2)' Ticket/Terminal'Agents $ 10,000 6 J $ 60,000 6 $ 60,000 3) Contractual Rent $ 30,000 $ 30,000. Utilities $ 2,400 $ 2,400 Supplies $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Technical 1$ 40,000 $ 40,000 'Marketing $. 20,000 $ 20,000 .4) insurance $ 60,000 $ 60,000 TOW-Overhead Cost • $., .. • 333,4110- - g ---------- 553;d7T0" /slant Vessel Annual Cost $, .2,340,700 $ - - 1,700,188 ° 704 Summary A Kodiak Island ferry system will need to operate in severe environments, over long distances, with limited infrastructure, at a minimum operating cost. In this context, three transportation concepts were examined in this chapter: 1) enhanced Tustumena service, 2) day -boat ferry, and 3) conventional landing craft. Each of these alternatives has qualities that meet the above system criteria. The Tustumena has a long history of providing consistent Gulf of Alaska service and is an excellent resource for Kodiak Island. Any additional Tustumena service to Kodiak Island communities would be beneficial and could occur in the near future to communities with a deep water pier. Tustumena service to Kodiak Island could be supplemented by a small regional ferry system. The Tustumena would use it ocean going attributes to reach Old Harbor, allowing the smaller regional ferry to work on the north side of the island. The Tustumena service would reduce the size of the Kodiak Island ferry service, allowing the smaller regional vessel to operate more efficiently and with greater frequency. However, any change to the Tustumena schedule is going impact other areas of the state and will require political support as well as the support of AMHS managers. The day -boat ferry would be a reasonable choice for Kodiak Island. This vessel provides more port stops on the schedule due to greater vessel speed and, since a single crew is used, manning costs are less expensive than for a ferry like the Tustumena. The sea keeping ability of a day -boat ferry will provide comfort and winter trip cancelations similar to the Tustumena. However, the day -boat requires each community to have a pier for loading and unloading. Significant system efficiencies could be gained by having a floating terminal in Anton - Larsen Bay, giving this concept greater value. A new day -boat would require a $45 million capital investment and $2.3 million in annual operating funds. If service to Old Harbor was not required, the day -boat vessel could be designed significantly smaller. The landing craft ferry is the least expensive ferry option, including capital and operation costs. It also has the added benefit of being able to land and discharge cargo at any community. However, its low speed limits distance traveled, resulting in longer trips, lower port of call frequency, and decreased efficiency. The sea keeping of a landing craft will result in more canceled trips during the winter. A new landing craft would require a $19 million capital investment and $1.7 million in annual operating funds. Each of the options presented above has its merits and requires discussion on the part of Kodiak Island community stakeholders to determine which attributes are the most important and advantageous for a regional ferry system. However, even the very smallest Kodiak Island ferry system will cost significantly more to operate than it will earn in revenue. /stand Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 705 Chapter 8: Surface Transportation Funding A wide variety of potential funding sources are available for surface transportation projects in Alaska. Direct state or federal appropriations provide substantial support for Alaska projects. Most other funding for planning, design and construction is available through federal grants and loans. Several federal grant and loan scoring processes favor projects that serve geographically isolated areas, small communities, or achieve economic development goals. The majority of federal sources fund projects that are economically sustainable, assist the largest number of users, or are identified as state or national priorities. According to these criteria, applications for federal funding of surface transportation projects on Kodiak Island will likely need to justify construction costs in relation to the small population served. Also, in almost all cases, federal funding sources require projects be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or other long -range transportation planning documents. Projects supported through local or state matching funds are almost always more likely to receive federal funding. In addition to design, planning and construction funding, projected transportation improvements for Kodiak Island will require an outside source of operating capital. Projected revenue from ferry operations will not cover annual operating costs. A limited amount of operating capital is available from federal sources. This funding is dependent upon annual, competitive processes. Thus, federal sources for annual operating capital will not necessarily offer dependable funding for successive years. Aside from the Alaska Marine Highway System, two ferry systems in Alaska that have received public funding are the Inter - Island Ferry Authority and the Seldovia Bay (passenger -only) Ferry. The Inter - Island Ferry Authority (IFA) provides service between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island. Six Southeast Alaska communities formed the IFA. Initial funding for IFA ferries and infrastructure was obtained through Congressional earmarks ($12.6 million through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)) and loans. Loans were provided by the supporting communities as well as through the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority (AMBBA). In total, $2.1 million in loans were obtained. The loans included $1.45 million in revenue bonds to be paid back with revenue from the ferry service (vehicle and passenger fees). After start-up, the IFA has obtained additional funding through a variety of sources including a U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA -RD) Community Facilities Loan, a FTA Non - Urbanized Area Program grant for operating assistance, and an Alaska legislative grant for debt retirement and assistance. In 2008 and 2009, approximately 25% of IFA's revenue came from grant assistance. The Seldovia Bay Ferry provides passenger service between Homer and Seldovia. The project received approximately $8.5 million in federal appropriations for planning, design and construction of a ferry and infrastructure. The funding came from three sources: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FHWA Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund. The project received a $1.5 million legislative grant in 2007 as a state match to the federal funding. Additional FTA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding in 2010 assisted with infrastructure improvements. A FTA Tribal Transit Program grant in 2010 assisted with operating funding. As the IFA and Seldovia examples suggest, project funding may be achieved through a mix of local, state and federal sources. A summary of potential funding sources is provided below. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 106 Table 71: Summary of Alaska Surface Transportation Funding Options 'Source ° '.; '' - iProjectsWFunded :), Allocation - IFundslto'Alaska • . IFurids•to.Kodiak I Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Indian Reservation Roads Program Road construction, Annual tribal shares Approximately 545 million Under 51 million annually maintenance, planning, annually ferries, docks Indian Reservation Roads High Transportation design and Grants - E1 million at a Varies (54 -12 million None recently Priority Project Program construction time, national competitive annually in 2009 -2010) program Denali Commission Transportation Program Road, waterfront Grants - Alaska annual Approximately 520 million 53.4 million between 2007 development, community competitive program annually and 2010 connections, economic development Economic Development Administration (EDA) Public Works and Economic Public infrastructure, Grants - National Varies (52 -16 million 54 million over the last Development Program facilities that promote competitive program annually FY06 -FY10) - all decade economic development EDA programs Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Surface Transportation Program Surface transportation Allocated by AK DOT 5400 -5410 million annually Varies projects through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund Construction or Grants - National Varies (5750,000 -$11.8 None recently improvement of ferry boats competitive program. An million annually FY02- and ferry terminals additional 510 million set FY10). aside annually for the Alaska Marine Highway System Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Non - Urbanized Area Formula Planning, capital and Grants - According to a Approximately 54.5 million Varies (50- 5114,000 in Program operating assistance for state formula to annually FY08 -FY11) public transportation communities with populations under 200,000 Tribal Transit Program Capital, operating, planning Grants - Competitive 5800,000 to 51.5 million None recently and administration of public program for federally annually 2007 -2009 transportation projects recognized tribes Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA -RD) Community Facilities Grants and Purchase, construction or Loans, grants (usually under Approximately 520 million Varies Loans renovation of community 550,000) often tied to loans annually facilities including roads, docks and ferries I Federal Credit Programs Transportation Infrastructure Surface transportation Projects of national or Not available Not available Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) projects regional importance: direct loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit Grant Anticipation Revenue Surface transportation For projects hard to fund Not available Not available Vehicles Bonds (GARVEE) projects through traditional methods Advanced Construction Surface transportation Projects use state funds until Not available Not available projects federal funds available I Direct Appropriations State or Federal Any project Through the budget Not available Not available processes Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 107 Local Option Gasoline Tax Any project Through local government Not available None recently after public vote Any project A variety of financing Not available Not available options through local Public Financing governments. The Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority is one source. Federal Funding Opportunities Most Alaska surface transportation projects are funded through federal grants and loans. Significant sources of funds include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and funds earmarked by Congress for particular projects. To receive federal funding, projects must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Congress authorized federal highway funding discussed in this report in the 2005 SAFETEA -LU. The act expired in 2009, and a continuing resolution provided funding for 2010. Future funding depends on reauthorization of the act or further continuing resolutions until Congress passes a new surface transportation act. Bureau of Indian Affairs INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Program Overview The Federal Highway Administration's Federals Lands Highway Office and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) jointly administer the Indian Reservation Roads Program (IRR). The stated purpose of the IRR program is to "provide safe and adequate transportation services and public access to and within Indian reservations, Indian lands and communities for Indians and Alaska Natives (including visitors, recreational users, resource users and others), while contributing to Tribal economic development, self- determination and employment." The IRR program funds road construction, maintenance and planning. Ferries and docks are eligible for funding through this program. Indian Reservation Roads Program funds are allocated through annual tribal shares. Additional IRR program funds are available through the High Priority Projects Program (IRRHPP). All IRR funds may only be expended on projects included in a tribe's long -range transportation plan and in the IRR road inventory approved by BIA. Tribal Shares Indian Reservation Roads program funding is distributed through annual tribal shares to each federally recognized tribal government. While a small portion of these funds are set aside for planning purposes, the majority of funds from this program can be used for design and construction of transportation facilities. Eligible facilities include roads, ferries and docks. Up to 25% of these funds can also be used for maintenance. Funds may be used for the state or local matching share required for federal highway funds. /RR High Priority Projects Program Any projects that require funding beyond the