Other services the container yard offers, such as container repair for shipping lines and container inspection for steamship lines or shippers, covers the revenue gap, Doeringsfeld said.

The numbers were somewhat better in 2009 and 2010, with monthly averages of containers running at 393 and 338, respectively.

Volume could increase this year, but there are no guarantees. Two things working in the port’s favor are an improving economy and more weeks the Snake and Columbia river system will be open to barges, Doeringsfeld said.

In 2011, the river system was closed for three months so the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could refurbish the locks at three of the dams between Lewiston and Portland. This year, barge traffic will be suspended for about three weeks, the length of time needed for regular annual maintenance.

At the same time, Doeringsfeld said he plans to visit the Port of Portland and his customers to see if his staff can make any changes to improve service. “The port doesn’t want to see the numbers go lower,” Doeringsfeld said. “It has to turn around.”

Factors hurting the Port of Lewiston are circumstances it can’t control, said Bill Newbry, general manager of the Pacific Northwest Farmers Cooperative in Genesee. “The Port of Lewiston is well run. They have a good rapport with the shippers. The service is excellent.”

The cargo that leaves from the Port of Lewiston is transferred to ocean-going ships at the Port of Portland. Often the rates to send freight through Puget Sound ports are less expensive, even though the over-the-road costs are higher, Newbry said.

A big reason is how the ports are situated. Steamship lines pay one business to provide a pilot to get them across the bar of the Columbia River and another for a pilot that guides them along the river until they reach Portland, said Josh Thomas, a spokesman for the Port of Portland.

The pilots reach the ships by helicopter or boat, meet the captains on the bridges of their ships and take control of the vessels until they arrive in Portland, Thomas said.

Not counting the journey across the bar, it takes about six hours to get to Portland.

The trek from the Pacific Ocean also involves costs for more fuel and extra time of regular crew members, Newbry said. “It’s less expensive for them to go to the Port of Tacoma and the Port of Seattle. They can go right up to the curb and park. ”

Even if prices weren’t a factor, Pacific Northwest Farmers Cooperative has had increasing difficulty with the destinations of the steamship lines that call on the Port of Portland, Newbry said.

A lot of times the steamships simply don’t have routes that take them to customers of Pacific Northwest Farmers Cooperative, Newbry said.

In spite of that, Pacific Northwest Farmers Cooperative would like to use the Port of Lewiston more. It can pack containers for the port at its own sites, Newbry said.

A third party handles that task when the agricultural commodities move through Tacoma or Seattle, Newbry said. “We look at it as tamper proof. We’ve loaded the container. We’ve put the seal on the container. We know exactly what’s in the container.”

Whether Pacific Farmers Cooperative starts sending more of its products through the Port of Lewiston will probably depend on what happens in Portland.

The trends for outbound containers in Portland are similar to those in Lewiston.

The Port of Portland handled about 100,000 containers in the last three years, compared with more than 200,000 in each of the six consecutive years, starting in 1999.

One improvement for exporters this year will be the expansion of service from one of the carriers, Hapag-Lloyd, which is going from arriving every 11 days to every seven days and adding destinations such as Northern Africa, Thomas said.

Even though no easy fixes appear to be on the horizon, Doeringsfeld dismisses the idea that it might be time to discuss discontinuing the container yard at the Port of Lewiston. “We’re nowhere near that point.”

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.

The number doesn’t include another $396,233 in expenses the port had for the modules of a processing plant under construction in the Kearl Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada.

Most of that was for a security force comprised of locals that, at its height, numbered 19, Doeringsfeld said.

It also doesn’t take into account additional revenue the port received since June 30 when its fiscal year ended, Doeringsfeld said. The manager predicts less revenue for this year.

The money will be used for infrastructure that supports job creation, Doeringsfeld said. One of the projects the port is pursuing is a $2.9 million expansion of its 125-foot dock, which would more than double its length. The port has saved almost $1 million for the upgrade, Doeringsfeld said.

The port rejected previous requests from the Tribune for information about how much it was profiting from the Imperial megaload shipments.

Doeringsfeld said the port had always been willing to share the totals in the audit, but that the Tribune’s queries had been so specific, answering them would have given other ports information they could have used to steal the business by undercutting Lewiston’s rates.

In a related matter, Doeringsfeld said he hasn’t been talking to anyone from Harvest Energy, a company that has been in touch this week with the Idaho Transportation Department about shipping megaloads to the oil sands in Canada.

That same company previously looked at hauling 40 to 60 shipments, which take up two lanes of the roadway, and had asked about conditions on U.S. Highway 12.

