Petersburg advances $15.1 million plan for Skow Bay boat haul-out and work yard

Petersburg Borough officials and harbor board members on Nov. 1 heard a progress report on the Skow Bay boat haul‑out and work yard project that would expand the existing two‑acre yard to about four acres, build a 400‑foot concrete ramp on a 6% grade and add a rubble‑mound breakwater, washdown treatment, utilities and a small utility/office building.

Somerville, a lead engineer with P and D Engineers, told the joint work session that the team has completed topographic and bathymetric surveys, geotechnical investigations and a 65% design package and is preparing the environmental assessment required under the National Environmental Policy Act. “You just fundamentally, we wanna develop a functional boat haul out yard,” Somerville said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the design is intended to accommodate multiple types of haul‑out equipment used locally and regionally, allow simultaneous contractor work in designated work spaces, and provide treated washdown discharge and stormwater controls required for permitting. The project leaders say the yard would support local marine service providers and commercial fishing fleets and is framed as part of a long‑term Scow Bay master plan that could include future moorage, dredging and a basin.

Key features and operations: the plan calls for a versatile concrete ramp that runs from roughly a finished elevation near minus‑2 to about +23, with a guide float alongside for queuing vessels. The ramp and yard layout were designed to support existing hydraulic trailers (currently operating at about 32–35 tons), larger 100‑ton hydraulic trailers and amphibious submersible hoists (up to about 150 tons). The illustrated yard shows 22 marked work spaces (several 40‑by‑80 feet) with electrical pedestals (including three‑phase service for larger slots), year‑round water via self‑draining yard hydrants, a heated 30‑by‑80 concrete washdown pad with hydronic heating and on‑site pretreatment that pumps effluent to the borough sewer treatment system.

Costs and funding: the construction elements (upland expansion, utilities, breakwater, concrete ramp, float, washdown, building and treatment systems) were estimated at about $12.4 million. Including engineering-to‑date, mitigation, construction administration and contingencies, the total project estimate is roughly $15.1 million. Major identified funding sources are the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) grant of $8.9 million and $4.1 million from the Denali Commission; additional state revolving loan funds (partially forgivable) and $1.1 million from the borough and Petersburg Economic Development Council bring available project funds to about $15.35 million. Somerville said compensatory mitigation purchased from a mitigation bank is priced at about $80,000 and that the team is tracking engineering costs (about $0.5 million) for grant reimbursement.

Permitting and schedule: Somerville reported that National Marine Fisheries Service consultations under the Endangered Species Act and essential fish habitat reviews are complete and that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 401 water quality certification is concurrent with federal review. Army Corps Section 10 and Section 404 permit reviews are underway but are awaiting MARAD’s concurrence on the project’s environmental assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A separate Alaska Department of Natural Resources tidelands conveyance application — needed for construction access over additional tidelands — is in public comment; Somerville said the public comment period ends the day of the meeting and a final decision is expected in roughly three months. He cautioned that a federal government shutdown or delayed MARAD action could push the schedule; in a best‑case scenario the team hopes to advertise and award a construction contract by mid‑April and complete construction in about one year.

Community and operational questions: attendees raised operating‑cost and access questions. An assembly member asked about kW demand for the electric boiler that will heat the washdown pad and suggested considering a ground‑source heat pump; Somerville said the mechanical team will evaluate alternatives but the current design specifies an electric boiler coordinated with the borough. A resident asked that the design include a safe pedestrian or bike viewing area so elderly residents can observe operations; Somerville said secure operations typically restrict vehicle access for safety but agreed the team will explore an off‑site or side observation point and noted the Nolan Center nearby has been used as an observation area.

Utilities, leases and implementation risks: the group discussed whether to extend sewer and water service to the proposed lease lots now or plan for future connection. Designers advised sizing the lift station to accept future gravity flows if parcels will be connected later; borough representatives cautioned that adding utilities will raise lease value and rent and requires policy consideration. Public works staff raised implementation issues and potential hidden costs, noting a lift station behind the fire hall that is failing, a buried tank and a burn tower that will require removal and added expense if the site is regraded. Somerville and others suggested those items be accounted for in the final implementation plan or bid alternates.

Next steps: the engineering team will finalize the EA for submittal to MARAD, complete 95% and final design, and proceed with permit closeout and bid documents. Receipt of a MARAD FONSI and DNR tidelands conveyance decision are prerequisites to executing the MARAD grant agreement and starting construction. Somerville emphasized the federal‑agency review timeline as the principal schedule risk.