annual IRR tribal shares distribution may be funded through the IRRHPP program. The IRRHPP program is a national competitive program that awards $1 million in funding to Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 108 transportation design and construction projects. Each tribe can typically receive one allocation from the IRRHPP program at a time. In the case of emergency and disaster funding requests, two allocations from the IRRHPP program can be made at one time. Program Funds to Alaska Tribal Shares In FY09, $45 million was budgeted to the Alaska IRR program. The 2010 program allocated $47.7 million in tribal shares (source: UAF Alaska Tribal Technical Assistance Program and AK Dept. of Commerce, Community and Economic Development). High Priority Project Funding IRR HPP funding for Alaska in 2009 totaled $4,449,791 and in 2010, 512,041,000 (Source: BIA). Program Funds to Kodiak Island Tribal Shares Tribal shares are approximately constant from year to year unless a community's road inventory changes. Table 72: 2010 Indian Reservation Roads Program Tribal Shares Kodiak Island Communities Community 2009 Tribal 'Share 2010 Tribal Share Akhiok 584,824 578,386 Larsen Bay 538,170 563,129 Karluk $234,261 5229,227 Old Harbor 544,236 $43,591 Ouzinkie $213,012 $194,652 Port Lions $119,693 5111,035 Total $734,196 $720,020 Source: UAF Alaska Tribal Technical Assistance Program High Priority Project Funding According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, no IRRHPP program funding has been awarded in Kodiak for the past three years. Applying for IRRHPP Program Funds A tribe may apply for IRRHPP funds by submitting an application to the BIA Alaska Regional Office in Anchorage. The Anchorage office forwards applications to the national BIA office. The application process for Island Wide Transportation Feasibility study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 109 2011 funds opened in October 2010. Applications were due to the Anchorage BIA office on December 1, 2010. Proposed projects for IRRHPP funding must meet the definition of an IRR facility and be on the IRR inventory. Grants are awarded according to scoring criteria that give priority to projects that: • Resolve safety hazards; • Have not received IRRHPP program funding recently; • Are ready to begin; • Have a match available from non -IRR program funds; • Are less expensive than other applicants; • Are geographically isolated; and • Provide all weather access to employment, commerce, health, safety, educational resources and housing. More information on the IRRHPP program process can be found through the Alaska Tribal Technical Assistance program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Denali Commission TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Program Overview The Commission's Transportation Program supports rural road improvements, waterfront development and rural economic development in Alaska. The program also focuses on opportunities to connect rural communities to one another and the state highway system. The program partners with other agencies and governments on development projects. These entities include regional, local and tribal governments, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Program Funds to Alaska In 2009, the Commission distributed $22.3 million through the transportation program and $24.1 million in 2008. Program Funds to Kodiak Island The Denali Commission project database lists $3,420,925 in awards for projects on Kodiak Island between 2007 and 2010. Applying for Denali Commission Transportation Program Funds Applications for 2011 program funds were due November 3, 2010. Information on grants and program details can be accessed through the Denali Commission website. The Denali Commission manages their grant application process through GrantSolutions.gov. Is /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 110 Economic Development Administration PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Program Overview This Economic Development Administration (EDA) program provides grants for public infrastructure and facilities that promote economic development. Funded projects will help retain or generate private sector jobs and investment. Funding is also focused on projects that increase regional competitiveness. Funds can cover costs of construction, expansion and upgrades of public infrastructure and facilities. Program Funds to Alaska The EDA invests in Alaska through a number of focus areas: investment in public infrastructure, regional planning partnerships, technical assistance grants and assistance to public bodies. The combined investment of all EDA programs in Alaska over the past five years is summarized in Figure 3. Table 73: Economic Development Administration Investment in Alaska FY06 -FY10 Investment iFiscal'Year ((millions) FY10 $2.1 FY09 $12.6 FY08 $10.1 FY07 $16.3 FY06 $15.6 Source: EDA. Program Funds to Kodiak Island Over the past decade, the EDA has invested $ 3.8 million in construction projects on Kodiak Island. An additional $223,500 in non- construction EDA funding has also been awarded to Kodiak Island communities over the last ten years. Applying for Economic Development Administration Funds Application for EDA funds can be made online through grants.gov or by paper submission to the Anchorage EDA office. Early communication with an EDA representative at the Anchorage EDA office is highly recommended. The Anchorage staff helps applicants refine their proposal in accordance with EDA's investment criteria. The EDA requires all proposals be included in a current Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the region from which the application is submitted. According to EDA, other criteria used to evaluate applications include: 1. National Strategic Priorities (30% of score) Applications that encourage job growth and business expansion as well as promoting technology- led economic development, support small and medium Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 777 size business, global competitiveness and innovation, response to economic dislocation, commercialization of research and or environmentally sustainable development; 2. Economically Distressed and Underserved Communities (25% of score) Applications that strengthen diverse communities and /or rebuild to become more competitive in the global economy; 3. Return on Investment (25% of score) Applications that demonstrate a high return on EDA's investment in creation and /or retention particularly high wage jobs and private sector investment; 4. Collaborative Regional Innovation (10% of score) Applications that support the development and growth of innovation clusters based on existing regional competitive strengths; and. 5. Public / Private Partnerships (10% of score) Applications that use both public Et private sector resources and /or leverage complementary investments by other government /public entities and /or nonprofits. (Source: EDA) Federal Highway Administration SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Program Overview This FWHA Surface Transportation Program provides funding for surface transportation projects. Surface Transportation Program funds are distributed in Alaska through the AK Department of Transportation. Alaska can use these funds for any public road in the state. Funds are only awarded to projects included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Department of Transportation regional transportation planners in Alaska work with project applicants to include projects in the STIP. Projects that are partially funded through a substantial local or state match are much more likely to receive federal funding. Program Funds to Alaska Average 5400 - 410 million annually (Source: AKDOT) Program Funds to Kodiak Island According to the federal consolidated funds report, projects in the Kodiak Island Borough totaled approximately 517 million in 2007, $7.8 million in 2008 and $7.6 million in 2009. FERRY BOAT DISCRETIONARY FUND Program Overview The Ferry Boat Discretionary (FBD) Fund supports construction or improvement of ferryboats and ferry terminals on National Highway System routes. A certain portion of funds are set aside for the Alaska Marine Highway System. Alaska may also apply for additional funds through a nationwide competitive process. To be eligible for FBD funds, a project is usually required to be publicly owned and controlled by a public entity. The project must occur where it is not feasible to substitute a bridge, tunnel or highway structure for Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 772 the proposed ferry system. The ferry must be on a route classified as public within the state but not as a route in the Interstate System. The FBD fund provides an 80% federal match. Program Funds to Alaska The Alaska Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund set -aside is 510 million annually for Alaska. This funding has been used for the existing Alaska Marine Highway System. Additional funds have been awarded to other Alaska ferry projects through the nationwide competitive process. Funds awarded through the competitive process are listed below. Table 74: Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund Awards in Alaska FY02 -FY10 (Excludin• AK Set - Aside) Award • :Project FY10 $2,560,000 Pelican Ferry Terminal Renovation FY09 $950,000 Gustavus Public Dock and Floats — Breakwater Construction 2009 Recovery Act $3,000,000 Hoonah Ferry Terminal Marine Structures FY06 5787,757 Kachemak Bay Ferry Project FY04 5880,773 Akutan Ferry Planning and Design FY03 & FY02 $11,800,000 Coffman Cove/Wrangel /Petersburg Ferries & Ferry Facility Source: Federal Highway Administration. Program Funds to Kodiak Island No FBD competitive funds have been awarded within the Kodiak Island Borough from FY00 -FY10. Some of the FBD Alaska set -aside has been spent on Kodiak Island for the Alaska Marine Highway System. Applying for Ferry Boat Discretionary Funds The FHWA requests submission of project proposals and identified priorities from the Alaska State Department of Transportation. Once an application is submitted, statutory selection criteria apply. A project is given priority if it provides critical access to areas "not well -served by other modes of surface transportation" and will carry the greatest number of passengers and vehicles (or passengers in passenger -only service). The FHWA also favors projects that, among other criteria, are identified as state priorities, leverage private or additional public funding and for which FBD funds will expedite completion of the project. Federal Transit Administration NON - URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM Program Overview The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Non - Urbanized Area Formula Program provides capital, planning and operating assistance for public transportation in small, urbanized areas with populations under 200,000. Grant applications are solicited annually from public transportation providers. Funds are managed by the is /and Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuty for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 173 State Department of Transportation. Funding is determined according to a state formula based on population of areas to be served and projected service miles and rides. Table 75: Non - Urbanized Area Program Funding Alaska and Kodiak Island FY08 -FY11 Alaska ;Kodiak, 'Island FY08 54.3 million $113,980 FY09 54.6 million $73,009 FY10 $4.7 million $77,326 FY11 54.4 million 50 Source: AKDOT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, TRIBAL TRANSIT PROGRAM Program Overview The Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program (Tribal Transit Program) provides a total of $45 million nationwide to federally recognized tribes. Tribes may use the funding for capital, operating, planning and administrative expenses associated with public transit projects. This program does not require a match but scoring criteria support applications that can demonstrate community support. Table 76: Tribal Transit Program Funding Alaska and Kodiak Island 2007 -2010 Alaska Kodiak Island 2007 $824,000 50 2008 $1,000,000 50 2009 51,500,000 $0 2010 Not yet released Source: ETA Region X. Federal Loans DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - RURAL DEVELOPMENT (USDA -RD) Community Facilities Grants and Loans Program Overview Under the community facilities program, the USDA -RD operates two loan programs: the Guaranteed and Direct Loan Programs. A limited number of small grants are also offered through this program. Funds are used to assist rural communities with populations of 20,000 or less to purchase, construct or renovate community facilities. Roads, docks and ferry purchases may be funded under this program. Communities may use funds from either of the guaranteed or direct loan programs as a required match for other federal programs. Island Wide Transportation feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 114 USDA Rural Development Guaranteed Community Facilities Loan The guaranteed loan program provides a guarantee to a lender who may not otherwise be willing to lend on a project. The applicant works directly with the lender. The lender obtains the guarantee from USDA Rural Development. Direct Loan Program The direct loan program offers low rates and long term financing. Financing may be provided for up to 40 years or the economic life of the funded facility, whichever is less. A down payment is not required under this program, and USDA can loan up to 100% of the loan value. Grants Grants from the USDA —RD community facilities program are usually under 850,000. Grants are often paired with loans. A non - federal match is required. Program Funds to Alaska According to the USDA Rural Development office in Palmer, this program awards an estimated 820 million annually in Alaska. Program Funds to Kodiak Island While some funds have been awarded to Kodiak over the years, data on these funds was not currently available. FEDERAL CREDIT PROGRAMS Federal law provides states with several options for financing or borrowing money to pay for surface transportation projects. Federal credit and financing programs include the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles bonds (GARVEE) and Advanced Construction. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) The TIFIA program provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance up to thirty - three percent of the cost of a surface transportation project. Projects must be of national and regional importance. They also must be included in the STIP. This program also requires that projects be at least partially supported by user charges or other non - federal dedicated funding sources. Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) The GARVEE bonds are intended to provide financing for projects that are hard to fund through traditional methods. GARVEE bonds are issued by states and backed by anticipated federal funding. Once federal funds are secured, they can be used to make interest payments, retire principal and pay any other costs associated with the bond issue. Voter or legislative approval often is required in order to issue these bonds. Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRIFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 115 Advanced Construction With approval from the FHWA, this program allows the state to begin a project using state funds before federal funds become available. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Like previous acts of the same name, the Water Resources Development Act of 2010 would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist with local and regional water resource projects. The Corp plans, constructs and operates water resources facilities as part of its civil works program. The Corps focuses on flood damage reduction, navigation, and environmental concerns. Congressional representatives submit ports and harbor projects for direct appropriations under this bill. The 2010 version of the Water Resources Development Act has not yet passed Congress. State and Local Funding Opportunities State and local funding has supported a portion of many surface transportation projects in Alaska. The funding has originated from state, borough, and city governments and Alaska Native corporations. State Appropriations State funds for surface transportation projects are appropriated annually in the state capital budget. Project coordinators work with local legislative representatives to include their project in the legislature's budget. Coordinators can also work with the governor's office to include the project in the governor's capital budget. State monies can fund all or part of a project. They can also serve as a project match in order to acquire federal funding. Local Option Gasoline Tax This funding option allows communities to address local transportation needs by raising the local gasoline tax. Public Financing A variety of public financing options are available to fund surface transportation projects. These options often allow states or local governments to move on a project more quickly than the time it takes to obtain outside sources of funds. Some of the most applicable financing options are listed below. The Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority (AMBBA) is one source for direct loans to Alaska communities. ANTICIPATION NOTES Anticipation notes are public securities issued when money is expected from a specific source. States can issue anticipation notes that can be paid off with future bond issues (bond anticipation notes —BANs) or through future tax revenue (tax anticipation notes — TANs). Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 776 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS These public bonds are issued for projects that do not generate revenue. The state or local jurisdiction that issues general obligation bonds backs them. REVENUE BONDS Revenue bonds are public bonds issued to finance projects that generate revenue, such as toll roads or fares collected from transit projects. The revenue from the project is used to make principal and interest payments to bond holders. TAX- EXEMPT LEASING Tax - exempt leases, or lease to purchase agreements, are available to local or state government entities. These leases may be used to purchase equipment such as ferries. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group Inc. • Page 17 7 Chapter 9: Summary Analysis and Conclusions It is evident from this analysis that the communities of Kodiak Island do not represent a population base large enough to sustain a self- supporting ferry system. This study has profiled two ferry system concepts that come the closest to meeting the needs of the outlying communities, at the lowest cost possible, employing vessels most suitable for the service area. However, revenues generated by these vessels would not match the cost to operate the ferries. Analysis of both concepts indicates annual operating subsidies of approximately $1 million or more would be required to provide any meaningful level of regular ferry service. The review of potential sources for construction and operating funding, conducted for purposes of this study, illustrates the challenges associated with securing funding. Various sources are potentially available for capital (construction) funding, however, funding to support on -going ferry system operations would be especially difficult to secure. There are obvious and very significant challenges associated with building and operating a dedicated ferry system serving the outlying communities of Kodiak Island. The total capital cost of full build -out of potential infrastructure improvements, including roads, docks and a ferry is roughly 5100 million. Annual maintenance and operating costs at full build -out would total several million dollars. Nevertheless, steps can be taken to enhance surface transportation on Kodiak Island. Table 77: Kodiak Island Transportation Improvements ;Description ECapital Annual Cost • Road Segments Akhiok /Alitak Road (7.3 miles) $5.4 million 555,000 Karluk /Larsen Bay Road (18.5 miles) 517.9 million 5140,000 Old Harbor Extension (3.6 miles) 54.2 million $30,000 Anton Larsen Bay to Shakmanof (7.1 miles) $7.6 million 5110,000 Monashka Bay to Shakmanof (10.6 miles) 511.4 million 5160,000 Anton Larsen Extension — West (3.0 miles) 53.0 million 545,000 Anton Larsen Extension — East (9.6 miles) $9.0 million 5145,000 Docks Akhiok Fixed -Pier Dock 56.6 million 565,000 Akhiok RO /RO Dock $6.4 million 595,000 Karluk Fixed -Pier Dock _ $13.8 million 5135,000 Larsen Bay Fixed -Pier Dock $4.7 million 550,000 Larsen Bay RO /RO Dock 54.5 million $65,000 Shakmanof Fixed -Pier Dock 54.9 million 550,000 Vessels Dedicated Conventional Hull Day -Boat 540 million 52.4 million Dedicated Landing Craft Day -Boat 519 million 51.7 million Island -tide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 778 While this study is not intended to serve as a formal planning document, a long -term transportation infrastructure development plan might consider the following issues, by community. Akhiok Akhiok faces a number of serious challenges as it seeks to enhance its transportation infrastructure and reduce costs in the community. In addition to limited, irregular and costly freight service, Akhiok has a tenuous fuel supply situation, requiring permitting exemptions to allow fuel transfer from a vessel at anchor (or beached) via a floating fuel line. Fueling via this means is expensive and risky from an environmental perspective. Road connection between Akhiok and Alitak (construction cost of $5.4 million) is a seemingly logical solution. However, there are significant obstacles. The OBS— Alitak facility manager has indicated that while OBS is able to sell small quantities of fuel to Akhiok residents, it would not be able to sell larger quantities of fuel to generate power in Akhiok due to regulatory issues, liability, and cost of pollution control preparedness. Ocean Beauty's facility manager expressed concern about the food safety and security aspects of such a road connection to the private seafood processing facility. Further, facilities at Alitak do not appear suitable for moving vehicles or other heavy freight over the dock to an Akhiok road. As such, even with a road connection to Akhiok, significant additional investment in dock construction would be required at Alitak to adequately serve the needs of Akhiok. Dock construction at Akhiok, while certainly desirable from a local perspective, would be difficult to justify from a cost /benefit perspective. At about $6.6 million (for a fixed -pier) plus the cost of ancillary facilities (such as fuel headers and piping), the cost to build a dock would be quite high relative to the population it would serve. Further, while a deepwater dock would offer significant advantages for fuel handling, the presence of a deepwater dock does not ensure any form of regular freight service. Regarding ferry service, Akhiok would be best served by some form of regular landing craft service. Few passengers would choose to make the 12 -hour one -way trip to Kodiak, but it would serve the community's needs in terms of heavy freight movement. Further, landing craft service would require minimal marine landing facilities. However, ferry service to Akhiok is problematic due to its distance from Kodiak. Located over 12 hours of running time from Kodiak, Akhiok service does not fit the day -boat model that appears to be the only reasonably practicable ferry solution for the Island overall. One solution for reducing energy costs not investigated in the study is a power line connection between Akhiok and Alitak. While not addressing the community's heavy freight shipping challenges, such an intertie could substantially reduce the cost of electricity in the community. Karluk Karluk's surface transportation challenges are as daunting as Akhiok's. The nearby coastline presents very poor opportunities for deepwater dock construction. The $13.8 million dock construction cost, plus the cost of necessary uplands and ancillary facilities development would push total costs to above the estimated cost of a Karluk /Larsen Bay Road connection ($18 million). In either case, a very high level of per capita investment would be required to enhance Karluk's physical transportation infrastructure, nearly half a million dollars for each resident of the community, either for a dock or a road. lsland-Wide Transportation Feasibi/4y Study for Kodak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 119 As with Akhiok, landing craft ferry service appears to be the best (if not only) solution, requiring minimal investment in marine terminal development. Landing craft ferry service would not ease Karluk's fuel supply challenges, however. Larsen Bay Larsen Bay's top capital improvement priority is funding for engineering and design of a deepwater dock. Estimates developed for this study suggest such a dock could cost about $4.7 million, plus cost of related uplands and ancillary facilities. Cannery operations coupled with a reasonably well - developed guided fishing and hunting industry provide the foundation for a sustainable, largely seasonal economy. Community sustainability and development is hampered by limited options for moving heavy freight. A deepwater dock capable of serving freight barges, fuel barges and ferries could have substantial positive impacts on the community. There are location - related challenges associated with dock construction in Larsen Bay. A logical location for a new dock is inside the bay near the existing fuel headers. However, it is unclear if the Tustumena could routinely navigate the narrow pass into the bay. Conversations with vessel captains were inconclusive in this regard. Old Harbor Reconstruction of the Old Harbor dock is underway, with a total budget of $8.1 million. The new dock will be 56 feet wide and 102 feet long with three fenders along the dock face and three mooring dolphins connected to the dock by catwalks. The project includes piping for fuel