RES 1236RESOLUTION NO.1236
A RESOLUTION expressing concern over siting
500 Kv power lines above ground and within the City of Camas and
requesting the appropriate authority to consider alternatives to placement
of said power lines through the City of Camas as part of an alternatives
analysis included in an environmental impact statement.
WHEREAS,the Camas City Council is the legislative body of the City of Camas
and has adopted Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances setting forth the public vision and
proper regulation of the public health,safety and welfare,and
WHEREAS,the Bonneville Power Administration is currently preparing a Draft
Environment Impact Statement on a project identified as the 1-5 Corridor Reinforcement
Project,and
WHEREAS,the Bonneville Power Administration is currently considering no
alternative to the funneling of a 500Kv power line above ground and through the City of
Camas,and
WHEREAS,the Bonneville Power Administration has taken a position that it will
not consider nor comply with the vision of the citizenry of the City of Camas as
expressed through its public policy,and
WHEREAS,the Camas City Council held multiple workshops and meetings on
this topic to gain information and hear from the public,and
WHEREAS,as a result of these meetings the Mayor of Camas felt compelled to
express a position of the City of Camas to the Bonneville Power Administration through
a letter dated March 19,2012,attached as EXHIBIT “A”.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CAMAS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
We urge the appropriate authorities to insist that Bonneville Power
Administration consider and select alternatives,through the alternatives analysis portion
of an environmental impact statement,that route the 1-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project
away from the urban area known as the City of Camas,and to further insist that no
alternative be considered that includes routing of power lines above ground through the
City of Camas.
SECTION II
We have read,understand and fully support the ideas,positions and
recommendations set forth in EXHIBIT “A”.
SECTION III
We urge appropriate authorities to support the City of Camas in the realization of
our vision for economic development opportunities and for the place we call home.
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Council of thpT^ity of Camas this 19th day of
-May,2012.
SIGNED:\
ATTEST:
Clerk
APPROVED as to form:
Exhibit “A”
March 19,2012
1-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project
P .O.Box 9250
Portland ,Oregon 97207
City of Camas Comment on Alternatives and Options for the Bonneville Power
Administration,1-5 Corridor Reinforcement project.
RE:
BPA Comment Coordinator,
The following comments are offered in advance of a draft Environmental Impact
Statement (E.I.S.)and reflect the position of the Camas community,the Camas City
Council and that of the Mayor of Camas,related to the current status and proposed
alternatives being considered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).These
comments are additionally offered in advance of tire draft Environmental Impact
Statement (E.I.S.)anticipated to be released this spring.
Routes (Generally):The draft E.I.S.will include alternative transmission routes.In
tracking the progress,it appears clear that all routes being analyzed lead to and
through Camas.This concerns our community and invites the question,what
alternatives does Camas have?
1.
Camas is requesting that BPA expand the scope of the E.I.S.process to consider and
evaluate in the E.I.S.alternative routes east of Clark County into Skamania County’and across the Bonneville Dam.
2.The Camas Vision:Camas has a magnificent natural setting of greenery,
mountains,and water;visual amenities and opportunities are an integral part of the
city’s environmental quality.As such,a focus of Camas’policies place emphasis on
the protection of public views of significant natural and man-made features including
views of the Columbia River,Lacamas Lake and the Washougal River.These
include public places consisting of viewpoints,parks,scenic routes,and view
corridors indentified in the City of Camas Comprehensive Plan,Camas Shoreline
Master Plan,and the Comprehensive Park and Recreation plan.Additional adopted
policies related to protection of public views are adopted under Camas Municipal
Code (CMC 16.33.010).
As noted in a letter dated December 2009 to BPA from the Camas Community
Development Director,Phil Bourquin,the City passed Ordinance 2030 in 1995 with
findings,regulating electrical transmission lines and distribution facilities through
Camas.This ordinance is based upon strong community values;the desire and need
1
to eliminate or minimize health and safety risks;to preserve property values;and to
promote the general welfare by enhancing the livability of the Camas community.
Disappointment was the word of the day,when our City Council,during the course of
our Annual Planning Conference on January 28,2012,became aware that through an
internal email in October of 2009,BPA had administratively decided not to consider
the City of Camas Ordinance 2030 as “a viable project option”citing an opinion that
the “City of Camas adopted a very restrictive municipal ordinance”,that ..includes
limits on EMF exposure (which would not be obtainable with respect to our proposed
project )and/or a requirement to underground the transmission line,which would
present a number of serious problems (associated with cost,reliability,and
maintainability)...”.
As Mayor,I insist our organization be one that seeks to embrace positive solutions to
difficult challenges and to do so openly.The internal decision of BPA was quite
contrary.I find placing the opinions of one or more internal staffers over and beyond
the expression of an entire community through public policy,an abhorrent practice
and one I would urge BPA to quickly work to resolve.If BPA has information that is
contrary to the findings of the City,we are open to a public exchange of BPA
assumptions and data.Camas in-tum is open to sharing the success we have had in
placing underground transmission lines through our community,share the positive
impact on the livability of our neighborhoods the project produced,and the ongoing
corporate kinship we now enjoy with the undergrounding utility (Clark PUD).
