PALMER — A new and versatile ferry is hitting the water in Ketchikan next year, but Mat-Su commuters can’t ride the Borough’s $55 million technological wonder between Anchorage and Port MacKenzie until at least November 2009 — if then.

Mat-Su Borough Port Director Marc Van Dongen is sending a permit application for a site in Anchorage he said is perfect for a ferry landing and in line with Alaska Railroad Corp. and Municipality of Anchorage’s planning documents. Anchorage officials say they don’t want the ferry at the Borough’s chosen site at the mouth of Ship Creek.

While Anchorage signed on in 2006 supporting the project, officials there reversed course after realizing the scope of the ferry project, the size of the new ferry and its potential impact on Ship Creek. They want the ferry terminal moved inside the Port of Anchorage. U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens secured the high-speed ferry’s funding. The experimental craft would travel its three-mile route in an estimated 15 minutes, replacing hours of driving over land, and could also serve as an emergency command center and a rescue vessel should an aircraft crash into the water.

Designed as a troop carrier, the ferry can also carry up to 20 vehicles and 100 passengers at a time at a speed of 20 knots, according to plans created by Guido Perla of Guido Perla and Associates Inc.

The Borough is proceeding with environmental hearings despite opposition from Anchorage  because it is out of time, local officials say. A permit is needed by March 1, 2008, to start construction on the ferry landing ports, and the environmental review process with public notification takes as much as 120 days.

“It takes them six weeks to schedule a meeting. We can’t wait any longer,” Van Dongen said.

Under any of the four chosen alternatives soon to be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, cars would either embark just before or over a tip of land leased by Anchorage from the railroad as a public boat launch via two existing dikes at Ship Creek Point. The site is near a proposed railroad intermodal transit terminal. Van Dongen said construction would improve access for fishermen who frequent Ship Creek during salmon season.

It’s those salmon and beluga whale that give Anchorage’s Creeks Community Development Director David Wigglesworth cause for concern, along with other potential impacts from a ferry terminal at the mouth of the creek.

The trestle Mat-Su would have to construct to accommodate the ferry would stick into the mouth of the creek and marine life “must go through the trestle to get to Ship Creek,” Wigglesworth said. He said local marine businesses nearby have raised concerns about increased sediment and other potential impacts that could be caused by a change to the creek.

The Mat-Su Borough Assembly members recently tried to work out the concerns by asking the Anchorage Assembly to pass a resolution supporting the project. Their Anchorage counterparts instead decided talks should continue. Acting Mat-Su Borough Mayor Lynne Woods has appealed to Anchorage Assembly Chairman Dan Coffey.

“Based on verbal and written promises to locate the ferry landing at Ship Creek from the municipality of Anchorage, the Port of Anchorage, and the Alaska Railroad we moved forward to commit many millions of dollars [toward the project],” Woods says in her appeal. “Any further delays in deciding on the ferry landing design alternative required to obtain a permit will cause us to lose another year or entirely cancel the project in the middle of construction.”

Mat-Su frustrated

The Port MacKenzie terminal has had a permit since November 2001 and plans call for both terminals ferry to be built simultaneously. Although the Borough is committed to being a partner with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the ferry, all local officials know for sure is that by next summer the Motorized Vessel Susitna will launch for U.S. Navy sea trials and then probably go into drydock until the ferry terminals are complete.

Van Dongen is frustrated by Anchorage’s initial letters of support and the city’s current stance contrary to that initial support.

“I’ve been in construction for 40 years and this is the most frustrating process I’ve ever been in,” Van Dongen said.

The Port of Anchorage supported the Ship Creek site in a 2006 letter to the Federal Transit Authority, citing safety concerns about operating a passenger service in the heavily industrialized port facility. Officials later switched the focus back to putting a terminal within port property, known as the North Star proposal.

The ferry needs 800 feet of clearance, but the port offered 50 feet, Van Dongen said.

Anchorage’s preferred site is between the Flint Hills Tank Farm and fuel tanker docks, which Van Dongen said raised safety concerns. Also, the pilings that must be installed for the ferry terminal could be a hazard to ship navigation there, he said.

The executive director of Anchorage’s Office of Economic Development said the ferry terminal is best situated away from the mouth of Ship Creek. One obstacle to accommodating the unusual craft recently came to light. The city supported putting the ferry at the Borough’s chosen site when it perceived that the vessel would be a small ferry.

“This particular vessel is actually a Navy vessel,” said Mary Jane Michael. No one in Anchorage knew it needed 800 feet of clearance until two weeks ago, she said, adding that Mat-Su officials will be asked to meet with the vessel’s design team to try and modify that requirement if possible.

Anchorage officials are also concerned that due to the vessel’s unique nature the dock it requires won’t find another maritime use should the ferry become obsolete or service halted.

Michael said some of the Borough’s concerns about port security and passenger access can be alleviated by moving a security checkpoint at the south point of the port. She also said the Port’s site would give ferry riders better motorized access to the area.

Environmental concerns

Environmental groups have taken notice of the Ship Creek proposal and some aren’t happy, favoring locating the terminal inside the Port of Anchorage.

“Previous alternatives included a location at the mouth of Ship Creek which would have presented an extremely dangerous impact to the aquatic and terrestrial resources that depend on the Ship Creek estuary for food and protection. We are happy to see that another less damaging alternative has been proposed,” Anchorage Waterways Council Executive Director  Holly Kent says in a letter to the Corps of Engineers.

The Alaska Center for the Environment opposes siting the ferry at Ship Creek because it could pose as an impediment to the movement of beluga whales. The Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet also supports moving the ferry terminal to the north side of the creek.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration signed on in opposing the Borough’s preferred site in 2006. NOAA Alaska Region Acting Administrator Robert D. Mecum has concerns about the site and the effects pile driving would have on aquatic wildlife.