The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue a final order granting certification to Progress Energy Florida (“PEF”), to construct and operate a new 530 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida. The proposed site for the Project is located at PEF’s existing Hines Energy Complex, southwest of Bartow, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Progress Energy Florida, previously known as Florida Power Corporation, is an electric utility that provides electricity in a 35-county service area in Florida. This service area stretches from the Panhandle through the center of the state and includes the western coast of Florida north of Tampa Bay. PEF currently serves approximately 1.5 million customers in this service area. PEF has been providing electric service in Florida for over 100 years. PEF’s current generating capacity is 9,174 megawatts. The Company currently operates 14 different power plant facilities in the state. PEF has a customer growth rate of 1.7 percent per year. (Hunter, Tr. 14- 15; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 2). The PEF Hines Energy Complex is located in the southwest portion of Polk County, Florida, approximately 3.5 miles south of the city of Bartow. The community of Homeland is located one mile northeast of the Hines site. County Road 555 runs through the Project site. The Hines site contains approximately 8,200 acres of reclaimed phosphate mine lands. The area around the larger Hines site has been dominated by phosphate mining operations, including mines, settling ponds, sand tailings, gypsum stacks, and chemical beneficiation plants. The adjacent land uses consist almost entirely of active phosphate mining or mined and reclaimed lands. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5-6; PEF Ex. RZ-2; PEF Ex. 1 at 2-1). In the late 1980’s, PEF began planning to meet the needs of future growth in customer demand for electricity and decided to identify a site that allowed for a wide variety of possible generation technologies, while at the same time meeting the ecological and regulatory requirements for building new generation. PEF solicited the help of a team of local community, educational, and environmental leaders to evaluate over 50 potential sites in Florida and South Georgia. This two- year process culminated in 1991 with the selection of the Hines site, then known as the Polk County site. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 4). In January 1994, the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Siting Board, certified the Hines Energy Complex for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity fueled by either natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil, and also granted certification for the construction and operation of an initial 470 MW combined cycle unit known as Power Block 1. Power Block 1 began operation in 1999. In 2001, the Siting Board also granted certification for the construction and operation of Hines Power Block 2, a 530 MW combined cycle unit. Power Block 2 began operation in 2003. In 2003, certification was granted by the Siting Board for Power Block 3, which is currently under construction, and expected to be in service by late 2005. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 5; PEF Ex. 1, Preface at 1-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1). The original certification proceeding that culminated in the 1994 certification included extensive evaluations of the worst case capacity constraints and potential environmental effects of the operation of the expected 3,000 MW of capacity. Those evaluations included assessments of air quality impacts, water quality and wildlife impacts, water use, noise impacts, socioeconomic impacts and benefits, traffic impacts of construction and operation, and other impacts of the entire planned capacity of 3,000 MW. This original evaluation significantly reduces the time and expense for processing the Supplemental Site Certification Application and allows PEF to respond more quickly to the growth in demand for electrical generating facilities. The ultimate site capacity determination assures PEF that the Hines Energy Complex site has adequate air, water, and land resources to accommodate additional electrical generating facilities. The 1994 certification also established that the full 3,000 MW of generating capacity and the Hines site are consistent with the local land use plans and zoning regulations of Polk County. (PEF Ex. 1, Pre-1 to Pre-2 at 2.4 to 2.5). The Hines Energy Complex contains a number of existing facilities and is divided into several major areas. The plant island is the location for the existing and future power generation facilities. It is approximately 704 acres. A 722- acre cooling pond, that is being expanded to approximately 1200 acres, has been constructed on the site, along with a 311-acre brine pond. A buffer and mitigation area has been created along the eastern portion of the Hines site containing approximately 2,498 acres. These areas serve as a wildlife corridor as well. Approximately 3500 acres of the site are designated for water crop areas to supply captured rainfall for use in the power plant. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 3; PEF Ex. JJH-4; PEF Ex. 1 at 2- 1). The Hines Energy Complex is interconnected to the electrical grid through multiple existing electrical transmission lines. A new 20 mile long 230 kV transmission line to connect the Hines Site to the existing PEF West Lake Wales Substation is being permitted separately. Natural gas is delivered to the Hines Energy Complex by two existing natural gas pipelines, which will serve Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Fuel oil is also burned in the existing units and is delivered by truck and stored in an onsite storage tank. A new fuel oil unloading station and a new fuel and storage tank will be added to serve Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 6, 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-1; Tr. 17). Project Overview The Hines Power Block 4 is a 530 MW combined-cycle power plant to be fueled primarily with natural gas. Fuel oil will be used as a backup fuel. The proposed Power Block 4 will be located entirely within the existing Hines Energy Complex site. The unit will be located west of Power Blocks 1, 2 and 3. All construction activities for Power Block 4 will occur within an approximately 5-acre portion of the plant island. (PEF Ex. 1, at 3-2, 4-1; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 5; Exs. JMR 4 and 5). Need for Power Block 4 On November 23, 2004, the FPSC issued a Final Order determining the need for the PEF’s Hines Power Block 4 Project. The FPSC determined that the Hines Power Block 4 will be needed by 2007 to maintain electric system reliability and integrity for PEF. This was based upon an evaluation of PEF’s load forecast and maintenance of its required 20 percent reserve margin of generating capacity above the firm demand of PEF’s customers. Power Block 4 adds to the diversity of PEF’s generating assets in terms of technology, fuel, age, and functionality. Operational flexibility is provided by Power Block 4’s dual fuel capability. The FPSC also found that the Hines Power Block 4 will contribute to the provision of adequate electricity at reasonable cost. The FPSC concluded that PEF, in proposing the Hines Power Block 4, had identified the least cost alternative compared to other options, including outside proposals from third parties. There are no cost-effective conservation measures available that might mitigate PEF’s need for Hines Power Block 4. In conclusion, the FPSC determined that PEF met the statutory requirements under Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, for the Commission to grant the determination of need for Hines Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 3). Project Schedule and Construction The proposed Power Block 4 is similar to the existing Hines Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, which exist or are currently under construction at the Hines site. The proposed combustion turbines for the new unit are two advanced General Electric 7FA combustion turbines, designed for dual fuel operation. Engineering of the units will commence in December 2005 and on- site construction will begin no later than the first quarter of 2006. The new unit is proposed to be in service by December 1, 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4, 13-14). Construction activities will be initiated by the preparation of the five-acre site for construction. This will include mobilization of contractors and subcontractors along with plant construction project management personnel. Existing construction laydown and parking areas will be utilized for Power Block 4. On-site construction will begin with the installation of the circulating water piping and pilings for structural foundations. Power Block 4 will be mechanically complete by June 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14). The construction workforce for Power Block 4 is expected to average about 145 employees over the two-year construction period. Peak construction employment is estimated at 350 employees. The construction payroll is expected to be $15 million annually. Based upon prior experience during construction of Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, it is expected that most construction workers will be drawn from the Polk County and Central Florida areas. Construction employees are expected to commute daily to the job site. Traffic improvements have already been made in the vicinity of the Hines Energy Complex. Traffic impacts related to construction of Power Block 4 will not require additional road improvements. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-16 to 4-17). No new roads will be required to support construction of Power Block 4 as the existing plant access road will be used during construction. Major project components will be delivered to the Hines site by rail or by truck. No off-site upgrade of rail or road facilities is expected to be necessary. All oversized deliveries will receive necessary Florida Department of Transportation (“DOT”) approvals. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-20, 4-3; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14-15). Most major earthwork activities for construction for the Power Block 4 construction area were performed during initial site development activities that were completed in 1996. There are no expected impacts to land in the Project area except for minor grading, installation of foundation systems and infrastructure piping, the new control/administration building, and the new fuel oil tank. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-1). Heavily loaded and structural foundation loads such as the heat recovery steam generators, combustion turbines, steam turbines, and step-up transformers will be supported by deep foundations. These foundations will include deep foundations such as pilings similar to those used for Power Blocks 1, 2, and Lightly loaded foundations will use spread foundations. Construction dewatering will occur primarily at excavations for the circulating water intake structure and the discharge head wall in the cooling pond. Other additional limited dewatering may occur, depending upon the amount of rainfall and the depth of other excavations onsite. Dewatering would be performed using well points or open pit sump pumps, which have a very localized impact area. Dewatering effluent will be routed to the existing on-site stormwater collection ditches for return to the existing cooling pond. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12-13; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-7). The entire Project area is outside the 100-year flood zone. There will be no construction impacts to either on-site or off-site water bodies or wetlands as a result of construction activities. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-2, 4-5). On-site construction activities will not have any measureable adverse ecological impacts. The five-acre Project area has already been cleared and graded in anticipation of construction of Power Block 4 and other future units. The Power Block 4 area is primarily bare soil, with very sparse weedy vegetation of low-ecological functional value. This habitat is suitable for few animals and exhibits low plant species diversity. It will not support populations of threatened and endangered species or species of special concern. There are no jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands that would be impacted by the development of Power Block 4 and the on-site portion of the new transmission line. Mitigation for wetland impacts on the Hines Energy Complex occurred as part of the original permitting process for the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Bullock at 5-6; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-10 to 4-12). Construction noise impacts from construction of all phases up to the 3,000 MWs of ultimate site capacity were analyzed as part of the 1992 certification application. It was shown at that time that the applicable noise criteria would be complied with during construction of each future phase. An updated analysis of construction noise from Power Block 4 reaffirmed the earlier analysis and demonstrated no adverse impacts from construction noise. The nearest residences are approximately 2.9 miles from the plant site. The Project construction noise levels will be less than the existing noise levels measured near these residences. Construction noise will have an insignificant effect on noise levels. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex 1 at 4-17 to 4-19). During construction, the most prevalent construction air emissions will be fugitive dust, generated by site grading, excavation, vehicular traffic, and other construction activities. Dust control measures will be used and will typically require moisture conditioning of construction areas and roadways. Disturbed areas will also be stabilized by mulching or seeding as soon as practical. Crushed rock may also be used in high traffic areas. It is not expected that these air emissions from construction will present any significant air quality problems during the construction period. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-14 to 4-16). Project Description Power Block 4 will be similar to the existing Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3 at the Hines site. Power Block 4 is a new combined cycle unit of approximately 530 MWs. It will consist of two advanced GE 7 FA combustion turbines (“CT”) designed for dual fuel operation, using primarily natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil as a backup fuel. Each CT will connect to an electrical generator, capable of generating approximately 170 MWs of electricity. Each CT in Power Block 4 will be paired with a heat recovery steam generator (“HRSG”) which will extract heat energy from the CT’s exhaust gas. The HRSG is essentially a boiler that turns heat in the CT’s exhaust, which would be otherwise wasted, into steam. The steam produced in both HRSGs is used to drive a single steam turbine, which will produce an additional 190 MWs of electricity. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4 to 5; PEF Ex. JMR-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1-10). The normal operating mode for Power Block 4 will be for both CTs to be in operation providing steam from their respective HRSGs to the single steam turbine. However, Power Block 4 can be operated in other ways, depending on the need for electricity. One CT can be operated at full load, producing steam from its HRSG that would power the steam turbine at half load while the other CT and HRSG are idle. The unit will be operated between 30 percent load and full load in the combined cycle mode while meeting its air emission permit requirements. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4-5). Natural gas will be the principal fuel used in Power Block 4. Gas will be delivered by two existing gas pipelines that serve the Hines Energy Complex. A new on-site gas pipeline will be constructed to supply natural gas to the new Power Block 4 from the two on-site natural gas meter regulation stations. Fuel oil will be delivered by truck to a new fuel unloading facilities and stored in a new on-site fuel storage tank adjacent to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-4; Tr. 27). The existing on-site electrical switchyard will be expanded to provide electrical transmission interconnection for Power Block 4. The on-site segment of a new 230 kV transmission line between the Hines Site and the PEF West Lake Wales electrical substation is included in the project for certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 6; Tr. 17). Pursuant to the authorization under the 1994 site certification, a 10,000 gallon per day domestic wastewater treatment plant will treat additional on-site domestic and sanitary wastewaters from on-site showers, lavatories, toilets, and drinking fountains for Power Block 4. The treated effluent is directed to the on-site cooling pond as makeup water. Potable water is provided from an existing on-site approved potable water system which is adequate to support Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Potable water is supplied from well water and is treated and chlorinated for on-site uses such as drinking, washing, showers, and other uses. A new on-site water distribution line will be installed to support Power Block 4 and the new control and administration building. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-11 to 3-12). Solid wastes that may be generated by Power Block 4 include circulating water systems screenings, sanitary waste solids, water treatment filter backwash solids, and solid wastes produced in the course of operating and maintaining the unit. Office wastes are expected to be the biggest component of these wastes. These wastes will be disposed of in differing ways. Circulating water systems screenings and water filter backwash will be recycled on-site to the extent possible. All other solid wastes will be disposed of off-site in appropriate facilities. PEF has a corporate commitment to waste minimization. This includes extensive recycling of waste products, reduction at the source, and elimination of most hazardous waste storage. This corporate commitment will be implemented on a continuing basis at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-18). Water Use and Supply The existing cooling pond will supply cooling water and other water needs for Power Block 4. Makeup water to the cooling pond is obtained from direct precipitation, reclaimed treated municipal effluent, on-site stormwater runoff, recycled plant blowdown and wastewaters, water cropping, and groundwater. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9). The process steam in the steam turbine is cooled to the liquid state in a steam condenser. The rejected heat from the steam is transferred to water pumped from the existing cooling pond into the circulating water system and then returned to the cooling pond. The heat rejected from the power plant results in forced evaporation above and beyond the natural evaporation that occurs in the cooling pond. The circulating water system equipment for Power Block 4 will include two new circulating water pumps capable of pumping 60,000 gallons per minute. An additional intake structure will be constructed at the cooling pond to support these pumps. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9 to 3-10). All process water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from the existing cooling pond. Water is pumped from the pond to the water treatment area located east of the existing power blocks. The water is processed for use either as service water or as demineralized water. Service water is used for washdown of equipment and other uses. The higher quality demineralized water is used for makeup to the steam-condensate- feedwater cycle in the HRSGs to replace steam cycle losses. Demineralized water is also used when firing low sulfur fuel oil in the CTs to control NOx emissions. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 8- 9, Osbourn at 7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-13). The reverse osmosis equipment in the demineralized water system produces a brine reject that will be pumped to the existing on-site brine pond for evaporation. The only other wastewater streams from Power Block 4 will come from the boiler blowdown and from floor drains located throughout the facility. Boiler blowdown results from removal of a portion of the water cycling in the HRSG to control the buildup of solids in that water. Boiler blowdown is collected and pumped back to the cooling pond without further treatment. Areas that contain lubricating oil equipment or where fuel lines run above ground will have containment curbs or walls. Wastewater streams from these areas that may contain oil will be routed to the existing oil water separator to remove oil contamination prior to being pumped to the cooling pond. Any collected oil is properly disposed. All wastewaters are collected and processed as appropriate and pumped back to the cooling pond. The cooling pond has no discharge to area surface waters. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 9-10; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-16; FDEP Ex. 2 at 13). The cooling pond at the Hines Energy Complex experiences both natural and forced evaporation. The forced evaporation is that additional evaporation above and beyond natural evaporation and is caused by the heat rejected from the power plant. The total annual average evaporation rate from the cooling pond from natural evaporation and from heat rejected by Power Blocks 1, 2, 3 and the proposed Power Block 4 is approximately 10 million gallons per day. This is an increase in evaporation of 2.2 million gallons per day for Power Block 4. This loss of water needs to be replenished to keep the cooling pond operating and keep the plant continuing in operation. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9). It has been determined that, over the long term, Power Block 4 will require an average annual daily water supply of 2.4 million gallons per day. This is needed to replace evaporation from the pond and to supply the process water needs for the new unit. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-8). The existing Conditions of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex authorize the use of up to 17.5 million gallons per day of groundwater beginning with the third generating unit at the Hines Energy Complex. The water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from these previously approved quantities of groundwater. The existing Units 1 and 2 utilize a mix of treated wastewater from on-site and off-site sources and captured rainfall to supply cooling and process water needs for Power Blocks 1 and 2. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9; PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, Appendix IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 7). Under the Conditions of Certification, no groundwater will be withdrawn to supplement the cooling pond until the operating level in the cooling pond falls to 160 feet. The proposed on-site withdrawals were previously evaluated as part of the initial certification proceeding in 1994 and were found to have no adverse impacts. The proposed on-site withdrawals of groundwater for Power Block 4 will not have any adverse impacts on existing legal users of water in the vicinity of the Project, on- and off-site wetlands, or to off-site land uses. PEF has investigated other reasonably obtainable sources of water in the region and found none that could meet the needs for Power Block (PEF Ex. 1, Vol. 2, Appendix 10.6; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8-9). PEF has undertaken several efforts to minimize the use of groundwater through the use of water conservation practices, as required by the Conditions of Certification in the 1994 site certification. These measures include the use of water conserving electric generation technologies, recycling of all wastewater streams, and the design of the power plant as a “zero discharge” facility. PEF is also continuing to investigate other sources of water supply for the Hines site. (FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8). Power Blocks 1 and 2 are supplied water from the on- site water cropping system and on-site and off-site treated wastewaters. The capture and reuse of rainfall is an integrated part of PEF’s efforts to reduce dependence on the Upper Floridan aquifer as a source of water. In addition, recycled plant wastewaters, treated wastewater from the City of Bartow, and nearby industrial and power plants are the other primary sources of water for Hines Power Blocks 1 and 2. The City of Bartow currently provides approximately 2.0 million gallons per day of treated wastewater for use at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 1, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 6-8). Air Emissions The primary air pollutants emitted from Hines Power Block 4 will include nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), particulate matter (“PM”), and sulfur oxides such as sulfur dioxide. The primary cause of the air emissions from the new unit will be the combustion of natural gas and distillate oil in the CTs. Emissions of NOx and CO will result from the combustion process. Emissions of PM and sulfur dioxide result from trace impurities in the fuel itself. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 4-5; Tr. 35-37). Air emissions from Power Block 4 will be minimized through the inherent efficiency of the combined cycle technology, as well as the use of natural gas and light oil, use of combustion controls, and use of post-combustion control technology for nitrogen oxide emissions. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels and contains minimal amounts of impurities. Light oil is also very low in impurities and its use will be limited to up to 1,000 hours per year per combustion turbine. Natural gas and light oil burn very efficiently, thus minimizing the formation of air pollutants. Emissions are also minimized through the use of advanced combustion control technology in the combustion turbine, specifically dry, low NOx combustion controls for firing natural gas, and use of water injection when firing light oil. A post-combustion control technology, selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) will be used to further reduce NOx emissions from Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 5-6; Tr. 35). The Hines Power Block 4 is required to meet best available control technology (“BACT”) requirements, which limits air pollution emission rates. The Project must also comply with ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) and prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) increment standards, which establish levels of air quality which must be met. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3.5 to 3-6; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6, 17). Hines Power Block 4 is required to undergo PSD review because it is a new source of air pollution that will emit some air pollutants above the threshold amounts established under the PSD program. PSD review was required for air emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide, NOx, CO, and sulfuric acid mist because these emissions are greater than the established PSD thresholds. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7). The BACT analysis for Hines Power Block 4 is part of the evaluation of air emissions control technology under the PSD regulations and is applicable to all pollutants for which PSD review is required. BACT is a pollutant-specific emission standard that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6). For NOx, FDEP has preliminarily determined for this facility a BACT emission limit of 2.5 parts per million when firing natural gas, and 10 parts per million when firing low sulfur fuel oil. These emission levels will be achieved by the use of dry low NOx combustion technology when firing natural gas, use of water injection when firing fuel oil, and use of SCR technology. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8; FDEP Ex. 2 at 9, 21, Table 4). Emissions of carbon monoxide will be controlled using good combustion techniques. Sulfur dioxide emissions, including sulfuric acid mist, will be controlled through the use of clean fuels. Particulate matter emissions will be controlled through the use of clean fuels, natural gas, and low sulfur fuel oil. Fuel oil firing will be limited to a maximum of about 1,000 hours per year. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7-9; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 15; Tr. 36-37). The air emissions from Power Block 4 cannot be permitted at a level that would cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state AAQS for the six criteria air pollutants or PSD increments for sulfur dioxide, NOx, and PM. The PSD increments refer to the amount of incremental air quality deterioration allowed from a new air pollution source. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I PSD area within which limited increases in air pollutant concentrations are allowed is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 9-11; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 were principally analyzed for emissions from fuel oil firing as representing the maximum air quality impact. The air quality impact analysis was performed using approved air quality models and five years of historical hourly meteorological data. This analysis indicated that Power Block 4 will not cause any violations of federal or state AAQS and will comply with applicable PSD Class II and Class I increments. The maximum impact of the Project was estimated to be well below the applicable PSD Class II increments. Maximum ambient air impacts were also estimated to be well below the applicable AAQS. Using worst case air emissions during oil firing, it was shown that the Project impacts would be less than the PSD Class I increments, as well as less than the Class I significant impact levels, and therefore were concluded not to be significant in the PSD Class I area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8-14, Exs. SO-3 and SO-4; FDEP Ex. 2 at 7-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 are not expected to have any impact on vegetation or to cause any growth-related air quality impacts. The results of the visibility impact analysis of the Project’s emissions in the nearest PSD Class I area demonstrated no adverse impact on visibility at that location due to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 14-15; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-7, 17). Noise Noise impacts during operation of Power Block 4 were shown not to be significant. Noise monitoring was originally conducted at various locations around the Hines Energy Complex site prior to construction and operation of Power Block 1. Additional noise monitoring was conducted at these locations in 2000 and 2004 during the permitting of Power Blocks 2 and 4, to determine any changes since the original permitting. There are only a few isolated rural residences in the land area surrounding the site. The nearest residence is about 2.5 miles from the proposed Power Block 4. Industrial activities in the surrounding area result in considerable traffic on nearby roads, causing noise levels to exceed the EPA guideline of 55 dBA. Without the area traffic, ambient noise levels meet the EPA guidelines. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-65 to 2-72). Using a conservative approach which tends to overstate the Project impacts, noise impacts due to operation of Power Block 4 would increase by less than 2 dBA at the nearest receptor and will not be significant. Therefore, the Project will meet applicable noise criteria and no significant noise impacts will occur as a result of the Project. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 23; PEF Ex. 1 at 5-9 to 5-12). Land Use and Socioeconomic Impacts The Plant Island, where Power Block 1 is in operation and where Power Block 4 will be constructed, is located near the southern end of the site. The northern boundary of the Plant Island is about two miles south of CR 640. The western limit of the City of Fort Meade is about 3.9 miles east of the Plant Island, and the unincorporated community of Homeland is more than 3.5 miles northeast of the Plant Island. The nearest residential use is three homes located approximately 2.5 miles from the southern boundary of the Plant Island. Otherwise, the entire area surrounding the proposed power plant site consists of existing or former phosphate mines. The site is buffered from surrounding populations at Homeland and Fort Meade by an extensive buffer area on the eastern perimeter of the site. There has been almost no change in land use and very little change in the landscape in the area of the Hines Energy Complex since the original site certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5- 6). There have not been any changes in the area surrounding the Hines Energy Complex that would change the land use and socio-economic conclusions reached in the Final Order of Certification issued for the site by the Siting Board on January 27, 1994. The most significant change has been the completion of another nearby power plant approximately three miles southeast of the Hines site. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6). No land use or socio-economic impacts will be associated with construction of Power Block 4 that were not previously addressed in the Final Order of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex in 1994. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6-8). The land use impacts from development and construction of Power Block 4 will be quite minimal, and the economic benefits will be substantial. Current operating employment at the Hines Energy Complex is 29. The staffing level at the plant is expected to increase by six employees with the addition of Power Block 4. Annual payroll was $2.7 million in 2002. The annual payroll will increase by about $493,000 when Power Block 4 becomes operational in 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8). The estimated increase in property taxes for Power Block 4 is $5.0 million. Over one-half of this revenue goes to support the Polk County school system. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 7-1). Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the FDOT, and the SWFWMD each prepared written reports on the Project. (FDEP Ex. 2). Each of these agencies either recommended approval of Hines Power Block 4 or otherwise did not object to certification of the proposed power plant. The FDEP has proposed a series of Conditions of Certification for the Project that incorporate the recommendations of the various reviewing agencies. At hearing, the FDEP added one additional condition related to air emissions monitoring. (Tr. 54-55). PEF states that it can comply with these Conditions of Certification in the design, construction, and operation of the Hines Power Block 4. (Tr. 21, 56). No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the Project or has otherwise objected to certification of the Project. (PEF Ex. 4). Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions of certification, the proposed design of Hines Power Block 4 offers reasonable assurance that the standards of the FDEP and other affected regulatory agencies will be met and that the operation safeguards are technically sufficient for the protection of the citizens of the state. The Hines Power Block 4, as proposed, minimizes through reasonable and available methods the adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. (FDEP Ex. 1 at 28; Tr. 57-59).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification to PEF to construct and operate a new 530 MW natural gas-fired electrical power plant (Hines Power Block 4 Project) in Polk County, Florida, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification, FDEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Wm. Cochran Keating IV, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Steven Palmer Siting Coordination Office Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether and the extent to which the properly proposed corridor (the FPL Corridor) for the St. Johns-Pellicer-Pringle 230-kV transmission line (the SJPP Line) complies with the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2005)1, and whether Florida Power & Light's (FPL's) application for corridor certification should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The TLSA establishes FPL and the Department as parties to this proceeding, and the following became parties upon their timely filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Community Affairs (DCA), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), St. Johns County, and the City of Palm Coast. See § 403.527(4), Fla. Stat. The Application Project Description Generally, an electrical transmission line's purpose is to transport large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity can be either increased or reduced in voltage through transformers and other electrical equipment for further safe and practical transportation, or distribution directly to customers. FPL is seeking certification of a corridor between the existing St. Johns substation and the proposed Pringle substation within which it will ultimately construct the SJPP Line on a narrow right-of-way (ROW). Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the typical width of the 15 to 60-foot ROW. The service area for the proposed SJPP Line (the Project Service Area) is St. Johns County and Flagler County. The SJPP Line will follow Interstate 95 (I-95) in a north-south direction and will connect to the proposed intermediate Deerwood, Vermont, Anastasia, and Pellicer substations. The Project Service Area includes an area of increasing load and customer base in the area south of St. Johns and north of Pringle substations and to the west of the existing Bunnell- St. Johns 115-kV transmission line. The three objectives of the SJPP Line project are: (1) to address the need, as confirmed by the PSC, to serve FPL's increasing load and customer base in the area south of St. Johns and north of Pringle substations in a reliable manner; (2) to provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 115-kV transmission line between the Bunnell and St. Johns substations; and (3) to efficiently and effectively integrate and serve new distribution substations that are needed to serve projected load growth within Flagler and St. Johns Counties. The primary path for the SJPP transmission line bringing electricity into the Project Service Area will be aligned within or adjacent to existing linear features, such as existing road, transmission line and railroad ROWs. The only exception is a distance of less than half a mile in length between the proposed Vermont substation in the St. Augustine Industrial Park and I-95, where the corridor largely follows property lines. The primary path for the SJPP transmission line bringing electricity into the Project Service Area will be aligned within or adjacent to existing linear features, such as existing road, transmission line, and railroad ROWs. The only exception is a distance of less than half a mile in length between the proposed Vermont substation in the St. Augustine Industrial Park and I-95, where the corridor largely follows the property line. Need for the SJPP Line The PSC determined a new 230-kV transmission line between the St. Johns substation and the proposed Pringle substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity in northeast Florida and the need to provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, particularly those in northeast Florida. The PSC noted that FPL's planning studies indicate this additional transmission capacity will be needed by December 2008 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions that could result from a single contingency event. Without the addition of this transmission capability by 2008, the PSC found that up to 8,300 electric customers could experience service interruptions. The PSC recognized that the Siting Board will make the final corridor selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the SJPP Line will be a single- circuit unguyed concrete pole structure, 90 feet above grade in height, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a 1,431 thousand circular mils, aluminum conductor, steel reinforced alumoweld core. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors and provide communications capability. The maximum current rating for the line will be 1,905 amperes. In some locations, electric distribution lines and communication cables may also be attached to the structures beneath the conductors. In some locations, such as along FPL's St. Johns-Tocoi transmission line right-of-way and along Tocoi Road, a double- circuit configuration, with or without distribution underbuild, may be used. The span length between structures will typically vary between 250 and 750 feet, depending on site-specific conditions, ROW widths, and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate such things as locating poles to coincide with property boundaries or existing collocated utility facility poles, to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, to cross other utility lines, and to facilitate wide crossings of water bodies and roadways. Where the transmission line turns large angles or crosses other major linear facilities, the structures may be guyed or anchored to support the differential tension. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be about 14 feet, with a 2-to-1 side slope, and a minimum elevation of 6 inches over mean or seasonal high water. Structure pads will have variable sizes, depending on site specific requirements, but will be of sufficient size to provide access to structure locations for the large construction equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. Culverts will be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with spacing, diameter, and length to maintain preconstruction flows. The design of the SJPP Line complies with good engineering practices. The SJPP Line will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), the Department's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, the St. Johns County and City of Palm Coast noise ordinances, and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, American National Standards Institute, and American Concrete Institute, as well as FPL's own design standards. The Project assures the citizens of Florida that operation safeguards are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection. Transmission Line Construction Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step towards construction. After property rights for the ROW have been acquired, the initial phase of construction is to clear the ROW. Since nearly the entire length of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for acquisition of private property and the need for clearing have been minimized. Clearing will consist mainly of tree trimming and the removal of trees that exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet in height that could come in conflict with the line will be removed by hand-clearing or use of very low ground pressure equipment. Low-growing herbaceous vegetation will not be cleared from wetlands. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Typically, access roads and pads are only required in wet and low areas. This enables all subsequent construction activity in those wet areas to remain on the newly constructed access road and pad. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction. Initially, materials are brought to the jobsite. Next, holes are augered at each pole location and the poles are then erected using cranes or other heavy equipment. The hole is then backfilled with suitable fill. Typically, the pole is embedded into the ground approximately 16 to 20 feet. After the poles are set, the poles are framed, that is, the insulators and hardware are installed on the pole. Then through a wire pulling operation the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then properly sagged and tensioned to provide the proper vertical clearances. Next, the conductors are "lipped in" to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW clean-up. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with applicable DOT and St. Johns County regulations. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. While each phase of construction will typically take only 1 to 7 days in an area, the entire SJPP Line construction process will last approximately 13 months. Methodology for Choosing FPL Corridor On project initiation, FPL management instructed its multi-disciplinary corridor selection team to identify, if it could, a corridor for the SJPP Line that connects the St. Johns and Pringle substations and allows connections to the proposed intermediate substations. Corridor Selection and Public Involvement FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives within the Project Study Area. This multi-disciplinary team was comprised of a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. FPL's multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area and identified 45 line segments which could be assembled into approximately 630 alternate routes for the SJPP Line. FPL also engaged in an extensive public participation program to gather input for its route evaluation study. This public participation program included an open house, mass mailings, a community survey, a toll-free telephone number and an e-mail address, a website, and meetings with regulatory agencies, community associations, homeowner groups, and individual homeowners and property owners. The public participation program provided substantive input to the route evaluation study in terms of study area boundary, siting opportunities and constraints in the area, identification of route segments to be evaluated, and weights to be assigned to the route evaluation criteria. FPL's multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 630 routes quantitatively, using 11 weighted factors, and then evaluated in more detail, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria, a few distinct routes identified from among the highest-ranking routes. Through this process, FPL's multi-disciplinary team was able to identify a route of the FPL Corridor that, on balance, is the most appropriate considering environmental, land use, engineering, and cost considerations. Once the preferred alignment was identified, the multi-disciplinary team delineated the boundaries or width of the FPL Corridor to provide flexibility for locating the eventual ROW within that corridor. Agencies' Review of FPL's Application and Resulting Determinations State, regional, and local agencies with regulatory authority over the project reviewed FPL's Application and submitted to the Department a report as to the impact of the proposed SJPP Line on matters within the agency's jurisdiction, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. The Department then compiled these reports and made a recommendation that the SJPP Line be granted approval subject to appropriate conditions. Stipulations Entered Into by Parties All agency parties filed stipulations with FPL in which these parties and FPL agreed to the Conditions of Certification for the SJPP line and the entry into the record of the pre-filed written testimony and exhibits of FPL's witnesses. Detailed Description of the FPL Corridor Almost the entire length of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear features, such as roads and transmission lines. This collocation will minimize impacts of the new SJPP Line. The width of the FPL Corridor varies along the route to provide flexibility within the corridor to minimize or avoid impacts to such areas as existing developments and large wetland areas. From the St. Johns Substation to the Deerwood Substation The SJPP line will exit the existing St. Johns substation at SR 207 near Lightsey Boulevard and utilize the existing 110-foot-wide St. Johns-Tocoi 230-kV ROW. The FPL Corridor will be collocated within this existing ROW north and west until the intersection with I-95. Along the existing ROW and in the vicinity of the St. Johns substation, the land use is residential or vacant. At I-95, the preferred corridor will follow the eastern ROW line of the highway south to the intersection with Tocoi Road. The corridor in this stretch is 500 feet wide. Within the corridor in this stretch, the land use is vacant. There is some residential development outside the corridor to the east. At the I-95/Tocoi Road intersection, the FPL Corridor is expanded in all four quadrants following property lines to allow FPL flexibility in traversing the short distance to Deerwood substation and crossing I-95 to proceed south from Deerwood. The FPL Corridor follows Tocoi Road to enter and exit the proposed Deerwood substation, encompassing 100 feet or less in width on both the north and south sides of the road. The line will be built either on the south or north side of the road. A FPL distribution line currently exists on the south side of Tocoi Road. From the Deerwood Substation to the Vermont Substation The FPL Corridor will leave the Tocoi Road alignment at the I-95 intersection. The FPL Corridor then follows the western ROW edge of I-95 south to the FEC Railroad, where the corridor turns to the southwest for a short distance. In this section, the corridor is 500 feet wide. At the north end of the St. Augustine Industrial Park, the corridor follows property lines to the access road (Deerpark Boulevard) into the industrial park. The corridor is 200 feet wide in this section. From the north end of the access road, the FPL Corridor follows the east edge of the road south to the Vermont substation site, is 100 feet wide in this section, and includes an existing FPL distribution line. From the Vermont Substation to the Anastasia Substation The FPL Corridor exits the Vermont substation heading northeast toward I-95. In this area, the corridor will be of variable width and will include both sides of State Road 207 (SR 207). An existing 115-kV FPL transmission line already occupies the north side of the SR 207, and a distribution line is located on the south side. An existing FPL distribution line traverses north-south in this area and is also included in the corridor. In the area between the Vermont substation and I-95, the corridor is north and east of existing residential subdivisions. The corridor between the Vermont substation and I-95 is widened to allow flexibility in accommodating a number of land use and engineering considerations. These considerations include the crossing of SR 207, the existing transmission line and distribution lines, existing residential development south of SR 207, existing commercial development north of SR 207, and a large borrow pond west of I-95. The corridor will reach I-95 south of SR 207, at which point it will then follow I-95's western boundary southward. The corridor is 500 feet wide in this area where it parallels I-95 south to SR 206. The predominant land use in the area between the Vermont and Anastasia substations is silviculture. From the Anastasia Substation to the Pellicer Substation At the intersection of SR 206 and I-95, the corridor is again widened variably to include the properties on the northwest and southwest quadrants of the interchange to provide flexibility in finalizing the Anastasia substation plans and providing ingress and egress to that substation. The FPL Corridor will exit the Anastasia substation and follow the western boundary of I-95 southward. The corridor is 500 feet wide in this stretch with the exception of the location of a rest area on the west side of I-95, approximately 2.5 miles south of Anastasia substation. The corridor is of variable width around the rest area, but generally 1,000 feet wide to allow flexibility in traversing either the front or rear of the rest area. In this area, the predominant land use is silviculture. Where I-95 intersects the FEC Railroad north of County Road 204 (CR 204), the FPL Corridor turns and follows the railroad southward. The corridor is located along the east side of the railroad and is 500 feet wide. North of CR 204, the corridor is expanded along the road to allow ingress to the Pellicer substation site located south of CR 204 and east of the railroad. Land uses in this area are primarily silviculture. From the Pellicer Substation to the Pringle Substation The FPL Corridor includes the entire Pellicer site, which is already owned by FPL, along the east side of the FEC Railroad south to Pellicer Creek. The corridor in this area crosses lands owned or proposed to be purchased by the SJRWMD for conservation purposes for approximately one mile. From Pellicer Creek south to the Pringle substation, the corridor will follow the east side of the railroad bed and will be variable in width, generally 150 to 300 feet wide. At the Pringle substation site, which is already owned by FPL, the corridor includes the entire substation site. The FPL Corridor for the stretch south of Pellicer Creek falls in a currently undeveloped portion of the Palm Coast Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) within the City of Palm Coast's jurisdiction. The development order for the Palm Coast Park DRI provides for an easement for the SJPP transmission line within the FPL Corridor. Compliance With Section 403.529(4) Criteria Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC found that there are regional transmission system limitations in St. Johns and Flagler Counties. By 2008, the existing 115kV transmission network between the Bunnell substation in Flagler County and the St. Johns substation in St. Johns County will not have sufficient capacity to provide reliable electric service to the existing and proposed substations in the area. The SJPP Line would be built to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event, which occurs when a single element such as a generator, transmission circuit or transformer is eliminated from the system. If the SJPP Line is not built, service interruptions affecting up to 8,300 customers could occur. In addition, the PSC found that the FPL North Region (extending from Indian River County to Nassau County) has grown by a compound annual average growth rate of 3.7 percent over the past five years. The SJPP Line is also needed to serve the increasing load and customer base in the area. Operation of the SJPP Line would be consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Council and Florida Reliability Coordinating Council transmission system standards. FPL has a responsibility to provide safe and reliable service to its customers. See § 366.03, Fla. Stat. The provision of reliable electric service is important to FPL and its customers. In the past, FPL has demonstrated the ability to plan a reliable electric system consistent with the NESC and ASCE standards. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion The PSC recognized that FPL's planning studies indicate that the SJPP Line is needed by December 2008 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event. Location of the SJPP Line on the FPL Corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a timely fashion. Comply with the Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies Construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJPP Line in the FPL Corridor will comply with applicable non- procedural requirements of agencies. The Department has concluded that the project as proposed will comply with all applicable Department statutes, rules, policies, and procedures. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Department has concluded that the SJPP Line as proposed would produce a minimal adverse impact on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare without unduly conflicting with local statutes and local comprehensive plans. After certification of this project, FPL will acquire the necessary property interests in a ROW within the certified corridor for placement of the SJPP Line. Construction of transmission lines on such established ROWs is excepted from the definition of "development" in Section 163.3164(5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the provisions of the local comprehensive plans related to "development" that have been adopted by the local governments crossed by the SJPP Line are not applicable to this project. To the extent the comprehensive plans of the local governments crossed by the SJPP Line include provisions applicable to non-development activities, the proposed transmission line in the FPL Corridor would be consistent with them. The City of Palm Coast Comprehensive Plan is essentially silent on transmission lines as a land use, which is consistent with such lines being excepted from the definition of "development" regulated by the Plan. Policy A.1.8.3 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan provides that "future utility facilities shall be located to promote the efficient provision of services, minimize the cost of construction and maintenance, and minimize the impact on the natural environment." Because of the thoroughness of the corridor selection process and criteria, and the appropriateness of the corridor from a land use perspective, the proposed SJPP Line is consistent with that policy. No variances or exemptions from applicable state or local standards or ordinances are needed for the project. Implementation of Legislative Intent in Section 403.521 The Need for the SJPP Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The PSC determined that the SJPP Line is needed taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes. In the need proceeding, the PSC considered two alternatives, including transmission modifications to the existing 115-kV system. The PSC accepted FPL's rejection of the two alternatives "due to economics and concerns with the ability to serve additional future customers west of the I-95/US-1 corridor." The PSC found that the proposed transmission line would "assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the state by serving projected new electric load in the region, and improving the region's electric reliability by minimizing the region's exposure to single contingency events." The PSC has determined that the estimated cost of the Project is reasonable, and that the SJPP Line will assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the state by serving projected new electric load in the region and improving the region's electric reliability by minimizing the region's exposure to single contingency events. Impact Upon the Public The SJPP Line is appropriate from a land use perspective because this type of transmission line currently exists in all types of land uses in Florida, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and vacant land. The SJPP Line takes advantage of the opportunity to be collocated with other transmission lines, roadways, and railroad ROWs for almost the entire distance. By following these existing linear features, the FPL Corridor conforms to existing and future development patterns, and minimizes intrusion into residential areas and conservation lands. As a result, the proposed SJPP Line is in proximity to relatively few residences and only one crossing of lands either purchased or proposed for purchase under federal, state, or local land acquisition programs. Further, by collocating with other public and utility ROWs, the amount of land that will be required for the SJPP line is less than if it were not collocated. The FPL Corridor minimizes impacts to existing homes by following a route where there is very little residential development and where planned residential development is very low density. The SJPP Line as proposed will comply with all applicable non-procedural standards, including the noise ordinances of St. Johns County and the City of Palm Coast, and the standards adopted by the Department limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. Impact Upon the Environment The SJPP Line Project as proposed will have minimal environmental impact. Construction of the SJPP Line within the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The FPL Corridor avoids or minimizes intrusion into the undisturbed wildlife habitats due to its collocation with existing linear facilities for almost its entire length. The current condition and relative value of function of the habitat in the FPL Corridor is minimal from a wildlife ecology and protected species perspective. Great care was taken in routing the FPL Corridor to avoid or minimize proximity of the corridor to known listed species locations, including routing inputs from wildlife agencies such as the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, due to the presence of existing linear features along much of the route, clearing of additional natural habitats and potential wetland impacts will be minimized. Construction of the SJPP Line within the FPL Corridor will not cause a significant adverse impact to the current condition and relative value of functions of the vegetative communities within the FPL Corridor. First, nearly the entire length of the FPL Corridor allows placement of the transmission line within or adjacent to existing linear features to take advantage of previous disturbances to vegetation. FPL will also minimize impacts to forested wetland vegetation through the use of restrictive clearing practices during both construction and maintenance. In the forested wetland portions of the ROW, FPL will only take out trees and shrubs that have an expected mature height greater than 14 feet and "danger trees," which are trees that could fall into the conductors and cause an outage. In these areas, vegetation will be removed by hand, usually with chain saws, or with low-ground-pressure shear or rotary machines to reduce soil compaction and damage to ground cover. The removal of vegetation in forested wetlands will not affect the vegetative root mat or soil surface conditions. The non- forested wetlands should not require any clearing. There will be some filling in wetlands associated with the placement of pole pads and access roads. However, FPL will minimize impacts on wetlands vegetation through a careful alignment of the ROW and the varying of span distances between poles. FPL will also install an appropriate number and size of culverts to properly maintain existing wetland hydroperiods along areas of fill in wetlands. Also, any unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the project will be mitigated in accordance with the Conditions of Certification. FPL has agreed to avoid the removal of listed plant species on public lands and waters, wherever practicable. When removal is necessary on public lands/waters, FPL will consult with the Department, FFWCC, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to determine the appropriate steps to minimize, mitigate, or otherwise appropriately address potential project related impacts to listed plant species. FPL's commitment to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential impacts to listed plant species within public lands and waters will promote the conservation of endangered and threatened plant species populations and their habitats. The SJPP Line Project will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local non-procedural regulations, including the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. Balance of Need versus Impacts The SJPP Line would effect a reasonable balance between the need for a transmission line as a means for providing abundant low cost energy and the impact upon the public and the environment resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Conditions of Certification The design, construction, and operation of the SJPP Line as proposed in the FPL Corridor will comply with the conditions of certification set forth in Department Exhibit 1. The conditions of certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final right-of- way, access road, and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project for the purpose of monitoring for compliance with the conditions of certification. While the FPL Corridor has few homes in close proximity to it and very limited wetland crossings, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that further minimize land use and environmental impacts. For example, FPL has agreed that to the extent practicable it will locate its ROW to avoid the taking of homes, to collocate the ROW within or adjacent to existing ROWs, and to vary the length of the span between poles as appropriate to eliminate or reduce wetland impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving FPL's St. Johns-Pellicer-Pringle 230-kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2006.
The Issue On December 13, 1989, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) filed a wetland resource permit application with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a project to construct, operate and maintain a 69 kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line in Osceola County. The application described the placement of power line poles in jurisdictional wetlands. On September 28, 1990, DER issued its notice of permit denial, DER File No. 49-173789-4. The ultimate issue for determination is whether FPC is entitled to the permit. Ancillary issues include the scope of "cumulative impacts" to be considered; the scope of "secondary impacts"; whether alternative sites must be considered; whether FPC's clearing of the right of way constituted dredge and fill activity; and whether mitigation is required, and if so, whether the mitigation offered by the applicant is adequate.
Findings Of Fact FPC, whose headquarters are located at 3201 34th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33733, is required by Florida Statutes and regulations promulgated by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to provide electric utility service in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900 is an executive agency directly responsible for prevention of pollution of the air and waters of this State. Pursuant to that obligation, Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., DER regulates proposed dredging and filling activities in waters of the State. FPC, pursuant to its statutory and regulatory mandate, transmits electricity through 33 counties within the state, providing actual service to customers in 32 counties. FPC's electrical transmission lines range in voltage capacity from 69 kV (69,000 volts) to 500 kV (500,000 volts). Considering other utilities, there are approximately 7,000 miles of 69 kV electrical transmission lines within the state, over 1,855 miles of which are operated and maintained by FPC. The Project The electrical transmission line at issue in the instant proceeding will traverse approximately 10 miles. It intercepts two areas of jurisdictional wetlands; however, the main point of contention in the permitting proceeding is the six acres of wetland vegetation which have been cleared in the vicinity of where the transmission line corridor intersects the main crossing of Reedy Creek. The original application for this project was 14 miles long; however, FPC and DER agreed to modify the application by separating the northern-most four miles of the project and submitting it as a separate application. The northern segment starts at the Intercession City substation and proceeds easterly along an existing transmission line corridor in the right of way of SR 17/92 to Old Tampa Road and then turns south terminating at the Poinciana Industrial Park. The proposed transmission line which is the subject of this proceeding starts from the Poinciana Industrial Park and proceeds south, then crosses Reedy Creek in a northeast to southwest direction and continues south, ultimately terminating at the Poinciana substation. There are references in the application to a 72 kV line. 72,000 volts is the maximum operating voltage. 69,000 volts is the normal daily load. Direct dredge and fill impacts associated with the proposed construction include 301 cubic yards of fill, which includes the wooden transmission poles as well as crushed rock backfill at the base of those poles. This fill material would be placed over .00846 acres. This fill amount equates to an area analogous to a 20 foot by 20 foot room. Initial placement and continued maintenance of the poles and lines require clearing. This enables access by equipment and prevents vegetation from interfering with the lines. Clearing is essential for the safety and reliability of the electrical power distribution system. The wood electrical transmission line poles will be spaced approximately 300 foot apart in an area of vegetation clearing 60 feet wide. The major jurisdictional area north and south of the Reedy Creek crossing is approximately 4,400 feet long. The Applicant will, after construction, undertake corridor maintenance on a three to five year cycle. An area will be kept clear 50 foot square around each wooden pole structure along the proposed transmission line. Vegetation will be maintained at ground or water level for 17 feet on either side of the wooden utility poles. The outer 13 feet on each side will be allowed to regenerate except for fast growing trees and other vegetation with the potential to reach 30 feet prior to the next regularly scheduled maintenance period. Fast growing trees within the 13 foot outer area on either side of the corridor will be girdled or treated with herbicides by specific and selective application. The only herbicides to be used will be those that are EPA approved for use in the State of Florida. All exotic or nuisance target species will be removed from the entire right of way as part of FPC's maintenance program. The Application Process FPC submitted a wetland resource permit application for this project on December 6, 1989, received by the DER Central Florida District on December 13, 1989. DER requested additional information on January 12, 1990, and the Applicant submitted responses by letter dated April 20, 1990. On May 18, 1990, DER submitted a second request for additional information, which was responded to by FPC at a meeting with DER Central District staff in Orlando on June 5, 1990, and by a follow-up letter dated June 20, 1990. Neither of DER's requests for additional information required information relative to alternate routes for the proposed transmission line; however, a letter from DER to FPC dated June 20, 1990 states that mitigation would be required since an alternative route was not presented and impacts could not be reduced any further. The application was deemed complete on June 22, 1990. Subsequently, FPC proposed a preservation mitigation of 1:1 ratio by offering for preservation a 6-acre area of Reedy Creek Swamp near the Intercession City substation. FPC waived DER's 90 day statutory time clock in which it has to act on complete permit applications until October 1, 1990. The DER Central District Office issued a notice of permit denial regarding FPC's project on September 28, 1990. The maintenance plan described in paragraph 6, above, includes a departure from FPC's past practices. The plan and specifics of the 13-foot border areas were provided to DER during the hearing on December 3, 1991. Without objection by DER, the hearing proceeded on the application thus modified. Reedy Creek Swamp and the Project Context Reedy Creek Swamp is located in Orange, Osceola and Polk Counties. It is the only large mixed wetland forest system in Osceola County and is one of the largest systems in central Florida. It provides valuable forested wetland habitat for numerous plant and animal species. The proposed dredging and filling activity which is the subject of this application occurs in the South Reedy Creek basin. It is part of the Reedy Creek and its associated floodplains and uplands that drain south-southeast of Interstate-4. South Reedy Creek basin, as described in the instant proceeding, consists of over 92,000 acres of upland and wetland habitats. Approximately 31,448 acres of contiguous forested wetland are contained within that 92,000 acres. Based on the limited nature of the project's corridor, the six acre disturbance has been correctly characterized as de minimis. Since the turn of the century the South Reedy Creek basin has been the subject of extensive logging and silviculture impacts through either clearcutting or selective timbering which continues to this day. The basin is also the subject of an ongoing effort by the South Florida Water Management District for land aquisition and management. Approximately 7,000 acres of the basin have been bought or are under plans to purchase for protection. Commercial and environmental interests command the basin's resources. Clearing the Way FPC's clearing of the six acres of forested wetland was accomplished from March 12 through June 7, 1990. Clearing occurred during the processing of the dredge and fill application in order to take advantage of dry conditions and to facilitate bringing the electrical transmission line into service in accordance with FPC's established schedule. All vegetation in the wetland area was removed at ground or water level and the material was then either burned on site or removed to upland locations. Charles Duncan, FPC's chief inspector for transmission line construction, made regular spot investigations of all construction and assured that the hand clearing and low pressure rubber wheeled and tracked vehicles used by FPC did not result in significant soil disturbance. It is unrefuted that between June and November 1990, well after FPC's clearing was completed, considerable silvicultural activity occurred immediately adjacent to the corridor, both east and west. John Vogel, an expert in forestry and the effects of clearcutting, provided photographic evidence of those silvicultural entities' use of the corridor and identified the adjacent property owner as the party actually responsible for that activity. These facts, and DER employee Don Medellin's tacit admission that what he saw on his June 7, 1990, site inspection clearly could have been accomplished by parties other than FPC, leads to the specific finding that no FPC-initiated dredging and filling has occurred within the corridor. Dredging and filling will occur when the poles are placed. The evidence submitted by FPC, including rainfall and flow discharge information for the relevant time period, closely corroborate Mr. Duncan's eye witness accounts that clearing was conducted during a period when the wetland areas were extremely dry. Mr. Duncan further noted that the dry conditions precluded the burning of all of the collected and stockpiled debris beyond the week of June 7, 1990, and those conditions account for some of Mr. Medellin's observations of stockpiled material during his visit to the site on June 7, 1990. Considering the site conditions at the time of clearing and the absence of running water within Reedy Creek itself, there were effectively no water quality consequences to the creek from the clearing activity. Silt screens were constructed on the site on May 1, 1990, and according to Dr. Miles Smart, an expert in water chemistry and limnology, that precaution adequately safeguarded water quality within Reedy Creek during subsequent rain events. DER witness, Don Medellin, confirmed that the Department had no knowledge of any water quality violations having occurred during the FPC construction activity. The Public Interest Criteria Much, if not all, of the Department's opposition to the proposed project is based on the clearing of vegetation as opposed to pole placement and filling associated therewith. In this case the impacts of the clearing are already known. In the traditional dredge and fill case, the applicant provides evidence, testimony and test results predicting the impacts of the proposed construction activity, whereas in the instant case, the Applicant has the benefit of providing reasonable assurances by documenting the consequences of its acts. In the instant case, FPC provided a detailed analysis of biological and water quality ramifications from its clearing. DER presented several witnesses who contested the positive or neutral effects that the proposed transmission line corridor would have on wildlife, citing nest parasitism, predation, fragmentation, and reduction in patch size as examples of adverse impacts that the proposed line could impose on wildlife. DER witness, Dr. Francis Putz, testified that the project could cause unraveling of the forested wetland and sunscalding of newly exposed trees along the edge of the corridor. However, no DER witness presented any quantitative data or analyses that would indicate that any of the possible adverse consequences mentioned above were, in fact, occurring or reasonably likely to occur in Reedy Creek as a result of FPC's project. It is undisputed by either party that clearing of the proposed transmission line corridor resulted in a change to that specific six acre area from a forested wetland to a herbaceous/shrub wetland. Furthermore, it is undisputed that FPC's proposed maintenance practices will maintain that change over the expected 30-year operational life of the transmission line. However, different is not synonymous with adverse. The structural change to the wetland has not had, and will not have, any deleterious consequences to water quality within Reedy Creek. Dr. Miles Smart, the only expert in water chemistry and limnology to testify, presented testimony, based on samples of water quality in Reedy Creek and available historical water quality data, that water quality approximately a year and a half after initial clearing was no different than the ranges observed over the ten year period for which historical information was available. In most cases, water quality was the same or extremely close for the sampled parameters which included water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, turbidity, concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous, total kjeldahl nitrogen and orthophosphate nitrogen. FPC's proposed maintenance practices which include the use of EPA approved herbicides for use in control of target species, will pose no problem to water quality. A study of twenty-two transmission line rights of way in the State of New York found virtually no water quality problems as a result of maintenance of those transmission lines. It was uncontroverted that FPC has never experienced water quality violations as a result of its management practices, nor has it been the focus of any enforcement or noncompliance action with respect to any previous clearing or construction activity it has undertaken. The clearing created no impediment to flow or impounding. The continuing use of silt screens and hay bales by FPC during pole installation will reduce the likelihood of erosion or shoaling. Extensive ground cover currently present in the corridor and FPC's proposed preservation of this herbaceous/shrub vegetation will further minimize any possible shoaling and erosion. Vegetative surveys conducted approximately a year and a half after the initial clearing show that the corridor has revegetated with 85 percent mean herbaceous plant cover in the corridor. Species composition of vegetation is similar in the corridor and no new species have been introduced nor have any been eliminated as a result of the clearing activity. Based on primary productivity and decomposition rate studies, FPC's clearing activity and the vegetative change that has resulted predictably should increase net primary productivity threefold over what exists in the adjacent forest, primary productivity being simply biomass accumulated over a period of time. Several DER witnesses testified to the possible introduction of nuisance or invader species as a result of FPC's clearing activity and subsequent maintenance of the corridor. However, FPC's proposed maintenance practices will eliminate those target species which inhibit the growth of other species, resulting in a wetland community having similar shrub and herb strata to that of the adjacent forest. DER admitted that any proliferation of nuisance species can be controlled with proper management techniques and has required such control as mitigation for clearing associated with an electrical transmission line project by Florida Power and Light Company in Lee County. Left to natural processes, the cleared corridor would eventually return to a forested area similar in species composition to the adjacent forest within several years. This rapid regeneration comports with experiences in other transmission line projects and in the silviculture industry. Qualitative analysis of other utility corridors in the Central Florida region confirm this natural process of succession. One of those projects, the Tampa Palms Corridor Improvement Project, constructed in a large forested wetland similar to the Reedy Creek Swamp, revealed that in 25 years after clearing, trees had regenerated to heights of 10 to 50 feet with corresponding diameters at breast height ranging from 2.7 to 30.5 centimeters. John Vogel, an expert in forestry and the effects of clearcutting, provided unrefuted testimony and photographic evidence of a clear cut site in the South Reedy Creek basin where after a period of 8 years rapid revegetation and reforestation was occurring, resulting in a fully stocked pre-commercial stand of timber. Several DER witnesses indicated that FPC's manner of cutting trees at ground or water height could have adverse effects on the ability of tree species to regenerate. However, this was refuted by the evidence of tree coppicing ( sprouting within the cut-off stumps) within the corridor with some canopy species having coppices over six feet tall in the 18 month period since FPC's initial clearing. DER employee, Donald Medellin, indicated at hearing that the clearing and proposed maintenance activity of FPC may impact a limited number of plant species listed as threatened. The Applicant's onsite analysis established that Tillandsia, a species listed in Chapter 581, Florida Statutes, as endangered, does exist in the adjacent forest in large numbers. No species referenced by Mr. Medellin appear on any federal endangered or threatened plant species list. Certain referenced plants appear on various state lists; however, none of these lists preclude the clearing of such vegetation with permission of the landowner. FPC's proposed maintenance activities for this project would not threaten the continuing existence of any of those species. The loss of some individual plants as a result of FPC's initial clearing was inconsequential, and continued maintenance of the corridor will not impact the species' continuing existence in the area. The change from forested to herbaceous wetland was demonstrated to have had no adverse effect on the conservation of fish and wildlife in the South Reedy Creek basin. An extensive quantitative analysis undertaken by J. Steven Godley established that aquatic organisms (i.e., fish, aquatic amphibians, and reptiles), invertebrates, mammals, and birds have not been negatively impacted by FPC's initial clearing of the transmission line corridor. It was uncontroverted that the project has occasioned a twofold increase in the number of aquatic organisms in the corridor as compared to the adjacent forest. Even though wildlife surveys conducted over 1,000 manhours revealed no measurable impact to any species of wildlife, Mr. Godley constructed a theoretical listing of several species of vertebrates indigenous to the Reedy Creek Swamp system which were likely to use the swamp system in an average year or at least a part of their life cycle, in order to assess the possible impact of the corridor on those species. Mr. Godley's unrefuted analysis revealed that the vast majority of all species of the various groups (fish, amphibian, reptiles, mammals, birds) are expected to be either positively affected or not affected at all by FPC's proposed project. DER witness, Dr. Herbert Kale, testified that some bird species such as red-eyed vireos, warblers, woodpeckers and thrushes could possibly be impacted due to the loss of forested canopy since they are cavity nesters, and because of nest parasitism by the brownheaded cowbird. Dr. Kale readily admitted, however, that the transmission line swath was small and was not fatal to any of those interior forest bird species. Moreover, his testimony regarding the nest parasitism was inherently contradictory, since the cowbirds breed in winter during a period when the other species are actually in Central and South America. The wetland change occasioned by FPC's project will not adversely affect endangered or threatened wildlife species. The only reptile likely to occur in the Reedy Creek Swamp that is either threatened, endangered or a species of special concern is the indigo snake, which will likely be positively impacted by the corridor, as it feeds on aquatic organisms in the swamp. No listed mammals will be impacted by the corridor. Three species of wading birds, the wood stork, little blue heron and snowy egret, will be positively affected by the transmission line corridor as they, too, will be provided excellent feeding habitat. DER's witness, Dr. Kale, agreed that the change will provide additional habitat for marsh wading birds. The only other possible endangered species that may occur in the swamp is the bald eagle. Since bald eagles prefer large water bodies, they are unlikely to occur. They would benefit, however, from the enhanced feeding habitat. Existing literature regarding the ecological impacts of clearcutting and electrical transmission line corridors on wildlife is consistent with the quantitative evidence submitted by FPC. Existing scientific literature generally reflects that transmission line rights of way cause edge effect, defined as a transition between two or more diverse communities. This edge causes an increase in species number and diversity for wildlife in the corridors, as compared to the adjacent forest. This is particularly true of bird species. For small mammals there is either a nonsignificant difference in species numbers in the corridor as compared to the adjacent forest, or there is a larger small mammal diversity within the corridor as opposed to the adjacent forest. The same applies for larger mammals and game species. The applicant's witnesses touted edge effect as essentially positive, while DER's witnesses described the phenomenon as a negative impact, since any new species are already abundant in other habitats. No finding is made generally on this issue, but rather in this case it is concluded that edge effect is not so significant as to constitute a negative consequence of the project. Based on the weight of empirical evidence and opinion testimony presented, wildlife species residing in the South Reedy Creek basin have been and will continue to be either positively affected or not affected at all by FPC's proposed project. Moreover, the overall productivity of the wetland from the standpoint of vegetation and wildlife, when balanced across all plant and animal species, has not and will not be negatively affected. Although the opportunities for recreational activities are limited in South Reedy Creek basin due to the inaccessibility of the site, those activities such as hunting, fishing, and bird watching are unchanged or have improved as a result of the small localized change to a herbaceous/shrub wetland. The need for the electrical transmission line was unrefuted. FPC must meet minimum service standards in its provision of electric power as set out by the PSC. In order to meet these service standards, FPC decided, through its internal system planning and modeling, that a new 69 kV electrical transmission line was required between its Intercession City and Poinciana substations to provide a more reliable source of power to the towns of Davenport and Haines City as well as the Parker-Poinciana 55,000 unit residential development, as these areas have experienced problems with low voltage. The demonstrated need for this facility and the public benefit which DER has admitted it will provide, when balanced with minimal changes to the forested wetland system, lead to the finding that this project is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts DER failed to present any evidence disputing the hydrologic and biologic validity of the boundaries of the South Reedy Creek basin or the location of existing and proposed electrical transmission lines in that system. The only other projects suggested by DER for cumulative impact analysis were several projects consisting of construction of berms, roads and pipelines, as well as proposed developments of regional impact (DRI's). However, these projects were not shown to be similar in construction or amount of impact to FPC's proposed electrical transmission line, except for their linear nature. Unlike this project, roads, berms, pipelines and residential developments remove wetlands. It was not established that all the project applications considered by DER for cumulative impacts were within the South Reedy Creek basin. Instead, several DER witnesses alluded to the loss of forested wetlands allegedly occurring throughout the state. The evidence was anecdotal and unreliable. DER cited an analysis showing a three percent decline in forested wetlands, but the study combined both South Carolina and Florida acreages. Of the existing and proposed transmission lines within a 10 year planning horizon, very few (only three) will directly cross any portion of the South Reedy Creek basin. Those proposed electrical transmission lines will be co-located along existing rights of way and will have little, if any, impact on the forested component of the South Reedy Creek basin. It was undisputed that as a general proposition, the construction and operation of electrical transmission lines vital to the provision of electrical service does not stimulate subsequent development in an area but, in fact, follows development where electrical services are projected to be needed. Logging has occurred extensively in this area in the past and there is no evidence that the 60 foot corridor has induced additional logging activity, as asserted by DER. Consideration of Alternative Routes and Methods Having identified the need for a new transmission line, FPC conducted an intensive route selection analysis taking into account environmental, property (real estate), economic, and construction considerations. In this case, FPC considered two routes to address the electrical needs of this area: the recommended route, which is the subject of this proceeding, and an alternate route to the east and along an existing roadway. The alternate route would still have crossed Reedy Creek and its contiguous wetlands at some point in order to connect to the Poinciana substation. Both of the proposed corridor routes are within FPC's service territory. A consideration in choosing the recommended route was its proximity to existing and proposed substations. The alternate route would have necessitated more vegetative clearing in the future, as its location was not near proposed substations in this area. Moreover, the recommended route was aligned through the narrowest portion of the South Reedy Creek basin through what was an old tram railbed used by the logging industry. Major property owners in the area of the proposed line expressed their preference for the recommended route. The landowner for most of the proposed corridor south of the Reedy Creek crossing granted easements at no cost to FPC. FPC fully participated in the give and take of the permit application process for this project with DER. It was unrefuted that FPC employee, W. Jeffrey Pardue, met with a DER employee prior to submittal of the application during which meeting the two routes were discussed. The only concern about the project expressed by DER at that meeting was construction of access roads. In response to this concern, and prior to application submittal, FPC's transmission line was redesigned to consist of only wooden pole structures requiring shorter span construction and allowing less right-of-way clearing, since the transmission line wires would not move as much due to wind or other weather conditions. Wood pole construction will also allow for the use of low pressure, high flotation, equipment for construction and maintenance of the transmission line, thereby obviating the need for access roads. Mitigation: The policy applied In order to appease DER's demand for mitigation, FPC entered into negotiations with DER and offered the preservation of six acres of existing wetlands located east of its Intercession City substation adjacent to State Road 17/92, an area vegetatively similar to the area affected. Mitigation is the reduction or elimination of actual or anticipated adverse effects caused by a wetland project. Mitigation, as evolved in DER's permitting processes, can be the creation of new wetlands to replace those destroyed, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or preservation of an existing wetland other than that impacted by the project. Because preservation as a mitigation measure does not replace lost wetlands, DER has consistently required a preservation ratio of more than 1:1, most often 10:1, and sometimes substantially more than 10:1. The requirement is based on a case by case analysis of the quality of the wetland impacted, the extent of the impact and the quality of the wetland offered for preservation by the applicant. Clearing, without more, is not considered a dredge and fill activity and therefore has not, alone, required a DER permit. Clearing has not, therefore, been the subject of mitigation requirements in the past. Until the recent past, DER has not applied its mitigation policy to clearing associated with construction and maintenance of electrical transmission lines. Most of those lines have been placed along roadways and other existing corridors with little additional impact to jurisdictional areas. DER has required mitigation for other linear configured projects such as pipelines and the unique "Maglev" project, a high speed elevated train proposed to be constructed from the Orlando Airport to a tourist center in Orange County. DER is presently requiring power companies in three power plant or transmission line siting cases to address the secondary impact of clearing. Until the review of impacts is complete, the DER staff cannot predict what and how much mitigation will be required in those cases. Prior to the instant case, DER Chief of the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management, Janet Llewellyn, could identify only one instance of mitigation for clearing associated with an electrical transmission line: the Florida Power and Light Company line in Lee County addressed in paragraph 21, above. The "mitigation" required in that case is already proposed in FPC's maintenance plan. DER in this case has adequately justified its policy of considering secondary impacts of clearing related to the construction and maintenance of electrical transmission lines. Those impacts are legitimately assessed when the need for mitigation is being considered. The nature and extent of secondary impacts from clearing are properly part of the discourse and review of the nature and extent to which mitigation will be required. The need for mitigation, however, is not reached when no adverse impacts are found. Here, the applicant has successfully demonstrated by the substantial weight of evidence that neither the clearing already completed, (albeit precipitately) nor the planned pole and line construction and future right of way maintenance will violate water quality standards or otherwise offend the public interest criteria of Section 403.918, F.S. The application of DER's mitigation policy is unnecessary in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order granting the application for permit #49-173789-4. