Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Engineers outline heavy‑lift terminal design, flag soil, stormwater and shoreline constraints
Loading...
Summary
A team from Moffatt & Nichol told the Humboldt Bay Harbor board that the proposed heavy‑lift marine terminal will require massive wharf and upland capacity to assemble and stage 20 MW floating wind units, and detailed ground improvement, stormwater and shoreline work before the project can advance.
Engineers from Moffatt & Nichol gave the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District a technical briefing on the heavy‑lift marine terminal proposed for Humboldt Bay, describing large handling loads, geotechnical challenges and environmental controls that must be resolved before construction proceeds.
Josh Singer, lead for Moffatt & Nichol’s offshore wind team, described the terminal’s core function: taking oversized wind components—tower sections, nacelles (about 1,200 tons), blades (400–425 feet) and foundations—and assembling them for tow‑out. Singer said the concept includes roughly 3,500 feet of wharf, about 180 acres of upland staging and heavy‑capacity surfaces sized for self‑propelled modular transporters and the world’s largest crawler and ring cranes. He described the semisubmersible transfer sequence and the use of wet storage when weather thresholds prevent immediate towing.
Geotechnical presenter Raj said preliminary borings show a thick, compressible soil layer—about ‘‘70 feet thick’’ in parts of the backland—that would settle under long‑term heavy loads and is susceptible to seismic‑induced lateral movement. To address settlement and liquefaction risk, Raj outlined mitigation options including wick (vertical) drains with surcharge for consolidation, cement deep‑soil mixing where ground is clear, and jet‑grouting methods where obstructions (piles or rock) prevent mechanical mixing.
Jeremy, the civil and drainage practice lead, described stormwater approaches and said the team plans to follow the Humboldt County low‑impact development (LID) manual as a prudent standard even where the site falls outside some mapped LID boundaries. He said the project will target treatment of the ‘‘first flush’’ (the initial 0.6–1.0 inch of runoff) to remove total suspended solids, metals and hydrocarbons using inlet devices, planter/biofiltration where space allows, and proprietary treatment boxes in interior areas that cannot accommodate bioretention.
Aaron Porter, coastal engineer, reviewed shoreline‑stabilization concepts under wharves and along new shorelines. He described riprap and engineered slopes sized to design wave energy, and noted the design will incorporate sea‑level‑rise allowances and wherever feasible transition to greener buffers or planted engineered slopes.
During public comment, Robin Grace Stewart of the Sierra Club praised the presentations and thanked the board for ‘‘working to make this a green terminal,’’ specifically noting landscaping and stormwater measures. Board members asked clarifying questions about load capacities, scheduling and permitting pathways. Presenters said further technical work, modeling and agency coordination will continue in the coming months as the project moves from early concept to higher design milestones.
What’s next: staff and consultants will refine site grading, slope and dredge coordination, complete detailed water‑quality volume calculations, and return with additional technical briefings and regulatory updates at future meetings.