transfer, electricity and lighting. Once dock reconstruction is completed, Old Harbor will have the infrastructure needed for Tustumena service. Occasional Tustumena service is a reasonable short -term and long -term goal for Old Harbor. Should a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry system be developed, the long open -ocean route from Kodiak will place some constraints on possible service options. Development of a terminal at Pasagshak as well as a road connection and terminal in the Bush Point area would significantly enhance the frequency, reliability, and cost of ferry operations to Old Harbor. Of course those transportation infrastructure improvements have significant cost implications. Ouzinkie Redevelopment of Ouzinkie's deepwater dock places that community in a relatively strong position with regard to its surface transportation infrastructure. (Recent construction of a new airstrip has also substantially enhanced its air transportation infrastructure.) With the new dock Ouzinkie will have the capacity to accommodate occasional or regular Tustumena service. Further, the community's comparatively close proximity to Kodiak and Anton Larson Bay would make the community a prime beneficiary of a new dedicated Kodiak Island ferry service, should such a service be initiated. Port Lions Port Lions has and is expected to continue enjoying regular and convenient AMHS service. However, its dock is in a state of serious disrepair and in need of replacement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - OR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 120 engaged in a more detailed design study for a dock that will accommodate freight and fuel barges and the Tustumena via a trestle. This work will produce a more precise construction cost estimate, which in preliminary documents was estimated at between S6 million and $9 million. Securing necessary funding to replace the dock will be a priority for the community. Development of a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry system could have mixed implications for Port Lions. Such a ferry system might mean reduction or elimination of Tustumena service to the community, with the resulting loss of direct service to Homer. Depending on the vessel employed to serve Kodiak Island's outlying communities, Port Lions could see some overall reduction in ferry service (though along with Ouzinkie it would likely receive the most frequent service among all the communities served). To maintain Tustumena service to Port Lions while also operating a dedicated ferry would have-significant negative consequences on traffic and revenue generation for that dedicated ferry service. Local Economic Benefits The financial feasibility of a Kodiak Island ferry service is a critical issue in considering how to enhance the transportation infrastructure around Kodiak Island. However, other factors are relevant, such as community economic development, socioeconomic, and public safety benefits that could result from better surface transportation access. After all, the AMHS is operated with substantial subsidy because it provides essential surface transportation service to many coastal Alaska communities. While it is not possible to identify, and especially quantify, all of the potential benefits of a regular, reliable ferry service, they would likely include: • Lower cost of consumer goods, as the cost paid by consumers to ship goods is reduced. • Lower cost of residential and commercial construction, as costs paid by builders for shipping building supplies is reduced. • Enhanced business development opportunities as the cost of shipping goods in to and out of communities is reduced. • Increase visitor travel to outlying communities, enhancing development opportunities for businesses serving non - resident visitors. • Greater social, educational, and recreational interaction among communities, as opportunities for safe travel are increased, especially during the school year. The community of Kodiak could benefit economically from development and operation of a dedicated ferry system. The local economy would benefit directly from the 10 or so new jobs created to operate the ferry service, including vessel crew and shore -side administrative jobs. In the long -term, Kodiak would benefit as the Island's service and supply hub — to the extent that regular ferry service to outlying communities stabilizes those economies, or even stimulates growth. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 727 Ideally, placing a dollar value on all present and future benefits would allow for objective comparison with the costs of building and maintaining necessary roads and docks, and operating a ferry system. However, while it is possible to predict the costs with a degree of certainty, it is not possible to measure all the potential future economic and social benefits. The communities with the weakest existing surface transportation infrastructure, Akhiok and Karluk, may have the most to lose (like many other very small remote villages throughout Alaska) if the cost of moving goods into communities cannot be reduced. Some of these villages could continue a slow decline or at best exist precariously on the edge of sustainability. The slightly larger communities, including Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, and Ouzinkie, all have a basic foundation for economic sustainability and may in fact have the most to gain On terms of economic development) from surface transportation enhancement. They may possess a critical mass of government and private business sustainability that can support a reasonably healthy community. Enhanced transportation infrastructure for these communities will strengthen that sustainability and could potentially result in economic growth. This is the challenge of transportation development in rural Alaska. Enhanced transportation services and infrastructure can play a critical role in rural community sustainability and development (though that alone cannot ensure sustainability). However, the monetary cost of creating and providing enhanced transportation infrastructure service can be very high, especially on a per capita basis. A next step for the communities of Kodiak Island might be to take the results of this study and identify the components of, and priorities within, a transportation infrastructure development plan. Options include setting aside the concept of a dedicated Kodiak Island ferry (due the high subsidy required) and focusing on building the infrastructure and the political support (and especially ferry system management support) needed for gaining as much Tustumena service as possible. Alternatively, stakeholders could continue to pursue the idea of a dedicated ferry system, beginning with the development of comprehensive fund - raising plan and strategy. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 122 Appendix 1 Marine Route information Introduction The Route Overviews and Route Length Summaries in this Appendix illustrate a series of potential ferry routes connecting communities on Kodiak Island. They are presented for use in regional transportation planning. The Appendix data includes route maps and corresponding tabular distances and transit times. The routes shown here are considered realistic in terms of the distances and times indicated, but are representational and should not be interpreted as navigational guidance, particularly in terms of harbor entrances and clearances to shorelines and headlands. The route data have been organized into two general groups: a) a Round Island scenario based on a continuous counter - clockwise loop proceeding from one community to the next; and b) a Hub scenario in which individual community routes originate at a terminal hub near the city of Kodiak. Hub routes are "direct" routes between the hub and each community. The Hub group is further divided into three subgroups, based on three potential terminal locations in the Kodiak area. The first Hub alternative uses the existing central Kodiak terminal as an origin point. The second and third Hub alternatives are each based on potential new terminals located at Anton Larsen Bay and Pasagshak Bay, with new or improved road access between central Kodiak and the new terminals. The Anton Larsen Bay terminal would potentially serve Northern routes using Shelikof Strait and adjacent coastal passages as far as Akhiok, whereas the Pasagshak Bay terminal would potentially serve Southern routes as far as Akhiok along the South coast of Kodiak Island. An overview map and associated Route Length Summary table for the Round Island, Kodiak Direct, Anton Larsen Bay Direct and Pasagshak Bay Direct groups are given below. These tables provide overall distances and transit times for their respective routes. Following the four summaries, each route is presented individually, showing distances and transit times between the waypoints which comprise each route. In order to clearly identify routes, a discreet number is assigned to each route between any two communities. For example, in the Round Island group, Kodiak to Ouzinkie is numbered Route 1, Ouzinkie to Port Lions is numbered Route 2, etc. In some cases, two communities are shown with alternative routes between them, and such routes are distinguished by a dash and second number. For example, in the Round Island group, Akhiok to Old Harbor routes include an inside route through Sitkinak Strait designated Route 6 -1 and an outside route around Tugidak Island designated Route 6 -2. Where a particular route is duplicated between the Round Island group and Hub group, the route is identified by a separate number in each group. For example, Kodiak to Ouzinkie in the Round Island group is numbered 1 and the same route in the Kodiak Direct hub route is numbered 8. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak /s /and, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 723 Figure 47: Round - Island Route Overview r .- ?...f Nm,ar a - u mee ., m 7 �_'- `Larsen• .,y _ o m � ice 2 .m F , ., -11 , Oiil . 4 t li • _ \& ice- AiT \ r�J'µ". ^0 4 m!-c ). -, »,= �) j co y�� kh , � . m a� °� p. „ m „ tr .033/ >, Y, ,! ., e 'er- , „ .n• - «" ,, ° � .• f w, 41 ( y ._, » . , _ e ..—m� / ^ J . .,, «„ � n m�i _ mm. /°,� 03.03 Table 78: Round - Island Route Length Summary • • Routes ■Distance!(nm) Time at'9,knots Time at 13x5 !knots i 1. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 13.4 1:29 0:59 2. Ouzinkie to Port Lions 13.2 1:28 0:58 3. Port Lions to Larsen Bay 65.3 7:15 4:50 4. Larsen Bay to Karluk 27.8 3:05 2:03 5 Karluk to Akhiok 69.5 7:43 5:08 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor 64.9 7:12 4:48 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor 151.0 16:46 11:11 7. Old Harbor to Kodiak 95.4 10:36 7:04 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 124 Figure 48: Kodiak Direct Route Overview \. \ �� pi .,, ".....' 4.- -e°.^, ..C-e? — 9-2.7.: ., �_ .. ,.. o'z ' S - t � ' arsen a o m j " - ., Bush..°• .. " '" ' F � at �� .� %% -a . P`t in i i . ; . � , - . , i did'H ; � ; ' »„ IN N ISO N n n'.. "� Y � . > rr- i.-et,- i � 4 " , ' me[ P 1 fi 7 ", : :: :_� „,� 1 : , ,� «, . ?” ,n , 7;. 1 : 3,n, r cH , a, Y n.. a„ ! n.w, ,. , ", m, ma. ,r°e ,(.....,�. i "...o.. �"' w, ,,, w Table 79: Kodiak Direct Route Length Summary - Time at13. Routes Distance!(nm) iTime.at '' ! • (knots j 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie 13.4 1:29 0:59 9 -1. Kodiak to Port Lions 26.5 2:56 1:57 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) 34.0 3:46 2:31 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay 85.1 9:27 6:18 11. Kodiak to Karluk 88.3 9:48 6:32 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) 159.0 17:40 11:46 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) 214.0 23:46 15:51 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) 134.0 14:53 9:55 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor 95.4 10:36 7:04 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 69.2 7:41 5:07 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibi/ityStu* for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 125 Figure 49: Anton Larsen Bay Direct Route Overview �ni a - 'is. ijJ �. 