In terms of reliability and costs,our research suggests that overhead lines are exposed
to more elements that cause them to fail,turn off or need to be periodically
maintained including,wind,ice,lightning,contamination,trees and so forth.While it
is understood that when underground transmission lines fail,the repair process
usually takes longer and costs more per occurrence.However,because
undergrounding requires less routine maintenance,a case can be made for
underground transmission lines having a lower lifetime cost.At the end of the day,if
BPA were to examine the root causes of distribution system reliability indices
(CAIFA,SAIDI,and the like)transmission system outages are nowhere near the top
10 causes,and therefore reliability of undergrounding is a nonissue.I
In evaluating alternatives and options overhead transmission lines are cheaper to
initially construct (4-14 times more for underground),but consider the overall cost to
the ratepayers over the life of the project (50 yrs plus for underground ),the cost to
impacted property owners in lost property values,municipalities in lost revenues
(property and sales taxes)over the life of the project,increased costs of extending
roads,water and sewer through areas of non-use,and impact to the natural and
human environment of Camas.
Camas insists that within our city limits and urban growth area,the only acceptable
1 Transmission and Distribution World,April 1,2006,by Vito Longo
2 Engineering News Record,January 23,2012,Brian Dorwart
2
means by which additional transmission lines and facilities could be routed would be
by underground transmission in accordance with our adopted Ordinances.We value
our environmental resources;our recreational resources are prized,and where
people live ,work and breathe absolutely matter.Any alternative method would have
a significant negative effect on our views,our vision,our residents,business,land
values,municipal infrastructure costs and maintenance,and the use and enjoyment of
our protected open spaces.
3.Routes (Specifically):Our community is concerned with 1 )EMF impacts from the
towers on existing,approved or planned businesses and residences;2 )Economic
impacts to the City through lost revenues;3)Environmental impacts associated with
the placement of lines and maintenance roads,maintenance practices,and
compliance with the goals and policies of the State of Washington Shoreline
Management Act as it relates to Lacamas Creek,the Washougal River and the
Columbia River;4)Ice fall zones around transmission towers and impacts on
pedestrians,vehicles,residences,highways and other;5)Views of Green Mountain
toward Lacamas Lake,views of the Columbia River Gorge,and overall aesthetics
throughout the City.
•Segments 40,44 and 46 run through the Camas Meadows Corporate Center
which includes several technology related industries including Logitech,
Plexys,Lightfleet,Reality Engineering and C.I.D.as well as professional
offices in a natural and park like setting.Additionally,several employment
ready lots are currently available.This segment runs through the Two Creeks
Residential Development with 45 dwelling units occupied,4 units under
permit review and a total of 123 units at buildout.Much of the open space
surrounding these uses include the Camas Meadows Golf Course,a regional
trail system,Camp Curry Regional Park and protected sensitive lands
including,wetlands,Oregon White Oak,and Bradshaw Lomatia.
•Segments 41 and 50 run through areas that were annexed into the City of
Camas in 2008 with agreements in place involving significant master planning
efforts to accommodate growth of the City over a 20 year planning period.
These areas include significant views of Lacamas Lake from Green Mountain;
portions of the Camp Curry Regional Park,the planned economic
development area of the North Shore of Lacamas Lake and heading south
east across SR500 into an area annexed in 2011,adjacent to the Camas High
School.
•Segment 52 runs through:1 )The existing established Goot Park
neighborhood;adjacent to an approved 47 unit residential development along
SE 3rd Avenue;2)Through City owned and developed open spaces including
parking areas,trails,picnic areas,fishing,wetlands,and salmon spawning
areas;3)Along Highway 14 and crossing over to Lady Island.
3
4.City Watershed and BPA Herbicide use to control underbrush:This is
particularly important in the water shed alternative (section 34,35,and Q)that is used
as a potable water source which includes public consumption and industrial process
water that can be impacted by impurities .Mechanical removal should be the only
viable alternative for brush control and should take into consideration erosion and
other water quality impacts in analyzing this alignment.Road spurs to access the line
can add significant runoff and erosion issues.Direct discharge to streams should be
addressed to account for sediment and increased stream flow (scouring impacts )due
to added hard surface and removal of the tree canopy for water uptake.The use of
herbicide for brush control in Section 52 and the NUGA line is also of concern.The
Washougal River is a critical,habitat for 5 threatened salmonid species and has urban
densities that would not be conducive to the use of chemical applications.Our
NPDES phase 2 permit and local compliance documents again lists mechanical
means of removal as the preferred alternative to vegetation control when required.
The City of Camas is currently developing of a forest management plan to provide
sustainable logging practices within die City owned portion of the water shed.Power
line installation and the permanent deforestation that would occur may take a
significant area out of the possible land available for a sustainable forestry plan
reducing the overall sustainability and income generation potential of the property .
This could have long term rate impacts to the City utility customers.Exchanging
BPA profits at the cost to City of Camas ratepayers is not an acceptable alternative.
The City of Camas will maintain its livability and continue to be the great place many
call home.We invite you to work with us in this ongoing effort and look forward to
working with you in finding effective solutions consistent with our community values.
Sincerely,
Scott Higgins
Mayor City of Camas
U.S.Senator Cantwell
U .S.Senator Murray
U .S.Congresswoman Herrera-Beutler
c .
4