ITD hasn’t indicated the volume of oversize rigs Harvest Energy wants to move.

—

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.

Lewiston’s former stormwater fee is actually an unauthorized tax, the Idaho Supreme Court said in a ruling issued Monday.

Even literature composed by the city to explain its use to residents “strongly suggests that even the city recognizes that this fee is a tax to provide community services to the general public,” Justice Warren E. Jones wrote in an opinion that upheld the original ruling by 2nd District Judge John Bradbury. The other four justices concurred in the opinion.

The court awarded unspecified costs to the five plaintiffs. Neither side requested attorney fees.

The stormwater fee, or tax, was contested by the Lewiston School District, Lewis-Clark State College, Nez Perce County, Port of Lewiston and Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District after the city attempted to collect thousands of dollars from them based on square footage of impervious surfaces.

The assessment was based on “equivalent residential units,” developed after measuring 125 residential properties and finding an average of 4,000 square feet of impervious surface, such as roofs and driveways. The city estimated it would raise about $20 million over 20 years for stormwater projects, plus replace about $650,000 in the street budget now spent to meet stormwater needs, including street sweeping.

Individual residential properties were to pay $6.35 a month, but that was being phased in when Bradbury ruled in July 2010 it was an unconstitutional tax. The city suspended collection while it appealed the ruling.

In the period from January 2009 to July 2010, however, the city took in about $1.186 million, Administrative Services Director Daniel Marsh estimated Monday. The city council has talked briefly in the past year about how it might repay that money if necessary, but attorneys for both sides pointed out Monday the ruling doesn’t deal with the possibility of repayment.

Tod D. Geidl, who with Theodore O. Creason of the law firm of Creason, Moore, Dokken and Geidl, represented the public entities who brought the appeal, said their clients either paid nothing toward the city’s assessments or stopped paying early in the litigation.

“That was the primary reason why a refund was not requested,” Geidl said. “But it’s out there now for those who paid the fee faithfully.”

Lewiston City Attorney Don L. Roberts said the city still has the option of asking the court for reconsideration of its decision. “I’m not sure that’s going to happen,” he said.

Roberts said he has to read the decision closely to see if the city can alter its approach to assessing a fee. Other cities in the state have stormwater fees, he said, although he’s not aware of any challenges elsewhere.

Without the fee, the city may have to look at other funding options, such as revenue bonds, local improvement districts, or funding the entire program out of property taxes, he said.

Stormwater fees are legal in Washington, he said. “It’s interesting to me what’s legal in Washington isn’t legal in Idaho … But those are the rules we play by.”

Geidl said his understanding of the main difference between the two states is Washington will in some contexts allow a fee for indirect benefit to the population, where in Idaho it has to be a direct benefit to the taxpayer.

“To me, it seems that’s why the Idaho Supreme Court said this can’t stand.”

Creason said their clients are relieved that under the ruling municipal governments will have to raise funds through a legitimate tax.

Lee may be contacted at slee@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2266.

© 2011 The Lewiston Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The subsidiary of ExxonMobil is accumulating 100 of its modules at the Port of Pasco, said Jim Toomey, Port of Pasco executive director.

Another 60 are bypassing Lewiston by starting their road journey in Vancouver, Wash., where they’ve been barged from Korea.

An additional 33 arrived in Lewiston last year and were converted to 70 smaller hauls using U.S. Highway 95 and Interstate 90 in Idaho.

Where the remaining 10 or so of what had previously been 205 loads could be headed is not clear.

A spokesman for Imperial Oil Thursday declined to answer a question about how many more loads, if any, his company would ship to Lewiston.

“Decisions have yet to be made,” said Pius Rolheiser, a spokesman for Imperial Oil. “They will depend on permitting and other issues. It’s premature at this point to give specific numbers of loads or specific routes.”

All of the loads are carrying Korean-made components of a processing plant being constructed in the Kearl Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada.

The equipment is shipped across the ocean to the Port of Vancouver, where it’s transferred to trucks or barges that take it up the Columbia and Snake River system.

Since many of the shipments are now being modified into smaller pieces after they arrive in the U.S., the number of loads moving on the roadways will exceed 205, Rolheiser said.

But the volume of equipment manufactured for Imperial Oil in Korea for the Kearl Oil Sands hasn’t changed from the initial proposal, Rolheiser said.

Originally Imperial Oil was going to send all 205 through Lewiston on U.S. Highway 12 in a project supposed to start in November of last year and be finishing now.

Taking only highways instead of Interstate would have allowed Imperial Oil to ship taller loads since they wouldn’t have needed to go underneath Interstate overpasses.