14, • 3i»kie „„ ems # h 1 u r „ . c..,.., I .n, ° , a,. " ,x. � r i w. S. V V _ ,.,ROd1 w ` i • " v --n lsay s� ° „ -� ” �,Y` 1 . �� :a �„ • r , , 4; a a ° „' ,v _ _ odd H of a -z m' y . "_ _ ' r i � 4 � y r xry P ik f �- y m >e III ,„Y �m IN 7. f '� f Y -4,',', n{ a y E , ` "�r a � th'"\ 7.72 — N\ „�x r.. a., 7 ! �i pa nr ee • ^5` F S' » ° xa s” a 0 ” '4'1 S .J nth Pj f .r r ]xt J5 4 ,� 4 � Wacd > '221 ' a 10 .WC.. xif.. 22 ” ` J�l x a. la ° 1•2 �N x f M. ( .ee x1 x.f °' C ,n_ ® an na 1w.: Ilte/ V51 > t'" 7;" ! xf, .l —1 „w x 22w MN c :„ew , 222 ( . r \ r w. ° ... °.. n. a .. ;_________ f ivo, xinx • / �m , 107171 Table 80: Anton Larsen Bay Direct Route Length Summary ;Routes • Distance (nm) Time at 9lknots Time tat 13:5 ;knots 14. Anton Larsen Bay to Ouzinkie 6.9 0:46 0:30 15. Anton Larsen Bay to Port Lions 8.2 0:54 0:36 16. Anton Larsen Bay to Larsen Bay 67.2 7:28 4:58 17. Anton Larsen Bay to Karluk 70.3 7:48 5:12 18. Anton Larsen Bay to Akhiok 141.0 15:40 10:26 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 126 Figure 50: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Overview w w w+. ~ 14 S t5115 t, ▪ » • » arsre - Q sag , „g � y, 1 „ m R ; M i m �? te' 1 • '~ r. \ \`� \ \\ R,w M MU D T .!. V spu F f . , , �� n•, c) /> f� r� I r �” * I s" ----- _ — Old H,a"rti Z} M, lR, /•" t3 v, 1 no r / ...xa'i.7� ) 7 e 2 r m. w. mN, m ° n 4 p • 54/ f// y6. f M • M' IN IN ( I _ a,� ° � :_M '-J n� �� m 'tea` \ m »° nfa + ,a� 1 7 1 4 1 / � °y '� Y MJr 7KwNYM ,» . , ' ` .. A to 1 n »r ',Is n »f 3 , a•∎ J ^ .ter 1 i`I, 5. /.,J el ,, r ° .. ° m 1 as a, „a°n' m nn J (,4 0 3 } 7' n. :rat . } 9 no n. o 14 34 .wr 143I , u • °,nSJ, a. ,,: w, m °, �'nS n, »r. ,.0 �r. w ».r „u. 73I 3 . ea.... 1”, Table 81: Pasagshak Bay Direct Route Length Summary IRoutes IDistance),(nm) Time,at Time 13.5 I, knots 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) 178.0 19:46 13:11 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Str.) 93.8 10:25 6:56 21 -1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor 60.5 6:43 4:28 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) 32.4 3:36 2:24 Required vessel speeds are greater than speeds indicated, due to the effects of wind, current and waves. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 127 Figure 51: 1. Kodiak to Ouzinkie ¢- -- rp f i t ouai n ki�e` �-�, "CI F r ',„ �`�'` a 4 i 1 . egr. 11- Th 111 . ,a \. "`»{ , .. t \ ». -!' r� y tom. , „ ", 13.4 r .,. -_ . O - g... ! ' . o.,... `` _.. r ,, ;' Y• n /1�+ 3.\ • /-, e , r J jJ , . . Q P ' 4 �. " -1,j r . 2 t i`r ' -' _ - . - ,Kodiak . , r �f /. �- - r) vv `•r, I co, -m' A f ....0 , r q �L I f Table 82: Kodiak to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance Distance VCIY kriots , knots" - Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Spruce Cape 3.3 nm 1.3 nm 0:22 0:14 Hutchinson Reef 4.6 nm 1.3 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.7 nm 8.1 nm 1:24 0:56 Ouzinkie Harbor 13.4 nm 0.7 nm 1:29 0:59 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page /28 Figure 52: 2. Ouzinkie to Port Lions ` G. :-.4:-. — _ .. - - - n h ' 4 : . A} , n T 13 :2nm -i 1.4C "- r G 4'. • - " i r 1 "'`-ntlk'1" J' �'.� nom+ -^'- ,,/- A v�%}p,� ♦ f �.t > % sla '..:#1.:i ' q ..1 tA _ , , . f it! . J , , _ ........ i...,.‘;.......f...._.7),/.., ..5.....z., „),,,_____. i ,,. ..,. . gb.,,d.„,„ ..4....„. ..."...,i__,___/..:-\_.____, ,:,. cetatsc..20.. _:..___e_r7....r.........„_.•.w.......:..,___:_._ Table 83: Ouzinkie to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times 'TotallDistance Time at 13.5 (Routes - . - (nm) Distance((leg) Timerat'9lknots ;knots Ouzinkie Harbor (start) Ouzinkie Point 0.8 nm 0.8 nm 0:05 0:03 Three Brothers Rocks 2.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:16 0:11 Waypoint 4 3.7 nm 1.1 nm 0:24 0:16 Kizhuyak Point 5.4 nm 1.7 nm 0:36 0:24 Port Lions 13.2 nm 7.9 nm 1:28 0:58 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 129 Figure 53: 3. Port Lions to Larsen Bay r /nsh• .un� y' h� r 1 n � [ w ` K.' i:jit.....H, . ,Th....„,,,_ t t.5ts 4.,t si __ __ _ _ _ .. . Larsen Bay Table 84: Port Lions to Larsen Bay - Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance Time at 13.5 Routes (nm) .Distance (leg) Time at 9 knots knots Port Lions (start) Waypoint 2 1.4 nm 1.4 nm 0:09 0:06 Inner Point 3.4 nm 2.0 nm 0:22 0:15 Ilkognak Rock 4.6 nm 1.1 nm 0:30 0:20 Waypoint 5 6.5 nm 1.9 nm 0:43 0:28 Waypoint 6 14.4 nm 7.9 nm 1:36 1:04 Outlet Cape 21.7 nm 7.3 nm 2:24 1:36 Cape Uganik 30.5 nm 8.9 nm 3:23 2:15 Cape Ugak 42.5 nm 12.0 nm 4:43 3:08 Cape Kuliuk 48.8 nm 6.3 nm 5:25 3:36 Larsen Bay Entrance 63.3 nm 14.4 nm 7:02 4:41 Waypoint 12 64.1 nm 0.9 nm 7:07 4:44 Waypoint 13 64.4 nm 0.3 nm 7:09 4:46 Waypoint 14 64.8 nm 0.4 nm 7:12 4:48 Waypoint 15 65.1 nm 0.3 nm 7:14 4:49 Larsen Bay Dock 65.3 nm 0.2 nm 7:15 4:50 Is /and Irde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 730 Figure 54: 4. Larsen Bay to Karluk • - _, ._ tor. - . I ^ • . # e � p a, o - x O A , • Ka luk a �,- Table 85: Larsen Bay to Karkuk — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total'iDistance ?Time at 13.5 IRoutes :Distance !(leg) Time;at'9iknots ((nm)' 'knots Larsen Bay (start) Waypoint 2 0.3 nm 0.3 nm 0:02 0:01 Waypoint 3 0.5 nm 0.2 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 4 0.9 nm 0.4 nm 0:06 0:04 Larsen Bay Entrance 1.2 nm 0.2 nm 0:08 0:05 Waypoint 6 3.1 nm 2.0 nm 0:20 0:13 Harvester Island 8.8 nm 5.6 nm 0:58 0:39 Rocky Point 16.8 nm 8.0 nm 1:52 1:14 Cape Uyak 22.1 nm 5.3 nm 2:27 1:38 Karluk River Mouth 27.8 nm 5.7 nm 3:05 2:03 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 131 // Figure 55: 5. Karkuk to Akhi .. - ... ,Sy f , .'�!�i - .. ` /!' . Z.' 1 Karluk - -' • : -, -,.277 . 7 /././../ 9 :-t . il cji(715 . f y -. Yr. r � l ! 69.5,ttm 't o f / ¼:: .. �, r .. - Akhiok�" " . a. - '" Table 86: Karluk to Akhiok — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance Time at d 3:5 'Routes (nm) !Distance (leg) Time at 9 knots 'knots, Karluk River (start) Cape Karluk 1.6 nm 1.6 nm 0:10 0:07 Waypoint 3 2.6 nm 1.0 nm 0:17 0:11 Waypoint 4 9.9 nm 7.3 nm 1:06 0:44 Middle Cape 19.2 nm 9.3 nm 2:08 1:25 Outer Seal Rock 22.7 nm 3.5 nm 2:31 1:40 Low Cape 44.6 nm 22.0 nm 4:57 3:18 Cape Alitak 59.9 nm 15.2 nm 6:39 4:26 Kempff Bay Entrance 67.5 nm 7.6 nm 7:30 5:00 Waypoint 10 68.3 nm 0.8 nm 7:35 5:03 Waypoint 11 69.0 nm 0.8 nm 7:40 5:06 Pryor Point 69.5 nm 0.4 nm 7:43 5:08 Island -lyde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 732 7 Figure 56: 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor `` IL' 1 .s�._a'a- _ l ] ]le: • p] � Y/! IIIID I 710 sas rns t"%., r,n ���"]`•fE'°�n°_e 1. Cl " n 1 l Y ��, eas !! JJJ 1 in ] NI Y'Z./' - I+J rfe ttt,, a - -� O e r.r /e ��ll la '. pq P 44 j Nu / MO II yfy e.n • ' -- �] .. r] 'DI• 7 " ” � ,7%:21c,"- ] ' a 5, u1 Y / ' 274 '1 ( j 1 ` S A1 = th 3 124 I \ / ]] u✓ a ,a,„" e � u u . � r.�..,.. n r :;,..:-.114371 • 4301 D] </` �/ r 3�✓•kn.. �nn.a \ as / "' tell nt II ` TI9� t sSD H 1 C ^ `. % N.04 vu, letkiiir 2(43 r' L.> 722 ( lit *2 � SD c D `tl 1: - n . ., j . m „ • ] l III1/ ne / U / � / S. T] ^ Ii r s k 9 � 1 � 1 C MS e w vo tI1! ne I Y I' 1 11i 1I p ��y \ y • laa 1I t \' r 3C. - 1S C '( t1n �c 22224 tat al or n]� t i7T 5 i % T- 1'v ::r t ' tlI 8)t I N / / T ` � I l � 101) I al I n3 e� r Je Ibi Ia3 Dt \ ]f 1. IW til AI ,e, r D tl( 1'D.t rI] „: / 'l Irn ae'e rn e lv' =�' f t_a]'� MI me Is• no la, "6 ]' IRO St %•-..... %•-..... laJ ! wr j� 33i Ins / 41 1 � .ns - ir ' +as+ :n N„ / Table 87: 6 -1. Akhiok to Old Harbor - Route Segments, Distances & Times / TotallDistance � at 135 I (Routes Distance . 'Time,at''9lknots . :.. -t , i(ffm)..at !knots Pryor Point (Start) Waypoint 2 0.4 nm 0.4 nm 0:02 0:01 Waypoint 3 1.1 nm 0.7 nm 0:07 0:04 Kempff Bay Entrance 1.8 nm 0.7 nm 0:12 0:08 Sundstrom Island 16.0 nm 14.2 nm 1:46 1:11 Sitkinak Strait Entrance 21.9 nm 5.9 nm 2:26 1:37 Waypoint 7 32.9 nm 11.0 nm 3:39 2:26 Cape Kiavak 48.7 nm 15.9 nm 5:24 3:36 Sitkalidak Strait Entrance 58.7 nm 10.0 nm 6:31 4:20 Old Harbor 64.9 nm 6.2 nm 7:12 4:48 /slandlyde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 133 Figure 57: 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor e lms `Hrr - rl —.. �_. ""`` O , ld' Harbor M W I. Y,� Y%� �� • ins j >ns 2S.)„1 , - �/ i Y CM r �� or nr t Zr , - '` n! qt / • ms m # L. nn.; 1 rs r _ J n i r tat / n • 1 sa o�.ri f:. Cr- w. A- . o4v o.. v 1Y J w :e , r u. r"tir •Ypt� -Akhio � xf, , .In wt 4 m]f- n .. : • ns . t .. ^n, ,r .i.e.. y er us ✓ . >, :� : #1 B. � d // I♦ A, 3 H , d ,, — 2 , X r . Y M: l .. dR• r ` s5r U. 1 �! ��.\ f,ix .9 . I JI r 'S •• \ r6 . . m 4r1 r 1 1 IP )\ t S, i • t O rr}} } ]f] fA a.ad "n,r +MS iii •sf .-----.71 •r c:, ,S ( 1 j n r $2 ,N : v1 ] rs Y .- cXXX'aAAg f e 4)2.1 „ es +� I Ye i in* Axr m r,a ; -- u ` , l ri c -.2.j n 154.0 rah s.,, Th :1 1r: �jr�• /'I f" ±ut .J :f' iii n �r 1017 „re T 112 1,.: 31 / %' / 5 it" it" d' 1:: - ,t 0. al n > » (i� / n . , # ■ :. S. �✓. . / IuA a,�4 Po ] #:. _. :1D :Ua :Bf ,P ,./ n: \f m. or ,Y,_ ran • .rr. (( nr \\ / a., / _ tii / , fns Ert \ + am Pe #,rr( u;e 3 S41 / Ma ran �1ne �•.1 i r Mta, Table 88: 6 -2. Akhiok Outside Route to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times TotallDistance Time at 83:5 'Routes ((nm) ,Distance (leg) Time at 9''knots , knots j Prior Point (Start) Waypoint 2 0.4 nm 0.4 nm 0:02 0:01 Waypoint 3 1.1 nm 0.7 nm 0:07 0:04 Kempff Bay Entrance 1.8 nm 0.7 nm 0:12 0:08 Cape Alitak 9.5 rim 7.7 nm 1:03 0:42 Waypoint 6 _ _ _ _ _ 31.5 nm 21.9 nm 3:30 2:20 _ Waypoint 7 50.2 nm 18.8 nm 5:34 3:43 Cape Sitkinak 61.2 nm 11.0 nm 6:48 4:32 Black Point 100 nm 39.0 nm 11:06 7:24 Waypoint 10 135 nm 34.6 nm 15:00 10:00 Waypoint 11 145 nm 10.0 nm 16:06 10:44 Old Harbor 151 nm 6.2 nm 16:46 11:11 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island Alaska — DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 734 Figure 58: 7. Old d Harb or to Kodiak • S _ >�f , ',," -. 1 t' ` - fl (i n. � ` C llUidi8k sr-r 1 '' „,___,P A.4 n r n �•° i� � e51 " � ! rn °� W . 711 :01 1 f 4 Y ! ' • 1 ie q A on 1 K:l b � .,, t rM1 ` O ' \ d ,. • ^ - JN m 2261 19 . i µ N + w q)I J, �. ,yWn 26 drw9. re r5 ^ cf YO4 Mr .✓ �r a" � ,��ny. A �w. I..7r .2 U. 1 riCti "' W V tY :rl1 26 21 2� :Y 1 yr... 'I NY r< /f • J .4)3.2.,_c. r ! t w wrf v ., r ,„, jj Ir, HI Ot Old_Harbo y / I5n + nr, Ur• +- ` 4.� , f "< r., 11,1 `� . , ,g L 'n,. 1 SL t 1-� e' Ynr .- 5 . 4 . 1 2u ]n *„ f Y. y • r • . 1O R1tl , WI NMY„S..NSv.pev9Sw l2 1 _ 1 / 2 1 �arI,fw l J� 1 lel � .n1 ,,, %2r rl:. H Y ] Y j �� p I tl .(� 7p1 ,,.../:' fl. J, J ,.•. I :Olt J� •� lAw :71 i' 1025 269 . 1 / 2 1f:n .n. r 9 M41 1262 "” "” V., • p . , _. i])�r r i V JY� + ]T / A Ju rygl : }tlY q 9 f lo m }. �. ' ♦ " \ ' fi r 0 . .. N O� 4 Yn IC . A cl nn 26 Ai • 1 mY u v. IV 4E14 Ml M. l � 4 Y r" tll o. +2. eer mo n m lea r. • pl 55" ••11 . 44' :v we, 5559 ( - W. +£. ..c •. a 491 g N !w :u m1 Y a9 r<Ca 1 w 'r5 me m! "a • 11. ml 1 U � r :•.y 9 • y M � UI ' 1,1 1921 • \t ni c., 'f!! / 111 A N . 260 1 • Ylll RI. W:' �. 1 .ri I a a' • • 1 iN 5951 am A, Table 89: 7. Old Harbor to Kodiak - Route Segments, Distances St Times (Routes s rr , TotaliDistance IDistancei(leg) T imelat''9'knots Time cat ((nm) 1 Old Harbor (start) Sitkalidak Strait Entrance 6.2 nm 6.2 nm 0:41 0:27 Waypoint 3 9.1 nm 2.8 nm 1:00 0:40 Ship Rock 13.9 nm 4.8 nm 1:32 1:01 Black Point 17.8 nm 3.9 nm 1:58 1:19 Ugak Island 59.9 nm 42.1 nm 6:39 4:26 Cape Chiniak 78.1 nm 18.2 nm 8:40 5:47 Waypoint 8 85.2 nm 7.2 nm 9:28 6:18 Kodiak Harbor Entrance 91.5 nm 6.2 nm 10:10 6:46 Waypoint 10 92.6 nm 1.1 nm 10:17 6:51 Gull Island 94.1 nm 1.6 nm 10:27 6:58 Round Island 94.7 nm 0.5 nm 10:31 7:00 Waypoint 13 95.0 nm 0.3 nm 10:33 7:02 Kodiak Terminal 95.4 nm 0.4 nm 10:36 7:04 Is /and -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 135 Figure 59: 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie } ro ,V/f'� puamk16 4 "9-- :s ."&.:13.. -. s • } ' .:',c1/4::!‘....._—`r •F'' may© fti Vie W /t.. • ,.y +' d - #, - - - "t..- r-,� C-Y - 4 , t •w . :" 3 . -- -g •Feet it i, ,,. f f l`�j . -:-::- .C? 'lam\ ..y ,.. , ,,`tom` ? %-- / f... `` 13.4 n { r -' ° //}� -fir V • _ 109 ' • as:' Yom ,¢• ,ti:-.4.--- ° * , 7 i a s. K ° /, �� / je a . 4 �'' +- t Table 90: 8. Kodiak to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance UtoeaW Routes Distance ViDatia knots knots Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Spruce Cape 3.3 nm 1.3 nm 0:22 0:14 Hutchinson Reef 4.6 nm 1.3 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.7 nm 8.1 nm 1:24 0:56 Ouzinkie Harbor 13.4 nm 0.7 nm 1:29 0:59 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 136 Figure 60: 9 -1. Kodiak to Port Lions .4:, e i�inki:: w CI) K --- ;r Si ti P • - rY mians ' '‘ I . l,r I( • t � ... �c. :k iN \ F m° i Table 91: 9 -1, Kodiak to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total!Distance - Time. at 13:5 j (Routes , ;. . . I Distance((leg) Time+at'9iknots (nm)' r (knots i Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Channel Rock 2.8 nm 0.9 nm 0:18 0:12 Hutchenson Reef 4.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.2 nm 7.6 nm 1:21 0:54 Prokoda Island 13.0 nm 0.9 nm 1:26 0:57 Ouzinkie Narrows 13.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:31 1:00 Ouzinkie Point 14.0 nm 0.3 nm 1:33 1:02 Low Island 14.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:38 1:05 Shakmanof Point 16.7 nm 1.9 nm 1:51 1:14 Port Wakefield Entrance 26.3 nm 9.6 nm 2:55 1:56 Port Lions Terminal 26.5 nm 0.2 nm 2:56 1:57 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 137 Figure 61: 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) 6L 34.tnm (1 :;r Vi s rycjxt, tl ,, .�.. �- o.. i. ,4 -- t I , „.. . .. 4 U .ems. - . xx �� • ; Kodiak y��3 • v� `� .wsyi C 0 �, a �r� e ti Table 92: 9 -2. Kodiak to Port Lions (around Spruce Island) — Route Segments, Distances & Times 'Routes Total Distance Distance (leg) Time at knots Time at 13.5 1 ,(nm) knots Kodiak Terminal (start) _ Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Channel Rock 2.8 nm 0.9 nm 0:18 0:12 Hutchenson Reef 4.