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 9 and paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraph 23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in part in paragraph 34, except for the proposed finding that forested wetlands are increasing, which finding is not supported by reliable, nonhearsay evidence. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 39. Rejected, except for the conclusory finding that mitigation is not necessary here because of no finding of adverse impacts. See paragraph 44. The proposed findings related to the error of the policy generally are rejected as contrary to the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 7. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 4. 4.-5. Adopted in part in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to any implication that dredging and filling was done by the applicant); otherwise adopted by implication in paragraph 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 39. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5 and conclusions of law #3. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The clearing conducted by FPC did not constitute dredge and fill activity. 19.-22. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. 23.-24. The conclusion that logging activity is a secondary impact of the FPC is rejected as wholly unsubstantiated by competent evidence. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in part in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unsupported by competent, credible evidence. 31(a). Rejected as contrary to more substantial evidence and, as to recreation mitigation, unnecessary. 32.-33. Rejected in substance as unsubstantiated by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 36.-38. Rejected as unnecessary. FPC will remove the nuisance species as part of its maintenance plan. 39.-47. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 48.-50. Rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as unnecessary. The construction activity could have, but did not cause water quality violations. See paragraph 13. 55.-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The logging activity was occurring long before and during the relevant period and was not caused by the FPC project. 60.-76. Rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 36. 80.-87. Rejected as irrelevant. 88. Adopted in part in paragraph 42. That mitigation is required is rejected as contrary to the evidence. 89.-90. Adopted in paragraph 39. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 42, otherwise rejected as an enforcement issue and irrelevant here. Adopted in paragraph 40. Adopted in substance in paragraph 40. 95.-106. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Michael P. Petrovich, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact All parties involved concurred that there is a necessity for expanded generating capacity to serve Gulf's customers and that the two initial units of 500mw each can meet this requirement. The parties stipulated that the power plant site certification application submitted by Gulf (Exhibit 1) deals sufficiently with the issue of operational safeguards and further that DER's proposed conditions of certification contain a condition that adequately addresses that issue. All agencies involved recommended certification; however, DER's recommendation was predicated upon Gulf complying with the general and special conditions or certifications contained in Exhibits 4 and 5. Gulf agreed to all those conditions but three, viz: 1. That the water intake and return lines to the river cross the wetlands on a trestle instead of the causeway proposed by Gulf; 2. A more extensive monitoring program and without termination date than the fixed period monitoring program proposed by Gulf; and 3. Restrictions upon use of herbicides to clear transmission line corridors in excess of those placed by federal and state authorities. In addition DER proposed in general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) to modify in the future the conditions of certification by any new or more stringent department rule enacted pursuant to Chapter 120 F.S. Gulf objected to this condition of certification and submitted a brief in opposition thereto. I With respect to Item number 1 the proposed causeway will occupy some 8 acres of wetlands. It is proposed to commence the causeway at elevation + 58 feet (above MSL), which is the 25 year predicted high water flood level in the Choctawhatchee River flood plain, and continue the causeway some 2400 feet at this elevation tot he river bank. The base of the proposed causeway will have a maximum width of 130 feet at a point near the river's edge where the causeway height will be 23 feet (T91). The top width is roughly 60 feet (T90) of which 18 feet will be paved surface. To the north of the access road will be a buried electrical service to carry electricity to the pumps. In the causeway to the south of the access road will be buried two intake lines of 30 inch diameter and one water discharge line. Near the river end of the causeway a vehicle turn-around area will be provided. The causeway across the wetlands will run in a southwesterly direction from plant site parallel to the principal direction of flood water flow when the river is out of its banks. Five oval-shaped culverts will be placed in the causeway at the lowest points of natural contour and permit water to pass through the causeway to equalize levels on both sides of the causeway. These culverts will be 6 feet wide by 3 feet 8 inches high. During the wet season water will be standing in most of these culverts. If the causeway were built in the same location, but without culverts, so as to block any flow normal to the causeway, the build up of water on the north side of the causeway would be only 1 or 2 inches at full flood stage of 57 feet (T146).1 Accordingly, the causeway would have little, if any, effect on the water flow in the wetlands over which this causeway passes; and, but for the 8 acres of wetlands eliminated by the construction of the causeway, the ecological function of these wetlands will be virtually unimpaired. As a collector of sediment from the flood waters the flood plain would also be unimpaired by the construction of the causeway (T154). The cost of constructing the causeway as proposed is $216,000. As a condition of certification (Ex 5 D 1 b) DER prescribed "a trestle shall be used for access to the platform for all areas west of station 14 + 00." This includes the access across the wetlands and presumably it is DER's position that the intake and discharge pipes from the Choctawhatchee River shall be placed upon a trestle structure rather than upon a causeway. The only evidence presented with respect to the cost of the trestle structure was presented by Gulf that a concrete pile trestle to support the pipes and access road would cost some $900,000. A creosoted pile trestle to perform the same function would cost approximately $600,000 and to provide fire protection for the piling would cost another $250,000, which would place the cost of either type trestle some four times the cost of the causeway. No maintenance costs or useful life comparisons of the trestle and causeway were presented. Both trestle and causeway would require the same corridor to be cleared thus the construction of either would result in the same ecological damage. Thereafter, however, the vegetation and other indicia of wetlands could return under the trestle. While evidence was presented that the causeway would occupy 8 acres of former wetlands no evidence was presented of the area occupied by the piling of the trestle. It is obvious that this would be a small fraction of the area occupied by the causeway, but not necessarily insignificant. Gulf opposed the trestle concept for two additional reasons. The exposed pipe on the trestle, if of steel, would require painting and would conduct heat from the sun to the water passing through the pipe. Testimony was presented that ecologists not present had evaluated wetlands in general as having an ecological value of between $1,000 and $20,000 per acre per year. If these figures have economic reality all wetland should have a market value of at least $10,000 per acre. Regardless of this if we assume the values presented are real and the cost for the access corridors are correct, the following economic comparisons can be made. The difference in the cost of the causeway and trestle is approximately $700,000. If this money is borrowed by Gulf at 8 1/2 percent interest the interest cost is almost $60,000 per year. Since this would be a valid capital expense this interest cost will be reflected in the rates of Gulf's customers. If the wetlands are ecologically worth $7,500 per acre per year the 8 acres here involved would also have a value of $60,000 per year. In this connection it should be noted that DER's condition of certification specifying trestle across wetlands was based solely on ecological factors and cost was not considered (T308). During the course of the hearing considerable evidence was presented regarding a third alternative for piping water to and from the river, viz. in pipes buried across the wetlands. This evidence was insufficient in numerous aspects to give it viability; however, several aspects of this proposal are worthy of note. Any pipe that is used to carry cooling water requires some degree of slope to permit the pipe to be drained. From a position near SR 179 (where if underground pipes are used the pumps would have to be placed to provide access for maintenance) the pipe could be buried; but, at some point in the flood plain, the pipe would have to be placed upon a trestle to maintain slope to the river's edge (T287). Burying pipes across the wetlands would have the least ecological impact upon the wetlands. Once the pipe path was trenched, suitable bearing material placed in the trench to support the pipe, the pipe laid and the trench back filled the wetlands would return to natural state and the area involved resume most of the characteristics of wetlands. Problems associated with this proposal include providing all-weather access to the inside of the pipe; obtaining suction on pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 + feet above the level of the water to be pumped; long periods of shutdown in case a section of pipe required replacement; and routine engineering problems in obtaining a constant slope upon installation. Regardless of the path taken by these pipes some difficulties with corbicula clams are expected. These creatures are endemic to the Choctawhatchee River and will be entrained in the pipe. There they will attach themselves and as they grow restrict the flow in the pipes. Although chlorination at the inlet is expected to help control this problem periodic cleaning of the intake pipes may be required. Accordingly, access to these pipes at all stages of the water level in the flood plain is an important concern. While testimony presented that it was possible to obtain suction with pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 feet higher than the level of the water to be pumped, it was also acknowledged that this 2400 feet of 30 inch pipe would "probably" have to be primed before the pumps could pick up suction. (T305-306). Cost and feasibility of providing all weather access to the buried pipes, and of providing capability to prime the remote pumps was not presented. Furthermore the cost associated with burying the pipes across the wetlands was not presented. Accordingly this concept should not be further considered. II With respect to the biological monitoring program to be carried out by Gulf to determine the effects of the power plant on river organisms, DER, as a condition of certification, proposes a program that will continue for the life of the plant regardless of the conclusions reached from such monitoring. Gulf, on the other hand, proposes a monitoring program to commence prior to the operation of Unit I to determine the base line conditions and continue for one year after commencement of operations of Unit I. Thereafter when Unit II comes on line the monitoring program would be reinstituted and continue for one more year. Since Unit II is scheduled to come on line one year after Unit I the monitoring program proposed by Gulf would actually be continuous for about 2 1/2 years. All parties generally agreed that monitoring is required to ascertain the ecological effects of the plant on the aquatic life in the river. One type monitoring is needed to determine the effect of impingement and entrainment at the intake. The intake structure is designed so the plant of the intake screen is parallel to the current flow. This largely eliminates impingement of fish and other aquatic life on the intake screen as the current flow would tend to wash aquatic life off the screen. Since water is drawn into the intake at a speed of 1/2 foot per second those aquatic life in the volume of water entering which are small enough to pass through the screens will be entrained and killed in the filters. It is to determine the quantity and composition of the aquatic life so destroyed that this part of the monitoring program is intended. The second part of the monitoring program involves ascertaining the aquatic life in the river above the plant and below the point of discharge of the returned cooling water in order to ascertain the effect of the discharged water on the aquatic organisms. With respect to the entrainment monitoring there was considerable confusion in the testimony regarding anticipated findings. Gulf's witness stated that at low river and low flow conditions the greatest number of organisms would be entrained. While it is obvious that the greatest percentage of available water will be removed from the river during low flow conditions (since the same quantity or volume of water will be withdrawn as at high flow conditions) it is not obvious that there will be a higher density of aquatic organisms in the river at this same time; and no one so testified. In fact the testimony was that various organisms in the water may change radically (of a magnitude of 1,000 to 1) at various times throughout the year. It would appear that whatever concentration of aquatic organisms that exist in the thalweg of the river would exist in the water withdrawn through the intake pipes and be entrained. Those organisms that exist in slack water portions of the river, swim or otherwise remain out of the current passing near the intake would not be entrained. Thus a sampling point in the current near the intake would provide adequate information on the effects of entrainment. The program proposed by Gulf and contained in Exhibit 21 appears adequate for this determination. With respect to the monitoring required to ascertain the effects of the plant operation on the river ecosystems Gulf proposed sampling only periphyton while DER's condition or certification (Exhibit 5) provides for a sampling to include phytoplankton, zoo plankton, ichthyoplankton, nutrient analysis, benthos and fish. These samples would be taken at points above and below the plant intake and discharge for the obvious determination of the effects on the river ecological system resulting from the discharge of the used cooling water back into the system. In this regard it should be pointed out that the water to be discharged will be treated to remove heat, solids, and other concentrations that would affect compliance with the EPA standards. No valid cost estimates for the monitoring program proposed by either Gulf or DER was presented. One witness upon cross examination gave a ball park "guesstimate" of $50,000 per year for Gulf's proposed program and $100,000 per year for DER's program. The witness expressly disallowed any credit for the accuracy of these figures and accordingly they are disregarded. They are inserted here simply because cost of the end product, electricity, is a factor to be considered in determining under what conditions this certification should be granted. As noted above, Gulf proposes to continue the monitoring program for approximately 30 months (until one year after Unit II has come on line) while DER proposes a monitoring program that will continue for the life of the plant. The biological community sampling program contained in Exhibit 5, part II C should be followed. The time during which these programs should be continued will be discussed under Conclusions. III All parties generally agreed that the use of herbicides was required to clear vegetation from transmission line corridors in wet areas where mechanical equipment cannot operate. Gulf proposes to use Kuron, a herbicide approved by both state and federal authorities. It will be used in wet areas only at a frequency not to exceed once per year and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions admitted into evidence as Exhibit 22. At the hearing DER appeared to take the position that approval by DER should be obtained prior to each time the herbicide is used. The evidence presented clearly shows that Kuron is a safe non- persistent herbicide which, when applied in accordance with instructions, will cause no harm to untargeted vegetation. All of the transmission line routes were not finalized at the time of the hearing but when the remainder of these corridors are finalized there appears to be no reason that Gulf should not provide DER with a map of these corridors indicating thereon those areas in which herbicides will be used. IV No factual evidence regarding general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) was presented. Accordingly these will be treated solely as a matter of law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a power plant site certificate be granted so as to authorize the construction and operation of a coal-fired steam generating electrical power plant near Carryville, Florida in accordance with Exhibit 1. It is further RECOMMENDED that this approval be conditioned upon compliance by Gulf with the conditions of certification contained in Exhibit 4 and 5 except conditions II D 1 (b) (Exhibit 5), general conditions 11(a) and (b), (Exhibit 4), and that condition II C (Exhibit 5) be modified to provide such monitoring shall commence not less than six months prior to completion of Unit I and continue for a period of three years after completion of Unit II. At this time Gulf may petition DER for authority to discontinue said monitoring or to modify same and if such request is not approved Gulf shall be entitled to a hearing at which evidence shall be presented from which a determination can be made whether the benefits of said monitoring program justify the costs involved. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675
The Issue In this proceeding, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) seeks approval to construct and operate 470 MW of natural gas-fired advanced design combined cycle (NGCC) generating capacity at its proposed Polk County Site. Additionally, FPC seeks a determination that the Polk County Site has the environmental resources necessary to support an ultimate capacity of 3,000 MW of combined cycle generating capacity fueled by a combination of natural gas, coal-derived gas and distillate fuel oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Project Site and Vicinity FPC's proposed Polk County Site is located on approximately 8,200 acres in southwest Polk County, Florida, in an area dominated by phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site is approximately 40 miles east of Tampa, 3 miles south of Bartow and 3.5 miles northwest of Fort Meade. Homeland, the nearest unincorporated community, lies about one mile to the northeast of the site boundary. The Polk County Site is bounded on the north by County Road (CR) 640 and along the southeast and south by a U.S. Agri-Chemical Corporation (USAC) mine. CR 555 runs north-south through the site. The Polk County Site is comprised of land in four different phases of mining activity: mine pits, clay settling ponds associated with phosphate mining, land which has been mined and reclaimed, and land which has yet to be mined. Approximately one-half of the Polk County Site is subject to mandatory reclamation. Land uses adjacent to the Polk County Site consist almost entirely of phosphate mining activities. One mobile home is located at the intersection of CR 640 and CR 555 approximately 2 miles from the proposed location of the principal generating facilities. General Project Description The initial generating capacity at the Polk County Site will be NGCC units. Under what has been designated as the Case A' scenario, ultimate site development will consist of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, for a total of 3,000 MW. Under the alternative Case C scenario, the ultimate site capacity would consist of 3,000 MW of all NGCC capacity. The Case C scenario was initially developed as the worst case scenario for the socioeconomic impact analysis (i.e., the one that would produce the least amount of economic benefit.) The combined cycle units which initially burn natural gas can be modified to burn coal gas if necessary to meet changes in fuel supply or pricing. However, under the proposed ultimate site capacity, CGCC generating capacity will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 MW out of the total of 3,000 MW. At ultimate buildout the major facilities at the Polk County Site will include the plant island, cooling pond, solid waste disposal areas, and brine pond. The plant island will be located on mining parcels SA-11, SA-13 and the northerly portion of SA-12. The plant island ultimately will contain the combined cycle power block, oil storage tanks, water and sewage treatment facilities, coal gasification facilities, coal pile and rail loop, and coal handling facilities. The cooling pond at ultimate buildout will be located in mining parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, with a channel through N-11C. Mining parcels N-11C, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes and P-2, if not used as a solid waste disposal area, will be used as water crop areas to collect rainfall for supplying the cooling pond. The brine pond will receive wastewater reject from the reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system and will be located on mining parcel SA-9. Two solid waste disposal areas (SWDA) are planned for ultimate development of the Polk County Site. The SWDAs will be mining parcel SA-8 initially and mining parcel P-2 in later phases, if necessary. Coal gasification slag will be the predominant solid waste to be disposed of in the SWDAs. Other areas included within the Polk County Site are mine parcels N- 11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East, Tiger Bay, the northerly 80 acres of N-9, SA-10 and the southerly 225 acres of SA-12. Along with providing a buffer for the Polk County Site facilities, these parcels also will provide drainage to Camp Branch and McCullough Creek. Linear facilities associated with the initial 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site will include a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. Site Selection A comprehensive process was used to select the Polk County Site. The goal of that process was to identify a site which could accommodate 3,000 MW of generating capacity and offer characteristics including: (1) multi-unit and clean coal capability; (2) technology and fuel flexibility; (3) cost effectiveness; (4) compatibility with FPC's commitment to environmental protection; (5) ability to comply with all government regulations; and (6) consistency with state land use objectives. The site selection process included the entire State of Florida. Participants in the site selection process included a variety of FPC departments, environmental and engineering consultants, and an eight-member Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) composed of environmental, educational, and community leaders. In October, 1990, with the concurrence of the EAG, the Polk County Site was selected. The ultimate basis for the selection of the Polk County Site was the disturbed nature of the site as a result of extensive phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site also is compatible with FPC's load center and transmission line network, and is accessible to rail and highway transportation systems. PSC Need Determination On February 25, 1992, the PSC issued Order No. 25805 determining the need for the first 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site. The PSC concluded in its order that the first two combined cycle units (470 MW) at the Polk County Site will contribute to FPC's electric system reliability and integrity. It also concluded that the first two units would enable FPC to meet winter reserve margin criteria and to withstand an outage of its largest unit at the time of system peak demand. The PSC stated that it was important for FPC to secure a site to meet future needs and that the first two units would contribute toward this goal. Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity The Site Certification Application (SCA), including the Sufficiency Responses, addressed the impacts associated with 3,000 to 3,200 MW of generating capacity under several scenarios. FPC eliminated or modified several of the scenarios by filing a Notice of Limitations which addressed the capacity and environmental effects of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity at the Polk County Site. Throughout the SCA, Sufficiency Responses and Notice of Limitations, the capacity constraints and environmental effects were analyzed under a worst case scenario, i.e., the maximum environmental effects that could be expected at ultimate site capacity. An ultimate site capacity determination will significantly reduce the time and expense associated with processing supplemental applications for future units at the Polk County Site under the expedited statutory procedures of the Power Plant Siting Act. This will allow FPC to respond more quickly to changes in growth and demand. An ultimate site capacity determination also provides FPC the assurance that the Polk County Site has the land, air and water resources to support future coal gas-fired generating capacity. Project Schedule and Costs Construction of the initial 470 MW of NGCC generating capacity is scheduled to begin in 1994. These units will go into operation in 1998 and 1999. Based on current load forecasts, it is expected that approximately one 250 MW unit will be added every other year to the Polk County Site. Under this schedule, ultimate site development of 3,000 MW would occur about 2018. Capital investment for the Polk County Site is expected to be approximately $3.4 billion for the 1,000 MW NGCC/2000 MW CGCC Case A' scenario and approximately $1.7 billion for the all NGCC Case C scenario. Project Design Generating units for the Polk County Site will be advanced design combined cycle units firing natural gas and/or coal gas, with low sulfur fuel oil as backup. Each combined cycle unit will consist of one or two combustion turbines (CT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for each CT and one or two steam turbines (ST). The first 470 MW of generating capacity will consist of two CTs firing natural gas, two HRSGs and one or two STs. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will consist of 12 CTs, 12 HRSGs, and 6 to 12 STs. A combined cycle unit is a generating system that consists of two sequential generating stages. In the first stage, the natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil is burned to operate the CT. Hot exhaust gas from the CT is passed through the HRSG to produce steam to operate the ST. The CT and steam from the HRSG can be arranged to drive individual generators or a single generator. In later phases of the Polk County Site, up to 2,000 MW of combined cycle generation may be fired on coal gas. The combined cycle units that were initially constructed to operate on natural gas can be modified to operate on coal gas. Under the Case A' scenario, two coal gasification plants would be built to produce coal gas for the combined cycle units. Associated with the coal gasification phase of the project will be the expansion of the plant island to accommodate the storage and handling of coal. Coal will be transported onsite by railroad. A rail loop for coal trains will be constructed on the plant island. It will be sized to accommodate a 100-car coal train. The coal storage area and limestone stockout will be located within the coal loop. Limestone is used in the coal gasification process as a fluxing agent to improve the viscosity of the coal slag, a by-product of the coal gasification process. The coal storage area, including the coal piles and emergency coal stockout system, will be lined with an impervious liner, and runoff from the coal storage area will be recycled to the coal gasification plants. The cooling pond for the Polk County Site will be located north and east of the plant island. Water from the cooling pond will be used for producing steam and condenser cooling. The cooling pond will be constructed initially in mining parcel N-16 and then in parcels N-15 and N-11B for later phases. These areas are mined-out pits which are surrounded by earthen dams. These dams will be upgraded where required to provide stability equivalent to the requirements of Chapter 17-672, Florida Administrative Code, for phosphate dams. Soil and Foundation Stability To evaluate the existing soil conditions at the Polk County Site, more than 165 test borings were made. The plant island is an existing mine pit which has been partially filled with sand tailings from phosphate mining operations. Underlying the sand is the Hawthorn formation which is often used as the base for deep load bearing foundations. Foundations for the heavier loads of power plant facilities will require pile foundations or similar types of deep foundations that will extend into the Hawthorn formation. The potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site was investigated by reviewing historic sinkhole records, aerial photographs, well drillers' logs, and by drilling three deep borings at the site. The investigation demonstrated that the potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site is low and acceptable for this type of construction. Construction Activities Construction of the Polk County Site will be phased over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. The development of the Polk County Site is expected to take place in seven phases. Changes in the scope or sequence of the individual phases may occur depending on capacity needs over time. During Phase I, the initial earthwork and dewatering activities required for the construction of the plant island and cooling pond will take place. The initial cooling pond and plant island area will be dewatered and fill will be placed in SA-11 and SA-13 for the initial power plant construction. Water from the dewatering activities will be conserved by storage in mining parcels SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, N-15 and the northerly part of SA-12, except for quantities used in IMC's recirculation system. Clay consolidation will commence for other parcels, such as N-11A, N-11B, N-11C, N-13 and N-9B. Phosphate mining and related operations will still function in parcels P-2, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes, and N-9. The initial vertical power plant construction for the first 470 MW of generating capacity will take place in Phase II. Water stored in Phase I, along with reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, will be used to fill the cooling pond in parcel N-16. Any excess reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, if necessary, will be stored in the eastern portion of N-16. Mining parcels SA-10, the southerly part of SA-12, and a portion of the offsite Estech Silver City plant site will be configured for drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek. Mining parcel SA-8 will be prepared to receive solid waste and parcel SA-9 will be prepared to receive wastewater from the RO system and neutralization basin. Wildlife habitat creation and enhancement will begin in parcels N-9B and N-13. Phase III of the Polk County Site represents the operation of the power plant from 235 MW to 1,500 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. The plant island, which will contain the generating units, will be located on mining parcels SA-11 and SA-13. The cooling pond will be located in N-16 and will receive reclaimed water from the City of Bartow and water crop from mining parcels P-3, Phosphoria, P-2, Triangle Lakes, N-15, N-11B, N-11C, the northerly end of SA-12 and the east end of N-16. Phase IV will encompass the development of the Polk County Site from 1,500 MW to 2,000 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. In conjunction with the additional generating units onsite, the cooling pond in N-16 will be enlarged to 1,219 acres. Other portions of the Polk County Site would remain the same as in Phase III. During Phase V, coal gasification is projected to be introduced to the Polk County Site. Generating capacity will be increased to 2,250 MW of which 1,000 MW are projected to be NGCC and the remaining 1,250 MW will be CGCC. To accommodate the coal gasification facilities, the northerly portion of SA-12 would be filled. The balance of the site would remain as described in Phase IV. During Phase VI, the generating capacity at the Polk County Site is projected to increase from 2,250 MW to 3,000 MW. This generating capacity will be a combination of 1,000 MW on NGCC and 2,000 MW on CGCC. During this phase, the cooling pond will be enlarged to 2,260 acres and will include parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, and a channel through N-11C. Earthwork will be required in N-15 and N-11B to repair and improve dams, and add slope protection on the dam inner faces and seeding on the exterior faces. Phase VII will be the final phase of the Polk County Site. During this phase, if the solid waste disposal area in mining parcel SA-8 were to become full it would be closed and mining parcel P-2 would be prepared to receive solid waste from the power plant operations. Parcels P-3 and Phosphoria will be available for mitigation, if necessary, as a result of activities in parcel P-2. This phase might not occur if coal slag is successfully recycled. Fuel Supply Fuel for the initial 470 MW of combined cycle generation will consist primarily of natural gas, with light distillate fuel oil as backup. Natural gas will be delivered by pipeline to the Polk County Site at a rate of 3.75 million cubic feet per hour. FPC currently plans to receive natural gas from the proposed Sunshine Pipeline for which certification is being sought in a separate proceeding. The Application for the Sunshine Pipeline was filed with DEP in August 1993. The other source for natural gas will be the backup natural gas pipeline which is being certified in this proceeding as an associated linear facility. Fuel oil will be delivered to the site by tanker truck, and enough fuel oil will be stored onsite for three days of operation for each combined cycle unit. At ultimate development, three 4-million gallon oil tanks will be located on the Polk County Site. All fuel handling and storage facilities, including unloading areas, pump areas, piping system, storage tanks, and tank containment areas will meet the requirements of DEP Chapter 17-762, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable National Fire Prevention Association Codes. At ultimate site development, the combined cycle units would use both natural gas and coal gas as primary fuels, and fuel oil as a backup fuel. As with the initial phase of operation, natural gas will be supplied by pipeline. At 1,000 MW of NGCC capacity, six to eight million cubic feet per hour of natural gas will be required. Coal for the coal gasification units will be delivered by railroad. For 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 tons of coal a day will be required. Linear Facilities The initial 470 MW of NGCC generation includes three associated linear facilities: a 230-kV transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. 230-kV Transmission Line The 230-kV transmission line will be routed from the existing FPC Barcola Substation within the Polk County Site to the FPC Ft. Meade Substation adjacent to CR 630. The transmission line corridor is approximately 1,000 feet wide within the Polk County Site boundary and narrows to 500 feet as the corridor leaves the site. The transmission line corridor follows several linear facilities including an existing transmission line right-of-way, CR 555 and CR 630. Land uses along the corridor are primarily phosphate mining, agricultural and industrial. Wetlands within the transmission line corridor are minimal and are associated primarily with roadside ditches. Where the transmission line crosses McCullough Creek, the creek will be spanned. The 230-kV transmission line will be constructed using single shaft tubular steel poles with a double circuit configuration for two 230-kV circuits. The transmission line structures will range in height from 110 feet to 145 feet. The conductor for the transmission line is a 1590 ACSR conductor that is approximately 1.54 inches in diameter. Conductor span lengths between structures will range from 500 to 900 feet. The transmission line will be constructed in six phases. During the first phase, the right-of-way will be cleared. Clearing in upland areas will be done using mowers and other power equipment. Clearing in wetlands, if necessary, will be accomplished by restrictive clearing techniques. After the right-of-way has been cleared, existing structures which will be replaced with new transmission line structures will be removed by unbolting them from their foundations and removing the structures with a crane. Foundations for new transmission line structures will be vibrated into the ground using a vibratory hammer or placed into an augured hole and backfilled. After the foundations are in place, new structures will be assembled on the foundations using a crane. Insulation and pole hardware will be mounted on the structures after erection. In the fifth phase of construction, conductors will be placed on a structure by pulling the conductors through a stringing block attached to the structure. During the final phase of construction, the structures will be grounded and any construction debris will be removed from the right-of-way. The construction of the 230-kV transmission line is estimated to require approximately 17 weeks. Construction of the transmission line will meet or exceed standards of the National Electrical Safety Code; FPC transmission design standards; Chapter 17- 814, Florida Administrative Code; and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, where applicable. Electric and magnetic fields from the 230-kV transmission line will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 17-814, Florida Administrative Code. Audible noise from the transmission line should occur only during rainy weather and will not exceed 39.1 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. Since the transmission line is not located near many residences, interference to television and AM radio reception should be minimal. If interference does occur, it can be identified easily and corrected on an individual basis. Backup Natural Gas Pipeline The backup natural gas pipeline will originate at the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline in Hillsborough County at CR 39. The backup pipeline corridor runs generally east for 18 miles until it enters the Polk County Site at the western boundary of the plant island. The pipeline corridor is 1,000 feet wide and it generally follows linear facilities such as Jameson Road, a Tampa Electric Company transmission line, the CSX Railroad, Durrance Road, and Agricola Road. Several subalternate corridors are proposed in Polk County where the backup natural gas pipeline crosses phosphate mining land. The subalternate corridors, all of which are proposed for certification, are necessary to maintain flexibility in routing the backup natural gas pipeline around active mining operations. The uses of land crossed by the backup natural gas pipeline corridor consist primarily of phosphate mining and some agriculture. There are only two areas of residential land use along the corridor, one along Jameson Road in Hillsborough County, and the other near Bradley Junction along Old Highway 37 in Polk County. Ecological areas crossed by the natural gas pipeline corridor include a portion of Hookers Prairie in Polk County, some isolated wetlands associated with phosphate mining activities, and the South Prong Alafia River near CR 39 in Hillsborough County. The backup natural gas pipeline will consist of a metering facility, a scraper trap for pipeline cleaning, a maximum 30-inch buried pipeline made of high strength steel, a pressure regulating station, a cathodic protection system for corrosion control, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor and operate the pipeline. The pipe to be used for the natural gas pipeline will be manufactured in accordance with standards specified in 49 CFR 192 and the industrial standards referenced therein. Pipe thickness will vary depending on the population of the area crossed. External corrosion control for the pipe will be provided by an external coating around the pipe and a cathodic protection system designed to prevent electrochemical corrosion of the pipe. Pipeline sections will be hydrostatically tested before leaving the factory to 125 percent of the design pressure. Activities associated with the construction of the backup natural gas pipeline will include survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, stringing of the pipe, bending, lineup welding and nondestructive testing, ditching, lowering in of pipeline sections, backfilling, tying in pipeline sections, testing and right-of-way restoration. Construction of the pipeline will take place typically within a 75 foot-wide right-of-way. A wider right-of-way may be required where specialized construction activities, such as jack and bore methods, are used. After construction, the natural gas pipeline will have a permanent 50-foot right-of-way. Where the pipeline crosses federal and state highways or water courses, directional drilling or jack and bore construction methods will be used to minimize disturbance. Where the pipeline crosses the South Prong Alafia River, directional drilling will be used to locate the pipeline underneath the river bed. Pipeline welding will be done by highly skilled personnel who have been qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Pipeline welds will be visually inspected and a percentage of the welds will be x-rayed for analysis. Once the pipeline is constructed, buried and tie-in welds completed, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing will use water with a minimum test pressure of 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the Polk County Site cooling pond. Construction of the pipeline will comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipelines: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; Chapter 25-12, Florida Administrative Code; Safety of Gas Transportation by Pipeline; and the FDOT Utility Accommodation Guide. After construction of the backup natural gas pipeline, the right-of- way will be restored and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way will be maintained. Line markers will be located along the pipeline at regular intervals and warning signs will be posted where the pipeline crosses roads, railroads, or stream crossings. The estimated cost for the pipeline construction is $611,100 per mile, or $11.2 million for the 18.2 mile pipeline route. Reclaimed Water Pipeline The reclaimed water pipeline will run from the City of Bartow to the cooling pond near the eastern side of the Polk County Site. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor follows the CSX Railroad and U.S. Highway 17/98 south from the southerly Bartow city limit turning west toward the Polk County Site just south of Homeland. Land uses along the corridor include phosphate mining, commercial sites, rural residences and recreation. The corridor does not cross any environmentally sensitive habitats. The reclaimed water pipeline consists of a buried pipe, 24 to 36 inches in diameter, butterfly valves about every mile along the pipeline, and a flow meter. Pumping of reclaimed water will be provided by the Bartow Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is similar to that of the natural gas pipeline and includes the following activities: survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, ditching or trenching construction, stringing of the pipe and pipe installation, back filling, hydrostatic testing, and right-of-way restoration. Where the pipeline crosses state or federal highways or railroads, the pipe will be installed by using jack and bore construction. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is estimated to cost $500,000 per mile or $5,000,000 for the total length of the pipeline. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline will comply with the standards in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, and the EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Manual. The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested prior to operation. Corrosion control of the pipeline will depend on the material used for the pipeline and the soil conditions. If a polyethylene or a polyvinylchloride material is used, no corrosion control will be necessary. If ductile iron is used, the soil will be tested for corrosive properties and, if necessary, the pipeline will be protected from corrosion with a poly wrap material. Solid Waste Disposal Various types of solid waste will be generated by the operation of the Polk County Site. Depending upon the type of solid waste, disposal may be made in the onsite solid waste disposal areas or it may be disposed of offsite. Waste inlet air filters from the combustion turbines and general waste, such as office waste, yard waste and circulating water system screenings, will be recycled or disposed of offsite at the Polk County North Central Landfill. Solid waste from the well water pretreatment and blowdown pretreatment will be disposed of onsite in the solid waste disposal area to be constructed in mining parcel SA-8. Sulfur, a by-product of coal gasification, will be of marketable grade and will be stored in a molten state onsite and delivered to buyers by rail car or tanker truck. Slag, a by-product of coal gasification, will be the largest volume of solid waste generated at the Polk County Site. Slag is potentially marketable and FPC will make efforts to recycle this by-product as construction aggregate. If slag is not marketable, it will be disposed of in the onsite solid waste disposal areas initially in mining parcel SA-8 and later, if necessary, in parcel P-2. Low volume spent acidic and basic solutions produced in the regeneration of demineralizer resin bed ion exchanges during operation of the facility will be treated in an elementary neutralization unit to render them non-hazardous. Other potentially hazardous waste will be tested and if determined hazardous will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Onsite disposal of slag, and well water and blowdown pretreatment solids will be made in the solid waste disposal areas to be constructed in parcels SA-8 and later, if necessary, P-2. These parcels are clay lined impoundments that have clays generally 20 to 40 feet thick. Prior to disposal of any solid waste in a clay settling area, that area will be drained and the clays consolidated. The clays will be probed and if the clay thickness is less than 10 feet it will be refurbished or patched with a synthetic liner. Additionally, a geotextile net will be installed to provide tensile strength to the upper layer of clay. Perimeter leachate collection piping will be installed. Leachate in the interior of the solid waste disposal areas will be monitored and collected by the use of well points to maintain the leachate head at no greater than 4 feet. The solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8 will be closed by installing a two-foot thick soil cover which will be seeded and graded to provide water crop to parcel N-16. At closure, the leachate level will be pumped down to minimize the residual leachate head. The clay which lines the base of the solid waste disposal areas decreases in permeability as it consolidates and the solids content of the clay increases. In the first 20 to 50 years of consolidation, the hydraulic gradient of the clay is reversed and water will drain upward. Analysis of the clay shows that it would take 60 to 100 years for leachate to seep through the clay liner. After closure and capping of the solid waste disposal area occurs and the leachate residual head is pumped out, leachate is not expected to break through the liner. Based on the design of the solid waste disposal areas and the analysis of the clay, the solid waste disposal areas in parcels SA-8, and later P-2, should provide equivalent or superior protection to that of a Class I landfill under Chapter 17-7.01, Florida Administrative Code. Industrial Wastewater The Polk County Site is designed to be a zero discharge facility. There will be no offsite surface water discharge of contaminated stormwater or cooling pond blowdown. Cooling pond blowdown will be treated first by a lime/soda ash softening pretreatment system. A portion of the softened effluent will be routed to the cooling pond and a portion will be treated further by reverse osmosis (RO). High quality water from the RO system will be reused in the power plant as process water. The reject wastewater from the RO system will be sent to the brine pond for evaporation. In later stages of the Polk County Site operation, the RO reject wastewater will be concentrated prior to disposal in the brine pond. The brine pond will be constructed in parcel SA-9, a waste clay settling pond. Parcel SA-9 has thick waste clay deposits which will act as a liner. A synthetic liner will be placed along the interior perimeter of the brine pond out to a point where the clay is at least 10 feet thick. The synthetic liner will prevent seepage of the brine through the embankment of the brine pond and will provide added protection near the perimeter of the brine pond where the clay liner is thinner. Groundwater Impacts/Zone of Discharge The brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will be located in waste clay settling ponds with thick clay liners. They will be constructed to minimize, if not eliminate, seepage of brine and leachate to groundwater. If brine or leachate should seep through the clay liner, dispersion and dilution will reduce chemical concentrations so that neither primary nor secondary groundwater quality standards will be exceeded at the boundary of the zone of discharge. A zone of discharge has been established for the solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8, the brine pond in parcel SA-9, and the cooling pond in parcels N-11B, N-15 and N-16. The zone of discharge will extend horizontally 100 feet out from the outside toe of the earthen dam along a consolidated boundary surrounding these facilities and vertically downward to the top of the Tampa member of the Hawthorn Group. A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor compliance with groundwater standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge. Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The Polk County Site is located along the divide between the Peace River Drainage Basin and the Alafia River Drainage Basin. Water bodies near the site include McCullough Creek, Camp Branch, Six Mile Creek, Barber Branch, and South Prong Alafia River. Mining has disrupted or eliminated natural drainage patterns from the Polk County Site to these water bodies. Currently the only drainage from the Polk County Site to these water bodies is through federally permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. To assess the impact to the surficial hydrology of the Polk County Site and surrounding water bodies, the baseline condition was assumed to be the surficial hydrology which would be present under current mandatory reclamation plans for the mining parcels onsite and offsite. The baseline for non-mandatory parcels was assumed to be the minimum reclamation standards under the DEP/Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BOMR) (formerly within the Department of Natural Resources) Old Lands Program and the baseline for non-mandatory offsite parcels was considered to be the existing condition. The one water body onsite for which the baseline condition presently exists is Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released. The baseline condition for the Polk County Site ultimately would include elimination of seepage from N-16 to Tiger Bay and removal of the NPDES outfall weir from Tiger Bay to Camp Branch. These conditions will result in a lowering of the water table in Tiger Bay and the drying out of wetlands in that area. Under current reclamation plans, water bodies also will be created in parcels SA-12 and SA-11. Other than the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East, DEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Polk County have not claimed jurisdiction over any of the water bodies onsite within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted. The major construction activities which may impact offsite surface water bodies are the dewatering activities associated with the initial phase of construction. During this period, parcels SA-11, SA-13 and N-16 will be dewatered to allow earth-moving activities to take place. Dewatering effluent will be stored onsite, reused in IMC's recirculation system, or discharged in the event of above-average rainfall. After the earthwork is complete, the water will be returned to N-16. Based on this construction scenario, no adverse impact to offsite surface water bodies is expected from the construction activities associated with the Polk County Site. The Polk County Site has been designed to function as a "zero discharge" facility. No surface water will be withdrawn from or discharged to any offsite surface water body as a result of plant operations. Certain non- industrial areas within the Polk County Site will be designed, however, to provide offsite drainage to enhance flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. Flow to McCullough Creek will be enhanced by drainage from parcel SA-10, an offsite portion of the Estech Silver City Plant Site, and the southerly portion of parcel SA-12. Drainage from parcels N-11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East and Tiger Bay will enhance flows to Camp Branch. Additionally, FPC has agreed to explore the possibility of restoring drainage to Six Mile Creek if onsite water cropping produces more water than FPC needs for power plant operations and if such drainage can be accomplished without additional permits. The net effect of the drainage enhancement plans will be to equal or improve flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch over the baseline condition for the site. There are several types of surface water systems to be developed on the Polk County Site. Surface water runoff from the plant island, other than that from the coal and limestone storage areas, will be routed to the site runoff pond and then used in the cooling pond as makeup water. Surface water runoff from the coal and limestone storage areas, as well as runoff from the active solid waste disposal area, will be routed to a lined recycle basin and will be used as process makeup water for the coal gasification plant. Surface water runoff from mining parcels N-11C, Triangle Lakes, N-11B and N-15 prior to its use as part of the cooling pond, P-3, Phosphoria, P-2 prior to its use as a solid waste disposal area, and SA-8 after it has been closed as a solid waste disposal area, will be directed to the cooling pond as makeup water. All of the surface water management systems will meet the requirements of the SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water rules. Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts from Water Withdrawal The Polk County Site will use a cooling pond for process water and for cooling water for the combined cycle units and the coal gasification facilities. For the initial 940 MW of generating capacity, makeup water for the cooling pond will come from onsite water cropping and reclaimed water from the City of Bartow. FPC has negotiated an agreement with the City of Bartow for 3.5 or more million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment facility. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will require up to 23.6 mgd from a combination of offsite sources and groundwater for the operation of the power plant. FPC has agreed with the SWFWMD to obtain at least 6.1 mgd from reclaimed water and other offsite non-potable water sources, including the City of Bartow, for use as makeup water for the cooling pond. The additional 17.5 mgd of water may be withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer if additional sources of reclaimed water are not available. FPC has identified substantial amounts of reclaimed water that may be available. A limited quantity of potable water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be needed to supply drinking water and other potable water needs for power plant employees. Well water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be treated, filtered and chlorinated in an onsite potable water treatment system prior to consumption. At ultimate site development, potable water consumption is estimated to average 19,000 gallons per day, with a peak consumption of 36,000 gallons per day. As an alternative, FPC may connect with the City of Bartow or the City of Fort Meade potable water system. The subsurface hydrology of the Polk County Site consists of three aquifer systems. The uppermost system is the surficial aquifer which is located in the upper 20 to 30 feet of soil. Due to mining operations, the surficial aquifer has been removed from the site except beneath highway rights-of-way and portions of some dams. Below the surficial aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer which is comprised of an upper confining layer approximately 120 feet thick, a middle water bearing unit about 60 feet thick, and a lower confining unit about 80 to 100 feet thick. This aquifer system provides potable water to some small quantity users in the area. Below the intermediate aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer, which consists of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, a discontinuous intermediate confining unit, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Upper Floridan Aquifer provides a larger source of potable water for the area. The Lower Floridan Aquifer is characterized by poorer quality water and has not been used generally for water supply. The principal impact to groundwater from construction of the Polk County Site will be from the dewatering activities in parcels N-16, SA-11 and SA-13. This impact, if not mitigated, could result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the surficial aquifer in adjacent wetlands. During construction, recharge trenches will be constructed in certain locations near wetlands. Modeling analysis demonstrates that the recharge trenches will adequately mitigate any offsite groundwater impacts that otherwise would be caused by construction dewatering. The principal groundwater impact from the operation of the Polk County Site will be the withdrawal of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for process water and cooling pond makeup. Water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the lowest quality of groundwater that can be used for the Polk County Site while maintaining the cooling pond as a zero discharge facility. The withdrawal of 17.5 mgd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer at ultimate site development will not adversely impact offsite legal users of groundwater and will comply with the SWFWMD consumptive use criteria for groundwater withdrawal. Ecological Resources The baseline for the ecological resources at the Polk County Site was established as the site condition that would exist following (i) mandatory reclamation under reclamation plans approved by the DEP/BOMR, and (ii) non- mandatory reclamation normally carried out by the mining companies. In the cases of Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR, and Tiger Bay East, which has revegetated naturally without reclamation, the ecological baseline was represented by the current condition of these parcels. This baseline methodology was proposed by FPC in a Plan of Study which was accepted by DEP in a Binding Written Agreement. The predominant land cover that would occur under the baseline condition at the Polk County Site would be agriculture. Approximately 70 percent of the Polk County Site, or approximately 5,678 acres, would be developed as crop land, citrus or pasture. The remaining 30 percent of the site would be reclaimed as non-agricultural uplands, wetlands and open water bodies. Tiger Bay already has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR and Tiger Bay East has revegetated naturally. These two parcels represent one-fourth (524 acres) of the natural habitat under the ecological baseline condition. The quality of the baseline land cover and vegetation was established by surveying several onsite and offsite areas which have been reclaimed and released. Baseline aquatic resources at the Polk County Site consist of Tiger Bay and the aquatic resources which would have been developed under existing reclamation plans. This baseline would include open water bodies and forested wetlands in parcels SA- 11 and SA-12, and forested and herbaceous wetlands in parcel N-16. Both Estech and IMC have exceeded their mine-wide wetlands mitigation obligations even without those wetlands. The quality of the baseline open water bodies on the Polk County Site was evaluated by surveying parcel N- 16, which currently consists of open water habitat. The quality of wetlands was determined by surveying Tiger Bay, which contains wetlands that have been reclaimed and released. The baseline aquatic resources were found to have significant fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, and were characterized by encroachment of cattail, water hyacinth and other nuisance species. All of the aquatic areas sampled as representative of baseline conditions showed significant eutrophication. No DEP or SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite, within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted, except in the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East. Baseline evaluation of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern (listed species) was conducted by collecting information regarding regional habitat descriptions; plant species lists and ecological reports for the area; lists and ecological reports of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians common to the area; species checklists; reports of sightings or abundance estimates; interspecific relationships and food chains of important species; location of rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for these species in the region; and occurrence of potential preexisting stresses. Information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and approved mine reclamation plans was reviewed. Visits were made to nearby reclaimed sites by land and low-flying helicopters. No listed plant species were found at the site or offsite study areas. Existing reclamation plans, and consequently the ecological baseline condition, do not require the planting of such species. Listed animal species which were observed at the Polk County Site and are expected under the baseline conditions include the American alligator, woodstork, southeastern kestrel, osprey, little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron. The baseline conditions would provide suitable feeding habitat for these species, but only limited areas of suitable nesting habitat. Both the current condition of the site and baseline condition provide feeding habitat for the American bald eagle, however, the nesting potential for this species will be greater after the implementation of the baseline condition. Impacts to the baseline ecological resources from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site will be more than compensated by habitat creation and enhancement programs proposed by FPC. The primary impacts to the baseline ecological resources will occur when power plant facilities, such as the plant island, cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal area are constructed, eliminating these parcels from the baseline ecological resources. Without development of the Polk County Site, these parcels would represent approximately 2,268 acres of viable lakes and upland and wetland habitats. FPC has proposed a total of 3,713 acres of viable wildlife habitat as part of the ultimate development of the Polk County Site. Accordingly, the available wildlife habitat after construction of the Polk County Site represents a net increase of 1,445 acres over the baseline ecological resource conditions. This increase in habitat, particularly in the buffer area, will be a net benefit for protected species. In providing more wildlife habitat than baseline conditions, FPC has agreed to certain enhancement activities that will specifically offset any impact to baseline ecological resources. These enhancement programs include habitat and wetland creation in parcels N-9B and N-13; habitat creation and offsite drainage enhancement in parcel SA-10; implementation of a wildlife habitat management plan and exotic vegetation control in parcels SA-10, N-9B and N-13; drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch; and funding the acquisition of a 425 acre offsite area to serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Air Pollution Control Polk County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the project will be subject to "new source review." This review generally requires that the project comply with all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be applied to control emissions of PSD pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements. For the initial 470 MW phase of the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM and PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), beryllium, inorganic arsenic, and benzene. For the ultimate site capacity, BACT is required for each of these pollutants, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), mercury, and lead as well. BACT is defined in DEP Rule 17-212.200(16), Florida Administrative Code, as: An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of a BACT analysis is to minimize the allowable increases in air pollutants and thereby increase the potential for future economic growth without significantly degrading air quality. Such an analysis is intended to insure that the air emissions control systems for the project reflect the latest control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the project. The BACT analysis for the project therefore evaluated technical, economic, and environmental considerations of available control technologies and examined BACT determinations for other similar facilities across the United States. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for SO2 emissions from the CTs is the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and the use of low sulfur oil for a limited number of hours per year. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for CO, VOCs, PM, beryllium, arsenic, and benzene emissions from the CTs is efficient design and operation of the CTs, the inherent quality of natural gas (the primary fuel), and a limitation on the annual use of fuel oil. For the first 470 MW of combined cycle units, BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs is the use of advanced dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 12 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, water/steam injection to achieve 42 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning fuel oil, and limited annual fuel oil use. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, the DEP staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs as 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, using dry low NOx combustor technology. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that, because of the lack of proven technology to achieve such emission rate, it would be more appropriate to establish BACT at 73 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 12 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F) using dry low NOx combustor technology and to require FPC to make every practicable effort to achieve the lowest possible NOx emission rate with those CTs when firing natural gas. FPC also is required to conduct an engineering study to determine the lowest emission rate consistently achievable with a reasonable operating margin taking into account long-term performance expectations and assuming good operating and maintenance practices. Based on the results of that study, DEP may adjust the NOx emission limit downward, but not lower than 55 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F.). For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler that is part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for NOx emissions is low NOx burners, limited annual fuel oil use, and limited hours of annual operation. BACT for NOx emissions from the 1300 kW diesel generator is combustion timing retardation with limited hours of annual operation. For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for CO, VOC, SO2, PM, benzene, beryllium, and arsenic emissions consists of good combustion controls, the inherent quality of the fuels burned, the use of low-sulfur fuel oil, and limited hours of operation. For the fuel oil storage tank as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT is submerged filling of the tank. For the coal gasification and other facilities to be built during later phases of the project, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPC to support the demonstration that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full phased project. Air Quality Impact Analysis Air emissions from the project also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. Polk County and the contiguous counties are classified as Class II areas for PSD purposes; the nearest Class I area is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, located approximately 120 km. from the Site. An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DEP, demonstrated that the project at ultimate capacity utilizing worst-case assumptions will comply with all state and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. For nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, air quality modeling was based on conservative assumptions, including background concentrations based upon the highest long- term and second highest short-term measured values (established through an onsite one-year air quality monitoring program and regional data), existing major sources at their maximum emissions, the estimated maximum emissions from certain other proposed projects, and the impacts of the proposed FPC project at ultimate site capacity. For other pollutants, detailed analyses were not performed because offsite impacts were predicted to be insignificant. Impacts of the project's estimated emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, benzene, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) at ultimate capacity were compared to the DEP draft no-threat levels under DEP's draft "Air Toxics Permitting Strategy." All pollutants except arsenic were projected to be below the corresponding draft no- threat level. Because of the conservatism of DEP's draft no-threat levels, it was concluded that arsenic impacts would not pose a significant health risk to the population in the surrounding area. Impacts on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area, will be minimal. Visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will not be impaired significantly by the project's emissions. Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial, and residential growth induced by the project are expected to be small and well-distributed throughout the area. Impacts from the initial phase of the Project (470 MW) will comply with all State and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The impacts from the initial phase of the Project are also well below the draft no-threat levels. The initial phase of the Project will not significantly impair visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and the impact on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will be minimal. The air quality impacts due to commercial, industrial, and residential growth from the initial phase of the Project will be small, and are not expected to impact air quality. Land Use Planning/Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction and Operation The proposed site is an appropriate location for the Polk County Site project. The Polk County Site has adequate access to highway and rail networks, including CR 555, a major collector road, and the CSX railroad. The Polk County Site is located away from major residential areas in a location already heavily disturbed by mining activity. The site is located in reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas that can supply an adequate work force for construction. Development of the Polk County Site in a mined-out phosphate area is a beneficial use of land and will provide an economic benefit for Polk County. The Polk County Site also is close to existing facilities, such as existing transmission line corridors and reclaimed water facilities, which will benefit the operation of the site while minimizing the impact of the project. The linear facilities associated with the Polk County Site are sited in appropriate locations. The 230-kV transmission line upgrade, reclaimed water pipeline and backup natural gas pipeline corridors: (i) are located adjacent to other linear facilities, such as existing roads and transmission lines, (ii) avoid major residential areas, and (iii) minimally disrupt existing land uses. The Polk County Site is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, the CFRPC Regional Policy Plan, and will meet the requirements of the Polk County Conditional Use Permit. The portion of the backup natural gas pipeline located in Hillsborough County is consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the policies of the TBRPC Regional Policy Plan. Construction of the Polk County Site will occur over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. If the Polk County Site is developed only for NGCC capacity, construction employment will average 153 jobs per year with a peak employment of 350. The average annual payroll for construction of the Polk County Site on all NGCC is expected to be $7.1 million per year. If 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC units are built at the Polk County Site, peak construction employment will be 1,000 with an average annual construction employment of 315 over the approximate 25-year period. Average annual payroll under this scenario would be $14.6 million per year. Indirect jobs created as a result of buildout of the Polk County Site will average 231 jobs for all NGCC and 477 jobs if 2,000 MW of CGCC is added to the Polk County Site. After completion of the construction of the Polk County Site at ultimate capacity, 110 permanent direct jobs will be created if the site uses all NGCC and 410 jobs will be created if coal gasification is added to the Polk County Site. The operation of the Polk County Site will have a multiplier effect on the Polk County economy. The all NGCC scenario will create 272 indirect jobs and the Case A' scenario with CGCC will create 1,013 indirect jobs. After buildout, property taxes generated by the Polk County Site are estimated to be $24.3 million per year for the all NGCC scenario and $37.4 million per year if CGCC capacity is constructed at the site. Noise Impacts The ambient noise, or baseline noise condition at the Polk County Site was measured in five locations. These measurements show that the baseline noise condition for the site ranges between 30 dBA and 65 dBA at the nearest residential location. The higher noise levels are caused by truck traffic associated with the phosphate mining industry. Noise impacts from construction will be loudest during initial site preparation and steel erection stages. Earth moving equipment will produce noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA at the nearest residence in Homeland. During final phases of construction, steam blowout activity to clean steam lines will produce short duration noise levels of 69 dBA at the nearest residence. This activity will take place only during daylight hours. Noise levels from the operation of the Polk County Site were calculated using a computer program specifically designed for assessing noise impacts associated with power plant operation. The highest predicted continuous noise level will be 41 dBA at several houses 2.9 miles south of the site and 47 dBA at the nearest church. Noise impacts from fuel delivery trucks and coal trains will not significantly increase the noise levels over existing conditions. The continuous noise level from the operation of the Polk County Site at the nearest residence or church will be below the 55 dBA level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Traffic analyses were made for impacts to highway traffic which will result from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site. These analyses included impacts at rail crossings caused by the delivery of coal to the Polk County Site under the Case A' scenario. A highway traffic analysis was made to determine if the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the Polk County Site would operate at acceptable levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated with the construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. Methodologies for evaluating traffic impact complied with Polk County, FDOT and CFRPC criteria. County roads were evaluated using Polk County criteria and state roads were evaluated using both Polk County and FDOT criteria. Traffic volumes were evaluated for peak construction traffic in 2010 and full plant operations, estimated in 2018. The traffic evaluation included analysis of existing traffic conditions, increased traffic volume associated with growth in the area not associated with the Polk County Site, and increased traffic associated with construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. During peak construction employment under the Case A' scenario, 1,000 employees are expected at the Polk County Site. Under this scenario, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is expected to be 1,792 trips per day, with a morning peak of 717 trips and an afternoon peak of 717 trips. Based on this analysis, all roadways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with currently planned improvements to the roadways. Intersection levels of service were found acceptable for 7 out of 11 intersections. FPC has recommended improvements to four intersections at U.S. 98 and SR 60A, SR 60 and CR 555, SR 37 and CR 640, and CR 555 and CR 640 at specified traffic levels. Peak operation employment under the Case A' scenario is expected to be 410 employees in 2018. Based upon this employment figure, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is 964 trips per day with a morning peak of 195 trips and an afternoon peak of 154 trips. At peak operation employment, all roadways evaluated were found to operate at acceptable levels of service. All intersections, except the intersection at SR 60 and CR 555, were found to operate at acceptable levels. FPC has recommended a protected/permissive westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With FPC's recommended improvements, which have been incorporated as conditions of certification, and those improvements currently planned by FDOT, the existing roadway network will meet Polk County and FDOT approved levels of service at peak employment during the construction and operation of the Polk County Site to its ultimate capacity. In addition to the highway traffic impact analysis, FPC evaluated the impact on rail/highway crossings from the transportation of coal by rail under the Case A' scenario. It was assumed that all coal for the Polk County Site will be delivered by rail over existing CSX transportation lines. It is expected that at full operation two 90-car trains per day will be required for the delivery of coal, resulting in four train trips per day. It was also assumed that trains will travel at speeds averaging 35 to 45 miles per hour. Evaluation of the impacts at rail crossings found an increase of .5 second per vehicle per day at urban rail crossings and .3 second per vehicle per day at rural rail crossings. Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the total delay at rail crossing intersections caused by the increased train traffic to and from the Polk County Site will not cause a significant delay and the rail crossing intersections will maintain level of service A. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, has stated that because of the location of the Polk County Site, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological or historical sites will be affected. Mandatory Reclamation of Mining Parcels The Polk County Site is comprised of phosphate mining parcels, portions of which are subject to mandatory reclamation under the jurisdiction of DEP/BOMR. The mandatory mining parcels are currently owned by Estech, IMC, and USAC. FPC has entered into stipulations with each mining company agreeing to reclamation of the mandatory mining parcels in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by DEP/BOMR. In those conditions, DEP has proposed to incorporate the reclamation conceptual plan modifications included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site and has redesignated those conceptual plan modifications as EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP- FPC. The portions of the site which will be developed by FPC will be released from mandatory reclamation requirements when FPC purchases the Polk County Site. Variances FPC has requested variances from certain reclamation standards set forth in Rule 16C-16.0051, Florida Administrative Code, which will be necessary until the affected mining parcels on the Polk County Site are released from reclamation. FPC has requested a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(a), which requires artificial water bodies to have an annual zone of fluctuation, and Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(b), which requires submerged vegetation and fish bedding in artificially-created water bodies. The criteria in these rules are inappropriate for a cooling pond, because it is an industrial wastewater treatment facility which cannot be efficiently or safely operated with fluctuating water levels and aquatic vegetation zones. With regard to the construction of dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(2)(a), which requires a 4:1 slope for dam embankments and Rule 16C-16.0051(9)(b) and (c), which requires vegetation of upland areas, which may include dam embankments. Dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will have steeper slopes and the interiors of the dams will be concrete blanket revetments, synthetic liners or solid waste consistent with the industrial purposes for which these facilities have been constructed. Access to these areas will be controlled to prevent any potential safety hazard. Finally, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(11)(b)(4), which requires reclamation to be completed within two years after mining operations are completed. Construction of the Polk County Site requires extensive dewatering and earthwork which cannot be completed within this timeframe. Applications for variances from mining reclamation criteria were included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA and have been incorporated into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site. DEP has redesignated these variance applications as EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC-V. These variances are appropriate and should be granted. Agency Positions and Stipulations The Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Polk County have recommended certification for the construction and operation of the initial 470 MW of natural gas combined cycle generating capacity and have recommended the determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity for 3,000 MW of natural gas and coal gas combined cycle generating capacity, subject to appropriate conditions of certification. No other state, regional or local agency that is a party to the certification proceeding has recommended denial of the certification for the construction of the initial 470 MW of generating capacity or determination of ultimate site capacity. Several agencies which expressed initial concern regarding certification of the Polk County Site have resolved those concerns with FPC and have entered into stipulations with FPC as discussed below. The Florida Department of Transportation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs have entered into stipulations with FPC recommending certification of the Polk County Site and a determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate site capacity to support 3,000 MW of NGCC and CGCC generating capacity subject to proposed conditions of certification. Hillsborough County, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Port Authority have entered into a stipulation and agreement with FPC recommending certification of the backup natural gas pipeline corridor subject to proposed conditions of certification. FPC and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Polk County Site. Those conditions are attached as Appendix A to this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of 470 MW of combined cycle generating capacity as proposed in the Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. Florida Power Corporation's Polk County Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 MW fueled by coal gas, natural gas, and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code, and the attached Conditions of Certification. A zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. The conceptual plan modifications (EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP-FPC) for the mandatory phosphate mining reclamation plans be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. The variances from reclamation standards (EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC- V) as described herein be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5308EPP RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * * NOTE: 114 page Recommended Conditions of Certification plus attachments is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Pamela I. Smith Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042 Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR Carolyn S. Holifield, Chief Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Doug Leonard, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Attorney at Law Central Florida Regional Planning Council 409 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Representing CFRPC Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council John J. Dingfelder Assistant County Attorney Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2370 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Representing SWFWMD James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Representing EPCHC Joseph L. Valenti, Director Tampa Port Authority Post Office Box 2192 Tampa, Florida 33601 Representing Tampa Port Authority Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Don E. Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing the Trustees Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue for determination is whether either of the proposed transmission line corridors for the proposed Lake Agnes-Gifford 230 kV transmission line comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, which of those corridors has the least adverse impacts with respect to the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including cost. If one of the corridors proper for certification is determined to have the least adverse impacts, the issue is whether certification of that corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. See § 403.529(4) and (5), Fla. Stat. If the two corridors are found to be substantially equal in adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including costs, the Siting Board shall certify the Joint Applicants' Preferred Corridor. See § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The TLSA establishes TECO, Progress Energy, and the Department as parties to this proceeding, and the following became parties upon their timely filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Community Affairs, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). See § 403.527(2), Fla. Stat. The following agencies did not participate in the proceeding and did not file a notice of intent before the thirtieth day prior to the certification hearing and each one is deemed to have waived its right to be a party: the PSC; the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry; Osceola County; Polk County; Reedy Creek Improvement District; Department of Health; Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation; East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and Central Florida Regional Planning Council. See § 403.527(3), Fla. Stat. Orange County, Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), and the SFWMD (during the public comment portion of the hearing only) appeared at the hearing. Pursuant to Section 403.527(2)(c)3., Florida Statutes, any person whose substantial interests are affected and being determined by the proceeding shall be parties to the proceeding upon the filing of a notice of intent to be a party. By stipulation of the parties, having filed a notice of intent to be a party or a petition to intervene, OIC, OUC, Blackwater Associates, Ltd., and Mountain Funding, LLC, are parties to the proceeding without the need to introduce evidence as to substantial interests affected and being determined by the proceeding. The Corridors Proper for Certification The Applicants' Preferred Corridor exits the existing Lake Agnes substation in northeastern Polk County and extends east-northeast approximately 18.9 miles within, adjacent to, or in proximity to the OUC McIntosh-Taft transmission line right- of-way (ROW), which generally runs parallel to Interstate 4 (I-4), across Polk and Osceola Counties. It then turns north and crosses Loughman Road (Polk County Road 54, now known as Ronald Reagan Boulevard), Old Lake Wilson Road, and I-4, and continues north along the Daniel Webster Western Beltway, also known as State Road 429 (SR 429), co-locating in the SR 429 ROW, for approximately 8.6 miles. The Preferred Corridor then turns west and exits the SR 429 ROW, just north of Western Way and enters into PEF's existing easement, crossing Hartzog Road into the planned Gifford substation in southwestern Orange County. The OIC Alternate Corridor is designed to avoid the western edge of the OIC development in Osceola County and commences at the Applicants' Preferred Corridor 2,000 feet south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road on the west side of SR 429, where it turns northwest and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, and then turns northeast and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, in an approximate horseshoe shape, to rejoin the Applicants' Preferred Corridor along SR 429. A series of aerial photographs showing both proposed corridors is found at Applicants' Exhibit 21; a map showing both proposed corridors is also found at Department Exhibit 3, page 2. The Application Project Description An electrical transmission line is designed to transport large amounts of electrical power from a generating facility or substation to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity voltage can be either increased or reduced for further transport or for distribution directly to end users. The Applicants are seeking certification of their Preferred Corridor between the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation, within which the Applicants will ultimately construct the transmission line on a narrow ROW. Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the certified corridor will shrink to the typical width of the 25 to 100-foot wide ROW. In some cases, the ROW will be co-located with an existing transmission ROW that is 145 feet wide. The Project is a joint venture between the Applicants. Of the approximately 27.5 miles of the proposed Lake Agnes- Gifford Line, approximately 10.5 miles are in TECO's service territory and approximately 17 miles are in PEF's service territory. The objectives for the Project are to provide a 230 kV electrical path that connects the existing Lake Agnes substation to the planned Gifford substation, providing a reliable path for the transmission line and reducing the impacts to the community and the environment while maintaining the integrity of Florida's transmission grid. Need for the Line The PSC determined that a new 230 kV transmission line between the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity and the need to provide abundant, low cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State. The objectives of the Project are to serve the increasing electrical load in the region, to maintain reliability of electrical service within the region, and to minimize future overhead exposure outages within the regional transmission system. The PSC found that the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation constitute the starting and ending points for the proposed line. The PSC noted that the additional transmission capacity is needed to be in service by June 2011. The PSC also recognized that the Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the route selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the transmission line will be a single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structure, with the capability of accommodating an additional 230 kV circuit. The poles are proposed to range in height from 85 feet above grade to 175 feet above grade, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Three conductor phases will be used, and each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a bundled 954 Aluminum Conductor Steel Support/Trapezoidal Wire. The conductor is 1.08 inches in diameter with a weight of approximately 1.23 pounds per foot. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide lightning protection for the transmission circuit. The maximum electrical current rating is 3,000 amperes. The open span length between structures will typically vary between 500 and 1,000 feet, depending on site-specific conditions. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate various site-specific conditions that may be encountered, to take advantage of the terrain, to potentially address community concerns, and to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Existing roadways, access roads, and structure pads will be used for construction and maintenance access to the transmission line wherever practicable. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be 16 feet, with a 2-to-1 side slope, and a typical elevation of feet above the seasonal high water line. Structure pads will have variable sizes but are typically 75 feet by 150 feet. The structure pads are designed to provide a dry, stable surface for staging material and for equipment setup. Culverts may be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with the specific design reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The design will be similar to previously approved designs. The proposed design of the transmission line complies with good engineering practices. It will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards, including the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation's standards, the National Electrical Safety Code, the noise ordinances of Polk, Orange, and Osceola Counties, the Department's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, the Florida Department of Transportation's Utility Accommodation Manual, the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing and Materials, the American Concrete Institute, and the American National Standards Institute, the requirements of applicable regulatory agencies, as well as the Applicants' own numerous transmission design standards. There are no applicable designs or standards with which the transmission line will not comply. Transmission Line Construction The initial phase of construction is to survey and clear the ROW. Because much of the length of the corridor is co-located, that is, grouped or placed side by side, with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for clearing has been minimized. Where existing ROW widths are insufficient for placement of the transmission Line or where the transmission line will go cross-country, additional clearing will be necessary. Upland areas will be cleared to ground level. In forested wetlands, the Applicants have committed to use only restrictive clearing methods. Restrictive clearing will be used in wetlands to clear vegetation from the transmission line centerline to 50 feet on each side of the outer conductors and in work areas approximately 64 feet by 150 feet around structure sites. In wetland areas, low-growing herbaceous vegetation can remain within the ROW; stumps in the area beyond 20 feet on either side of the outer conductors will be left in place to preserve the root mat. During clearing, best management practices will be utilized to control erosion. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. The Applicants have committed to use existing access roads and public roads for access to the transmission line to the extent practicable. Where existing access is not available, the Applicants have committed to construct access roads and structure pads in a manner which reduces or eliminates adverse impacts to on-site and adjacent wetlands to the extent practicable. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction, including material hauling and spotting, pole setting and framing, and conductor stringing activities. The newly-constructed structure pads are used to provide a stable and dry platform for the material staging and equipment. The foundations are constructed. The pole materials and other materials will be hauled to each specific structure site. The pole sections will then be jacked together on the ground. The insulators and hardware will then be framed up on the ground. Next, the top pole section will be lifted by crane and placed on the foundation base that was previously set. Poles will typically be installed 30 to 50 feet below ground. The conductor stringing activities occur next. Reels of wire and wire tensioning equipment will be brought to the job site and set up at dead-end locations. The construction crew will install stringing blocks or pulleys on each structure where the conductor will be pulled through. Once the conductors are pulled in, the conductor will be secured at the dead-end locations, and the wires will be sagged and tensioned appropriately to maintain vertical clearances. Finally, the conductor is secured to the insulator attachment and the pulleys and blocks are removed from each structure. The final stage of construction is the cleanup stage. This involves a final inspection of the area to remove the silt fences and hay bales, to clean up excess spoils from the foundation excavations, to repair or replace fencing, and to replace and secure gates. Throughout construction, in areas where soil is disturbed, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, or other best management practices, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. While each phase of construction will typically take up to two weeks at each structure location, the construction crew will normally be active for two to four days at a typical structure location. Construction for the entire project is expected to last approximately eighteen months. Methodology for Choosing Applicants' Preferred Corridor The Applicants established a multidisciplinary team to identify a corridor for the transmission line. The role of this team was to select a certifiable corridor based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multidisciplinary team was composed of experts in land use, engineering, and environmental disciplines and included representatives of the two utilities, outside legal counsel, and various consultants. Corridor selection methodologies were designed to be integrative of multidisciplinary siting criteria, regional and objective in decision-making, sensitive to social and environmental conditions, responsive to regulatory requirements, reflective of community concerns and issues, and capable of accurate documentation and verification. The team engaged in four major steps: to establish and define the project study area; to conduct regional screening and mapping; to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis; and finally to select the preferred corridor and identify the boundaries of that corridor. The team's work included a number of field studies, data collection, internal meetings, and meetings with the public. In defining the project study area, the multidisciplinary team identified the starting and ending points for the proposed transmission line, the locations of existing and planned substations in the area, the service boundaries of the utilities, and major roads in the area. In regional screening, the multidisciplinary team gathered data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study area. The multidisciplinary team developed a regional screening map, received in evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 24, which was prepared by the team using generally publicly available information including Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. The map data were collected from various state agencies and local governments; information was gathered from the Florida Geographic Data Library (which distributes GIS data), the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and most of the agencies involved in this proceeding. Various environmental and land use data were mapped as were existing infrastructure, archaeological/historical sites, and information gathered on roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and the like. These represented primarily potential siting constraints or siting issues within a particular study area. The regional screening map was then used to identify route segments. Using the regional screening information, the multidisciplinary team selected corridor segments for consideration using quantitative analysis of the data gathered in the earlier stages of the process. The team then evaluated the corridor segments using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The multidisciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area and identified sixty line segments which could be assembled into a total of 1,187 potential candidate corridor combinations. Using a predefined set of quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria, each corridor segment was measured for those resources. Using the weights developed by the team for each criterion, the weights were applied and tabulated for all candidate corridor segments. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on the quantitative weighted scores. Once the rankings were performed, the five highest- ranked candidate corridors were subjected to further quantitative and qualitative evaluation. These candidate corridors were evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as safety and buildability. At the completion of the evaluation, the multidisciplinary team deliberated and ultimately chose a preferred corridor. Once the preferred corridor was selected, the multidisciplinary team defined the boundaries of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths - - narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Public Involvement in the Corridor Selection Process The Applicants engaged in an extensive public outreach program, the purpose of which was to inform and educate the public about the project and to invite public input from the public in the corridor selection process. The public outreach program included a series of direct mailings, surveys, open houses, extensive communications with regulatory agency officials and local elected officials, a project web page by both Applicants and the Department, a toll-free telephone number, and newsprint advertisements. There were two direct mailings as a part of the public outreach program. The first mailing went to approximately 7,900 customers with a map of the project area, a fact sheet, and an invitation to one of three open houses to be held. One open house was conducted in Polk County, while two open houses were conducted in Lake County in close proximity to the project area. Following the completion of the open house process, a second mailing was sent to approximately 6,000 customers identifying the preferred corridor chosen during the evaluation process. The names of the mailing recipients were obtained by identifying the properties located within certain distances in both directions from the centerline of the candidate corridors. The Property Appraisers' Offices of Polk, Osceola, Orange, and Lake Counties were a source for this information. The mailings were also sent to the homeowners' associations along the candidate corridors. The Applicants plan additional mailings if a corridor for the transmission line is certified. Additional informational open houses will also be held, and the transmission structures and potential locations will be identified at that time so the public can be informed. As part of the public outreach, the project also ran a series of five advertisements in local newspapers. The first series of advertisements notified the public of the three open houses: a newspaper advertisement was run on August 9, 2007, in The Lakeland Ledger, The Winter Haven News Chief, and The Orlando Sentinel for the first open house, and for the second and third open houses, a newspaper advertisement was run in The Lakeland Ledger, The Hometown Sun, The Winter Haven News Chief, The Report, West Orange Times, South Lake Press, Osceola News- Gazette, and The Orlando Sentinel. The second advertisements notified the public of the filing of the Application in December 2007 in The Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Winter Haven News Chief, The Osceola- News Gazette, and The Orlando Sentinel. In March 2008, a third series of advertisements was run in The Orlando Sentinel, The Lakeland Ledger, and The Osceola News-Gazette to notify the public of the certification hearing. In June 2008, a fourth series of advertisements was run notifying the public of the rescheduling of the certification hearing; this advertisement was published by OIC in the Osceola County section of The Orlando Sentinel and this advertisement was published by the Applicants in The Lakeland Ledger and the Orange County section of The Orlando Sentinel. Finally, in August 2008, a notice regarding the second week of hearing was published in The Osceola News-Gazette, The Lakeland Ledger, and The Orlando Sentinel. Copies of the Application were maintained for public inspection during the certification process at the TECO offices in Tampa and Winter Haven and at the PEF offices in St. Petersburg, Lake Wales, and Lake Buena Vista. In addition, a copy of the Application was provided to the Hart Memorial Central Library and Ray Shanks Law Library in Kissimmee, the Orlando Public Library in Orlando, the Bartow Public Library in Bartow, and the Auburndale Public Library in Auburndale. The public outreach program was integrated into the corridor selection process. The public's input included information about anticipated road expansions and modifications as well as proposed residential developments in the project area. A few members of the public complained at the public hearing that they were unaware that a new transmission line corridor was being proposed until just before the hearing. However, the evidence shows that long before the certification hearing, information concerning this process was widely disseminated through advertisements, open houses, mass mailings, surveys, and meeting with regulatory agencies and local elected officials. See Findings of Fact 33 and 35-37, supra. Detailed Description of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor The Applicants' Preferred Corridor provides significant opportunities for co-location with other linear facilities such as roads, a natural gas pipeline, and other transmission lines. Co-location is an important benefit from the perspectives of engineering, ecology, and land use because it results in reduced impacts from the new transmission line, reduced ROW needs (or land acquisition needs) for the new line, reduced need for new clearing of land, reduced impacts to wetlands by co-locating with previously-disturbed areas, and reduced incremental impacts by co-locating with an existing linear facility. The Preferred Corridor exits the existing Lake Agnes substation and extends east-northeast approximately 18.9 miles within, adjacent to, or in proximity to the OUC McIntosh-Taft transmission line ROW, which generally runs parallel to I-4, across Polk and Osceola Counties. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor crosses Loughman Road (now known as Ronald Reagan Boulevard) and Old Lake Wilson Road. In this area, the land use includes water utility infrastructure in addition to I-4 and the OUC transmission line. Near the Lake Agnes substation, the land uses include some individual residences, as well as undeveloped land now used as pasture, citrus groves, and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. The land uses along I-4 and the OUC transmission line include residential development, undeveloped land north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and south of Champions Gate and U.S. Highway 27, and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. In the area of U.S. Highway 27, there is considerable residential development and mixed-use development to the east and west of the Preferred Corridor. The ecological communities in this area include the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area (also known as Green Swamp East Tract) north of I-4 and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. The ecological communities within the Preferred Corridor include residential areas, improved pastures, forested wetlands, pine flatwoods, and freshwater marsh. At the I-4 and SR 429 interchange, the Preferred Corridor turns and continues north along the Daniel Webster Western Beltway (SR 429), co-locating in the SR 429 ROW for approximately 8.6 miles. The land uses beginning at the I-4 and SR 429 interchange and northward to U.S. Highway 192 include residential communities on both the east and west sides of the Preferred Corridor, a large regional wastewater treatment facility on the west side of the Preferred Corridor, and undeveloped land, as well as resort, residential, and commercial development. Between U.S. Highway 192 and the planned Gifford substation, the land uses include a number of mixed-use and residential developments and golf course communities on the east and west side of the Preferred Corridor, as well as undeveloped land that is used for agricultural purposes and as part of wetland systems. The ecological communities in this area include the large Davenport Creek Swamp to the west of SR 429 and Reedy Creek to the east of SR 429; ecological communities within the Preferred Corridor include citrus, improved pasture, pine and pine oak forest, freshwater wetlands, and forested wetlands. The Applicants have agreed to adjust the eastern corridor boundary in the area south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road and north of the southern boundary of the OIC residential development to be 55 feet east of the edge of the SR 429 ROW, rather than the originally-proposed 100 feet east of the edge of the SR 429 ROW. This adjustment was made at the hearing in response to concerns raised by OIC. By making this adjustment, the impact on the homes in the OIC community will be substantially diminished. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor then turns west and exits the SR 429 ROW just north of Western Way and enters into PEF's existing easement, crossing Hartzog Road into the planned Gifford substation. The land use in this area of the planned Gifford substation is predominantly additional utility infrastructure associated with wastewater treatment facilities. The width of the Preferred Corridor varies along its entire length to provide flexibility within the corridor to avoid or minimize impacts to such areas as large wetland areas, to provide flexibility at large road intersections, and to take advantage of existing land patterns, property boundaries, and linear facilities. OIC's Application for Alternate Corridor Selection of the OIC Alternate Corridor Mr. von Behren indicated in testimony that he and fellow board members of the OIC Community Owners Association selected the OIC Alternate Corridor. Unlike the Applicants' Preferred Corridor, the OIC Alternate Corridor was selected by OIC without any public outreach to obtain input from the community. OIC did, apparently, pay attention to the property interests of OIC. No OIC property is traversed by, or adjacent to, the OIC Alternate Corridor; however, the OIC Alternate Corridor bisects the existing, nearby residential Emerald Island development. Detailed Description of OIC Alternate Corridor The OIC Alternate Corridor is located in the Osceola County portion of the Project and commences at the Applicants' Preferred Corridor 2,000 feet south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road on the west side of SR 429, where it turns northwest and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, and then turns northeast and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, in an approximate horseshoe shape, to rejoin the Applicants' Preferred Corridor along SR 429. The land uses and ecological communities within the SR 429 portion of the OIC Alternate Corridor were described above in Finding of Fact 42, supra. The land use of the OIC Alternate Corridor where it deviates from the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is undeveloped lands between two components of the Emerald Island residential development. The undeveloped lands include pasture, shrub and brushland, and undisturbed, undeveloped freshwater marsh and forested wetlands. A portion of these wetlands provide water treatment and storage functions for the Lake Tohokepaliga Water Authority and are held within a conservation easement and subject to a water use permit. Design and Construction of Transmission Line within OIC Alternate Corridor The design and construction techniques described in Findings of Fact 13 through 23 will be the same if the transmission line is constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor. The parties have stipulated that the transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the regulatory and industry standards listed in Finding of Fact 16. Agencies' Review of Corridors Proper for Certification and Resulting Determinations State, regional, and local agencies with regulatory authority over the Project reviewed the Application and submitted to Department reports concerning the impact of the Project on matters within their respective jurisdictions, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. Eleven regulatory agencies reviewed the Application, and nine reviewing agencies submitted reports on the Project, and have proposed Conditions of Certification. None of the agencies involved in the review process recommended that the proposed corridor be denied or modified. On May 30, 2008, the Department issued its Written Analysis on the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of Conditions of Certification. The Department recommended that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor be certified subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Three reviewing agencies submitted supplemental reports on the OIC Alternate Corridor on or before June 20, 2008, again proposing Conditions of Certification. On July 7, 2008, the Department issued its Supplemental Written Analysis on the Project, including the OIC Alternate Corridor, incorporating the supplemental reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a comprehensive set of Conditions of Certification. The Department did not recommend approval of the OIC Alternate Corridor, although it found the alternate corridor to be certifiable. In its Supplemental Written Analysis, the Department stated: Given the alternate corridor is likely to have a higher impact on the environment as well as additional cost, the Department does not find the alternate corridor to be superior to the preferred corridor, although either corridor is ultimately certifiable. Department Exhibit 3, page 4. Whether and Extent to Which Each Corridor Will Comply with Criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC decided that there are regional transmission system limitations in the I-4 corridor between Polk County and the greater Orlando area due to projected load growth in the 2008-2011 timeframe. The PSC found that the new 230 kV line is needed by June 2011 to preserve electric system reliability and integrity in order to: provide additional transmission transfer capability along the I-4 corridor to move electricity generated in the Polk County region to load centers in the Greater Orlando area in a reliable manner consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service area; and (c) potentially provide for another electrical feed via a separate Right of Way (ROW) path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC further decided that the transmission line is the most cost-effective and efficient means to both increase the capability of the existing 230 kV network and serve the increasing load and customer base in the Central Florida region. The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to provide electric power system reliability and integrity. Even so, the evidence shows that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor better provides electric power system reliability and integrity than does the OIC Alternate Corridor because the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will involve a shorter length of line and because the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will involve fewer maintenance issues and access issues. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor is shorter by 1,472 feet than the OIC Alternate Corridor. Unnecessary length added to a transmission circuit introduces further exposure to the forces of nature which could impact reliability of a transmission line. The greater the line length, the greater the exposure or risk to reliability. The OIC Alternate Corridor also involves additional maintenance issues and access issues not raised by the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. For example, there is a risk of flooding because some of the areas within the OIC Alternate Corridor are used for overflow for nearby retention ponds. This flooding could cause an access problem if emergency or routine repairs or maintenance were needed. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly, Economical and Timely Fashion The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the State in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion. Nevertheless, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor better meets the State's electrical energy needs in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion than does the OIC Alternate Corridor because the OIC Alternate Corridor adds significant cost to the overall project and long-term costs associated with operation and maintenance. The OIC Alternate Corridor is estimated to cost $4.4 million more for construction than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The cost differential is caused by the need for more easement area, more access roads, the nature of the soils, the foundation requirements, the heavy angle requirements, and more wetlands mitigation of the OIC Alternate Corridor. For example, because the OIC Alternate Corridor is primarily located in wetlands, the OIC Alternate Corridor will require larger poles and larger pole foundations, which involve higher costs. In addition to the $4.4 million construction cost differential, the OIC Alternate Corridor will also involve additional maintenance costs throughout the life of the transmission line because there will be a higher cost and effort required for vegetation management and access road maintenance in the OIC Alternate Corridor than will be required for the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. Comply with the Applicable Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line within either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor will comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Electrical and Magnetic Fields The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the Department's standards for Electric and Magnetic Fields in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814, which limit the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. The Applicants propose to use four different configurations for the transmission line depending upon the location. The options include a 230 kV single circuit on a 100- foot ROW, a 230 kV single circuit on the 185-foot ROW including the existing OUC McIntosh-Taft 230 kV line, a 230 kV single circuit roadside, and a 230 kV single circuit roadside with an additional 35-foot easement including the existing Boggy Marsh- Gifford and Four Corners-Gifford 69 kV lines. For each of these configurations, the Department's rule requires that the electric and magnetic fields (or energy forces) within the ROW and at the edge of the ROW be calculated to ensure compliance. The electric field is a field that is generated by voltage of a conductor, expressed as a kilovolt meter (kV/m). The magnetic field is a field produced by the current traveling along the conductor, expressed in milligauss (mG). Those portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814 that are applicable to this Project establish maximum values for electric and magnetic fields. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements was calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are all below the values set forth in the rule. The maximum voltage and current that is anticipated for the line during its life are used in making the calculations. However, it is highly unlikely that this condition would occur. It is anticipated that the maximum condition would occur less than five percent of the time while the transmission line is operating. In order to operate at the maximum condition, the conductor must be operating at its maximum temperature (which requires an extreme weather condition), and there would also need to be some type of system disturbance (such as an outage in the region). Levels for electric fields will be less at the normal operating levels and magnetic fields about fifty percent less. The levels of electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line are similar to the levels that would be expected to result from common household appliances. Noise Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. During periods of fair weather dust can collect on the conductor and that may cause low levels of audible noise. When rain is experienced, the dust is washed off but replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that results in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise are generally calculated using an industry-standard software program called the Bonneville Power Administration Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for the transmission line show that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the ROW would range up to a high of 37.6 dBA. This noise level is similar to the upper noise level in a library, and less than the living room noise in a suburban area. Also, during rainfall events, when the maximum noise levels are expected, the rain will tend to mask the sound from the transmission line. The calculated noise levels for the transmission line indicate that the noise levels that will be produced will not be a significant issue. Further, the calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable audible noise ordinances in Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans, If Any The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to be consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans, if any. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan identifies electric transmission and distribution facilities as a permitted use in all land use categories. The Osceola County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan identify utility and public facilities as allowable uses in all land use categories provided that the TLSA standards and other regulatory standards are met. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan identifies utility and public facilities as allowable uses in all land use categories. The Reedy Creek Improvement District Comprehensive Plan identifies that utility corridors are allowable uses where no other alternatives are feasible. The PSC found that the Applicants considered four alternatives to the Project and none were feasible. Further, the Applicants considered a number of alternatives in the corridor selection process and considered the OIC Alternate Corridor and selected the Applicants' Preferred Corridor as the best choice among the various corridors. See Finding of Fact 102, infra. After certification of this project, the transmission line will be located and constructed entirely within established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after corridor certification. Construction of transmission lines on such established ROWs is excepted from the definition of "development" in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the provisions of the local comprehensive plans related to "development" that have been adopted by the local governments crossed by the transmission line are not applicable to this project. No variances or exemptions from applicable state or local standards or ordinances are needed for the project. Effect a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Lake Agnes-Gifford Transmission Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Resulting from the Location of the Lake Agnes-Gifford Transmission Line and Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Transmission Line The Applicants' Preferred Corridor was chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts upon the public and the environment. Impacts Upon the Public The land uses found in the area of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are compatible with transmission lines; there are many locations throughout Florida where transmission lines similar to the proposed transmission line coexist with these land use patterns. Both the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are appropriate locations for a transmission line from a land use perspective, but the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is a better location in relation to impacts upon the public. aa. Co-location with Existing Linear Facilities The Applicants' Preferred Corridor is co-located with existing linear facilities for nearly its entire length. In choosing among the candidate corridors considered by the multidisciplinary team, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor was chosen with reference to maximizing co-location with existing linear features, including transmission lines, highways, and natural gas pipelines. Co-location is advantageous because the existing linear facilities often provide existing access, minimizing the need for new access roads, the need for new clearing, and the need for further encumbrance of additional land. By following these existing linear features, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor conforms to existing and future development patterns and minimizes intrusion into surrounding areas. Further, there is less of an incremental difference in impacts from adding a linear facility to an area of existing linear facilities than from adding a linear facility to a presently unencumbered area. In contrast, the OIC Alternate Corridor follows an area of undeveloped land and thus does not offer the advantages of co-location. bb. Impacts upon Residential Development In choosing among the candidate corridors, minimizing the number of homes within the corridor was a significant criterion considered by the multidisciplinary team. It is an advantage for the OIC Alternate Corridor over the Applicants' Preferred Corridor that the OIC Alternate Corridor has fewer homes within the corridor than does the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. However, it is a disadvantage for the OIC Alternate Corridor that it bisects two components of the Emerald Island residential development. The impacts of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor on OIC homes is minimal. The "residents" of the OIC development are predominantly short-term renters or vacationers who will be in proximity to the transmission line for only a few weeks' duration. (Many of the homes are owned by citizens of the United Kingdom who rent the properties to vacationers visiting the area. There are, however, three permanent year-round residents in the development, including Mr. von Behren.) The Applicants have adjusted the eastern corridor boundary to no more than 55 feet from the edge of the SR 429 ROW in the vicinity of the OIC development. Further, the Applicants have committed that, if the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is certified, there will be no existing homes within the eventual transmission line ROW. PEF's engineering expert testified that the Applicants' preferred location for the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor in the vicinity of the OIC development is to be on the west side of SR 429, which would not impact any OIC homes. If that location is not feasible, the Applicants' preferred location for the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor in the vicinity of the OIC development is to be on the east side of SR 429, with poles located 15 feet inside the DOT's ROW for SR 429, in which case the only property rights that the Applicants would need outside the DOT ROW would be no more than 30 feet for an overhanging aerial easement and access rights. These commitments by the Applicants mean that there are only three or four properties within OIC where the Applicants might need an aerial and access easement for the transmission line; the pole would be no nearer to those homes than approximately thirty feet. This evidence demonstrates that there will be very little impacts on the OIC residential development. Further, OIC raised concerns about existing vegetation with the OIC residential development. Those concerns are misplaced because PEF's engineering expert explained that the Applicants would avoid any vegetation that exists outside the SR 429 ROW, and that any vegetation that would be replaced would be within the SR 429 ROW. cc. Minimizing the Length of Transmission Lines in the Landscape The length of a transmission line in the landscape is important because it is a land use consideration to minimize the amount and length of linear facilities in the landscape. The shorter the linear facility, the less potential effects of the linear facility. This is an advantage for the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because it is shorter than the OIC Alternate Corridor. dd. Impacts to Conservation Lands The Applicants' Preferred Corridor has the advantage of avoiding conservation lands while the OIC Alternate Corridor in contrast crosses lands held for conservation purposes. The conservation lands include a parcel held for use by Osceola County as a stormwater retention and conveyance system, a parcel held by Emerald Island Resort as a conservation area, a parcel owned by the Lake Tohopekaliga Water Authority held in a conservation easement by SFWMD, and a parcel subject to a water use permit. The conservation easement expressly prohibits the construction of utility infrastructure within its boundaries. Although SFWMD's conservation easement could be amended by the underlying property owner to allow for crossing by the OIC Alternate Corridor, SFWMD prefers the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because it better avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands. ee. Impact on Property Values At the public portion of the certification hearing, several members of the public testified in opposition to the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. A number of those testifying, including Mr. von Behren, expressed concern about the impact of the Project on property values, and the desire to have the Applicants seek another route. Although these concerns are genuine, the impact on property values is not a subject for consideration at this hearing. Impacts Upon the Environment The transmission line, whether constructed, operated, and maintained in the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor, will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local nonprocedural regulations, including the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. The Applicants have committed to a variety of Conditions of Certification that require extensive measures to eliminate or minimize the potential environmental impacts. For example, within forested wetlands, the Applicants have committed to using restrictive clearing practices, removing only tall- growing trees and leaving understory (the lower layer of plants growing under a higher layer of plants) and root mats in place within the ROW. The Applicants have also committed to the use of existing access roads through wetland areas to the greatest extent practicable, and the construction of at-grade access roads where conditions allow. In addition, the Applicants have committed to compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of wetland functions, if any. Further, if the transmission line is constructed in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor, the transmission line design will allow for variable span length to avoid wetland impacts by spanning those areas upland-to-upland. Both the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are appropriate locations for a transmission line from an environmental perspective, but the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is a better location in relation to impacts upon the environment. aa. Impacts to Vegetative Communities, Including Wetlands The Applicants' Preferred Corridor will have minimal environmental impact. Construction of the line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will cause minimal adverse ecological impacts for several reasons: regional screening was conducted to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints, such as eagles' nests, undisturbed wetland habitat, protected species habitat, and forested areas; the width of the corridor provides flexibility when the final ROW is selected to avoid ecological resources within the corridor; because of the corridor's co-location with existing rights-of-way, there is a prevalence of developed areas within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor; where the Preferred Corridor traverses areas of natural vegetation, it does so largely in previously-disturbed areas, minimizing the amount of needed clearing and new access roads; and wetlands will be avoided by spanning them to the extent practicable. With respect to the Green Swamp, an area of 870 square miles, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor minimizes impacts by co-locating with the OUC transmission line ROW. Other candidate corridors considered by the multidisciplinary team would have involved clearing of undisturbed forested wetlands, including areas of mature cypress domes. In contrast, the transmission line will have more adverse environmental impacts if constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because of the prevalence of undisturbed wetland habitat within the OIC Alternate Corridor as compared to the previously-disturbed habitat along SR 429 within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. Construction of the transmission line within the OIC Alternate Corridor would result in greater forested and herbaceous wetland impacts and require greater alteration to previously-undisturbed areas. bb. Protected Species The Applicants have committed to a number of conditions of certification protecting species whether the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor is certified. For example, the Applicants have agreed to conduct pre-clearing surveys of the final ROW for protected species, and to consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department if any species are located within the ROW to address avoidance and mitigation measures. Impacts to listed plant and animal species from construction of the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor are expected to be minimal because the corridor includes primarily previously-impacted areas which have limited suitability as protected species habitat and because of the Applicants' commitment to conduct pre-clearing species surveys. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor avoids or minimizes intrusion into the undisturbed wildlife habitats due to its co- location with existing linear facilities for almost its entire length. The current condition and relative value of function of the habitat within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is generally minimal from a wildlife ecology and protected species perspective because it has been previously-disturbed through construction of major roadways. In the areas of undisturbed lands, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is co-located with existing utility rights-of-way including a transmission line and natural gas pipeline that already disturb the area. The gopher tortoise is a protected species that has been documented to be located within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor. Gopher tortoise habitat typically is not compromised by construction of transmission lines due to the relatively small ground footprint of disturbance and the maintenance of low vegetation within the ROW, which is suitable habitat for gopher tortoises. Thus, the transmission line is not expected to have significant impact on gopher tortoises. The impacts to protected species will be greater in the OIC Alternate Corridor than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor includes two known locations of protected species; transmission lines are compatible with the habitat for these species. In addition, the habitat within the Preferred Corridor is not suitable for most protected species because it is previously disturbed where vegetation communities have already been cleared and converted to roadside ROW. In contrast, the OIC Alternate Corridor consists predominantly of undisturbed wetlands, which is habitat that is highly suitable for a number of protected species. Although there are no Florida Natural Areas Inventory-documented locations of protected species within the OIC Alternate Corridor, there are four field-documented protected species within the OIC Alternate Corridor. Further, the habitat is highly suitable for protected species because it is largely undisturbed, much is held in conservation easement, and it includes forested and herbaceous wetlands. cc. Floodplains The 100-year floodplain is an area, regulated by the Department and the water management districts, that demarks the area that would be inundated in severe flood events. The Applicants are required to provide compensating floodplain storage to offset the loss, if any, of floodplain storage caused by fill needed for the transmission line; this requirement is designed to avoid any flooding of adjacent properties that might be caused by the Project. Because of this requirement, one of the goals in corridor selection was to minimize impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Only a small portion of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is located within the 100-year floodplain, while a large portion of the OIC Alternate Corridor is located within the 100-year floodplain. Further, the portions of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor that are located within the 100- year floodplain are located in areas that have been previously disturbed by the construction of SR 429 and would likely not involve significant further impacts to the 100-year floodplain. dd. Archaeological and Historical Resources The Applicants utilized information from the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR), to identify potential archeological and historical resources within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. A number of locations were identified as a result of the information and the Applicants have committed, through the Conditions of Certification, to perform a cultural resources survey when the actual ROW is located. If any artifacts are discovered, the Applicants will notify the Department and DHR and consult with DHR to determine appropriate action. There is no difference between the impacts to cultural resources of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor. The Need for the Lake Agnes-Gifford Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to meet the need for the transmission line as a means of providing reliable, economically efficient electric energy as determined by the PSC. The PSC determined that the proposed line is needed taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes. The PSC found that the Applicants evaluated four alternatives to the proposed transmission line. All of the alternatives were transmission modifications to the proposed ROW that used a portion of, or the entire existing, common ROW. The PSC accepted the Applicants' rejection of the alternatives primarily because of economic and reliability concerns. The PSC found that the proposed line will assure the economic well-being of Florida's citizens by serving projected new electric load in the region and improving the region's electric reliability by minimizing the region's exposure to single contingency events. Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Lake Agnes- Gifford Line and the Impacts of the Line upon the Public and the Environment Expert witnesses in the fields of land use, engineering, and ecology with specializations in transmission line siting, permitting, design, and reliability have compared the corridors proper for certification and all concluded that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor effects a better balance between the need for the transmission line and the impacts of the line on the public and the environment from the perspective of their expertise than does the OIC Alternate Corridor. Conditions of Certification The transmission line can and will be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the Conditions of Certification, which are found in the Department's Exhibit 3. The Conditions of Certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final right-of- way, access road, and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. The Applicants have agreed to the Conditions of Certification to minimize land use and environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line. The parties agree that the Conditions of Certification are consistent with applicable non-procedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission line, and that such conditions should be imposed on the certification, if granted, for either of the corridors under consideration in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving Tampa Electric Company and Progress Energy Florida's Lake Agnes-Gifford 230 kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas M. Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Toni L. Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary von Behren, President Oak Island Cove Community Owners Association 2872 Blooming Alamanda Loop Kissimmee, Florida 34747-2252 Kelly A. Martinson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Allen G. Erickson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, Florida 32802-1393 Tasha A. Buford, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Ray Maxwell, District Administrator Reedy Creek Improvement District 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830-8438 Jo O. Thacker, Esquire Osceola County Attorney One Courthouse Square, Suite 4200 Kissimmee, Florida 34741-5440 Emily J. Norton, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Mitchell B. Kirschner, Esquire Mitchell B. Kirschner, P.A. 1515 North Federal Highway Suite 314 Boca Raton, Florida 33432-1953 Steven I. Silverman, Esquire Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1700 Miami, Florida 33131-4332 Ruth A. Holmes, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Phil Laurien, Executive Director East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 631 North Wymore Road, Suite 100 Maitland, Florida 32751-4229 Patricia M. Steed, Executive Director Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830-3931 Jennifer S. Brubaker, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2470 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Laura Kammerer Bureau of Historic Preservation 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Michael E. Duclos, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT 01 Bartow, Florida 33830-9005 Kimberly C. Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issues for determination are whether either of the properly proposed corridors (the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor) for the Collier-Orange River #3 230-kV transmission line (the COR #3 Line) comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2003); and, if so, which of the corridors have the least adverse impacts with respect to the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes, including cost. (All citations are to the 2002 version of the Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.) If the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Preferred Corridor (FPL Corridor) is determined to have the least adverse impacts, or if the two corridors are determined to be substantially equal in adverse impacts, the Siting Board must determine whether the FPL application for corridor certification should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. § 403.529(4) & (5)(c), Fla. Stat. If it is determined that the Alternate Corridor proposed by Collier Enterprises, Ltd. (CE) and Barron Collier Companies (BCC) has the least adverse impacts, including costs, since this corridor was rejected by FPL for consideration pursuant to Section 403.5271(1)(b), Florida Statutes, certification shall be denied or FPL shall be allowed to submit an amended application to include such corridor. § 403.529(5)(b), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The TLSA establishes FPL and the DEP as parties to this proceeding, as well as the following upon their filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation, SFWMD, Lee County, City of Fort Myers, and the City of Bonita Springs. The following agencies did not participate in the proceeding and did not file a notice of intent before the 30th day prior to the certification hearing and each one is therefore deemed to have waived its right to be a party: PSC, Department of Community Affairs, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and Collier County. § 403.527(4), Fla. Stat. Approximately five linear miles of FPL’s Corridor is located on real property owned by BCC. One section, i.e., 640 acres, is located along SR 82 adjoining FPL’s Corridor, one section north and east of Lake Trafford to the east of the FPL Corridor, and four sections along the north side of Immokalee Road, CR 846. Virtually all of those lands along Immokalee Road on the north side are stewardship-receiving areas, which means they can receive a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. See Findings of Fact 90 and 102. Locating the proposed transmission line on real property owned by BCC may result in adverse environmental impacts to BCC’s real property if not subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Such impacts could include, but may not be limited to, impacts to wetlands. Additional buffering may be required for BCC’s property. BCC’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Approximately 5.5 linear miles of FPL’s Corridor is located on real property owned by CE in Collier County. Material here, CE owns land just north (and west) of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and south of the Lee County Electrical Cooperative (LCEC) 138-kV ROW that turns to the east. CE land proceeds south of Oil Well Road, with the southernmost tip adjacent to I-75. (BCC also owns adjacent land east of this location.) See Findings of Fact 93-94 and 99. These lands are among a large group of landholdings designated as the Rural Land Stewardship Area that is designated in comprehensive plan amendments. The allowed density as noted above is up to four dwelling units per acre in a variety of forms, including compact rural development, village, towns, and hamlets that could provide for a range of mixed uses on these lands. These lands can be classified as either sending or receiving lands. See Finding of fact 99. Locating the proposed transmission line on real property owned by CE may result in adverse environmental impacts to CE’s real property if not subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Such impacts could include, but may not be limited to, impacts to wetlands. CE may also need to undertake additional landscaping and buffering in order to conceal the view of the transmission line. The view of the Camp Kaeis slough (located approximately one mile west of the intersection described in Finding of Fact 4) from CE property may be impacted in the future. See Finding of Fact 94. CE’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Intervenor, Parklands Development, L.P. (Parklands), is the owner of the east one-half (1/2) of Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County, Florida, less approximately 83 acres in the northeastern portion of the east one-half of Section 4 which is owned by DiVosta and Company, Inc. Parklands has also developed the western one-half of Section 4 and still owns portions of that one-half section that have not been sold to individual lot owners. These parcels are within the City of Bonita Springs. In addition, Parklands is the owner of substantially all of Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. Parklands further has a contract to purchase 180+ acres in the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County, Florida, from Corkscrew Growers, Inc. Parklands’ substantial interests will be affected by action of the Transmission Line Siting Board because construction of the Alternate Corridor could affect Parklands’ use and development of its property. In addition, Parklands has an interest in assuring the availability of a reliable source of power for its developments. Accordingly, Parklands’ substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Intervenor, DiVosta Homes L.P., successor by merger with DiVosta and Company, Inc. (DiVosta), is the owner of approximately 468 acres of real property in the City of Bonita Springs, Lee County, Florida, as identified in the Warranty Deed attached to its Petition to Intervene. In addition, DiVosta owns approximately 83.61 acres in the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; approximately 109.05 acres in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County; approximately 214 acres in Section 26, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and approximately 6 acres in Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, both in Collier County, Florida. DiVosta’s substantial interests will be affected by the action of the Transmission Line Siting Board because construction of the Alternate Corridor could affect DiVosta’s use and development of its property. In addition, DiVosta has an interest in assuring the availability of a reliable source of power for its developments. Accordingly, DiVosta’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. The City of Bonita Springs is a municipality in Lee County, Florida. The City of Ft. Myers, a municipality, appeared at the final hearing. Pursuant to Section 403.527(4)(c)2., Florida Statutes, domestic non-profit corporations formed, in whole or in part, to promote the conservation and protection of the environment or to promote comprehensive planning or orderly development of the area in which the proposed transmission line or corridor is located are parties to the proceeding upon the filing of a notice of intent to be a party. Having complied with these statutory requirements the following are parties to this proceeding: Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Florida Audubon Society, Florida Wildlife Federation, and Responsible Growth Management Coalition. Kenneth E. Smith’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding because FPL’s Preferred Corridor includes real property owned by Mr. Smith east of Green Meadows Road. See Findings of Fact 80 and 243. STIPULATIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES The following parties signed stipulations with FPL in which they adopted the position and witnesses of FPL at the certification hearing: DiVosta Homes, L.P., Parklands Development Limited Partnership, Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Responsible Growth Management Coalition. FPL, BCC, and CE also entered into a stipulation that the location, construction and maintenance of the COR #3 230 kV transmission line (COR #3 Line) in either the FPL Corridor or the portion of the Alternate Corridor within the existing Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations could both be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and would comply with all non-procedural requirements of agencies. The stipulation reserved the right of BCC and CE to argue as to the extent to which locating, constructing and maintaining the COR #3 Line in either corridor would be consistent with applicable comprehensive plans and non- procedural requirements of agencies. FPL reserved the right to argue as to the inapplicability of any provisions of local government comprehensive plans to the location, construction and maintenance of electric transmission lines within established ROWs. The stipulation was entered into the record as Joint Exhibit 9. The parties also stipulated that the COR #3 Line could be constructed on either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor in compliance with the electric and magnetic field standards of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. FPL APPLICATION General FPL submitted the application to the DEP on April 30, 2003. The DEP determined that the application was complete on May 13, 2003, and sufficient on August 21, 2003. On October 10, 2003, the DEP issued its Written Analysis, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and including proposed conditions of certification. Project Description An electrical transmission line’s purpose is to transport large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity can be either increased or reduced in voltage through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or for distribution at lower voltages directly to customers. Florida has a highly integrated electric transmission line system. High voltage transmission lines connect the various electric generating utilities to one another. The interconnected electric grid provides benefits to the state because it allows electric utilities to share generation capacity, resulting in lower electrical rates, and to back up one another in emergencies. FPL’s service area generally covers the eastern half of the Florida peninsula and Southwest Florida. FPL is seeking certification of a corridor between the Orange River substation (east of Ft. Myers, Lee County) and the Collier substation (near Naples, in Collier County) within which it will ultimately construct the COR #3 Line on a narrow ROW. Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the width of the 15- foot to 60 foot ROW. (A ROW consists of the actual property rights that FPL will acquire to construct the transmission line. A corridor is a much larger area that includes the boundaries of the ROW within it. Once a ROW is established, the boundaries of the corridor become moot. See generally § 403.522(10), Fla. Stat.) The service area for the proposed COR #3 Line (the “Project Service Area”) is southern Lee County and Collier County. The Project Service Area is bounded on the north by the Fort Myers Power Plant switchyard and the Orange River substation, on the east by a line that follows the boundary between Lee and Hendry Counties, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the south by FPL’s southernmost customer in Collier County.1 (FPL’s Ft. Myers Power Plant is north of and nearby the Orange River substation and is interconnected with that substation with transmission lines.) The proposed FPL Corridor is approximately 53.9 miles in length. If approved, FPL expects to incorporate an approximately 14-mile 230-kV transmission line into the new line between the Orangetree substation, located (south) on Immokalee Road (CR 846), and the intersection of FPL’s existing Collier- Orange #1 and #2 transmission Common ROW and Livingston Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of the proposed FPL Corridor, the FPL Common ROW, and other landmarks.) There are three 138-kV lines flowing south out of the Ft. Myers Power Plant and a fourth radial line that is not included in the Project Service Area. There are four existing 230-kV lines flowing southeast out of the Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Orange River substation. (See FPL Exhibit 10.) There are three 230-kV lines that flow south out of the Orange River substation and eventually terminate at the Collier substation to the south. One phase is known as Collier- Orange River #1 and the other is Collier-Orange River #2. A third 230-kV line runs from the Orange River substation south along the Common ROW then west to the Alico substation and then from Alico (loops back to the east) and south along the Common ROW to the Collier substation. (See FPL Exhibit 10.) One 500-kV line flows south out of the Orange River substation along the Common ROW and then, east of the Southwest Florida International Airport, flows east to Andytown. Id. The Project Service Area is an electrical “peninsula,” that is, all electricity is brought into the area and flows from the north to the south from the Fort Myers Power Plant or the Orange River substation and then south. (See FPL Exhibits 9 and 10.) The Project Service Area is dependent on the transmission line system to import electricity from the north. (The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) found, in part, that “[t]he principal bulk transmission link into the region south of Ft. Myers is an existing 230-kV connection between the Orange River substation, just east of Ft. Myers, and the Collier substation adjacent to Naples. Thus, the area south of Ft. Myers, including Naples, is considered an electrical peninsula.”) The primary path for transmission lines bringing electricity into the Project Service Area is on the existing Common ROW between the Orange River substation east of Fort Myers in Lee County and the Collier substation east of Naples in Collier County. This single Common ROW contains all three of the 230-kV transmission lines, as well as some other 138-kV and a 500-kV transmission line segments, that collectively bring about 70-75 percent of the electricity into the Project Service Area. See also Findings of Fact 22-24. The three objectives of the COR #3 Line project are: (1) to address the need, as confirmed by the PSC, to provide FPL’s existing and future customers in the Project Service Area with additional electricity; (2) to enhance the reliability of electric service to the customers in the Project Service Area by locating the new line on a geographically separate route from the existing lines on the Common ROW; and (3) to provide a secondary feed, known as “looping,” to the new Orangetree distribution substation in eastern Collier County. Need for the COR #3 Line The PSC determined a new 230-kV transmission line between the Orange River substation and the Collier substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity in Southwest Florida and the need to provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, particularly those in Southwest Florida. The PSC noted that FPL’s planning studies indicate this additional transmission capacity will be needed by December 2005 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions that could result from a single contingency event.2 The PSC found that construction of the COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separate from the Common ROW will enhance system reliability, integrity, and restoration of service more than locating the line on the existing Common ROW. The PSC also found that placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW is “not optimal” due to concerns with serving the Project Service Area via a “single corridor”3 and the “inability for future expansion of FPL’s transmission system to the east of the existing corridor” or Common ROW. The PSC recognized, however, that any party to the site certification hearing may propose an alternate corridor and that the Siting Board will make the final corridor selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the COR #3 Line will be a single-pole unguyed concrete structure, 90 feet above grade in height, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a 1,431 thousand circular mils (kcmil), aluminum conductor, steel reinforced alumoweld core (ACSR/AW). There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating (MCR) for the line will be 1,905 amperes.4 In some locations, electric distribution lines and communication cables may also be attached to the structures beneath the conductors. The span length between structures will typically vary between 250 feet and 700 feet, depending on site-specific ROW widths and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate such things as locating poles to coincide with property boundaries or existing collocated utility facility poles, to minimize or avoid wetland impacts, to cross other utility lines, and to facilitate wide crossings of water bodies and roadways. Shorter structures may be required in proximity to an airstrip to comply with applicable clear zones. Where the transmission line turns angles in excess of 10-15 degrees, the structures may be guyed to support the differential tension. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Pads may be installed in low or wet areas. Access roads may be built in some areas where linear features, such as an existing line or road, do not exist. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be about 14 feet, with a 2:1 side slope, and a minimum elevation of 6 inches over mean or seasonal high water. Structure pads will have variable sizes (e.g., 45’X50’, 34’X50’, and 35’X60’), depending on site-specific requirements, but will be of sufficient size to provide access to structure locations for the large construction equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. Culverts will be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with spacing, diameter, and length to maintain pre-construction flows. The design of the COR #3 Line complies with good engineering practices. Transmission Line Construction The transmission line will be constructed in seven phases: surveying; ROW clearing; construction of access roads and structure pads; line construction; pole framing; line stringing; and ROW restoration. Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step towards construction. Since 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for acquisition of private property has been minimized. After property rights have been acquired, the initial phase of construction is to clear the ROW. Collocation of the FPL Corridor with existing roads and utility facilities will enable required clearing to be minimized. Clearing will consist mainly of tree trimming and the occasional removal of trees that exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet in height that could come in conflict with the line will be removed by hand-clearing or use of very low ground pressure equipment. Low-growing herbaceous vegetation will not be cleared from wetlands. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Typically, access road and pads are only required in wet and low areas. This enables all subsequent construction activity in those wet areas to remain on the newly constructed access road and pad. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction. Initially, materials are brought to the jobsite. Next, holes are augered at each pole location and the poles are then erected using cranes or other heavy equipment. The hole is then backfilled with the excavated material or, if that material is unsuitable, with suitable fill from offsite. Typically, the pole is embedded into the ground approximately 16 feet to 20 feet. After the poles are set, the poles are framed; that is, the insulators and hardware are installed on the pole.5 Then through a wire pulling operation the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then properly sagged and tensioned to provide the proper vertical clearances. Next, the conductors are “clipped in” to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW restoration or clean up. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state or federal roadways in compliance with applicable Management of Traffic (MOT) regulations or plans. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. Turbidity testing is also performed. While each phase of construction will typically take only one to seven days in an area, the entire COR #3 Line construction process will last approximately 13 months. The COR #3 Line will be constructed in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, the DEP’s regulations on electric and magnetic fields,6 the Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, the Lee County and Collier County noise ordinances, and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electronic & Electrical Engineers (IEEE), American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI), as well as FPL’s own design standards. See Findings of Fact 226 and 252. Methodology for Choosing the FPL Corridor Importance of Geographic Separation On project initiation, FPL management instructed its multi-disciplinary corridor selection team to identify, if it could (“to the greatest extent practicable”), a corridor for the COR #3 Line that is geographically separate from the existing Common ROW. This instruction was based on the importance of maintaining some geographic separation between the existing Common ROW and the new COR #3 Line to enhance reliability of electric service in the electrical peninsula to be served by the new line. It is not prudent utility planning or practice to carry excessive amounts of power on any one line, substation, transformer or transmission ROW. While FPL has approximately 15 common ROWs on its system with power transfer capability equivalent to four 230-kV transmission lines or more, no common ROW, other than the one between the Orange River and Collier substations, is an electrical peninsula that lacks a power generation source at one end. In other words, the existing Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations is the only Common ROW on the FPL system that serves an electrical “peninsula.” Since all other FPL common ROWs have a generation source at both ends, the historical outages, resulting when all of the transmission lines on those ROWs were taken out of service, have generally been on the order of hours or minutes. This may be because FPL has the ability to respond quickly, if by no other means, by restarting those power plants on either end of the common ROW to get electricity back to its customers. This strategy is not a reasonable option in the Project Service Area because there are no electric generating plants connected to the transmission system within the Project Service Area south of the Orange River substation. The planning standards of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) provide that there are situations when it is appropriate for a utility to decide to do more than is required by those standards. In determining whether to go beyond NERC standards, the consequences of a situation occurring may be considered even if the frequency of such a situation causing an electrical outage would be rare. In this case, FPL decided that a worst case scenario loss of up to 80 percent of the electric capacity (all transmission lines on the Common ROW including the COR #3) in the Project Service Area potentially for as long as six days, which could affect about 600,000 people (less the population of the Project Service Area that may be served via the 138-kV transmission lines), was a severe enough consequence to warrant identifying a geographically separate ROW to the extent possible.7 See also Findings of Fact 185 and 297. Corridor Selection and Public Involvement FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives within the Project Study Area. This multi-disciplinary team was comprised of a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. As noted herein, FPL management provided the team with the major premise that FPL wanted a geographically separate corridor for the COR # Line. During the route evaluation study, the multi-disciplinary team did not identify or evaluate the Common ROW as a route option, nor did they seek input from the public on use of the Common ROW for the COR #3 Line. However, the team responded to public inquiry on this subject and explained to the public the basis for FPL’s desire for a geographically separate corridor. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area,8 and identified dozens of line segments which could be assembled into more than 3,700 alternate routes for the COR #3 Line. FPL also engaged in an extensive public participation program to gather input for its route evaluation study. This public participation program included several open houses, establishment of a Community Advisory Panel, mass mailings, a community survey, a toll-free telephone number, a website, and numerous meetings with regulatory agencies, community associations, homeowner groups, and individual homeowners and property owners. The public participation program provided substantive input to the route evaluation study in terms of a study area boundary, siting opportunities and constraints in the area, identification of route segments to be evaluated, and weights to be assigned to the route evaluation criteria. For example, the study area is dominated by a very large area of environmentally- sensitive lands, wetlands, and lands acquired or proposed for acquisition under several land acquisition programs for conservation purposes, generally referred to as the Corkscrew Swamp System. Due to input from the community during the public participation program, the multi-disciplinary team expanded the study area to the east to include route alignments suggested by the public/agency participants that could avoid the environmentally sensitive Corkscrew Swamp System. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 3,700+ routes quantitatively, using ten weighted criteria, and then evaluated in more detail, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria, the top three distinct routes. The Gencore (literally generates corridors) computer software was used to help the team identify highly ranked distinct alternatives (combinations of segments), which were then subject to further, more detailed evaluation. (The FPL Corridor was ranked using the Gencore computer analysis and it became number 16 out of 3,784 alternatives studied.) Ultimately, FPL’s multi-disciplinary team identified the route of the FPL Corridor as providing the most appropriate minimization and balance of factors to address the project objectives. At the public hearing held on February 11, 2004, a representative of the CREW Land and Water Trust, a non-profit public/private partnership organization formed in 1989 to protect the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed expressed appreciation for FPL’s public participation work with other interests in the area to identify its FPL Corridor. Collier County Commissioner Tom Henning also noted FPL’s impressive public involvement efforts in selecting its FPL Corridor. Once the preferred alignment was identified, the multi-disciplinary team delineated the boundaries (width) of the FPL Corridor to provide flexibility, including efforts to avoid or minimize impacts, for locating the eventual ROW within that corridor. The southernmost 1.8-mile segment of the FPL Corridor uses the existing Common ROW. After FPL’s multi-disciplinary team met significant community opposition to the geographically separate alternative routes identified by FPL in this area, FPL determined that the risk of using the Common ROW for this short segment was acceptable because: the Common ROW is significantly wider in this segment than to the north and allows for some physical separation between the COR #3 Line and the existing 230-kV lines; if a multiple outage of all lines on the Common ROW occurred in this 1.8-mile segment, fewer people would be affected than if the outage occurred further to the north because power could still be provided to several substations located to the north of this 1.8 mile segment; and the likelihood of a multiple outage of all lines in this 1.8-mile segment is lower than anywhere else along the Common ROW because there is extensive development on either side of the ROW and a major roadway on the east, lessening the likelihood of a wildfire, vandalism, sabotage or terrorism. Agencies’ Review of FPL’s Application and Resulting Determinations Each state, regional, and local agency with regulatory authority over the project reviewed FPL’s Application and submitted to the DEP a report as to the impact of the proposed COR #3 Line on matters within the agency’s jurisdiction, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. The DEP then compiled these reports and made a recommendation that the COR #3 Line be granted approval, subject to appropriate conditions, which have been amended. See Preliminary Statement, p. 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE FPL CORRIDOR Approximately 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear features, such as roads and transmission lines. This collocation will minimize impacts of the new COR #3 Line. Approximately three miles of the total line length of the FPL Corridor is not immediately adjacent to either a dedicated road ROW and/or an existing transmission line ROW. The width of the FPL Corridor varies along the route to provide flexibility within the corridor to minimize or avoid impacts to such areas as existing developments and large wetland areas. A large portion of the FPL Corridor is within the territory of the LCEC. From the Orange River Substation to State Road (SR) 82 The FPL Corridor begins at the north at the Orange River substation, which is east of Fort Myers. From the Orange River substation, the FPL Corridor proceeds west for about one mile along the north side of, and generally paralleling, Homestead Lane/Tice Street. In this area, the corridor is 2,600 feet wide to provide flexibility in meeting the FAA and Lee County tall structure ordinance clearance requirements from the Strayhorn airstrip south of Homestead Lane. Approximately one mile west of the substation, the corridor turns south and is located on an existing FPL 138-kV 100 and 160 foot-wide transmission line ROW for about three miles to SR 82. The land uses around the substation are primarily agricultural and some low-density residential. Along the existing FPL ROW in this segment, the land uses are primarily agricultural, with some low-density development to the west of the FPL Corridor. This segment of the FPL Corridor includes development, lands undergoing development, and agricultural lands that have very little or no value from a vegetation and wildlife perspective. The few isolated natural habitats in this segment have already been affected by man’s activities. At the public hearing, two residents who live on Tice Street expressed concern for the COR #3 Line being placed close to their homes and asked that the line be placed on the existing Common ROW or in the far northern section of the FPL Corridor. FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that requires it to locate the COR #3 Line north of Tice Lane (and Homestead Road) in order to minimize potential impacts to the existing residential areas. (See Joint Exhibit 5A, p.11-Condition of Certification XVIII.D. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11, filed at DOAH with the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by FPL and other parties and April 19, 2004, Notice of Filing Corrected Conditions of Certification, paragraph D, “FPL agrees to locate the transmission line north of Homestead Road and Tice Lane in order to minimize potential impacts to the existing residential areas subject to the preferred corridor.” This latter set of draft conditions were not admitted into evidence and should be considered by the Siting Board with all parties given an opportunity to comment thereon.) Notwithstanding, the residents were concerned that the precise location of the line was unknown. Along SR 82 to Sunshine Boulevard (Including “Line Swap”) At SR 82, the FPL Corridor turns east and follows SR 82 in a southeasterly direction for about 7.5 miles to the intersection with Sunshine Boulevard and Green Meadows Road. In this area, the corridor is 500 feet wide, centered on SR 82, to allow the possibility of placing the COR #3 Line on either side of the roadway. Where this segment crosses the existing Common ROW, FPL will use a “line swap” configuration to maintain a separation of about one-half mile between the new COR #3 Line and the existing transmission lines on the Common ROW.9 See FPL Exhibits 6-7.) Thus, the FPL Corridor includes a lateral 400- foot-wide segment in this area that follows Buckingham Road for about 2,500 feet to the east of the Common ROW and then traverses south along the west side of the section line to SR 82. The land use along the north side of SR 82 is the Lehigh Acres residential subdivision. On the south side of SR 82, the land uses are largely agricultural. In the vicinity of the “line swap,” on the north side of Buckingham Road, is Lee County’s resource recovery facility. See Finding of Fact 75. Due to the presence of a major roadway, Lehigh Acres, a large subdivision north of SR 82, and developing lands and farmlands south of SR 82, there are some natural habitats, but in this segment of the FPL Corridor, the natural habitats have been somewhat diminished. The approximately one-mile portion of this segment that is not collocated with existing roads or transmission lines crosses pine flatwoods and mixed forest habitat in an area that is already disturbed by the east-west crossing of Colonial Boulevard. Lee County’s resource recovery (or “waste-to-energy”) facility, including an incinerator and recycling facility, is located on the north side of Buckingham Road. Lee County plans to expand the recycling facility by extending it about 140 feet- 150 feet to the south, towards Buckingham Road. The recycling facility’s rezoning approval requires a 200-foot setback from Buckingham Road, including a significant vegetative buffer. These requirements will continue to be met with the expansion of the recycling facility, even though some of the vegetative buffer that exists between the recycling facility and Buckingham Road will have to be removed. Lee County is concerned that even more vegetation in that buffer will have to be removed if the COR #3 Line is placed on the north side of Buckingham Road. FPL has agreed to locate the COR #3 Line south of the northern ROW line of Buckingham Road in Lee County, if possible. If FPL is unable to obtain the necessary property interests to place the transmission line ROW within this area, FPL will locate the transmission line adjacent to the northern edge of the road ROW, such that there is no intervening land between the transmission line and the Buckingham Road ROW. Any trees or shrubs disturbed by FPL north of the centerline of Buckingham Road ROW will be replaced on adjacent Lee County property at FPL's expense. (See Joint Exhibit 5A, p. 12, Condition of Certification XVIII.G. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11.) From the Intersection of SR 82 and Sunshine Boulevard/Green Meadows Road to FPL’s 500-kV Transmission Line ROW At the intersection of SR 82 and Sunshine Boulevard and Green Meadows Road, the FPL Corridor turns south and follows Green Meadows Road, a private road, for about two miles to the existing FPL 500-kV transmission line ROW. A new ROW will be required here. In this area, the corridor is 200 feet wide, is centered on Green Meadows Road, and includes the roadbed of Green Meadows Road within its boundaries. The land uses on the west side of Green Meadows Road are primarily agricultural. On the east side, there is some vacant land, some agricultural land, and some low-density residential land use, perhaps with a density of five residential units per acre. (During the public hearing, there was testimony that there are approximately five residences on Green Meadows Road.) Other than the isolated freshwater marsh along the southwest side of Green Meadows Road, the agricultural and residential areas along Green Meadows Road are of little or no ecological value. Intervenor, Kenneth E. Smith, owns a home on the east side of Green Meadows Road. Mr. Smith expressed concern about the aesthetics of the transmission line, property values, the potential proximity of the line to his home and potential health risks associated with the line being nearby his home, and emergency evacuation if an extreme event brought down one or more transmission structures. Mr. Smith suggested that the FPL line be “co-located to existing facilities” and not along Green Meadows Road. Lines of similar design to the COR #3 Line exist in all types of land uses throughout Florida. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) governs the proximity of transmission lines to structures, and FPL has committed to comply with that Code. In emergency situations where there is a concern that evacuation could be hampered, residents have the option to go to a shelter established within the County for such purposes. Moreover, FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that requires it to finalize a route that minimizes potential adverse impacts to the existing residences on the east side of Green Meadows Road by locating the transmission line on the west side of the road to the extent practicable. (Joint Exhibit 5A, p. 11, Condition of Certification XVIII.E. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11 and April 19, 2004, corrected conditions, paragraph E- “To the extent practicable, FPL must finalize a route that minimizes potential adverse impacts to the existing residential areas on Green Meadows Road by locating the transmission line on the west side of Green Meadows Road.”) At the public hearing, a property owner with mining interests on both sides of Green Meadows Road expressed support for placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW. The same person is president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association, which is located in a rectangular area at the south bend in Immokalee Road, near Corkscrew Swamp and Bird Rookery Swamp to the west. See Finding of Fact 98. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Along the FPL 500-kV Transmission Line ROW At the intersection of Green Meadows Road and the FPL Andytown-Orange River 500-kV 330 foot-wide transmission line ROW, the FPL Corridor turns southeast and runs along the 500-kV ROW for approximately 13 miles. In this segment, the FPL Corridor is 400 feet wide to include the existing FPL 500-kV ROW plus 70 feet to the north of that ROW. The land uses along this segment are primarily agricultural and some vacant land. The western portion of this segment (Lee County) of the FPL Corridor includes many natural areas; however, the wildlife habitats that actually occur on the FPL 500-kV ROW are shrub and brushland and some freshwater marshes. The eastern portion (Collier County) of this segment of the FPL Corridor is mostly citrus lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. From the FPL 500-kV Transmission Line ROW to Immokalee Road At a point approximately two miles west of the intersection of SR 82 and SR 29, the FPL Corridor turns south and follows section lines and an existing LCEC 138-kV transmission line ROW for approximately six miles. In this six- mile segment, the corridor is 300 feet wide, centered on the LCEC transmission ROW, except in an area of development near Lake Trafford Road where the corridor is reduced to 200 feet to avoid intrusion into existing residential development to the west. About two miles north of Immokalee Road, the LCEC line turns to the east, but the FPL Corridor continues south to Immokalee Road. In this two-mile segment, the corridor is 500 feet wide. The land uses in this segment are primarily agricultural and vacant land, except in the vicinity of Lake Trafford, where there is residential development on the west side of the FPL Corridor around Lake Trafford Road. On the east side of the FPL Corridor, just north of Lake Trafford Road, there is a proposed Habitat for Humanity subdivision. See Finding of Fact 91. The portion of this segment north of Lake Trafford Road is largely citrus and residential lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. South of Lake Trafford Road, the FPL Corridor crosses two small wetland systems that are a part of the Corkscrew Swamp System. The first of these is crossed in a location where the FPL Corridor is collocated with the LCEC 138-kV transmission line and access road. This prior disturbance has created a shrub swamp habitat in this wetland. (The “unnamed flowway” is located east of Lake Trafford.) Farther to the south along this segment, the FPL Corridor crosses agricultural lands and a narrow section of Baucomb Strand, which is primarily forested and somewhat undisturbed. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) BCC owns four sections of land along the north side of Immokalee Road, west of the intersection of Immokalee Road and the LCEC ROW in this segment. This property is within the Immokalee urban area, which allows for a more intense future residential use. See also Finding of Fact 2. At the public hearing, an officer of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., expressed concern that placement of the COR #3 Line in this segment would preclude use of five lots within a proposed adjacent 165-lot Habitat for Humanity development. However, in this location FPL will collocate the COR #3 Line entirely within the LCEC easement, and there is not likely to be an impact on any of the proposed Habitat building lots. This segment of the FPL Corridor is within the territory of the LCEC. Currently, LCEC receives its electricity from FPL’s Buckingham substation, from which it serves about 29,000 of its customers on a radial line.10 If the COR #3 Line is located in this segment of the FPL Corridor, LCEC plans to construct a 230- to 138-kV substation in Collier County near the LCEC’s Immokalee substation to provide reliability looping to three of its four existing substations and two proposed substations in this portion of its territory. The proposed interconnection between the COR #3 Line and the LCEC system will also improve the reliability to its fourth existing substation by taking 20-30 miles off its single source line. Without looping of LCEC’s substations, if the source of power is lost at the FPL Buckingham substation or if LCEC’s radial line is taken out of service at any location, it would cause a blackout to the residents served downstream from that loss of service. Currently, there is no alternative source of power for LCEC’s substations. Along Immokalee Road to Orangetree Substation The FPL Corridor follows the Immokalee Road (County Road (CR) 846) alignment, turning west, south, and west again for approximately 15 miles to the Orangetree substation, which is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, just west of Wilson Boulevard in eastern Collier County. For most of this 15-mile segment, the corridor is 400 feet wide, centered on Immokalee Road, allowing collocation along either side of the road ROW. For the last two miles northeast of the Orangetree substation, while the corridor continues to include both sides of Immokalee Road, it is narrowed on the east side to exclude existing residential development and is 300 feet wide. This segment of the FPL Corridor traverses largely agricultural land, some low-density residential areas, and vacant land, some of which is a portion of the Corkscrew Swamp System proposed for acquisition as conservation lands. This crossing of Camp Keais Strand (a Cypress and freshwater marsh system) is designated as Save Our Rivers lands, and occurs where Camp Keais Strand is already impacted by the crossing of Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Along this segment of the FPL Corridor, there is little existing residential development. There is one planned residential area, the Orangetree and Waterways of Naples community, and the low-density development of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision that is a very large residential subdivision. The gross densities of these developments are .77 units per acre for Orangetree/Waterways of Naples, and .44 units per acre for Golden Gate Estates. Farther to the west, after Immokalee Road has turned to the south, the FPL Corridor crosses the eastern edge of Bird Rookery Swamp. It is in this location that a Cardinal Air Plant was observed on the west side of Immokalee Road. See Finding of Fact 269. FPL has agreed to Condition of Certification XVIII. that requires FPL to use all available means to locate the transmission line ROW to the east of Immokalee Road in this area. (Joint Exhibit 5A, Condition of Certification XVIII. F., p. 11.) To the east of Immokalee Road lie predominantly agricultural and developing lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. Transmission Lines in Rural Areas CE offered testimony expressing concern for placement of the COR #3 Line in this rural area. However, transmission lines are common in such rural areas since these lines are used to: provide connections between urban areas, as would the COR #3 Line; interconnect systems of different electric utilities; transport power from power plants, which are often in rural areas, to where the electricity is used; bring electricity to processing facilities, such as phosphate and juice processing plants, which are also often in rural areas. In rural areas, transmission lines are commonly sited along rural roadways. At the public hearing, the president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association expressed support for placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW. His concern with the FPL Corridor in this segment was the aesthetic impact on the rural area and the increased cost of using the FPL Corridor. See also Finding of Fact 82. Plans for Future Development Adjacent to the eastern area of this segment of the FPL Corridor, CE owns approximately 1,920 acres north of Immokalee Road and approximately 19,000 acres to the south of the road. See Finding of Fact 4. CE’s property, which is already bisected by Immokalee Road, is not subject to urban development, such as commercial, residential, industrial, or recreational development, except some lands are used for recreational hunting. The property is used for agriculture, water management and environmental uses. These lands are part of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area, within which a property owner may designate agricultural lands and sensitive habitats as sending areas to transfer development rights to other property, called receiving areas. (Mr. Conrecode identified land north and south of Immokalee Road until Oil Well Road, as holdings or parcels of concern. The uses are “primarily cattle grazing, vegetation grow crop production and environmental.”) CE is in the process of designating these lands, but has not yet decided which of this property to designate as sending or receiving areas. The rural character of this area may be short-lived, as CE plans to develop its property adjacent to this segment of the FPL Corridor within the next 5 to 10 years. Such development could include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, ecological, and mining and minerals extraction. One of CE’s goals is to maximize the potential return on its properties. CE is concerned placement of the COR #3 Line adjacent to its property would impact the viewscape of the Camp Keais flowway area, the access to its property from Immokalee Road, and its ability to use the 20+ mile-long Camp Keais natural environmental system as a visual amenity to other properties. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of Camp Keais.) CE is also concerned that when it develops its land adjacent to the COR #3 Line it will have to spend money to buffer and offset the visual and perceived impacts to residents and other business uses in the area by installing berming and landscaping. In the eastern area of this segment, west of the lands referenced above that are owned by CE, BCC owns four square miles of property on the north side of Immokalee Road. See Finding of Fact 2. As noted herein, most of the BCC lands that border Immokalee Road are Stewardship Receiving Areas under the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. This land could receive future residential development up to a density of four dwelling units per acre. BCC anticipates this land will be developed (residential with commercial within the community) within the next 10-15 years. Incorporation of Existing 230-kV Line from Orangetree Substation to FPL Common ROW (Not To Be Certified) The COR #3 Line will incorporate an existing 230-kV transmission line from the Orangetree substation west along the north side of the Immokalee Road ROW, south along Collier Boulevard or CR 951, and then west following an existing FPL transmission ROW (with a single 138-kV transmission line within the ROW) to a point along the existing Common ROW at its intersection with Livingston Road, approximately 1.8 miles north of the Collier substation. Certification is not being sought for this segment of the line. Southernmost 1.8 Miles of Existing Common ROW The final segment of the FPL Corridor follows the easternmost 250 feet of the existing 405 foot-wide Common ROW from the western end of the Orangetree 230-kv transmission line, south to Collier substation. The corridor follows the west side of Livingston Road. The land uses in this area are primarily existing planned residential development. The urbanized character of this segment precludes the presence of any significant wildlife habitat in this area. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATE CORRIDOR The Alternate Corridor is approximately 36.8 miles long and is proposed to lie generally in or adjacent to FPL’s Common ROW transmission corridor that runs between the Orange River and Collier substations. As described in more detail above, the Alternate Corridor will leave the Common ROW at the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road and proceed east along Immokalee Road across CR 951 to the Orangetree substation. Like the FPL Corridor, the Alternate Corridor will connect at the Orangetree substation to incorporate FPL’s new 14-mile long 230-kV line (currently under construction) to accomplish completion of the new 230-kV circuit from FPL’s Orange River substation to the Collier substation. Unlike the FPL Corridor, the Alternate Corridor was selected by the CE/BCC consultants without any public outreach to obtain input from the community.11 The consultants gathered information about the location of properties owned by CE and BCC. Other than the Grey Oaks Development adjacent to the existing Common ROW, which ROW is incorporated into the southernmost 1.8 miles of both the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor, there is no CE or BCC property adjacent to or traversed by the Alternate Corridor. See Findings of Fact 2-5. During the public hearing, Collier County Commissioner Tom Henning stated, in part, that he “would have hoped” that CE and BCC would have had a public meeting in the community prior to selecting the Alternate Corridor like FPL had done when selecting its FPL Corridor. Utilization of the Existing Common ROW The BCC and CE Alternate Corridor exits the Orange River substation on the existing Common ROW and proceeds south approximately 30 miles to Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4 and CE Exhibit 61.) The existing Common ROW within the Alternate Corridor is wide enough to accommodate at least two additional 230-kV circuits. This segment of the Alternate Corridor within the Common ROW traverses over nine miles of wetlands. See Finding of Fact 286. The specific number of acres of wetlands that may be impacted by placing the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor is unknown. On-site wetland delineations would be performed, if the Alternate Corridor were chosen, to locate the jurisdictional limits of the wetlands. Specific pole locations and pad locations and sizing would need to be determined. Thereafter, impacts to wetlands would be determined. From a review of aerial photography it appears that the Common ROW has not been cleared from edge to edge and certainly not maintained routinely edge-to-edge. Some wetland vegetation clearing may be required in order to construct a new line on the opposite side of the existing poles if those are selected. Immokalee Road From Existing Common ROW to Orangetree Substation At the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road, the Alternate Corridor turns east and follows Immokalee Road approximately 8.5 miles to the Orangetree substation. (See FPL Exhibit 4 and CE Exhibit 61.) To provide for making the eastward turn at the intersection, the proposed Alternate Corridor is extended to 500 feet on either side of the centerline of the existing Common ROW from a point 1,000 feet north of the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road to the same intersection. From that intersection, the Alternate Corridor extends east to the Orangetree substation, along Immokalee road, at a width of 500 feet, north and south from the centerline of Immokalee Road (for a total of 1,000 feet in width). (See CE Exhibit 29, p. 2.) There are 20 planned residential communities and one section of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision along the Immokalee Road portion of the Alternate Corridor. The gross densities of these residential developments range from .51 to 12 units per acre on the north side of Immokalee Road, and from 2.11 to 12.84 units per acre on the south side of the road. On the north side of Immokalee Road, all but one of the residential developments has gross densities greater than one unit per acre. On the south side of Immokalee Road all but one of the residential developments have gross densities greater than three units per acre. There is one planned residential community that is actually developed into two communities, Orangetree (Orangetree and Waterways of Naples), and eight units of Golden Gate Estates residential subdivision located along the north or west and south or east sides of the Immokalee Road portion of the FPL Corridor. The gross density for the Orangetree planned community is .77 units per acre and .44 units per acre for Golden Gates Estates. See Finding of Fact 94. The land segment west of CR 951 is more urban and developed, as opposed to the land segment east of CR 951, which is more rural. Siting Constraints within Immokalee Road ROW There was diverging evidence on whether the COR #3 Line could be located and constructed within the Immokalee Road ROW along the ROW segment from the FPL Common ROW running east along Immokalee Road to the intersection of CR 951. During the public hearing, Donald Scott, the director of Collier County's Transportation Planning Department, testified and appeared in this capacity. He stated that Collier County is going to widen to six lanes, the portion of Immokalee Road from Livingston Road (the FPL Common ROW) to CR 951, i.e., a portion of the Alternate Corridor. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of the road-widening project.) He also stated that the County has “some concerns with where the poles might possibly be placed in regards to utilities and other issues we’re dealing with within the corridor.” He wanted “to be on the record to raise our concerns - - and need for more work. [He understood] it can be within a wide corridor and it might not affect the road, but we have concerns with our widening, and would like to work with F.P.L. more and see if it’s even feasible.” Mr. Scott further explained: “The section from Livingston to I-75 will start construction by the end of this year. It’s about 90 percent design plans right now. The section from I-75 to County Road 951 is due to start 2006 with a design build.” Mr. Scott also stated: “We’re having a lot of problems particularly between Livingston and I-75.” During their case-in-chief, BCC and CE’s experts, Dr. Glover and Ms. Day, opined that the COR #3 Line could be located within the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road from the FPL Common ROW east to the intersection at CR 951. Dr. Glover opined, in part, that the COR #3 Line could be built on the north side of Immokalee Road, between the road and the SFWMD canal with good engineering practices. He based his opinion, in part, on the placement of an existing 230 kV line on concrete, single pole structures that start at the Orangetree substation and run westerly to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), located on the north side of Immokalee Road and south of the canal. Ms. Day thought that there may be room for the line within the 1,000-foot corridor. She was uncertain as to a specific location for the line within the corridor, but suggested that it would be the subject of more detailed studies. During rebuttal and in response to the testimony of Dr. Glover and Ms. Day that the COR #3 Line can be built in the Alternate Corridor segment as described above, FPL’s transmission line engineer, Mr. Hronec testified over objection that he was doubtful that the COR #3 Line could be built within the Immokalee Road ROW in this segment due to road widening plans and the presence of multiple underground utilities. (As discussed in more detail below, Mr. Hronec also opined that a line could not be located within the SFWMD canal north of Immokalee road.) His opinion testimony was based upon conversations with the Collier County Transportation Planning and Engineering Departments, a review of the County’s proposed road projects and plans to widen the segment, and personal observations of the segment. (As of FPL’s case-in-chief when Mr. Hronec testified initially, he had not studied the ROW to the west of CR 951 in the same detail as he had to the east of CR 951.) There are numerous utility facilities in place within Immokalee Road ROW in this segment of the Alternate Corridor, both north and south of the road pavement. There is also a generally continuous guardrail adjacent to the north side of the roadway. There appear to be guardrails on the south side of the road, but not continuous. By agreement of the parties, memorialized in the Order dated February 24, 2004, page 2, CE was authorized to file transcripts of deposition(s) in response to Mr. Hronec’s rebuttal testimony. On March 19, 2004, CE timely filed the transcript of the deposition of Mr. Conrecode. Mr. Conrecode, a Florida-registered Professional Engineer, was formerly the capital projects director for Collier County and the public works administrator for Collier County. In both positions, he had responsibility to design and plan the road network in Collier County as well as the construction of existing road facilities and new road corridors. He is also involved with other transportation-related entities. Mr. Conrecode reviewed Collier County’s plans for the widening of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor. He also spoke with Clarence Tears, the director of the Big Cypress Basin, regarding the concerns of SFWMD. Mr. Conrecode opined that there was “substantial amount of space between the guardrail at the north side of the road and the top bank of the canal” to place the transmission line poles. (He also took into consideration the location of existing underground utilities.) He also stated, “the configuration on the north side of Immokalee Road is very similar to what FP&L encountered on [CR] 951 as they ran the connection from the Collier substation to the [n]ew Orange Street [sic] substation, the proximity from the top of the bank to the edge of the road.” Mr. Conrecode also opined that the transmission line could be located within the canal ROW north of the canal and on the south side of the canal. He felt that the area north of the canal had the best and most abundant access east of I-75, but that it was not the only engineering solution. He also opined that the transmission line could be placed within the SFWMD ROW, i.e., placed longitudinally in the SFWMD ROW, notwithstanding, Mr. Hronec’s testimony to the contrary. No persuasive evidence was offered regarding the specific setbacks required from the existing utilities, guardrails or pavement to establish the COR #3 Line in this area. DOT road-design standards would need to be consulted. Siting Constraints to the North of Immokalee Road ROW To the north of the Immokalee Road ROW between Livingston Road and CR 951, there is a SFWMD canal. Mr. Hronec opined that SFWMD prohibits construction of electric transmission lines longitudinally within their ROW (“works of the district,” here the canal). Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-6 pertains to the “works of the [SFWMD].” Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-6.011(4) provides: “The District has determined that an unencumbered 40 foot wide strip of right of way, measured from the top of the bank landward, is required in order for the District to perform the required routine and emergency operations and maintenance activities necessary to insure flood protection to the entire community. In this 40 foot right of way, subject only to limited exceptions provided in this rule, the district shall not authorize any aboveground facilities or other encroachments.” (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-6.121(2) and (6) and 40E-6.221(2); CE Exhibit 18.). The SFWMD published Volume V, “Permit Information Manual,” pertaining to “Criteria for Use of Works of the District,” September 15, 1999 (Manual). Regarding “Transmission Lines,” the a portion of the Manual provides: “The use of the District’s Works or Lands for the construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines has the potential to interfere with the District’s operation, maintenance and allied purposes. Applicants should acquire their own right of way and should not look to the District to utilize District-controlled Works or Lands, which were acquired for water management and other allied purposes. This policy should not be construed as a prohibition against the construction of distribution or transmission line crossings, nor is it a prohibition against use of short segments of District’s right of way for the construction of local distribution facilities when such facilities will not interfere with operations and maintenance and are otherwise acceptable to the District.” The SFWMD also provides for five operational zones described in the Manual at page 28 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-6.011(7), Figure 1, pertaining to Zones 1 through 5 and providing distances from the canal channel and the top of the bank outward. (Zone one is the canal channel from the top of the bank to the opposite top of the bank; Zone two is the point on the ROW from a point five feet landward from the top of the bank; Zone three is between five and 20 feet landward from the top of the bank; Zone four is from 20 to 40 feet landward from the top of the bank; and Zone five is any ROW located further than than 40 feet landward from the top of the bank.) (See CE Rebuttal Exhibit 2.) Mr. Conrecode offered testimony regarding the potential placement of the COR #3 Line within the “Zones.” He observed that FPL, in its existing Orangetree line, has located the poles along CR 951 of the existing canal. No representative from the SFWMD testified in this proceeding. However, the Governing Board of the SFWMD adopted Resolution No. 2003-1207, and concluded that the Alternate Corridor “would not adversely impact the water resources and other matters with the [SFWMD’s] jurisdiction.” (CE Exhibit 18.) Also, several ROW conditions are attached to this Resolution, including the requirement that the permittee submit drawings “showing the proposed facilities for a determination of compliance with the requirements of Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C.” Id. at 8 of 19. (See also CE Exhibit 18, pp. 18 and 19 of 19, Land Management Footnotes (1)-(8).) Aside from the brief public hearing testimony of Mr. Scott, no representative from Collier County Transportation Planning Department, testified regarding the possible placement of the COR #3 Line north or south of Immokalee Road in the location of the Alternate Corridor. As noted, Mr. Conrecode opined, based upon conversations with Mr. Tears, in conjunction with his reading of the SFWMD rules and Manual provisions and Collier County plans for the area, that the COR #3 Line could be placed within the SFWMD canal ROW. Locating and constructing the line in this area would depend on locating the line with precision and then consulting with SFWMD staff. (See CE Exhibit 18.) In the areas north of the SFWMD canal, there are a number of places where development has already filled in up to and abutting the canal which may not leave room for placement of the COR #3 Line. It would be possible to construct portions of the COR #3 Line north of the SFWMD canal in the other areas where development has not yet filled in immediately adjacent to the canal. Several residents who live north of the canal in this segment of the Alternate Corridor, including the president of the Longshore Lake Homeowners Association (this subdivision is located a half of a mile east of the I-75 interchange on Immokalee Road (see FPL Exhibit 4), testified at the public hearing and expressed concern that the proposed transmission line might be placed adjacent to their existing development rather than in the largely undeveloped segment of the FPL Corridor along Immokalee Road. Siting Constraints to the South of Immokalee Road ROW The COR #3 Line might be able to be built on private easements adjoining the south side of Immokalee Road ROW, if private easements could be acquired. FPL’s transmission line engineer is concerned about the ability to acquire a private easement adjacent to the Immokalee Road ROW within the Alternate Corridor because a showing would be required in eminent domain proceedings that this is the best available route. Mr. Conrecode agreed that placing the transmission on the south side of Immokalee Road could be a problem in practice because of the locations of the existing ROW. He believes FPL would have to acquire additional ROW for the location of the poles. But, because of the adequacy of the ROW to the north side of the road, Mr. Conrecode believed that it would not be necessary to consider the south side of the road. Placement of the COR #3 Line on the south side of Immokalee Road would likely negatively impact many existing buffers and visual amenities as follows: The live oaks that presently buffer the Windsong Club Apartment townhomes from the road and existing distribution line, which goes along the south side of Immokalee Road in this area, would have to be removed or severely pruned. These townhomes face Immokalee Road and are set back only 20 to 30 feet from the sidewalk. Most of the trees and palms that presently buffer the Ibis Cove homes from Immokalee Road and adjacent distribution line would have to be removed. The backs of these homes are about 30 to 40 feet from the sidewalk. The Hong Kong orchid and sable palms that buffer the Pebblebrook Lakes homes from Immokalee Road and the existing distribution line would have to be removed. These homes are set back approximately 10 to 15 feet from the back of the property line. The developer of Saturnia Lakes previously paid to have the existing overhead distribution line on the south side of Immokalee Road buried for several hundred feet in front of its development. In addition to adding an overhead power line in this area, the vegetative area that presently buffers the Saturnia Lakes homes from Immokalee Road would also probably need to be greatly reduced. The Washingtonia palms and the large oak at the entrance to Heritage Greens would conflict with the COR #3 Line and would need to be removed. The pine trees in front of the Laurel Oaks Elementary School and Gulf Coast High School would be in conflict with the COR #3 Line if it were placed on the south side of Immokalee Road in this area. The street trees in front of two of the churches would probably have to be removed if the COR #3 Line were constructed on the south side of the road. Other Land Use Issues This segment of the Alternate Corridor conflicts with the two highest-ranking criteria for corridor selection identified in the results of the community survey conducted by FPL’s multi-disciplinary team during its route selection study-- avoidance of homes and schools. There are two schools, Laurel Oaks Elementary School and adjacent Gulf Coast High School, and three churches on the south side of Immokalee Road between the Common ROW and the Orangetree substation. (One parcel is being purchased for another school east of CR 951.) There is already a 230-kV transmission line on the north side of Immokalee Road from CR 951 east to the Orangetree substation. The structures for that line are not of sufficient strength to also support the COR #3 Line. If the COR #3 Line were built on the south side of Immokalee Road for this four- mile segment, there would be a transmission line on both sides of Immokalee Road. FPL’s experience has been that placement of a transmission line on both sides of a road is not supported by the community. Other Engineering Considerations Between the Common ROW and CR 951, it may be theoretically possible to cross back and forth across Immokalee Road in an attempt to avoid the proximate homes, churches and school sites on the south side, but such multiple crossings of the road may require taller structures to maintain required vertical clearances while crossing both the road ROW and the 100-foot-wide SFWMD ROW. If the crossings were not right angles, this configuration would require long expanses of conductor cables going over both the Immokalee Road ROW and the SFWMD canal, which would be undesirable. Such a zigzag configuration would also require approvals from SFWMD for multiple crossings of its canal in a short area. No credible evidence was offered to show whether approval could be obtained. Mr. Hronec did not believe this configuration would violate any local laws or ordinances of Collier County. A zigzag configuration may also require either guying or use of more substantial foundations to support the differential tension for structures where the conductors turned large angles, typically exceeding 10-15 degrees. This configuration is likely to create visual clutter, accentuating the visual impact of the line. The minimization of the number of crossings of a roadway or canal would be good engineering practice. This segment of the Alternate Corridor also presents the engineering challenge of crossing I-75 at an interchange in excess of 1,200 feet in width. DOT restricts the ability to place structures within the confines of such an interchange. Therefore, this crossing may require multiple elevated structures, the tallest of which could exceed 120 to 130 feet in height, to achieve the required vertical clearances of about 24 feet above the pavement. However, there is no rule that would prohibit the construction of the COR #3 Line in and adjacent to the interstate interchange. See Finding of Fact 253. Can the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 accommodate the COR #3 Line? CE offered the testimony of Mr. Conrecode, and others, suggesting possible alternatives for the placement of the COR #3 Line in this segment of the Alternate Corridor. FPL offered credible rebuttal evidence. This segment of the Alternate Corridor may accommodate the COR #3 Line. However, the actual location and construction of the COR #3 Line within this segment of the Alternate Corridor presents significant engineering design and construction constraints and potential impacts upon the public for the reasons stated herein. See also Findings of Fact 226, 230, 252, and Endnote 17. Orangetree Substation to Collier Substation The southernmost portion of the Alternate Corridor between the Orangetree and Collier substations is identical to the FPL Corridor. WHETHER AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH CORRIDOR WILL COMPLY WITH SECTION 403.529(4), FLORIDA STATUTES, CRITERIA Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The Project Service Area is presently served by (a) three 230-kV transmission lines (a fourth 230-kV line runs from the Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Orange River substation) that run from the Orange River substation into the Project Service Area, two of which run directly to the Collier substation, and the third runs (loops) to FPL’s Alico substation and continues to the Collier substation; (b) three 138-kV lines that run from Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Project Service Area, generally in the western portion of the Project Service Area. See Findings of Fact 20-26. Whether the COR #3 Line is built in FPL’s Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will not change the electrical peninsula character of the Project Service Area because the area will still be fed from the north only. FPL has a responsibility to provide safe and reliable service to its customers. The provision of reliable electric service to its customers is important to FPL. In the past, FPL has consistently demonstrated the ability to plan a reliable electric system consistent with NERC and FRCC planning standards. Electric system reliability involves both the “adequacy” of the system to serve load (demand), and the “security” of the system to continue serving load, even after one system component is taken out of service. Electric system integrity requires having all elements of the electric system in service, protected from overloads or abuse. System integrity is closely related to system reliability. The NERC is a national organization that adopts standards for electric system planning and reliability that are used nationwide. The FRCC, which represents all of the investor-owned utilities, cooperative systems, municipal electric utilities, independent power producers and power marketers that operate in peninsular Florida east of the Apalachicola River, participates in the development of, and has adopted the national planning standards established by NERC for the reliability of electrical transmission lines. NERC’s planning standards, which are relied upon in the entire electric utility industry nationwide for the planning of new electrical transmission line facilities, address four transmission systems standards – normal and contingency conditions: Category A – all facilities in service and operating normally (voltages are appropriate) and no loss of load (customer electric demand or supply); Category B – a single element of the transmission system is out of service (also referred to as a “single contingency,” transmission system is stable, and no loss of load to customers; Category C – two or more elements of the transmission system are simultaneously taken out of service, transmission system required to achieve a stable operating state without overloaded transmission lines and with appropriate voltages and without cascading outages and with a variable loss of some customer load; and Category D – an extreme event resulting in two or more (multiple) elements being removed or cascading out of service. (FPL Exhibit 12, Table I.) Construction of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor would be consistent with the NERC planning standards. Similarly, whether the proposed COR #3 Line is located on the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor, it will provide looping to the Orangetree substation.12 Looping of this substation will improve the reliability of electric service to customers served by the Orangetree substation because it will provide an alternate source of electricity that can sustain the substation in the event one source is taken out of service. The loss of the Common ROW has not been studied by FRCC as a Category D event. FRCC has studied extreme events, such as the loss of generating plants, e.g., Crystal River, St. Lucie, Turkey Point, and Martin, and the loss of 500-kV lines in Common ROWs. According to Dr. Glover, under NERC standards, a utility has the discretion to address a Category D event that does not result in cascading outages. But he was not aware of another utility applying a Category D event to other than cascading system-wide outages. FPL plans its system to withstand any single contingency without loss of load (loss of service) to any of its customers, consistent with the NERC planning standards. Category D events (extreme events) include the loss of multiple generating units at a single site, loss of a substation, loss of a transmission line with three or four circuits on it, and loss of all transmission lines on a common ROW. (FPL Exhibit 12, Table I.D.) Following a Category D extreme event, one would expect at least some of a utility’s customers to experience loss of electric service for some period of time. A utility is required by the NERC planning standards to ensure that a Category D event on their system does not result in cascading outages, where the outage spreads in a domino fashion and impacts other utilities’ systems. A “cascading outage” is an outage event that begins in one area but spreads to another area, causing outages in the second area. For example, an outage starting in another state and causing outages in Florida, or an outage starting in one Florida utility’s service area and causing an outage in other Florida utilities service area, is considered to be a “cascading outage.” The Project Service Area is an electrical peninsula and cascading of an outage to other areas is not likely. A loss of a substantial electrical load in a large area caused by a single event taking multiple electric system elements out of service, even if it does not result in cascading outages, is also classified as a Category D event. Under the NERC planning standards, although a utility is not required to evaluate all Category D extreme events, a utility must exercise its judgment as to which extreme events it will evaluate and which non-cascading Category D events it will institute actions to mitigate. (See FPL Exhibit 12, Footnote e to Table I.D. of the NERC Planning Standards which states: “A number of extreme contingencies that are listed under Category D and judged to be critical by the transmission planning entity(ies) will be selected for evaluation. It is not expected that all possible facility outages under each listed contingency of Category D will be evaluated.”) Allowing some customers to temporarily lose their electric service (referred to as “load shedding”) is an acceptable practice when needed to preserve reliability to the remainder of a utility’s customers. Electrical Vulnerability of Project Service Area There are types of extreme single events that can take all of the transmission lines out of the service on the Common ROW including hurricanes, tornadoes, wind-blown debris, plane crashes, wildfires, vandalism, sabotage and terrorism. The Common ROW in the Project Service Area is vulnerable to several extreme events that could take out of service all the transmission lines within that ROW. For example, there are five airports (including the Southwest Florida International Airport, approximately one mile from the FPL Common ROW) in the vicinity of the Common ROW, resulting in a potential for plane crashes. Portions of the Common ROW go through undeveloped areas where wildfires could cause an outage, as has happened on other FPL common ROWs. While no outages of the lines on the Common ROW have been caused by tornadoes or hurricanes since 1989, these types of weather events occur in the Project Service Area.13 These weather events and associated large wind-blown debris can also result in a complete outage of lines on a common ROW. While FPL cannot control the frequency of Category D events that can result in a common ROW outage, it has some control over the duration and consequences of the outage. Due to the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area, an electrical outage caused by an extreme event affecting the Common ROW would last as long as it took to repair the damaged lines because there is no other way to deliver electricity to FPL’s customers in the south end of the “peninsula.” If a transmission line is damaged by an extreme event like a plane crash, hurricane, tornado or sabotage, depending on the severity of the event, all of the phases of construction required for a new transmission line, other than possibly surveying, may be required to reconstruct the damaged line. Depending on the severity of the damage, an extreme event damaging all of the transmission lines on the Common ROW could result in hundreds of thousands of FPL customers being out of service for approximately two to six days.14 See Finding of Fact 297. (Mr. Armand testified, in part, that FPL’s assertion of an outage lasting up to six days is “totally unrealistic.” He believed that there is a very small probability of a corridor outage in the Common ROW with the COR #3 Line located in it, and that if there were to be such an outage, it would be less than 12 hours in duration, i.e., to get one line operational. See Finding of Fact 296.) Even though FPL is recognized as an industry leader in service restoration efforts, and it has in place an emergency response plan to restore structurally damaged transmission facilities in the Common ROW, it may take a minimum of two days to get the first damaged circuit back in service, depending on the extent of the damage. Reliability Enhancement from Geographic Separation Placement of the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW like the FPL Corridor spreads the risk and lowers the likelihood that all 230-kV lines serving the Project Service Area would be taken out of service by a single event. While outages of all transmission lines on common ROWs (Category D events) are a relatively rare occurrence, they do occasionally occur. (FPL Exhibit 11.) It is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty a mathematical probability of such a Category D event occurring. Since 1985, FPL has experienced 12 events where all transmission lines on a common ROW on its system have been taken out of service due to hurricane, tornado, birds, plane crash or wildfire.15 (FPL Exhibit 11.) (In 1977, FPL experienced an outage on the Andytown line.) See Findings of Fact 295-297. The typical corridor outage is of relatively brief duration. Of the 13 corridor outages reported in FPL Exhibit 11 and BCC Exhibit 7, several were 16 or fewer minutes in duration. The Turkey Point Corridor suffered a 120-hour outage as a result of Hurricane Andrew and, as a result of the hurricane, FPL experienced transmission line “outages in a large area of Dade and Broward Counties.” While not accounting for all reported corridor outages, other corridor outages lasted approximately 11 hours (Volusia-Smyrna #’s 1 and 2 115-kV (plane)) and approximately 17 and 10 hours (Duval-Thalmann 500-kV and Duval- Hatch 500-kV, respectively (plane)). Except for the outage occurring in the Turkey Point Corridor that has seven 230-kV lines, there have been no transmission line corridor outages involving four or more transmission lines. There have been no reported common corridor outages in the Common ROW or the Project Service Area. There are many reported single-transmission line outages within the Collier-Orange River Corridor, but none attributable to a plane crash, hurricane, or tornado. Many of the reported transmission line outages in the Collier-Orange River Corridor have been attributed to unknown causes, equipment failures, foreign interference, lightning, birds, and human elements (other than vandalism). In the Collier-Orange River Corridor, there have been eight line outages on six different days caused by fire and one outage due to vandalism. (BCC Exhibit 5-(1989-2003).) When planning a transmission line system in Florida, the loss of all transmission lines in a common ROW is one of the probable extreme events that should be evaluated. The loss of an entire generating plant is another. All of the 230-kV transmission lines on the Common ROW are on two structures for much of its length. In these places, an extreme event would only have to destroy two structures to take all of the 230-kV lines on the Common ROW out of service. Guide G6 in NERC’s planning standards, which represents a good planning practice, provides that the transmission system should be planned to avoid excessive dependence on any one transmission circuit, structure, ROW or substation. Guide G6 is a reasonable basis to plan a new ROW geographically separate from an existing ROW that already contains multiple transmission line circuits. Similarly, the FRCC crisis response plan identifies physical security measures for which utilities should plan to enhance the reliability of Florida’s transmission system. These physical security measures were adopted following September 11, 2001. That plan recommends that utilities consider not placing too many transmission lines on a common ROW because of terrorist-type threats, sabotage, or disgruntled employees. Minimizing risk to infrastructure is also consistent with the planning philosophies of homeland security. Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Contingency Assessment In the context of contingency assessments for transmission lines, two types of evaluations are possible: deterministic and probabilistic. When using a deterministic evaluation, a utility determines whether an event can occur and, if so, the consequences of that event. If the consequences are severe, the utility evaluates the steps it could take to mitigate the adverse effects. When using a probabilistic evaluation, a mathematical computation is used, based on historical data. This method is used when, for example, calculating the probability that all generators in Florida might not meet future loads in the future. NERC’s planning standards do not require a probabilistic evaluation when assessing Category D contingencies. The president of FRCC, Mr. Wiley, is not aware of any utility using a probabilistic evaluation for transmission line planning in his forty years of experience. In planning the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW, FPL used a deterministic evaluation. FPL determined that an extreme event could cause an outage of all lines on the Common ROW, and that the consequences of such an outage were severe enough to warrant looking for a geographically separate ROW. If an extreme event like a plane crash takes out of service all of the transmission lines on the existing Common ROW, leaving the COR #3 Line undamaged on a geographically separate ROW within the FPL Corridor would allow FPL to restore service to about 60 percent of the demand in the Project Service Area in the worst case. With the available electricity, FPL could direct power to circuits with critical facilities within the Project Service Area, such as hospitals, police stations and fire stations, and rotate the blackout among many of its other customers until the damaged lines were reconstructed. Alternatively, if the COR #3 Line were placed on the existing Common ROW and all of the transmission lines on the ROW were taken out of service by an extreme event, FPL would only be able to serve about 25-30 percent of the load in the Project Service Area through the 138-kV transmission network until the damaged lines were rebuilt. In such an event, there may not be enough electricity to energize all of the feeders that serve critical facilities in the Project Service Area. Further Justification for Geographic Separation The “not-in-my-backyard” approach of many landowners is a well-known impediment to transmission line construction, and obtaining property rights for new transmission lines is becoming increasingly difficult. Getting land for a new transmission line ROW is more difficult when development has already occurred than when land is still relatively undeveloped. The population and demand for electricity in the Project Service Area are both growing rapidly. FPL projects there will be a need to add more transmission lines to bring power into the Project Service Area within the next 10 to 15 years. Even though there is room on the existing common ROW to accommodate the addition of at least two new transmission circuits (one on the existing COR #2 structures and one on new structures), it is prudent for FPL to establish a geographically separate transmission line ROW in the Project Service Area for the COR #3 Line before future development makes it more difficult to do so. The Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations is the only common ROW on FPL’s system with no generating plant connected on each end. For all the other FPL common ROWs, if there is an extreme event that takes out of service all the lines on that ROW, the resulting outage will last only as long as it takes to redirect power from FPL’s fleet of generators. In the Project Service Area, there is currently no way other than the Common ROW to adequately feed the significant electrical demand in the Naples area. Thus, an outage in the Project Service Area caused by an extreme event on the Common ROW would last as long as it took to repair the damaged lines, which could take several days. Collier County’s Director of Emergency Management testified that, in his opinion, it is simple common sense planning to provide as much separation as possible between the COR #3 Line and the other 230-kV lines on the Common ROW. It is highly unlikely that an extreme event would affect both the Common ROW and the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate route. Thus, the geographic separation would enhance the ability to restore electric service to the community. The FPL Corridor also facilitates the timely provision of reliability looping to LCEC’s existing and future substations. If the COR #3 Line is not built in the FPL Corridor, this reliability looping would be farther in the future and it would cost substantially more to achieve because of the increased distance between the LCEC system and the closest point on the Alternate Corridor. Other Projects that Might Improve Reliability of Electric Service in the Project Service Area Rejected BCC offered testimony suggesting FPL has the option of upgrading its 138-kV transmission system located to the west of the Common ROW to 230-kV facilities in the Project Service Area rather than building a new 230-kV line. In making this suggestion, however, BCC’s witness assumed, and concluded, that there would be physical space to accomplish such an upgrade. (He had not inspected all of the existing 138-kV facilities in this area.) FPL’s transmission line engineer noted that a number of the existing 138-kV substations on that system have insufficient physical space to allow for the conversion, although he did not recall which substations are physically incapable of expansion to accommodate the conversion. No persuasive evidence was offered by BCC to explain how the electrical demands in the area could be met while the lines were being reconstructed. As another alternative for eliminating the peninsula effect, BCC suggested that FPL could have resolved its reliability concern and eliminated the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area by installing generation capacity in that Area.16 But this option was one of the alternative projects considered by the PSC in the need proceeding for this project, and it was rejected. FPL has not pursued a suggested option to relocate the transmission lines off of common ROWs to increase reliability on its common ROWS outside the Project Service Area because they all have generation on both ends, allowing FPL to feed demand using generation facilities even if all the lines on a common ROW are out of service. Here, while FPL is not proposing to “relocate” a line off the Common ROW, it is proposing to take advantage of the fact that a new line is needed by constructing it off the Common ROW, achieving the same result suggested by this option. BCC appears to be concerned that use of either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor for the COR #3 Line will increase the percentage of transmission capacity in the Project Service Area that comes through the Orange River substation. Although BCC offered testimony that loss of the Orange River substation would result in similar numbers of customers being out of service as a Common ROW outage, FPL’s decision to not duplicate that substation facility is reasonable. Duplication of the Orange River substation would probably be too expensive, although the specific amount is uncertain. Also, while a transmission line is a linear facility, a substation is a finite location, resulting in much less exposure to an extreme event. Moreover, substations are very robust facilities that are able to withstand higher wind and mechanical forces, and are less vulnerable to wildfires than transmission lines. For all these reasons, a complete outage of the Orange River substation is less likely than an outage of all the lines on the Common ROW. FPL’s Judgment to Seek a Geographically Separate ROW Consistent with Prior Action This is not the first time FPL has decided to seek a geographically separate route for a new transmission line even though space was available on a common ROW. On one other occasion, FPL chose to locate a transmission line on a geographically separate route from an existing common ROW where there was room to accommodate the new line. FPL made that decision for geographic separation for many of the same reasons it is seeking a geographically separate route for the COR #3 Line. FPL lost all three lines in the common corridor that resulted in a complete blackout and no amount of load shedding could arrest the frequency decline and prevent the blackout. In that instance, after a 500-kV common ROW outage caused an electrical outage in South Florida for over three hours, FPL chose to put its next 500-kV transmission line on a geographically separate route. FPL’s service area generally covers the eastern half of the Florida peninsula and southwest Florida. FPL has approximately 15 common transmission line corridors of varying lengths that have at least the transmission line capacity of four 230-kV lines. The total transmission line capacity of these corridors ranges from four 230-kV lines to as many as nine 230-kV lines, as well as (a) two 500-kV lines and three 230-kV lines; (b) three 500-kV lines; and (c) one 500-kV line and seven 230-kV lines. FPL has installed new 230-kV transmission lines in common corridors since 1992. FPL is planning to add additional generating capacity at its Martin generating station and an additional 1,100 MW of capacity at its Turkey Point station. It does not appear that FPL has relocated any of the 230-kV lines out of the Turkey Point corridor in order to achieve geographic diversity. CE and BCC suggest that the current state of FPL’s corridors and generating plants described above is inconsistent with FPL’s Corridor. All of the reasons for FPL’s decisions to plan and construct and add to the facilities noted above are not apparent in this record. However, the unique nature of the Project Service Area, in part, distinguishes FPL’s plans to locate the COR #3 Line in FPL’s Corridor from other projects. Geographic Separation Appropriate for COR #3 Line The contingencies that FPL addressed in its evaluation of the reliability of the proposed COR #3 Line Project were reasonable and appropriate under the NERC planning standards. Given the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area, it is prudent to locate the new COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separate from the existing Common ROW to enhance reliability for the customer. Construction of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor would provide greater system reliability and integrity for FPL’s customers. Use of this geographically separate ROW would mitigate the possibility of all transmission lines on the Common ROW being taken out of service simultaneously and leaving a substantial percentage of FPL’s customers in the Project Service Area without power for an extended period of time. Construction of the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW, such as the FPL Corridor, is prudent and will ensure electric system reliability, integrity and service restoration. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion The PSC recognized that FPL’s planning studies indicate that the COR #3 Line is needed by December 2005 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event. The COR # 3 Line can be constructed in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor and meet the requirements set forth in Finding of Fact 47, except as otherwise noted herein regarding the potential significant constraints to locate and construct the COR #3 Line within the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 along Immokalee Road. Location of the COR #3 Line on either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a timely fashion in that the single-contingency planning criteria established by NERC will be met. However, the FPL Corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a more orderly fashion than the Alternate Corridor because: The Project Service Area is a fast growing area of the state and new distribution substations will likely be required in the eastern portions of Lee and Collier County. Those future substations can be fed more efficiently from the FPL Corridor than if the COR #3 Line is placed on the existing Common ROW and long east- west transmission lines (similar to the Immokalee Road segment of the Alternate Corridor) are required to feed those substations. In transmission line siting, it is easier to locate a new transmission line in an area before it becomes developed. The Alternate Corridor incorporates a 4-mile stretch of Immokalee Road that is already densely developed. In contrast, much of the FPL Corridor’s route is presently undeveloped or agricultural in nature. Both CE and BCC acknowledge plans to develop their lands adjacent to Immokalee Road along the FPL Corridor within the next 10 to 15 years. While there is space on the Common ROW for placement of additional 230-kV transmission lines that may accommodate electric demand for another 29 to 44 years, it is not prudent to wait that long to establish a geographically separate ROW. By that time, CE and BCC plan to have developed their lands and it is not unreasonable to expect that the then-existing residents and businesses on that eastern stretch of Immokalee Road will be in the same position as those currently located along the western stretch of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor. These residents will be occupying development in place that has not been planned to accommodate an adjacent transmission line. Comply with the Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor could comply with all applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The segment of the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 may accommodate the location and construction of the COR #3 Line, subject to the significant engineering design and construction constraints discussed herein. See Findings of Fact 120-156, 226. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The location, construction, and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will be consistent with all applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans. The COR #3 Line ROW will be established through the grant of approval from an existing ROW owner or FPL’s acquisition of an easement or fee simple interest in property. These acquisitions can be through purchase, eminent domain, or by grant. No segment of the COR #3 Line will be constructed until the ROW for that segment has been established. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan is essentially silent on transmission lines as a land use. There are two potentially applicable policies in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Myers. One indicates that land should be provided for utilities, and the other explicitly provides that the City’s land development regulations shall only permit, among other identified uses, utility lines, poles, and/or pipes in wetland areas. In the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, essential services (which include transmission lines) are permitted uses in all future land use designations crossed by the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor. Similarly, Section 2.6.9.3 of the Collier County’s Land Development Code exempts “structures supporting lines or cables” from the regulations. Effect a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Transmission Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Resulting from the Location of the Transmission Line Corridor and Maintenance of the Transmission Lines In determining whether it is practicable to locate the COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separated from the existing Common ROW, three relevant factors to consider are the costs of the geographically separate route, the benefits of that route, and the technical ability to construct the COR #3 Line on the alternative route. The need for the COR #3 Line is not disputed. All parties agree that reliable electric service is desirable. The type of transmission line design proposed for the COR #3 Line occurs in all types of land uses throughout Florida. By collocating the new line with existing linear features, such as roads, property boundaries and other transmission line ROWs, both the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor conform to the existing patterns of land development, and will consolidate land use/environmental impacts to a single area, as opposed to locating the new line in a non-collocated alignment. Collocation also reduces the amount of new ROW needed. For example, next to a road, the new line will only need a ROW that is up to 15 feet in width, whereas up to a 60-foot ROW is required where the line is not collocated with an existing linear feature. Impact Upon the Public Two priorities expressed by the community in the Project Service Area during the public outreach activities were the minimization of impacts to homes and schools. The FPL Corridor minimizes impacts to existing homes by following a route where there is little residential development and where planned residential development is low density. There do not appear to be any schools within or adjacent to the FPL Corridor, although the Collier County School Board is in the process of acquiring land on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately three miles east of CR 951 and west of the Orangetree substation. (See FPL Exhibit 6-5, proposed site designated with a circle.) Intervenor, Kenneth E. Smith, whose residence is located on Green Meadows Road along the FPL Corridor, expressed concern about the potential for health effects from electric and magnetic fields. See also Findings of Fact 11 and 80. BCC’s representative, Thomas W. Sansbury, is employed by the Grey Oaks Development Corporation as its president; Grey Oaks Realty Corporation as its president and broker of record; and Grey Oaks Community Services. The Grey Oaks community is on the west side of Livingston Road and near the Collier substation. (FPL Exhibit 4.) (A member of the board of BCC owns Grey Oaks Development Corporation and Grey Oaks Community Services.) Mr. Sansbury has extensive experience in the sales, management, and operations of developments. He also advised that there is sales resistance when developments are close to or adjacent to transmission lines. He advised of the need and cost for buffering of properties that are nearby transmission lines. Mr. Sansbury also believed that BCC has the ability to plan and develop other commercially successful developments (like Grey Oaks, for example) that are adjacent to other transmission lines. He also expressed concern about the public’s perception of effects from electric and magnetic fields and sales resistance he has received from being close to or adjacent to transmission lines. Mr. Sansbury, who served on the Environmental Regulation Commission when the DEP’s rule limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with electric transmission lines and substations were adopted, agreed that the experts who testified at the Commission’s hearings around the state supported a determination that there is no conclusive evidence that there is any danger or hazard to public health at the 60 Hertz electric and magnetic fields found in Florida, although he stated that typical buyers do not support such a determination. The COR #3 Line will comply with the standards adopted by the DEP, limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines in all areas of the FPL Corridor. The Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road (from the Common ROW to CR 951) is adjacent to high-density residential development and two existing schools. See Finding of Fact 242. Yet, avoiding homes and schools are high priorities in this community. There are several techniques that can be used to lessen the potential impact of an adjacent transmission line on development. They include the installation of an earth berm and/or landscaping to buffer the development from the transmission line; alignment of residential units so the living space at the rear of the homes are faced away from the line; and the placement of lesser-valued or non-residential units, like golf courses and commercial uses, closest to the line. It is easier to implement these mitigation techniques prior to development taking place or prior to development being planned and approved, than after the development is complete or approved. From a land use perspective, the Common ROW portion of the Alternate Corridor is suitable for the placement of the COR #3 Line. Also, from a land use perspective, the FPL Corridor from the Orange River substation south to its intersection with Immokalee Road is similar in land use impacts to the portion of the Alternate Corridor on the existing Common ROW north of the intersection with Immokalee Road. In these areas, both corridors follow existing linear facilities and are suitable for location of the COR #3 Line from a land use perspective. (See, e.g., FPL Exhibit 4.) Aside from some environmental area issues discussed herein, the main difference in land use impacts between the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor occurs along their two different Immokalee Road segments. There is little existing development in the FPL Corridor along Immokalee Road (east of CR 951), whereas the existing residential and commercial development in the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 is quite extensive. Placement of the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road between Livingston Road (which is just east of the Common ROW) and CR 951 would have more significant impacts on residential areas than placement of the line within the FPL Corridor. The existing residential development within the Alternate Corridor in this area is much higher density, and the FPL Corridor provides greater opportunity for future development to accommodate or plan around the line as an existing feature. In addition to the existing residential development along Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor, several other developments are already planned and have received at least some of their approvals. Also, to place the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road between Livingston Road and CR 951, a zigzag configuration may be required. See Findings of Fact 150-153. This zigzagging would create visual clutter, whereas placement of the line in the FPL Corridor parallel to a road would allow the line to blend into the other linear elements and not predominate. While construction of the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor could comply with applicable standards as listed in Finding of Fact 47, compliance with good engineering practices may be difficult to achieve along the segment of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor because of the uncertainty of where the COR #3 Line can be located and the constraints discussed herein. See Finding of Fact 156. The crossing of I-75/Immokalee Road interchange within the Alternate Corridor without placement of structures within the DOT I-75 interchange, may require the use of multiple elevated structures, some of which might exceed 120 feet or 130 feet in height to achieve the appropriate vertical clearances over the elevated roadway. See also Finding of Fact 154. CE offered testimony that the COR #3 Line could have a negative impact on the quality of a car trip to the vehicle’s occupants. Yet there are between two and three times the number of vehicles each day on the segment of Immokalee Road traversed by the Alternate Corridor, compared to the segment in the FPL Corridor. Along Immokalee Road, the FPL Corridor is a better choice than the Alternate Corridor from a land use planning perspective. In planning future development land holdings of CE and BCC, CE and BCC would have the flexibility to install berms and landscape materials to buffer future development from the COR #3 Line and Immokalee Road. Both CE and BCC have experience buffering development from transmission lines and achieving a commercial success with such development. Evidence presented by BCC of the potential for the COR #3 Line to impact the “sales velocity” (speed with which a residential lot or home sells) and property value impact to its lands along the FPL Corridor has some merit but is not persuasive. When selling homes in Collier County, the preferred orientations that affect values of homes in Collier County are to have the living space facing west, toward a golf course or water. The two villa properties used for comparison in this testimony are not comparable to one another from a landscape architecture perspective. The Muse villa properties are on the eastern portion of the Grey Oaks community and are buffered from the FPL ROW by a buffer area, landscape berm, and roadway. The units are faced away from the ROW. The Muse contains approximately 26 residential units of 2,600 to 3,000 square feet. The Santiva community has similarly sized and number of units and is on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road (western border of the property) and buffered from this road by a canal, a berm, and a road. The Santiva units sold out are essentially one year and six months while the Muse units, which buffered the power lines sold out in approximately three years. While the villas (The Muse) that sold more slowly face west and are adjacent and west of Livingston Road along the Common ROW, the view from the living space is over a single golf hole, whereas the villas (Santiva) that sold more quickly have a view of both a lake and several golf holes. Accordingly, the villas that sold more quickly are more desirable from a landscape architecture perspective because of the lot layout. Also, the villas that sold more quickly were in a later phase of the development that occurred after the development had already achieved a good reputation in the community. Nevertheless, the units that do not border on a transmission line are more desirable and valuable than those that are adjacent to a transmission line in this area. Also, utilizing golf holes as a buffer increases the cost of the development. Evidence was also presented regarding property value impacts and sales velocity regarding the estate homes section (on Dalia Way) lots on two sides of the street. The homes that face east on the right side of the street, and were buffered from multiple transmission lines on the existing Common ROW by a golf hole, sold for less and more slowly than the homes that faced west on the other side of the street. Part of the differential between the lots was because of the favorable western view. Mr. Stansbury observed that the prices of the lots facing the transmission lines were approximately 15 percent lower than the others. In any event, there was no persuasive evidence presented that the impact to property value or sales velocity from the multiple transmission lines on a wide ROW in view of the eastern-facing estate lots is comparable to any impact from a single pole transmission line such as the proposed COR #3 Line. Immokalee Road is adjacent to the properties owned by CE and BCC and is an arterial roadway that is planned for future expansion to four or possibly six lanes. Even without a transmission line, both CE and BCC use earth berms and landscaping to buffer development from adjacent arterial roadways. Any impact to CE and BCC there that may result from their desire to buffer the COR #3 Line adjacent to Immokalee Road from their future development along the FPL Corridor is likely to be incremental in that CE and BCC would already be planning to buffer that future development from the arterial roadway. During the public hearing, several people inquired why the COR #3 Line would not be placed underground. The evidence shows that an underground configuration for the COR #3 Line is not cost-effective, and that repair times could increase from hours for an overhead line to days or weeks for an underground line. Impact Upon the Environment From an environmental perspective, the objective of the corridor selection process was to minimize crossings of the various land use and environmental siting constraints, as well as to maximize any collocation opportunities with existing linear facilities. As a result, the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length. A new north-south transmission line corridor in this area of Florida cannot be established without crossing a significant wetland system. One major siting constraint in selecting a corridor from Orange River substation to the Orange Tree substation is the Corkscrew Swamp System. Avoidance of potential impacts to the Corkscrew Swamp System is the primary reason why the FPL Corridor extends so far to the east. Even the Alternate Corridor that uses the existing Common ROW crosses more than two miles of wetlands associated with the Corkscrew Swamp System. The Corkscrew Swamp System is a large ecosystem dominated by wetlands, primarily consisting of cypress wetlands. It also includes large expanses of pine flatwoods and other natural systems. Throughout the Corkscrew Swamp System, there are numerous endangered and threatened species. It is the home to some of the high-profile endangered species in the State of Florida, including the Florida panther, bald eagle, and black bear. (The Corkscrew Swamp Ecosystem is estimated to encompass approximately 64,500 acres.) The Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, a large Audubon-owned and managed wildlife sanctuary, and also a major tourist attraction in the area, is located in the area north of Immokalee Road and east of the big turn to the south. The FPL Corridor essentially avoids the Corkscrew Swamp System by going around it to the east of the System along the north-south section of Immokalee Road, touching it only on the edges where disturbances already exist, such as existing roadways and transmission lines. Since 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear facilities, already-existing access should be sufficient for construction and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in many areas. Where existing access is available, in some areas finger roads to the new structure locations may be required. This ability to use existing access in many areas will minimize the amount of filling required for this project. There are two locations within the FPL Corridor where the Sleeping Beauty Water Lily, a listed plant species, is known to exist. One of these locations occurs just west of the Orange River substation along the eastern edge of an existing citrus grove in an agricultural ditch, and the other location occurs in a roadside ditch along the south side of SR 82. In addition, the listed Cardinal Air Plant was observed to occur along the eastern edge of Bird Rookery Swamp and on the west side of Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) They also could occur in other areas including other cypress trees along and outside the FPL Corridor. They are locally abundant. FPL has generally agreed to avoid the removal of listed plant species that occur on public lands and waters where practicable. Where such removal is unavoidable, FPL has agreed to abide by the mitigation or other requirements of regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over listed plants. In addition, FPL has specifically agreed to avoid through all available means, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, placing the COR #3 Line on the west side of Immokalee Road where the land has been designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands by Collier County. (Joint Exhibit 5A Conditions of Certification, Section XVIII.F, p.11, Attachment 4.) This is the same area where the Cardinal Air Plant was observed to exist. As noted, the Corkscrew Swamp System is also home to endangered and threatened animal species, including the Florida panther. The Florida panther is one of the most endangered species in the State of Florida. The entire study area for the COR #3 Line is located in Florida panther habitat. The Florida Panther utilizes large expansive pine flatwoods and swamp systems and drainages to travel. Radio-telemetry has indicated the presence of the panther along Immokalee Road to the south of the Corkscrew Swamp System. By collocating along Immokalee Road in these areas, the FPL Corridor will not result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the Florida Panther, and will not increase the animal’s exposure to more human presence or vehicular traffic. The wood stork, the bald eagle, and the Florida Black Bear are also found in the vicinity of the FPL Corridor. The FPL Corridor avoids known wading bird breeding colonies, including wood stork breeding colonies. In addition, because it is collocated with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length, the FPL Corridor is not likely to result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the wood stork. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will have minimal adverse impacts on the wood stork. There are no known active bald eagle nests within one half mile of the FPL Corridor, although they could be observed throughout the study area and are likely to occur along the FPL Corridor. In addition, as with the wood stork, only minimal habitat that the bald eagle might use will be removed. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Transmission Line in the FPL Corridor will have minimal adverse impacts on the bald eagle. There have been black bear observations along Immokalee Road in the vicinity of the FPL Corridor, including, unfortunately, black bear mortalities. The black bear, much like the Florida Panther, utilizes large thickets and swamp systems and move several miles in a day. As with the Florida panther, by collocating along Immokalee Road in these areas, the FPL Corridor will not result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the black bear, and will not increase the animal’s exposure to more human presence or vehicular traffic. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect the black bear. The FPL Corridor avoids and minimizes impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats because the existing habitats along much of the FPL Corridor are already disturbed. In addition, by avoiding known locations of endangered or threatened species, and by collocating with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length, the amount of additional clearing that will be required is minimized. Consequently, the construction of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources and will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. There will be some fill required in wetlands for the construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor. Where the line must cross wetlands, FPL may have to construct access roads and pole pads in the wetlands to facilitate construction and maintenance of the new transmission line. FPL has agreed to follow a number of procedures to avoid and minimize the impacts from such fill in wetlands. First and foremost, the location selected for the FPL Corridor avoids numerous wetlands. Within the wetlands crossed by the FPL Corridor, wetland impacts will be minimized in the following ways: by careful alignment of the ROW, such as by taking advantage of upland islands located within these wetlands for pole locations where practicable, thus avoiding placing a fill pole pad in the wetlands; by incorporating the number and size of culverts necessary to maintain existing surface water hydrology and flow; and by minimizing the size of pole pads placed in wetlands based on site-specific conditions. In addition, FPL has agreed to remove existing exotic vegetation from the wetlands within the FPL Corridor. This will provide a benefit to those wetlands from which exotic vegetation is removed. CE offered testimony estimating that construction of the COR #3 Line in the entire length of the FPL Corridor would require the placement of 2.05 acres of fill in wetlands, with .75 acres through the construction of an access road to the Baucom Strand portion of the FPL Corridor (less than a mile north of the portion of Immokalee Road which turns north toward the LCEC 138-kV ROW) and another 1.3 acres by the placement of 25-fill pads in the remaining areas, e.g., four fill pads for the wetlands at the “unnamed flowway” located east of Lake Trafford on the LCEC 138-kV ROW; four structure pads for the entire length of Baucom Strand (assuming a continuous access road of 2,300 feet); seven fill pads at the Camp Keais Strand located over a mile west of the segment of Immokalee Road which turns west after leaving the LCEC 138-kV ROW; one fill pad at the “freshwater swamp” located on Green Meadows Road; and nine fill pads in the Bird Rookery Swamp area. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Ms. Johnson (for CE) assumed that the power lines would be placed to minimize impacts to wetlands; the approximate spacing of the poles would be 700-foot maximum and that the pads would be 45 feet by 50 feet. Ms. Johnson stated that while the water management district employed her, permits were issued for projects with that amount or more of wetland impact, and agreed that it is possible for a project to include 2.05 acres of impacts to wetlands and still meet the permitting requirements. FPL offered rebuttal evidence regarding CE’s wetland impact analysis. Mr. Simpson opined, in part, that there might be approximately 1.23 acres of impacts to the areas described by Ms. Johnson. See Finding of Fact 281. FPL has agreed to appropriately mitigate for wetland impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. CE also offered testimony that construction of the COR #3 Line on the Alternate Corridor would not cause any significant impacts to wetlands. Based on the National Wetland Inventory Data Base, there are over nine miles of non-continuous wetlands along the Alternate Corridor. However, there was no precise quantification of adverse impacts to wetland areas within the Alternate Corridor. Also, the evidence is inconclusive where the actual boundary of the CREW Trust Lands is in relation to the Alternate Corridor. It is difficult to determine at this stage of the siting process what the exact acreage of wetland impacts will be if the COR #3 Line is constructed in either the FPL Corridor or in the Alternate Corridor. Before wetland impact amounts can be calculated, site-specific wetland determinations would have to be made and site-specific pole placement and pad designs would have to be completed. The construction of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will be consistent with the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. (See also Joint Exhibit 9.) The Need for the COR #3 Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The PSC determined that the COR #3 Line is needed, taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In the need proceeding, the PSC considered several alternative projects, including four alternative transmission projects in the Fort Myers-Naples region and the construction of new generation facility near Naples. The PSC determined that “[t]he present value cost of the project proposed by FPL in a new right-of-way is estimated at between $32 million and $57 million, subject to final right- of-way routing and conditions of certification by the” Siting Board. According to the PSC, placement of the COR #3 Line in the existing Common ROW, “was the least cost alternative with an estimated net present value cost of $25 million,” or potentially costing up to $32 million less than a geographically separate route. However, the PSC found that “this alternative is not optimal due to concerns with serving an electrical peninsula via a single corridor and the inability for future expansion of FPL’s transmission system to the east of the existing corridor.” Stated otherwise, the cost to construct the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor will be approximately $11 to $12 million less than in the FPL Corridor without consideration of placing the COR #3 Line on a separate pole line along the Common ROW with an estimated incremental cost of approximately $6.5 million above the previous estimate.17 The PSC also determined that “[t]he other four alternatives were either more costly (estimated net present value costs between $101 million and $138 million) or did not meet undervoltage and thermal overload conditions under all single contingency events.” (See Joint Exhibit 1, App. A pp.5-6.) The value of system line losses (lost energy) if the COR #3 Line is placed in the FPL Corridor would be between approximately $120,000 to $250,000 per year higher than if the Alternate Corridor is used. The benefits of placing the COR #3 Line in the geographically separate FPL Corridor are best understood in terms of the consequences to be mitigated or avoided in the event of an extreme event taking out of service all transmission lines on the Common ROW. While loss of all the transmission lines on a common ROW due to an extreme event (such as plane crash, wildfire, hurricane, tornado, wind-blown debris, vandalism, sabotage, or terrorism) is an unlikely event, it has happened at least 12 times on FPL’s transmission system since 1985, even though some of the total corridor outages have been of relatively short duration. See Findings of Fact 188-190. (See also FPL Exhibit 11; BCC Exhibit 7.) CE and BCC, through Dr. Glover and Mr. Armand, strongly contested the relative likelihood of such an extreme event and the extent of any outage, if the event occurred in the Common ROW. Dr. Glover concluded that the probability of a hurricane with sufficient force to disable all of the lines in the Common ROW would actually do so while not disabling another line located within a few miles of that ROW must be regarded as approximately zero, and the probability greater than zero regarding the impact of tornadoes, but still very, very small. He regarded the probability of a Common ROW outage due to a plane crash as very, very small or low, and due to terrorism as far-fetched and unrealistic at best. He further opined that transmission lines located in remote areas are more vulnerable to outages due to vandalism or sabotage as are the risks associated with wildfire. Mr. Armand opined that there would be a very small probability of a corridor outage on the Common ROW with the COR #3 Line located within it, and if there was, it would last less than twelve hours. He also stated that FPL’s assertion that an outage on the Common ROW could last up to six days was “totally unrealistic,” based, in part, on the devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew to the transmission lines at Turkey Point that took five days to restore. FPL’s experts opined that if the COR #3 Line were added to the Common ROW, and an extreme event occurred there, it could result in a 30-minute to five to six-day blackout affecting between approximately 376,000 and 600,000 people (less the population of the Project Service Area that may be served via the 138-kV transmission lines), as a worst-case scenario. (It appears that the population of the Project Service Area as of January 2003 was 594,900 with population growth expected to be 18,800 per year.) When an electrical outage occurs there are numerous adverse predicable consequences to the community. Traffic lights do not function and traffic accidents increase. Elevators get stuck. Fire alarm systems may become inoperable or may not operate properly. Response time for emergency vehicles is increased due to increased call volume and the emergency vehicles’ loss of preemptive control of traffic signals. Fire hazard is increased due to use of candles, fuel- powered lanterns, barbecue grills and improper fueling of gasoline-powered generators. Community wellness services, like Meals on Wheels and dialysis centers, are impacted. Medical emergencies increase due to injuries that occur during attempts to make emergency repairs, and the lack of light that results in more household accidents and affects the ability to mix and administer medications at home. Emergency management communications with the community regarding shelter locations, available retail operations for water, ice, emergency repair supplies, medicines, etc., are hampered due to many people not having adequate battery-powered receivers. Telephone communications are compromised due to many cordless phones not operating and cell phone batteries not being recharged due to the lack of electricity. There is no vertical water storage in Collier County; the pumping of potable water is mechanical and electrical. Pumps on private drinking water wells, most of which do not have back-up generators, do not function. Very few sewage lift stations have back-up power capability. Once those stations’ capacities are exceeded, effluent can spill outside the station into creeks and roadways, and backup into homes. Moreover, the Southwest Florida economy is dominated by hospitality and tourism-related organizations as part of its economic structure. These companies require continuous and reliable electric power in order to meet the needs of their clients and customers in the marketplace. Failure to have reliable electric power in the community, even for a brief period of time has significant impacts to business. By affecting traffic flow, a power outage hampers the ability of employees to get to and from work. During an electrical outage, a business is not able to operate and be productive as an enterprise because sales do not take place and services are not delivered. Typically, businesses affected by an electrical outage cannot operate. This, of course, affects the ability of that company to generate taxable sales and thereby erodes productivity in the community. FPL decided the consequences to the community in the Project Service Area of a widespread multi-day electrical outage would be too severe and, therefore, chose to seek a geographically separate route for the COR #3 Line to mitigate the impacts of such an outage. FPL’s decision is reasonable and is supported by the weight of the evidence. When the severity (length) and magnitude (number of people affected) of an electrical outage are relatively high, it does not matter that the risk is relatively low. From an emergency management perspective, it is worth providing redundancy to the transmission system and spreading the risk. Putting the COR #3 Line on the geographically separate FPL Corridor is somewhat analogous to a homeowner buying homeowner’s insurance. While the likelihood of any one home suffering a loss from fire, tornado, hurricane, or vandalism is also very low, a homeowner may decide it is prudent to spend money to purchase insurance if the potential loss they could suffer would be catastrophic. In that type of decision, as in the one here, it is important to consider the consequences of the event even though the event is very unlikely to occur. There would be no significant difference between the cost to maintain the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION The design, construction, and operation of the COR #3 line in the FPL Corridor will comply with the Conditions of Certification. (Joint Exhibit 5A.) See also Preliminary Statement, p. 5 and Findings of Fact 71 and 81 for recent amendments and corrections. (All parties should be given an opportunity to comment on all of the Conditions of Certification, including the amended and corrected Conditions of Certification filed post-final hearing. Id. ) The Conditions of Certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final right-of- way, access road and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. While the FPL Corridor has few homes in close proximity to it and limited wetland crossings, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that further minimize land use and environmental impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving FPL’s Collier-Orange River #3 230-kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Joint Exhibit 5A as may be amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2004.