Imperial Oil, however, altered its plans after delays in getting permission from Idaho and Montana. Environmentalists have argued the shipments, which take up two lanes of traffic, would create safety issues and detract from the scenic nature of the roads they would use.

Imperial Oil now has clearance from Idaho to use U.S. 12 for the largest of its megaloads that are about 30 feet tall. But the company won’t have a decision in Montana on those at least until January because of litigation.

Opponents don’t appear to be convinced Imperial Oil has abandoned its hopes of shipping on U.S. 12.

Friends of the Clearwater quietly filed a petition for judicial review in the 4th District Court of Idaho in Ada County on Oct. 5. The Idaho Transportation Department is listed as a respondent in the document.

“It’s a place holder in case they want to file a lawsuit at a later date,” said Adam Rush, a spokesman for ITD. “It’s not a lawsuit because we haven’t been served.”

Friends of the Clearwater has until April 5 to act on the petition, Rush said. A call to Advocates for the West, the group providing legal counsel to Friends of the Clearwater, wasn’t immediately returned.

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.

© 2011 The Lewiston Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The upgrade can’t be done without a permit from the corps because the arm of the federal government has jurisdiction for any work in navigable waters of the U.S.

One of the decisions the corps will make, likely by December, is whether it will require an environmental impact statement, a detailed analysis that would look at alternatives to the project.

People on both sides of the issue made arguments their stance was the best for the environment. Backers noted barging creates less air pollution than trains or trucks and reduces traffic congestion by reducing the number of semis on the road.

They also talked about the economic benefits of the port. Northern Idaho growers save anywhere from $1.6 million to $8 million a year barging wheat to Portland compared with the costs of rail, said Bill Flory, a Winchester farmer who serves on the Idaho Wheat Commission.

That money gets spent in local communities, Flory said. “We need a port with a complete product mix of services.”

Opponents asked for an EIS, noting the dock would be constructed in a spot that has less than 15 feet of water.

Concerns about sediment collection are so intense the corps is spending $13 million to study how to protect Lewiston from flooding as the levels rise, said Brett Haverstick of Friends of the Clearwater.

A corps official couldn’t immediately confirm anything about the study.

Opponents also argued the longer dock would turn the port into more of a destination for megaloads that take up two lanes of traffic on roadways. “This proposed expansion is a boondoggle that should be regulated to the dust bin,” Haverstick said.

Jerry Myers of Lewiston said stopping the extension wouldn’t prevent megaloads from arriving in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley. Some megaloads are going through the Port of Wilma, just west of Clarkston, Myers said.

Myers also noted the Port of Lewiston has been in the megaload business almost from its beginning. Some of the first oversized loads arrived in Lewiston shortly after slackwater in the 1970s, Myers said. They were steam dryers for tissue machines at Clearwater Paper.

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.© 2011 The Lewiston Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is holding the hearing at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Sacajawea Junior High at 3610 12th St., in Lewiston. It will be preceded by an open house at 6 p.m. in the same location, where corps employees will be available to answer questions about the project.

The port wants to add 150 feet to a dock that’s already 125 feet. At the same time, it would add a winch system to help position barges and gravel a nearby ground storage area.

The work is expected to cost $2.9 million. The port has landed a $500,000 grant from the state of Idaho and applied for $1.5 million from the federal government, according to an email from port manager Dave Doeringsfeld.

The port will cover whatever portion that’s not paid for by other sources with a mix of existing cash and loans, Doeringsfeld wrote.

Construction is scheduled to begin this summer and take about three months, Doeringsfeld wrote.

The port needs a permit from the corps because the arm of the federal government has jurisdiction for any work in navigable waters of the U.S., according to a corps news release about the meeting.

If the port wins approval, the upgrades will give it greater flexibility.

The expansion would make it possible for the port to handle two container barges at the same time, instead of one.

The container barges typically carry dried peas, lentils or garbanzo beans, or wood products such as paperboard. They go to Portland down the Snake and Columbia rivers.

In Portland, the cargo is transferred to ocean-going vessels that call on countries like Japan and China.

It would also help the port accommodate megaloads, something that has made the proposal a source of controversy in some circles.

The port noted it was seeking the upgrade before port officials knew they might play a pivotal role in getting huge pieces of oil processing equipment that are made overseas.

The items arrive in the United States at the Port of Vancouver, Wash., where they’re put on smaller barges that go to Lewiston, the easternmost point of navigation on the Columbia and Snake river systems. In Lewiston they’re transferred to trucks that sometimes take up two lanes of traffic and are hauled to destinations in Canada or the United States.

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.

© 2011 The Lewiston Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.