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:30 0:20 Spruce Island East Cape 10.3 nm 5.7 nm 1:08 0:45 Taliudek Island 17.9 nm 7.6 nm 1:59 1:19 Port Wakefield Entrance 33.7 nm 15.9 nm 3:44 2:29 Port Lions Terminal 34.0 nm 0.2 nm 3:46 2:31 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 138 Figure 62: 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay � .✓ .J !/�r` x "z' a.w ttt������� ... /" ' !� a; /%M S =w ^fi 7 C.u) �M .. .. A - % ° .may A1 {I @). , ¢� P s _ X i? .lr ,- Lion , tact : a . ° S ri:.__ : Table 93: 10. Kodiak to Larsen Bay - Route Segments, Distances & Times Routes =, Total ‘Distance DistanceQleg) Time at,9 knots Time at 13.5 ,(nm) knots Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Channel Rock 2.8 nm 0.9 nm 0:18 0:12 Hutchenson Reef 4.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.2 nm 7.6 nm 1:21 0:54 Prokoda Island 13.0 nm 0.9 nm 1:26 0:57 Ouzinkie Narrows 13.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:31 1:00 Ouzinkie Point 14.0 nm 0.3 nm 1:33 1:02 Low Island 14.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:38 1:05 Shakmanof Point 16.7 nm 1.9 nm 1:51 1:14 Whale Passage East End 22.0 nm 5.4 nm 2:26 1:37 Bird Point 23.3 nm 1.3 nm 2:35 1:43 Uzkosti Point 24.2 nm 0.9 nm 2:41 1:47 Pokati Point 25.5 nm 1.3 nm 2:50 1:53 Whale Passage West End 36.6 nm 11.1 nm 4:04 2:42 Cape Uganik 47.8 nm 11.2 nm 5:18 3:32 Cape Kuliuk 64.9 nm 17.1 nm 7:12 4:48 Larsen Bay Approach 83.2 nm 18.4 nm 9:14 6:09 Larsen Bay Entrance 84.3 nm 1.0 nm 9:22 6:14 Waypoint 11 84.7 nm 0.4 nm 9:24 6:16 Waypoint 12 85.0 nm 0.3 nm 9:26 6:17 Larsen Bay Terminal 85.1 nm 0.1 nm 9:27 6:18 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 139 Figure 63: 11. Kodiak to Karluk ry. .. 8a.tnm s ;C � ,� `�• .--- , • e(lZinkle w_r" / �f \ .4 ` &N eort 44...:.. •- �, ., i ,- tL ' \ Lion , fKodia Cr` �, � -_ 6 -w - % : Nr. L c- L'arsen�8# ... Table 94: 11. Kodiak to Karluk - Route Segments, Distances & Times Routes Total'Distance Distance (leg) Time at 9 knots Time at (13.5 (nm) !knots Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 _ Channel Rock 2.8 nm 0.9 nm 0:18 0:12 Hutchenson Reef 4.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.2 nm 7.6 nm 1:21 0:54 Prokoda Island 13.0 nm 0.9 nm 1:26 0:57 Ouzinkie Narrows 13.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:31 1:00 Ouzinkie Point 14.0 nm 0.3 nm 1:33 1:02 Low Island 14.7 nm _ 0.7 nm 1:38 1:05 Shakmanof Point 16.7 nm 1.9 nm 1:51 1:14 Whale Passage East End 22.0 nm 5.4 nm 2:26 1:37 Bird Point 23.3 nm 1.3 nm 2:35 1:43 Uzkosti Point 24.2 nm 0.9 nm 2:41 1:47 Pokati Point 25.5 nm 1.3 nm 2:50 1:53 Whale Passage West End 36.6 nm 11.1 nm 4:04 2:42 Cape Uganik 47.8 nm 11.2 nm 5:18 3:32 Cape Kuliuk 64.9 nm 17.1 nm 7:12 4:48 Waypoint 19 _ 86.5 nm 21.6 nm 9:36 6:24 Karluk River Mouth 88.3 nm 1.8 nm 9:48 6:32 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 140 Figure 64: 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) " �. s ` ��, ink 5-1 w _ -i'� ` N r¢ ∎, fort; A ; � A, t 's w ` .;'� . - LtC° Iii r ' t' d ` „< - ° 159.0 nm - ✓ a {4 K I k � ,,. Larsen a K " -- -} • -� la ° _ Old ^Har > < ti t ' ci 7 -v.-J., 4,„ _a-, . L .. ". ;) - „....-_, Table 95: 12 -1. Kodiak to Akhiok (North route) - Route Segments, Distances & Times Routes ..' ` TotallDistance ,- ;Time,at 13:5 Distance((leg) T,imeiat491knots i R f(nrri) ;knots I Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.5 nm 0.5 nm 0:03 0:02 Waypoint 3 2.0 nm 1.5 nm 0:13 0:08 Channel Rock 2.8 nm 0.9 nm 0:18 0:12 Hutchenson Reef 4.5 nm 1.7 nm 0:30 0:20 Black Point 12.2 nm 7.6 nm 1:21 0:54 Prokoda Island 13.0 nm 0.9 nm 1:26 0:57 Ouzinkie Narrows 13.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:31 1:00 Ouzinkie Point 14.0 nm 0.3 nm 1:33 1:02 Low Island 14.7 nm 0.7 nm 1:38 1:05 Shakmanof Point 16.7 nm 1.9 nm 1:51 1:14 Whale Passage East End 22.0 nm 5.4 nm 2:26 1:37 Bird Point 23.3 nm 1.3 nm 2:35 1:43 Uzkosti Point 24.2 nm 0.9 nm 2:41 1:47 Pokati Point 25.5 nm 1.3 nm 2:50 1:53 Whale Passage West End 36.6 nm 11.1 nm 4:04 2:42 Cape Uganik 47.8 nm 11.2 nm 5:18 3:32 Cape Kuliuk 64.9 nm 17.1 nm 7:12 4:48 Cape Karluk 88.9 nm 24.0 nm 9:52 6:35 Middle Cape 107 nm 17.9 nm 11:53 7:55 Cape Ikolik 114 nm 6.8 nm 12:40 8:26 /stand -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 141 Low Cape 133 nm 19.5 nm 14:46 9:51 Cape Alitak 148 nm 15.4 nm 16:26 10:57 White Rock 156 nm 7.7 nm 17:20 11:33 Kempff Bay Entrance 157 nm 1.2 nm 17:26 11:37 Akhiok Is. West End 158 nm 0.7 nm 17:33 11:42 Akhiok (Prior Point) 159 nm 0.4 nm 17:40 11:46 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuffy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 142 Figure 65: 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) 't:•-i_.(fer.';,,, 1.--nis qt „ _". k..., .. o.k • Adyrarrt , y,„12 - 4: -.. „...t), , t; N __ J nl w F "4 >~ /Sprit' .- 1 ..7 . --:1- ‘ .:,,..� �.�� i 4 r n sf 4•.t _ -.. to A : �": -. La rsen - y` 4 NO /{' Y `fin, F' `o" C 'r ° p 9 i6 . n/ f � � fr ' 120;4 6 "•4 1 • ml 1- A.t).-,..;.;;‘),.. S hi. , '` .'r. ?, '"' M AI] . ITUN*nj 9ml Mt i k. " 4 .e } : lm °� N ib ') p . -j. t' � w . m �. 9 t 1t 5 /LJ A ¢L w a+, �is�r 1 ` • r� y I � i 1 7 %. ti `e1 e -� 214.0 " o ."92-'1. Nf .P!,.. S.V %•fYC].PO 1 1 ' • f •l 0 Th •:11 Chi � •/ 04 I )� '. fC i t 7 ;3 n' • e • ,.. in , . ta i in ,. C14/4 I Y ' n F 4 e f Y t T'Y y Y JLt /im r IA, .. nl iM• V /f n11 .' A 0 N• IW> �' . 1 i �iW }y• ' 14 , 1 nl l ' ,9 ll,. A , „\ ay. t um N I fu , " on Hi f•,i .�1Y:.W / Y ] • te .%, 21161 A _... LI VW "4" ibL� �]A . ml_. al �i Aug L. _ :,...,,,,, Table 96: 12 -2. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Tugidak Island) - Route Segments, Distances & Times - Routes ' TotallD stance IDistance((leg) Timeiat9iknots Timeat 93.5 {(nm). •., iknots Kodiak Terminal (start) Waypoint 2 0.3 nm 0.3 nm 0:02 0:01 Round Island 0.7 nm 0.4 nm 0:04 0:03 Gull Island West End 1.2 nm 0.5 nm 0:08 0:05 Puffin Island 2.8 nm 1.6 nm 0:18 0:12 Kodiak Harbor Entrance 4.0 nm 1.1 nm 0:26 0:17 Humpback Rock 10.3 nm 6.4 nm 1:08 0:45 Cape Chiniak 18.2 nm 7.8 nm 2:01 1:20 Ugak Island 36.4 nm 18.3 nm 4:02 2:41 Cape Sitkinak 114 nm 77.4 nm 12:40 8:26 Tugidak Island South Side 153 nm 39.2 nm 17:00 11:20 Tugidak Island West End 170 nm 17.1 nm 18:53 12:35 Cape Alitak 204 nm 34.0 nm 22:40 15:06 White Rock 212 nm 7.7 nm 23:33 15:42 Kempff Bay Entrance 213 nm 1.2 nm 23:40 15:46 Akhiok Is. West End 214 nm 0.7 nm 23:46 15:51 Akhiok (Prior Point) 214 nm 0.4 nm 23:46 15:51 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibility Stuoy for Kodiak /s /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 143 Figure 66: 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) d e . 1.. i tr. <'j ✓ mil' • \r i [�'�/ �',w a ,u n ---i39-!-- M ar ,4 i ' w.. ` ` r i, . C. Lfre c. m m. e i kalt ( J a.n.. , . C +� :lit. o: .�°+/ n_ R 1 66 a 'lilyth. w--7 i ' L arsen y, a t -2 // as n m S< ±r. i «w . T om. y n �� Jl.b�,t«,a , � F a ^y r � �' ,` . . . O ' ldH ��w "'u.. Ifal / 1 Y� •4 6 , m Vin• ar.. / ".r „,..: , y a. ^1T� j • r?- �g •"Jt,4.• � ...r -� afi o •. A ' 'n J ayn a y' �" � ,' a mom` �,Cr =�: _ __ „4 � ° m �/(� \ m /� JJ r .�� n' a. as — n - + `, ^?,+t re-'' 1 n ,Y` w Y w fy "' • , 1 •.. ti .� „ a �s.�1 1 1 n as w ., , t "At a o ea / ma '\n' / WI [� � 5 �+ ,q? • ' r � "J ,w n hex na / �y , R' T //,T l _ ' ' / /,cnr rx7 n D o�n.a / r ai+ r • r .. a n ' � . / �. - _ ��.f fi :era � ��r m w� ,w Table 97: 12 -3. Kodiak to Akhiok (South route via Sitkinak Strait) - Route Segments, Distances & Times Total (Distance Time at 13.5 Roues s(nm) :Distance,(leg) Time at 9'knots knots i Kodiak Terminal (Start) Waypoint 2 0.3 nm 0.3 nm 0:02 0:01 Round Island 0.7 nm 0.4 nm 0:04 0:03 Gull Island West End 1.2 nm 0.5 nm 0:08 0:05 Puffin Island 2.8 nm 1.6 nm 0:18 0:12 Kodiak Harbor Entrance 4.0 nm 1.1 nm 0:26 0:17 Humpback Rock 10.3 nm 6.4 nm 1:08 0:45 Cape Chiniak 18.2 nm 7.8 nm 2:01 1:20 Ugak Island 36.4 nm 18.3 nm 4:02 2:41 Aiaktalik Island 108 nm 71.8 nm 12:00 8:00 Sundstrum Island 116 nm 7.6 nm _ 12:53 8:35 Cape Trinity 122 nm 6.4 nm 13:33 9:02 White Rock 132 nm 9.4 nm 14:40 9:46 Kempff Bay Entrance 133 nm 1.2 rim 14:46 9:51 Akhiok Is. West End 133 nm 0.7 nm 14:46 9:51 Akhiok (Prior Point) 134 nm 0.4 nm 14:53 9:55 Island-Wide Transportation Feast/ail/0/ Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 144 Figure 67: 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor o *fi e .. \ .. < - " . - Lz - : i .--1„7--- x • 34 n `,. 4 ^. '°e.'a s d ian ° 1".' . 5"' n M, T. v h1 aL le to ' f , 5 ' f .., w,TI IY I lc. N 11 l0: N H 11 M. • N J Bush'' . �Lr°' r ` n »; �=�+' -�- .OI Poin 2--- . ...�Yx P. L n ..✓ y . ..I " 7 , a" q Ha �`. j y _ - D" r 'Si . 1: S.1 n l e.. 1 2 ' 1 IM , teas. \� ^ ?341 H! I • :1. - Mn N • YI �/ 1 + 4 1 . , . • 1 l ( }/� 341'. ii :7 ,-4 W W 2rpm a i., I:_ . /. � r ( 95. ,..° � / 1 «a n 1141 °• Ia I ° vu of 'r" 4 an , n• :L r ! �j1 , Mn.yy Hi Ylf >Y ay, b.., in :M: 3414 Me Nl 4. -f,(�, - IX: IL ^ tT n. / , m l ]tll NI 341 fAf 1 / y w, w, v m. IA of At v' f° w ref m. v 1°I. .. �, , / ,n, ".1.• ".1.• ,o }y. m. w YY , M f +Si- .L. ;f M4, M, .40.0,•11° m r.. 11;" a: :u, t if, - "°. s+se wf a. n 3414 r1 ' $ � w., 171 a w, .' On .a ... " 1\ u: ... W' a 1 ° 11' , Table 98: 13 -1. Kodiak to Old Harbor - Route Segments, Distances & Times .t t -" Ro ”C.'". l _ _ q .7 g a - --i r in x,. to Y � u es Tot Distance % m lTimeiat i13 5 Distancei(leg) iTime(att9l , 1 Kodiak Terminal (Start) Waypoint 2 0.4 nm 0.4 nm 0:02 0:01 Round Island 0.7 nm 0.3 nm 0:04 0:03 Gull Island West End 1.2 nm 0.5 nm 0:08 0:05 Puffin Island 2.8 nm 1.6 nm 0:18 0:12 Kodiak Harbor Entrance 3.9 nm 1.1 nm 0:26 0:17 Humpback Rock 10.1 nm 6.2 nm 1:07 0:44 Cape Chiniak 17.3 nm 7.2 nm 1:55 1:16 Ugak Island 35.5 nm 18.2 nm 3:56 2:37 Black Point 77.6 nm 42.1 nm 8:37 5:44 Ship Rock 81.5 nm 3.9 nm 9:03 6:02 Natalia Point 86.3 nm 4.8 nm 9:35 6:23 Newman Bay 89.1 nm 2.8 nm 9:54 6:36 Old Harbor 95.4 nm 6.2 nm 10:36 7:04 / sland Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 145 Figure 68: 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) r. 2 s, '3‘,.., , P r ^ rid te �.° , e la 'l. r I • � i i' I ,.. "4'� _ ' K °" r .� i S IN .1cf .4 1. l�. _. /1 � R ' _ � . y :..:H 1 N „..3k4, .1 "fir f t ' >+ r 1 }�• dt Y�a N le 1 -L ‘-- t U x., m I .° B f ui 1' _ 777 r_ r:,w r yam,,, n wr Et ,... t' .m.5... ._ _ J'}y /JLy` -.__ _ m ' ', ` .ra m� ry f � � ) r � .� liTl b ,..-c c ar. o. .. W • 71 _. f A <i•, :. M ai} r _ a a ... r >n . , ^�A... PS / YM ) I - - dC • • Bus \ Lni : e-. _ I ,:, � 1 . ,. >u ' 1 � ` °" � »,..y' . 9 ? Mu „ — Harb° t or =Point 23 �„ it } » • _ 7 m ".f 1 .. ri ! ' y wr .., I . tl rr r» a' w • I. {� m m o f ,.,r v, !m, a.. m no ��{ • m v' r tt p I ry ^ � < �� n r, m .„ ,» svr 7 -4 1 ms1 n,. :v Table 99: 13 -2. Kodiak to Old Harbor (Bush Point) — Route Segments, Distances & Times Routes Total Distance Distance �. �� �Razgok knots Kodiak Terminal (Start) Waypoint 2 0.4 nm 0.4 nm 0:02 0:01 Round Island 0.7 nm 0.3 nm 0:04 0:03 Gull Island West End 1.2 nm 0.5 nm 0:08 0:05 Puffin Island 2.8 nm 1.5 nm 0:18 0:12 Kodiak Harbor Entrance 3.9 nm 1.1 nm 0:26 0:17 Humpback Rock 10.2 nm 6.3 nm 1:08 0:45 Cape Chiniak 17.4 nm 7.2 nm 1:56 1:17 Ugak Island 35.5 nm 18.2 nm 3:56 2:37 Dangerous Cape 51.0 nm 15.5 nm 5:40 3:46 Cathedral Island 66.5 nm 15.5 nm 7:23 4:55 Old Harbor (Bush Point) 69.2 nm 2.7 nm 7:41 5:07 Island lMde Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 146 Figure 69: 14. Anton Larsen Bay to Ouzinkie m, so co, '34to "' w, "'a a Vim; „ If. N • frr' / r N • r An to 8 :rug <,--m- - �.' : Table 100: 14. Anton Larsen Bay to Ouzinkie — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total(Distance Time•at 13.3 Routes �rri ,DistanceQleg) Time at91knots ;knots ( ) Anton Larsen Bay Terminal (start) Kizhuyak Point Entrance 0.6 nm 0.6 nm 0:04 0:02 Kizhuyak Point 1.9 nm 1.3 nm 0:12 0:08 Shakmanof Point 3.2 nm 1.3 nm 0:21 0:14 Three Brothers Rocks 4.3 nm 1.1 nm 0:28 0:19 Ouzinkie Narrows 6.1 nm 1.7 nm 0:40 0:27 Ouzinkie Terminal 6.9 nm 0.8 nm 0:46 0:30 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 147 Fi 70: 15. Anton Larsen Bay to Lions I i y • � In o. m\ .Pori \° / �^7 f , � . ".;P:21 �; rte \ li .r. P ° 45 3 OP I !'7� " Cit,t i r\ p r u\ � Mimi Fn � V � ° , Nr :.'q9 _� r. u n\ m 8.,� nm :a. ° , I\,. 7,• n,+. t t' , r° A ':' at IC '' f ,l if\ Ma tn . y . N.\ p IH I .II1' ion IV .l h..Tr ' r ! . r l air n. ., °° ° f oS —s1. d e H° b. 1p la, ha )^.l /` in/ A F° 1t )� . 't..4.1)44 � . JJJ 71 t �✓ � / {J ���� \ {� y tI) yyyJJJ t R / ef [ -. � �\i ) /p \ travel'. ' 1, � 1 J \ ` Table 101: 15. Anton Larsen Bay to Port Lions — Route Segments, Distances & Times TotalJDistance Time at 13.5 Routes (nm) (leg) - Time, at 9 knots knots ■ Anton Larsen Bay Terminal (start) Kizhuyak Point Entrance 1.2 nm 1.2 nm 0:08 0:05 Port Lions 8.2 nm 6.9 nm 0:54 0:36 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 748 Figure 71: 16. Anton Larsen Bay to Larsen Bay / w . / g..,��. y . 67';24 h « . H "i . -h,,�` . '�.. . tl,( ` ` --- . v'`,port Lions " A t;h _ ,.