Haines Borough workshop presents five replacement concepts for Lutac dock; consultants recommend concept selection, not final design

Consultants for the Haines Borough Lutac dock replacement project presented five high-level concepts and a qualitative evaluation framework at a public workshop, told participants the meeting was to gather input rather than choose a design, and outlined a schedule that asks committees to review alternatives before an assembly decision later this month.

Paul Wallace, an owner representative with Moffett and Nicholl, opened the presentation by stressing, “Tonight, we're not here to design the dock... we're receiving input from you about requirements for the dock design.” He and Sean McFarland, who the presentation materials identified as the other owner representative, described three primary concept families — (1) limited combiwall encapsulation, (2) pile-supported dock (with 2A and 2B subvariants), and (3) a hinged floating transfer span (with 3A and 3B) — and said two of those families include lower- and higher‑extent options for bulkhead and upland work.

The consultants said the project team will not apply a numeric scoring rubric; instead, the Stakeholder Liaison Committee and Moffett and Nicholl used a green/yellow/red (“measles”) approach to show relative strengths and trade-offs across six evaluation criteria that the borough assembly adopted: risk exposure (including permitting), level of service for fuel and cargo, operational continuity during construction, scalability/flexibility for future funding, lifecycle financial considerations, and safety.

Sean McFarland said the criteria were developed with the liaison committee and were informed by stakeholder interviews with primary dock users including fuel and freight operators. He also urged residents to continue participating: “We're still in that process... you're gonna have the opportunity to provide your input online,” he said.

On the options themselves, consultants described Option 1 (combiwall encapsulation) as the approach most likely to preserve existing uplands and the fuel header shed because it leaves some existing closed-cell structure in place behind a new wall. Paul Wallace said, “If we go with encapsulation, it will preserve some of our work with the draft EA,” and that Solstice — the environmental and permitting subconsultant previously engaged on the site — is poised to assist with permitting and renewals. They cautioned that encapsulation is generally more expensive to build, but that the team believes all five options can be “right-sized” into the funding currently available.

Options 2A/2B (pile-supported dock with varying bulkhead reclamation) were described as structurally different and generally less costly than full combiwall encapsulation; Option 3 (transfer span, a floating dock with a hinged ramp) was presented as the most materially cost‑effective and potentially the most scalable for future expansion, but with operational trade-offs for fuel barges due to tide-related movement.

Committee and public questions focused on permitting timelines, safety and operations for fuel barges, construction cost realism, and long-term site issues. Diana Lapham, a member of the ports and harbors committee, asked whether prior permitting work for an encapsulation design would still apply; Paul Wallace said some permits could be reused or streamlined but that renewals or targeted revisions would likely be needed. Fred Gray, a former Delta Western terminal manager, warned that “Catwalks are dangerous” in winter fueling operations and urged planners to prioritize safe access for fuel crews.

Consultants and borough staff stressed process safeguards: the Planning Commission will review alternatives on 04/16, Ports and Harbors will review them on 04/23, and the borough assembly is scheduled to review recommendations and is expected to select a preferred alternative on 04/28; a working group and public presentation of the selected concept are expected in mid‑May prior to bridging‑document development and solicitation for construction teams.

Members of the public urged preservation of long‑term environmental health and attention to maintenance costs. Norman Hughes, vice chair of the ports and harbors committee, asked about glacial rebound and its long‑term impacts on ramp heights and fuel discharge alignment; consultants said those and other detailed design questions will be addressed in bridging documents after a preferred concept is selected.

The workshop closed with staff encouraging written questions to the clerk for committee meetings and reminding attendees that slide materials and the measles chart were posted online. No votes or formal decisions were taken at the workshop; the meeting was adjourned after public comment.