� rs� � c ? : tt a a' °;. Jtir� `a; 1, , j . t : . i � ' "-'! . ,r °M tar ay s 1 - �-� .1' „ Sr ` r 4r) 1 Table 102: 16. Anton Larsen Bay to Larsen Bay - Route Segments, Distances & Times } ; 4.7 ri a 7. Total Distance s Y *..; • s Time a[ 13.5 l R o utes �,f �tin �° y Distance '(le ' Time at4,2 ,,, ,,d2: e !5,.'+n°a... ^£+�` � , a '7:-?';';;;;),„ C (nrrl) , ,, g) }' `.�a"°- i . E : 1knOtS -7h. Anton Larsen Bay Terminal (start) Whale Passage East End 4.0 nm 4.0 nm 0:26 0:17 Bird Point 5.3 nm 1.3 nm 0:35 0:23 Uzkosti Point 6.2 nm 0.9 nm 0:41 0:27 Pokati Point 7.5 nm 1.3 nm 0:50 0:33 Whale Passage West End 18.6 nm 11.1 nm 2:04 1:22 Cape Uganik 29.8 nm 11.2 nm 3:18 2:12 Cape Kuliuk 46.9 nm 17.1 nm 5:12 3:28 Larsen Bay Approach 65.3 nm 18.4 nm 7:15 4:50 Larsen Bay Entrance 66.3 nm 1.0 nm 7:22 4:54 Waypoint 11 66.7 nm 0.4 nm 7:24 4:56 Waypoint 12 67.0 nm 0.3 nm 7:26 4:57 Larsen Bay Terminal 67.2 nm 0.1 nm 7:28 4:58 /stand Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 149 Figure 72: 17. Anton Larsen Bay to Karluk r \� wH ? ua ., .... ° 3- Qw r ... � �� ».r. '( .� c ,fir —� „ m, ,„ .. L ,. _� ,,, �- -- ,� a36 -apse C ;may . _ rim ` '/ ININ.In / ~ . eta �� gay Oh • ~: � , ,b,.. J ' 1 L*Sen B Sr_ .. ? .pro I J - ter : Table 103: 17. Anton Larsen Bay to Karluk — Route Segments, Distances & Times Routes TotallDistance 'Distance (leg) *' Time at 9 knots Time at 13:5 (nm) 'knots Anton Larsen Bay Terminal (start) Whale Passage East End 4.0 nm 4.0 nm 0:26 0:17 Bird Point 5.3 nm 1.3 nm 0:35 0:23 Uzkosti Point 6.2 nm 0.9 nm 0:41 0:27 Pokati Point 7.5 nm 1.3 nm 0:50 0:33 Whale Passage West End 18.6 nm 11.1 nm 2:04 1:22 Cape Uganik 29.8 nm 11.2 nm 3:18 2:12 Cape Kuliuk 46.9 nm 17.1 nm 5:12 3:28 Karluk Approach 68.5 nm 21.6 nm 7:36 5:04 Karluk 70.3 nm 1.8 nm 7:48 5:12 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 750 Figure 73: 18. Anton Larsen Bay to Akhiok .. 9- -""/�`Y ]{.\ �M �.i ��Or�,L - \ JII°011Sy � rl •I1 .., r. - 141:0 - ‘ ''' - ''' i ' ,--- Lawton C tit artifice') + : : .1 r J i Sz L ar s t y - ,e :.✓ -. Old•Harbor .�� _ f Ml - - 1 . ° ire-AT, n ,_ h A? . : � � ... 11 Table 104: 18. Anton Larsen Bay to Akhiok — Route Segments, Distances & Times • Total Distance ^ U�ul13fQ Routes Distance f EBflknots _ - knots Anton Larsen Bay Terminal (start) Whale Passage East End 4.0 nm 4.0 nm 0:26 0:17 Bird Point 5.3 nm 1.3 nm 0:35 0:23 Uzkosti Point 6.2 nm 0.9 nm 0:41 0:27 Pokati Point 7.5 nm 1.3 nm 0:50 0:33 Whale Passage West End 18.6 nm 11.1 nm 2:04 1:22 Cape Uganik 29.8 nm 11.2 nm 3:18 2:12 Cape Kuliuk 46.9 nm 17.1 nm 5:12 3:28 Cape Karluk 70.9 nm 24.0 nm 7:52 5:15 Middle Cape 88.8 nm 17.9 nm 9:52 6:34 Cape Ikolik 95.5 nm 6.8 nm 10:36 7:04 Low Cape 115 nm 19.5 nm 12:46 8:31 Cape Alitak 130 nm 15.4 nm 14:26 9:37 White Rock 138 nm 7.7 nm 15:20 10:13 Kempff Bay Entrance 139 nm 1.2 nm 15:26 10:17 Akhiok Is. West End 140 nm 0.7 nm 15:33 10:22 Akhiok (Prior Point) 141 nm 0.4 nm 15:40 10:26 Island Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 151 Figure 74: 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) mi xN ,Lars a 1 'it Bay'. - tir eiy AV 17... ya hi " m1 as,. I . -.. ”. ' «, • f� l f Ip iron -. 1 "-1. . �r ,1: :O , harbor. o --Cr' v Iwr .."7"24575r ' 5I Mf 1� 1. f . L^�[;71) v nCY .1 { (` ] . nl V t MI 112 Yff OM !1414 pi. Ii � .JJ V)I ... .i l ly /_ .'.. °` :tt , s 7 11 . 1 IpT n 1 p, 70-1/„..: �) w... {� .F'"'V MM�� e m uf. �I f s. 4 G.`. pia 1^S iQ. ...h o a r ') ow 7�a rt a, //p L n I w a yx 0 ;1,41 1 ' is” l x ,;_% . `L }t 1 {`.S -- 555,___ . 21 'ti -24.._,_ S41.4 • ;1 < ]Y1 422'M POI , fl no \2 t " ' •.41 r 91'. 24 T m' 19: V NI �.r N 4S S N ' 1.1 xJ ]'A.. i.!r .�'� ] l / /,( rf 1 ml of cu. y�,e. 111 41 06 nt x1 • - y y �.IPI+f t >o.1 4 K .Y SP 11'4 tC 'w \J\ NO qt r�p ✓ � . ` �c N 11.1 �A 4i] !f r I .1 V � �1M. Ip S .H 178.0 . 1140 is / \ /2b \ J41 IIA 00 aStE rue M21 ] f> 4 qJ fil pI •�. ' 29 1 IA , s.r «, � ' n ��'9f' ^' ^ • � s/ ,r ,. Ja 2 S e 11 II Iv III, ssSSs A.l° ✓ -r'rl a �� „:ro Inl nn ] l x12 / � v IN n. >n In" ° ax c t 1,0 I lls � ���." l rp ,41 : , Nn N1 CFI 1 ] p.J t1 tl l )))) ���� N ]ISY r n •' .CI J t ' Y11 fN. I f. y f \ �.� 1"I 1 + l A 40 NI u. W1 114.1 T MO f WN me 11 IOf yK0 xl / .tl "fa]�� I1.}]n�r Nrl 11 0.1 y1 ue 1 .r 'H f ^1/1\ . p' l , / /r - Ill CM 1.144, / / //�ni / IWO IYYx • ]N . . }r l 01 r .. + J l r /SSA I. IW I fill /.�... Maf .Wi4 • Table 105: 19. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Tugidak Island) - Route Segments, Distances & Times knots Routes Total Distance Distances { � �� ��j knots Pasagshak Bay Terminal (start) Gull Point 8.7 nm 8.7 nm 0:58 0:38 Cape Barnabas 22.4 nm 13.8 nm 2:29 1:39 Cape Sitkinak 77.8 nm 55.4 nm 8:38 5:45 Tugidak Island South Side 117 nm 39.0 nm 13:00 8:40 Tugidak Island West End 128 nm 11.0 nm 14:13 9:28 Tugidak Island North Side 147 nm 18.8 nm 16:20 10:53 Cape Alitak 169 nm 21.9 nm 18:46 12:31 White Rock 176 nm 7.7 nm 19:33 13:02 Kempff Bay Entrance 177 nm 0.7 nm 19:40 13:06 Akhiok Is. West End 178 nm 0.7 nm 19:46 13:11 Akhiok (Prior Point) 178 nm 0.4 nm 19:46 13:11 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 152 Figure 75: 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Strait) ,1 ,_-u•_a -- i - ` F „�, j am.. , � i iLaisen , a.Aasagshak Bay:- ,, m, t t .. ;:. '. BUS! "l -re-- � . 1111 Q 01041-arbor int —c a 8 „ 2.., .p f r i } s' yy a t w CV 1 - o hs : "y. Yt"'� � .. .... .. y ,.. 'w „ `, 'w, y ,/. a5 ,� 9 318 nlri' .x „, � . J. n r }}.— ' „ as. y � a .. III wa Table 106: 20. Pasagshak Bay to Akhiok (via Sitkinak Strait) — Route Segments, Distances & Times T ota llDistance , T !Routes 1` lDistarice((leg) Time(at,9.knots :. � • 1(nm) . iknots I Pasagshak Bay Terminal (start) Gull Point 8.7 nm 8.7 nm 0:58 0:38 Cape Barnabas 22.4 nm 13.8 nm 2:29 1:39 Geese Islands 62.8 nm 40.4 nm 6:58 4:39 Aiaktalik Island 72.5 nm 9.6 nm 8:03 5:22 Sundstrum Island 78.1 nm 5.7 nm 8:40 5:47 White Rock 92.0 nm 13.9 nm 10:13 6:48 Kempff Bay Entrance 92.7 nm 0.7 nm 10:18 6:52 Akhiok Is. West End 93.4 nm 0.7 nm 10:22 6:55 Akhiok (Prior Point) 93.8 nm 0.4 nm 10:25 6:56 Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 153 Figure 76: 21 -1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor ' , ... x. / / ' y Y 1 ,..r-1....1- ... f i"t� tea\\ } �• }. ' ] bi .. 1,-m's ' t "' —c„' r P as Bay ^ , , "' . ...:..a..4.-71/4, oaf �I , i Ado] n 4 , "> ma A ''44 i aa l . ]'zz u m 7 lot —I SP •—• ri t 'Kt': I • Y M Y I ro i .. Il f jl • lpt7 " Il.f ^^ , f • 4" i] tl W '�K. ✓IIfJ [I: I'' 7 B ush/ 1 . fir tl � t' � ]u]3"2.0. " } ]. I if ,", 4 DO Obid' Flarbor M Poi r ]! ( y tro 4" 1 ".' i. '- a '" � . o m °ws«.'a j f (t / ) w. - 1 t ]-- x-:1.1- Tp j� }' s , .a. A f M .,. I.V+. T 60.5 ]�.�.1 mf lx] .Yx :T. 'M' " Ir ' L .� f w • � PP ��� NNNV �� fff u 1. I 1r �m y • ".yi. ni,. „t1' / 1 1” m y .11 1 rs'( 11 f in • L. 241 3°.f an. Iv \ .1� • v ° e] "in' m jX .y I n �`] � tl u I . , " I.' " rai N. Iq$ "1 H4 b �'• T :4. t :Iff f rn ) -.. 7' Y1 mY ... m. °..'" 4"... >„ I.,� fC�.. ear ].. m• ]a .a ro tor . `y �4--.4.- ems..lf / a. .CI f 2•211 xu. " '[ ¶( ,.Ip,''`.._... 1'."'. wf rt °'°' " >o xu+N�' w M u .p., �. „1 I" ]v :.n .w. a SJ•% T'.' �i l` �i col.ILCt444 !M. .". WI Table 107: 21 -1. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor — Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance Time at 1.3.5 Routes (nm) Distance'(leg) Time at 9 knots knots • Pasagshak Bay Terminal (start) Gull Point 8.7 nm 8.7 nm 0:58 0:38 Cape Barnabas 22.4 nm 13.8 nm 2:29 1:39 Black Point 42.6 nm 20.2 nm 4:44 3:09 Ship Rock 46.6 nm 3.9 nm 5:10 3:27 Natalia Point 51.4 nm 4.8 nm 5:42 3:48 Newman Bay 54.3 nm 3.0 nm _ 6:02 4:01 Old Harbor 60.5 nm 6.1 nm 6:43 4:28 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibi/iryStudy for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DR4FT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 154 Figure 77: 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) t I .-- ��r v rc, 7 ----L- � sags•.rak Bay c —f x W. � P.T a � ' � `, % n.. nu n.. r. Old !ia of tt ,._ ., o.. 32:41yri n HI w . ...w l T Ji. �' _ J � h ;- ? ) 1 x� _ ... v - ra m. ' w/ ..v .l ••• ' m e . y n. u.. in, / . . .i' n t!7 2,1 , ..w..wY. m. vt; I Table 108: 21 -2. Pasagshak Bay to Old Harbor (Bush Point) - Route Segments, Distances & Times Total Distance Time at 13.5 !Routes (nm) iDistance((leg) Time ;at 9lknots ' knots Pasagshak Bay Terminal (start) Gull Point 8.7 nm 8.7 nm 0:58 0:38 Dangerous Cape 14.2 nm 5.5 nm 1:34 1:03 Cathedral Island 29.6 nm 15.5 nm 3:17 2:11 Old Harbor (Bush Point) 32.4 nm 2.7 nm 3:36 2:24 Island-Wide Transportation Feasibi /ity Stuay for Kodiak is /and, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 155 Appendix 2 Kodiak Island Transportation Road Concept by PND Engineers, Inc. Island -Wide Transportation Feasibility Study for Kodiak Island, Alaska - DRAFT McDowell Group, Inc • Page 156 a #i 4 e 0 4 �. "`,03 ��i )e c I� F � fit • 1 - it ' 4 % ly e --a.-- 1 S rr 1� t r � \ Y, 14: 1:. 9ut lI % . yIII tx1 r tLi:. . ' if I Iii} 1.11 � I� ` 1 rY'. r. gt ' °a !" !lin 1 . •‘-,N ''' " - 'c , ...,,.. 3( o _ ® W T. F . ® My i. � � G.,, M1 i"' x r y $ t p y+ is mi p � u F.954RR. @AAAvA ex E4R ---..--Z' N o ! i_ w� E 1 � D R v 3 a o x I g tl \} I 3a IY 7 i I@ Vic .:',1 11 ( 7 c i il s 1 1 11 I J ` •' '" 1 % , k \\s ..‹, i 6 . 8 , ty, Nk.t. j-<'j „Ii.t”, „A : „ .....,.....„..4,/ 1 . ky __,,-,- .--_,_, ' f 2 1 :: ' f;t , r 4 K 4,'.4y, t ki„., , �q w i I , 1/4..„.„, i < , , t.r. - :1 --.... Ilk ' ., ie i A ilia! 1 w w A tl A ° A w w a n. n t3,:'3z� 'II' x f sfis a g e ? a;,,� y 'P , tp u tk 4" " 1 . -'� s w`SNAIOAANOF ..xe ' ' a , , a w r x u r r' +x' r X COVE,' e 1 ✓ ruiner a. r � Y_ *+ q,E, r ti r`YS F n� ' `a& u 5 -A+k ac � l �^ r a ' n�, •�' atd x'd as *ru ct�rr } a. «�+Nf Y v � a�, ra s k zd'a'' W' �� � ,47 1_ `• a u S" i° E Y x n 3 r ;r 's F ,a sti" v °1, .k>w m' a'° r e t /i..�.i p. x 0.k r a 4r v w r k 1 a�1 /.) a E. J _,,�( Y? 1 '} m +afM '� G k tr op ♦ 4 . �,. '� w y hkJ�I ^ b F W '_ "' 5 7 w k rt •7t x�d r va �� a wa s . �y � s s' 'k , . s f „s +'" w ' , ." r"`a -srw ro .S. 'r „ " a 141,,',11` Y o- ` } a q . x i.. 4 . . ' ' " 1 ,,- ; fin $$ RWIM( 1'^ 6 t >: e 4 ',\:1.:Z",;)-s-,1,7':::7, YX f h �� + & ", `r > , . lT` i n 3 4 ,tr Y , _ ,,,,,,,,,,.....$$$ r*e k ,/rs h y.0,r' v"'w KARCUK l / `; �t�� � ), '?K` w n . a ' v " ' s wxPno s ' r e h LARSEN h.• ....a y.+ .. 6 �t ,t .r* , e m� d a1�i 3J" . 3 y r A J y v , a�r a . L . ' L ,,,;,...7,...1—, ....a,,,;,...7,...1—, d h � y � r tr.' 7 r� � '��, � BAV ,��* v ' �ytr; h� " < " � ; ° „tit:: a ,:,, r� F r r:''', LJ F F'V "N > , i �� n. u W ,,, �+ J A N gy p, � ''' ,1 ••"� r I 'h dy E ,', ^ S ! :4 ,yr O"^a+ ,u'6'h4 n ef e v . . ":';9: : R II a 'Yiw�J�4+'. +ti' yC p a ] VICINITY MAP I �'+ 5 '144^ r "� 1� k d' .. f � o fp x Z OCT TO KALE t , y tt. 4'^ / 'x ' ^%+5 k fr j; ?4„4' +r .i ` }: a ,,tt� . d5 r z , °• a te' .- � b�' A* r r :4 ' ' k � t 4 ^ l x P '' r r . v r �'' ( l P 0 d -41 ,:, „ r a4., . % ' +, 3S . . . %b ' i , r p 't12:: r7 " S.. t il I d a e s r 1.I''r a + . a�,, 94e r * w1' i 0 e d ..' S y a ., +b " ° w " C g +x'w IT aY'" u r r t �, a NN �& ::: �tt Y S 'op, ,,,, y iN Y v . ' r 5 d ,•.',7,-','1 ' > h " 'il i .k^"G"d' �^�� q ',� + �'+� S + +k`E 3 ' + � d � e . " 'dr h ; p f + ,� :(7 w -' w `, 1,� va c ,.... f , y �„ d h . 3 ¢ 'S x y '., p ^aa. r a: :fp'f,4 ., d1 'i- E. r ar' Y 4Y'v-� ,1s T z�. i 'r°° tt'e t.;11:3; 4 ' i; o ,. '4 _ t,"A' ` "� ' ' x � e,. "Id.. � i o " . L `a' ,, e s o- v r o- G sq + 4 ¢,my � y +v ya a+ ,a ' 'Ty .d �, w r a y A: ! Y , .�j MEd r ,1t f�"Y T a nC , , " u 4 +.1 r o 1 4 ; aOYf1av; e, ✓� v i i ',r , ..- p n h r o ^A *114 ar �t�'Rq� -, zv c � ' .e ef t , ?4 h r ' :' AI f a x,1`a tqu? v7-;' J Y + 1 1 ,- d W .,. S e T 'W 1-/,'; 'R W gT U 3 + .. :� x y ya r d, S.^ c„,; 4 fi . 3 ;,red s '4' z ,,'a. 4 'c c .; r S „rq yr r ti 3" < ,.; s t a` q � ° fin e° ' f`� a . AKNt� .t s r�C` � `' `a 3 � - F + e t - 4k� 4.. r e«. +�-t n �,, § t Y� x a 6g , A ' r c a w. a y ,*= a, s r 1 �, �f x h ' 4 � + s, M , � d" L PG �P e } f� #' + ,u R� v k"� J py . F R}, , .L f ' � x � � 4 1 i ',747 'M ribs t ` "+` r , )P "IS N s4 R 1 + 4 i 1 , . r' . F m f 3 ' I , 4 � iE N �' rr r 1 � ry �F yv1 ,:',',/,.[..*'' s,hcf � o ff .+ a F � d y r N h ad 6 { S` r l • i n r # r 2 atT L .Y,',4"'-'1 r SITE MAP NOT TO STOLE KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION w wo a. n rr.�p '.s]I OJIs � "At��w..eEwM MYMw ..�'.....,..w.. P3 ROAD CONCEPT ®I ®I ® w. w.. ...�.o dm* .. i w NONSO <rrumr ® ENGINEERS, INC. $R(? �mm ' � � 1 6 ' �# � a ` v ` ,, ; ( o o RI r ,a k � �� � �,,u� �; .. }`' n - Reif • ' ��s I t .,� R KODIAK k } 1 :Y x —� IYt cf � . � " r y M t � s , .. " L 4 ' 7 .00 ' ' ' IS td + 1 # •SC v: "^ ` + ,R - 'ilr-.,. 2✓- >v "r 9 PROJECT w { -W� aY'S" "5 Y i�M 4 � 'P.+� 'R4 LOCe110N , * p " y v q �u. " 0.<40,) zr `gym 8' 2 t J i ? ,u rsu'' l A m T 4 ,,, L ' KEY MAP S td k t t k .+ FS N 1' s Lu* . L t 34K r " t � a w 2 F 1 � ( "I r \'w, ` ... -'"- t , n .�*. - "r4nl / r :1;;%/:!A ‘r,1 �'rPo + _, {m i i b V u � r � AKHIOK 14 k � y " " •� 1 }�' � R!'11,,, a :. ISLAND $,:, L Y t " '+-' Y ' i'i.s � �` 1 �``. - - 1 � ,C, 4 H " R w` t : h 4 '" ":" A � . t � m''�°" r { w. 500 Sm .CL m ]m J'-0 200 250 im _- :m ISO A m TO T--....-- x I o ,w m -ISO .Soo R n ;'-ffi N = :. n - '^ X J d g�^ -n : p' 8 Y A m n_ P- n k a -- d N °T'd K a. C C R E d i '�. W TT: 25 & 8_ _ S 11 N G - - xG '�- �p- CI-IB-o- R- 1; &Y�7 pc..� AP.OP &p9F,1 C�1'R- W- B- 'm - ® A8C dN�°�`AYYF.: - 0. SOW 100-m 1.0.00 200.00 a.40 1W.00 350E110 LAZY BAY TO AKHIOK (PIONEER ACCESS ROAD) KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION .�....,e..... IT V OESCRPTS% unn LWY1m WR 0080 TOOL CONCEPT RENNITTICN m S a. Y. Sen M. m Pm.nv. yy004e.56.... SRO E. LA MAO u 0 50 /V1111220- V 000 12.52.,5.Q E 1MUL 0i 5UTWIR o VMFS m k wx uMn u warm ' ROAD CONCEPT W00 NW G 51 1J Bfl {1. PN➢IMT SVISALC YORK 1 iS! �.' +s. w 4 r�M w .M dwY.�.5Y4 W9D ® ® m WERE IN BRIDGE V 25 19 MOW 0 0U CCCN 131131‘08031 CFNE '] 1C - �^ 10u s 4....4......, . Wm VlYll011 0111100 10 .1 OOO Ra ORR1 ,� . w.i..w.ro LAZY BAY TO AKRON GLEMN0 .W G 4 100 O CAUSE ACK 45 1 WC ma NLL002 ON 12' 700 900907561® ENGINEERS, TNC W t0% 01 101.00] 000 ROUND TUN ROV Kat 300 C!YT305000 0, 'l �� 5Spx� ��� -^ ® rcl b m u¢ 00005 lark CONSTRUCTOR CAST 15 ow I CON P104 ER MILL 17 1 PEP car P' dR' 'a [wpu sr o er B µ0 15 mr _� / L611,� �5g � ey MW, TOEW4 �Y /�—� li a�;;;{SF is 3�` a F AF•r "v. i� G§U'l�"'g'�'1 �rv�S fsrtwu FR ccSrJ � � `, a.�. i$� f � r:. 1,. ' e " may r y 5o Q o _ O r e v ), s i f 3 g • ? r 1 �,p s S K KMAN�F, :-;.44-... s"7 1 r tA t ' is ; p.-� Lj _ -, ,.204 y ks a jl # f r a .,,,y+� 4444flfliiii fi S k ,� hy l . #S' f .A y f . 5 i�l�O r `` ' �4 N e( � (` s, ,,. �•• e F f & . KEY MAP a et, YS . A 1 ¢- S ,, , ; _ '• r., . t rei']{I�. .1 ea x ..1?r"'Y: 850 dO I BN 510 250 750 700 700 sec 50 — _ — — 23 1 450 .w H 1111 1 1 300 250 I 200 2W _ — I _ _ _ _ _ _ 200 130 — IYI 00 1 0 I I 11 0 -TOO ---- — _IW I -150 __ 2 ,7 k B S 2 S U. C S E -- 2' 2 0 _ 3, si 2 = z3 8 `u " 8 ° B ` 2 n - lw � : w a- • T e_ 2. -2 a .. 2 F.« -° . m k 2 .. T 1 W .R�„'2 �r — 0. 53000 1WO] 150.00 ry 230.00 23011K 300+00 350.00 0 *% ANTON LARSEN BAY TO SHAKMANOF 4. tin."'"'''.. KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION Ilu DC 04 of 10Wn01n 00112050 1014 5*4*EV1 4-54%.110445 ` ^b 6*!r3^ 00*. u ur.e1.n- 0500 Wely*A.4. '00 o u s 404 20 1 ', 05140 51'18000 "Ark 55 A51 o oisss re m,s .a«..; "' ROAD CONCEPT 03 5 c00 [.210 G .5 300 519'000 1Yw 0 +arrfE 0001« 1 29 !ER r M " Avem.y,uW WM sry 204E 1x 052 2+ 00 $5_Q Sj5050Q_ 542000100- 450201 mILMNEZS 3 4111 p,.. * � y 6. „e I PAi M.24.1011 "" 5000.200' 05 0 __WO f ,M1^' 100 - +:<.iw I s..n K•o*1 mlm ANTON LARSEN BAY TO SNMMMIOF LIFAYw0 AND 00000510 61M1 f2� _ $910,000 N11L00 12'.POlIl —4-- 6n N1.YA.aL RNGIN08AS, INC. 44 M00/015000 3305.200 30A11 1 700040 .125E00 —� sr Sax 500540 N1cv: 51,055 4 ,000 1054 ccv, 451003 cos... yid COST rc' nE:1 f1, rco s+ *0+ m.1o. a +. wxv s. c 5. 1a O 3 0 8 I 4- I ' '�,- — � ,.tee°. v a: ear/ :i ,F / ;77 x '74, , , J ,, X 14' a L . - e' r iq ' wh ,4444: i e , T i r e '�' t /k'? �.., � » .' f , . "� ' r � ,1/4 r a r i " ' ' s "'* �' (,,� (e. r �, � ;es 9 y .� KARLUK �.'�' ). ^' i1 , . 3 �t a I -T ' r � , r '. Lv rr.a tv I k ^ " l L i q y� �Y N x ✓ , ' ��' y� r l �,x J y 7 � . +, r >� l w�5 �i * 'i�- � �-� � Poq � — ..c Cwf -.,.- for � C' Z 7 # T��$ y p s ab ��.�� E ,�� y e , � / 5 ',' � � {'< r ;ee, F m L '1St 1 `II '''''‘44:.^-' �L�. ` "i * 'fr. P.av_i p a'"r l . ."1 .s 4 Sx < t . 1 f r = KEY MAP .. �� yr, 4 � v �m .-;11.;/ ,,{�� -�. i i t � e a '�j ,� t � r � e �Sr �° /lit: r1:".. 1 „.�w '�]I , e-" !'.. J�15 9, 4 ' ' "Y f ^ � t r x 'L 1 1 eG'1)'4 -" /h II r r x 4�' s "' hj0 "/ �" ��� iii*7 M k a o . t "s ' e ,. :.. r' ; e, LA s z ` � t••' ' l3 '' .>~ 1 i ' t J n 5 { ri, l ( is 1 + `F . 1 ¢ . . m . . .. : J F t g. r ., �"� s � i T 1 . j ' q ` I at , f "a 'Cv:. t � > k i fte " , f j " x. 1r r . f F�4 r . '�° "`zJtE� • ® ,'�v ^ e ` A . ° "a � `#' ' i e, 11'x'*' t `t N � P ` / I �' -ta' 'i v k ) '+ � " � ,)) y s 1 rr ,.1 < r-. s : 2 "`Pw r - \.� C : ' i 1 a ?:4."'S:' bs f i k r I� v. a% 4w f"� 'i ws �t� 5. �K .tI� 'L..., L' `� < ltlf ��.usr.,m„,r - mmllr �r�i��.o��1 2 00 UGC 1200 - -H 1200 1100 1100 I 1000 1000 + 000 _ - — I _ _ _ —_ _ 900 1 700 700 1 _ -I.---- _ — I I x0 500 400 M1.1.111.11111111 I zoo 100 . —1- — — i — ; x -200 I 1 ME __ ,0C MO 1 1 I sDG � tim . -YNT 0+00 50.00 I(p+N 150,00 100 -:00 250+00 .1,0440 100,00 400140 450 +00 500.03 5.0,00 OCO+W ssb -W 70000 2sw.. .,.,CO eT'l +oo BOC +W aSO.00uo.0] KARLUK TO LARSEN BAY RO PIONEER ACCESS ROAD) "" 1 " °'°°'°' " °° KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION law I 0f5C1WI1CM UNIT 1 DGO.OITIY JM1100511 OS11 00401+1 10101 C ASSUMPIIO0'S UPS Wm4 N o �a� � un yd 95th A.� OL00 RIS LANE ROAD w1E51 �q� w:r, NsN+a t5 W.15 :e „^, °,,,.. ,041 ,.., „„ T 2 0 ROAD CONCEPT 1 SINGLE _ SINGLUIVE a 19.5 la S.& vxCOO N0n 9mcx +r 00011 CN E 1 MmIR M.Si 14 J an IEEI ns.... Ia McF'...r :..� ;. A.a�...ASrNSro ®I ® I E I BRIDGE ` 00 1+ 1h _(5, » � 'M Nni SECIInICtt D � ..a 7. y noo 'y, 96v�pI.S51.101f y UTS En T9 f RPO_iN wvIMJU LRoDE 1Gx KARLUK TO LARSEN SAY 4 PULLOUTS CLEAR 1* ANO GR099ML IILNI 113 }J><5�5,- 0ij409 VIM 140X0'`.1'.1 Pin MJ6i� SNGINH90.5 INC. 0 00+7700 04139 we Y4'401.140 ACCESS �� ]CSC041 100M - -- in. CONSTRUCT COI COST: 1 .'7" 0=1 Ei MILE sun .11 OM oKmniu a' ibrym m. O w. 1e e ' � V 8 r w n . ,' y F l. ”e.,_11/4,‘ , j a ' s RP • + ;1 23's u 11 y � I 441, ,oe, � 4{at` Fl k �i 1 w s a °s to � X � . V i y SW �s. k +1 ^' p1 aA A 41 x xr f�Ji s ,n, aq SHAKMANE Y �� t Atc er. c ° k � Y 5 ' � � ' a A 1 ' r e l. � ' .AAewlxx E Cm ,.ov , iyt� ..,,'� 4 , P t . s�. � 'r� "f � ' F ( f ''� o _ hl x a3 . . 4 Y I ` '; , - , sA N y re i1/4 dE f A {�F Y , ' 1 , a ,, - 4, i N. ' . , � C 4n r a ,a 4 v� *" n , M-4.. ' oo w �+, Y $ ? N.. a . NARROW s'S p . e! ,f t p Yl LBs:( ' L . " ! 7` STRAIT a 5u1 1 x kezi g w - 'F y A hay ' amt yJ' ms \ T ' '� � S x, t + p` *6 ` 2 ! I,. S1 ¢ e t , �� �` - 5 't ;� tr " ` " K1'l +.r d ,p . ::, hwd 4 x 4f r iC�j(7cJ rT 4+ .lf 5 1 1, & . q b fi ' ire ,. �' .S' �< pit *VAS c L Z 1 .v ‘ 1 5 S - , .h.. '� 5 lNx s x hx s p� i ° T KEY MAP ? 5. � n �_ ( 4 1 M rPs )‘ t is 1t .t c a �" , I Y ... �r � , i , „ a o- . d . � „ Y . � 7 :, p ° �, ti M . C F '1,15 ' J 5 � A a • u , r S W ION *. t x'^ N 1 c a A . J r e ,. 1 Y ) y y LAG rr +^ , lc rw'I "� Y 1 I • 0 Y • h11�'s'' 5 ' .1� q s n �e ;tr ,, x �� ha +.7„F� y 1 Lb• IV i' M..u 1 .1... n _ tt C' '�' y.. • h'" i 4E ',e.t.a V a' s „ i ar . i 1rT I 1 1 1 Esc Wp 1 _ 00'0 550 l 5w WO _'. _ 1 40 0 — __ _ - _ __- - ,___ -- -__ _ _ b0 307 250 - 250 7M - 700 150 150 100 — — — - _ - 100 50 - - 3 1 30 1 w IOC d _15c _ I 1 1 1 -250 J -250 y 300 : 511 I I 1 1 .00 p — 1 170 -400 ( 4 w5 0 8n-11.R --s•`� a ° c - ` vx - - : ::zR 5 $2 -` ' , , n- -1o°ka -1 ee.:. „.� omt S`r'i°e'$ . " �I n. ° , +1h , r --R n -5m —?'” ____ „si,7--2�.�bh _.,.�zss :-° xe...,,.1. 111L^aiz..,..�n"`t r�1` ,,,.n ._,.� :_ u_grg tf. no.. w xaZx x- 0+00 1 xr 00700 100,00 a 200.50 250.00 i00+10 350 +00 '00.00 • 100.40 sW -W L 550.00 KODIAK TO SHAKMANOF KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION n u 1 7[SRV➢DN I loll I OL.wnr 251 [MOP 101A4 COSH CONCLP1 ASSUMPTIONS a ✓� +n, a,ti bvy� I1 010144E MMO M0 T 551P 05 hCi 24+1 - (•4536b"ra :a:LNrs X1/0 -2 a W ` 9 o m...� i ::: 1 ...,.. ®I ®I ® I _5- 52920.11 R2 ' 2n RR o .4 m.s alv ,. AaP+V PU IS MIDGE 1} 1 $ „0 4 0 0 450 SE 1 J fE[ O vny r• w� N m n mm F1siSal,Y1.f011 m ROAD CONCEPT „Laws u 9 L {x,000 WYIMW Dude .M. = KODIAK TO SHAKMANOF I CLEAk.NO 00 COMBINE 4 0.5 1 W , (t /0600 Pd11001 V'.P01 �._ I Dm 90756142X RNGIN88RS, INC 000[0054'' /06 000 10.4 NCUx0 ACCiSS ' '014- 5Cx0*00505 32 DX - T CONS9 .oLT0u Cos ?1511123,0x1 1 COSI PER MU ST Im mo M Yrt psv/M: - ao-m m. ul n mo 1 o f 300 v B W H• _ C v 'e ^ n r x . N// (/ d: ® t p T „f1 f Il aX ' 1 b /i1,11 / I 1; 1 ,/ /P f W-- ikc \ i 7 1 N w Y R � �w; . ' ^„ -� , :�i / � T '£ _.. - RAMC lA �� �� w A \V�`� /4 n a (OLD weeoF) 1 04"4 w* � � , � k ��}N , �y ' � �' , * . � M i1$ . I v Y Y " Y k 4. x c. 1 "'. j_,}� ?cm evil n ��\ ° ` � ,, f+b _ A¢4.� p S'm4I "4 ` 7 ; � j IN 'iv 130431 Via. k t o- + Y $$ i (i -!i '�" 1 ' d q f d a d y} r < P , K e 444 r 4 a�' £4 ' '31 v 8' 41 P kik§ iN $ 4. } . ,, . 34.. n w ,, $ 1 % q 3Yr„,n5u` ^>� '� s m ill x , 1/,:i,..1 w T 4/ 1/ m . s: I wF ��� e ' y 48 T y .,l 4u T r , s, 4 45p6 , T u. f �a ei �. da.. , „9, f w as >' :sal.. '3. ✓ .;JI ..,..r>z 4811` 'i.` .. WC M 250 3W 200 }N 150 W W SG — 0 C o 50 W _IPJ W -150 • 0 00 50+03 '00000 tNrM 2304-00 t»F W10 OLD HARBOR _ „";, KODIAK ISLAND TRANSPO RTATION INN IS u OLSOI PMM [011 DMxI11Y Inc COSY TOTAL cost CpV(£01 ASSUYFlIpJS +d 14(a]Lew 51NC1£ WY FOPO 051418 15 NI£5 �° ° pm uu :' a µ . 0111.M410 S _ ..b. I ® ® ROAD CONCEPT Q® Q50 4. FW 040 0 0 0 3 /LE WOIx t/. 0000 w w F¢ neyoyxAWA39 , IL ®®x�}}8� tL .47 Gi . FNSh'.Y SLCMX MC!K55_ J 0LLL m r1 i, - Iona uux VLUi4W91.b111 1 MECN$ Ca' l u W}MLM we,E YI los .w..n n <I, . OID HARBOR CUM NO uD CFOFS.c CaO * tl 0 IXN 0 *00 _ _ _ sm+maum 11NGIN88A9, INC. IOF 00 1100 AM _f W0 . FM FO PCCL55 Q TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 0233 $4241 OW COSA F[F K[ fl 119 1100 im w afamn d'T' af!® Y {� s 8 + �: v FI $M : G(� \ !- ; . � . O1. x t a F '• x x A x.( 1 e} : N . , fi e ' ,, 1 � 1 h 's m 1 +' ! I .rx t T ¢ - ,+ .. r � g` 9 T: , 4 m5' (m'on " "' Y °S f ` , A t , ,-) . i tA A A vA. A 4 =" "'Nos?' \ —l"yam g , 1 jr- \ O & ' x"SS r r 3 r . . „ T ' a ki _ t fa, ir d sp r<.yy, >.t .:� t .d.n \� ...."4 . C Y. rip," nib T ' n " . . w, x l r t k "D• 5 l4 b ,t a "mx: t C x S.. ° f r �ti n M - r " ?N:I ✓� isuno . �,.' I v L ,' i� f � : " f , ,4 9,'; ioi 1 } r 'L ,/ V r t s p5 ! t Y e rvi n 7 ^T / � ' '. `� J' EA . �"inrXk�. r` A P+ + t w . r .-. a w ` 5 'l av 15usry n +55C i 2o�x. *a1�ry 3 4 1 �i ' :7i i 4 0 " F"` r k4 4 n W x ry * r",1fn,f°!�'�id` s ( � ANTONyN '"r v(/i ii 4P.P ��s% P . Y ` " 5A m 1.'. . ' >xe " c ol r A s i � . ��� sue, ' Y./FP x 1 4 s' >i i ` �f /�7c0 �. /ilea �f ".,�,, . ' +v kl8r 1 t e• ' w ' a %.,%•;44-`,7e: ° C� �"° " to oP 5/„�, 1 � a y , .P, g 1 � ° � � J � � 1-44.:' v y y � C , � ; P� 1 +: KEY MAP � tl � ; "T � a ,K 1 ' s „ s + r ' . ` ' E ^a a ' , 4 vAw e� .1 f,,' Q 1 0.1;#17 ',,.. -Sr:, . 1 y , : - , wi , ( ' . ° ., pp pp r 1 � in—tt a / ♦I a . l l ti\ 1 J p "'' y .. Led b T ' g e,ti i( 1. ' t 4 ' x 4 / T'" 85h O i, o • - p • � $ r l ,,. x m A.'" , IS D x a` > f Yt. T v; ,b GOO O m 5m 550 500 l m em m e6 I 1 m am 1 350 .too x 56 250 : 210 200 6 , :50 150 :m _ — m m 50 -444.■ 141111043 0 0 -50 -1 o -i -16 -100 -1m m -200 -:00 -250 100.00 : -000 0450 20 -00 40+00 601-00 601-00 m.00 '.wm :f04 3 :6.00 ANTON LARSEN SAY TO INNER ROAD " � , °w ," ' ,,, " "' ^" '°-'• RQI C6CFlPICN 1661 0W50r0 "1 00'? MX MST cwcmT uswmwms ,"" • M.� n. "151.. ..44. KODIAK (BLAND TRANSPORTATION M0 NNE ROAD ].0 srna 24 R t0 NNE uflHjm ..'we.mit1N> 150tfa Ll/..m 1515100 11 way o "° �... ..... . . ., "..�..1... ROAD CONCEPT 2 CULVERTS 21 14000 f 3544 ROADWAY SURFACE Mole ft" w t L.::MU w ;VI: AsLVy.nW MID 3 Pains /40040 l v 00 2 {+.]m f 06400'004 50[Ipu 11046E55 3 RE. �M * me m gvsfify.SNf nvaMC 01121 MEOW of C+ 500 H5 5m P'J n aan or. sm. " s w AMON LARSEN BAY TO INNER ROAD 4 yV y — P 7n ENCIN6li15, INC. 00 5 05c01 I208.040 KM ItllurvO ACCESS — msmwrvmEl¢ 1655 -- ��` ®® 0 1 �5 o 6 00600 7 w 8 C014511254 wail 1-enam cast Pm 4ec gels 002 TOT e0 _ animal ^^ . _ m. � !" �;1' r tP(' t L ' t • S 4 aa E s�. �, Cy -,.+y a . 4 . �� ri, � ' a tint 14T "r hT s.. r ,y p ° -.'+ -3 tMARM ,^ � f' v , intuCC1 tecoca v' [ f. " \ ° 1 +� ° „4, „I „.4.4„ '.t % l ". ! � +BAY 4wlon viaD+ atO qqq ��� ,S .4 r `^ s , r- «a r t. 3 :°.. '� l 40;,. L ,r.+° � re "`Y� s+ps � I r � ' i ' - . Q1 - "- ^'+ / c n ,, - .+,. 1 c w 3 ^ 1 C f' 1 d Y.r 4 'b 0 . V " -4 '1"a ''S U . � r i � <2'.€1.(t w� rk islDiu"Co r .v i 9r . -- �...». }� „ ro� ANTON , 1 i 1/ °.. r 4 z , q r ' . y n `� "°} « \\ ,. ' °°y- : j,_,. 3 a I� . LARSEN a Po `IV gE ' W ,+y„ ' . � :5; $V. 'S , (� r' .a.,,..% ;'.t o., � rS�.yyo / y ` j �? iBAYti'd$' „ d1 Wk 7 '�r ro col 6 . k;; .Y °#"' n .. ' R?i s , $ f' � Y ?t. y .? way I A m A—, .+M.��} a � � .. S *� l 5 � 0 ' , r ,i • / 0,4 os,. - �c , Ai/ ,�hl , - r C <, t iffmr— ° v �N s�,i�u,M '. KEY MAP l iY '' . .t t �.s 1 '••-. ter 014 ^ s, t .'. . .� ' m q ,, �' y p 1 �'• 'Y 'Pi I { 1 c 4 9 . 4 NOD y.� - �x°ir •.`i h �"�1 *:. "> • ¢ \ 1: .Y , l 7 -, ., IS Q ' ' +�. .r ,- 1P ,� s cfr . . { i z 1500 em +]00 I 7., 1ST A ' !W W 0 1205 XO W 000 : WO OW i:1. �.V _ _ i� 00 WC 1 00 QD .1111.111.1.1 -300 1 IMMMI -: EMMEIM w + 0, a.01 .woo +.. .. + wr. 1!p rr SCI .. r. .. ., m 5°1).1'0 HN ANT LAR SEN BAY TO OUTER ROAD ^` ` • _ Imam KOOIAK ISLAND TRANSPORTATION Ifd DESCRICIDESCRIPTION UNIT o W TM1 I/ Nil cMT lotµ CC 00000?' 0.4uxVllpb ^I ^ r ^^ ^ ms W 1 1 TWO 001E own PALES 5. 411 &0l 04 455 a0] W1II. OswtE r o uMILES ^°1O° °°` R x curzms a 00 Ham tzw. Fp�DM sD 1400 5=5 v FM M 10 ., m w� ^ �"� nem ® ® ® OACEPT 3 4NSE LANE 00000 I1 ]5 qyg (41000, 4000+00 Mtn 1XICINF55 J 0101 umrm r ° �y1 r )sss1 JSIJg1 nxlnurs u R.JW p]em unalx. -N 00000 Iw ma. � o ANTON LARS:N BAY TO OUTER ROAD 4 UNIT 5 CUAP30 AND CIM1:O4K. K15 53 $21 505 30.140000 14RLDV1 IikDY.JI _ _ Pm 917I50.0 ENGIN0Nl5, INC. 1RF K9 /R1.g0. }511.000 1TM Fq:110 ACCESS Tall fIISIMCRON COSii:I 59.01.1.000 Or Kin Ma }I L A -t p W ttS Ma.'" 8 o 8