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.
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Findings Of Fact Notice of Hearing Applicant published sufficient notices of the October 29, 1992, land use hearing in The Tampa Tribune (Hillsborough County) on September 12, 1992, and in The Ledger (Polk County) on September 13, 1992. Notice of the land use hearing was also posted at the site on September 14, 1992. On September 18, 1992, DER mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the public notice for the land use hearing for the proposed project to Polk County Development Services. Copies were mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On October 21, 1992, DER issued a news release concerning the proposed project and the land use and zoning hearing to appropriate media selected by DER. The notice for the land use hearing published in the September 25, 1992, Florida Administrative Weekly was not published at least 45 days prior to the public hearing on the land use hearing as required by Section 17- 17.151(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On October 27, 1992, Applicant filed a motion for alteration of the 45-day time limit for notice of publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly. During the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted Applicant's motion and approved of the late notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On November 4, 1992, the Hearing Officer entered a written order confirming her prior oral order. Stipulation Applicant and Polk County entered into a stipulation concerning the proposed project's compliance with Polk County's zoning and land use regulations. This stipulation was admitted as Exhibit 4. The stipulation reflects Polk County's agreement that the proposed site of the Polk Power Station and transmission line corridors, which are subject to Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are consistent and in compliance with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Polk County zoning ordinance number 83-2 and subsequent amendments (hereinafter The Polk County Zoning Ordinance). Site Identification Process In identifying the location of the Polk Power Station, Applicant received public guidance from a public power plant siting task force composed of environmentalists, educators, and business people. Over half the task force membership was composed of environmentalists. The task force selected a professional environmental consulting firm to assist in conducting the studies necessary to complete the siting project. A six county study area was initially selected for evaluation by the task force, which then commenced a multi-phase screening process. First, preliminary study areas were identified and reviewed and some areas were rejected. In phase two, the remaining preliminary areas were subjected to an environmental, engineering, and economic review which narrowed the list to fifteen candidate sites. In phase three, the task force reviewed these fifteen sites in greater detail, then narrowed the list to six "prime siting areas" and received input concerning these six areas from the public and various governmental agencies including DER and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Upon completion of the third phase, the task force narrowed the field to three preferred sites, all of which were located in southwestern Polk County on land that had been mined for phosphate. The task force determined that each of these sites was essentially indistinguishable and left the selection of the final site to Tampa Electric Company. Project Site Description Design and Construction Applicant proposes to construct and operate a power plant and affiliated components including two transmission lines. The total generating capacity at the site will be approximately 1150 megawatts. The plant will commence operation in two stages. The first stage will be construction of a nominal 260-megawatt integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration project developed by Applicant and supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration program. The IGCC facility is scheduled to be brought on-line in two phases. The first phase of the IGCC project will begin commercial operation in July, 1995, and will consist of a simple cycle combustion turbine. During this first year of operation, the combustion turbine will burn low sulfur number two fuel oil. In July, 1996, the remaining facilities consisting of the heat recovery steam generator, steam turbine, and coal gasification facilities will be added and integrated to complete the nominal 260-megawatt IGCC unit. After integration of these facilities, the IGCC unit will be fueled by coal-derived gas which is produced in the coal gasification facilities, with low sulfur number two fuel oil as the backup fuel. The second stage of the project will be the addition of two nominal 220-megawatt combined cycle facilities and six 75- megawatt nominal combustion turbines. These facilities are proposed to be fueled by natural gas as the primary fuel, with low sulfur number two fuel oil as the backup fuel. Associated with the Polk Power Station electrical generating plant will be a coal handling facility, a rail loop, water treatment and storage facilities, fuel oil storage and handling facilities, storm water management ponds, transmission lines and substations, and a cooling reservoir located southeast of the plant site. The cooling reservoir will be used to cool the steam from the heat recovery steam generator so that water can be reused in the system. Location of Site The proposed site for the Polk Power Station consists of 4,348 acres. The site is located in southwestern Polk County approximately 10.4 miles northwest of Bowling Green in Hardee County. Within Polk County, the nearest municipality is Fort Meade, approximately 10.8 miles to the east of the proposed site. Within Hillsborough County, the nearest municipality is Plant City located approximately 19.2 miles to the northwest. Within Manatee County, Bradenton is located approximately 34.8 miles to the southwest. The unincorporated community of Bradley Junction is located approximately 4.4 miles to the north of the generating facility. The Polk Power Station site is bisected by State Road 37, which divides the project into two tracts, the eastern tract and the western tract. The eastern tract will contain the proposed generating facility and cooling reservoir. The western tract will be reclaimed into a series of wetlands and uplands for a natural habitat area. Existing Land Uses The eastern tract is bordered to the north by County Road 630 and bordered to the east by the existing Hardee-Pebbledale 230 Ft. Green Road, and a CSX Railroad line. The eastern tract is bordered to the south by clay settling areas. The western tract is bordered to the south by State Road 674 and bordered to the west by the Hillsborough/Polk County line. The western tract is bordered to the north by Albritton and Bethlehem Roads. The western tract of the proposed site is currently undergoing active phosphate mining operations. Most of the western tract will be mined. The eastern tract has also been subject to phosphate mining operations. Portions of the eastern tract have not and will not be mined and will be the location for the proposed generating facility. The eastern tract contains three lakes of significant size, all created from phosphate mining activities. Adjacent land uses for the western tract include reclaimed phosphate mining lands, citrus groves, scattered residences, pasture lands, inactive clay settling ponds, undeveloped lands, an inactive phosphate chemical processing plant and cooling pond, and an active clay settling pond. Land uses adjacent to the eastern tract include pasture land, a citrus grove, one single family residence, active and inactive clay settling ponds, and an agricultural test tract operated by Polk County and the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Transmission Line Corridors Description Design and Construction The proposed transmission lines will transport bulk power at the 230- kV level from the Polk Power Station substation to the existing Tampa Electric Company grid system. Two types of transmission line structures are planned for the Polk Power Station. The first, the H-frame structure, consists of two vertical poles with an out-of-ground height of approximately 65 feet. The vertical poles are connected by a cross-arm assembly. The cross-arm assembly holds the porcelain insulators and the conductors for the transmission system. One overhead ground wire is attached to the top of each vertical pole. The single pole structure may be constructed in two configurations: single circuit or double circuit. These configurations are identical except that the single circuit configuration has one set of conductors, insulators, and ground wires, whereas the double circuit configuration has two sets. The typical out-of- ground height for the single pole structure is 96 feet. Location of Corridors There are two transmission line corridors associated with the proposed Polk Power Station, which are referred to as the eastern and northern corridors. The eastern corridor exits a substation located on the project site in a northeast direction to a point where the corridor meets the existing Hardee- Pebbledale 230-kV line, located along the western edge of Fort Green Road, with the point of intersection being located approximately 1400 feet south of County Road 630. The eastern corridor will be 400 feet wide and is approximately one mile long. The northern corridor commences from an onsite substation and runs in a westerly direction onsite until it meets State Road 37. This onsite portion of the northern corridor will be 400 feet wide and approximately three quarters of a mile long. At the point where the northern corridor meets State Road 37, the corridor turns northeast and continues in that direction parallel to State Road 37 to a point south of Bradley Junction, where it turns to the northwest, and then to the north, crossing Doc Durrance Road. At this point, the northern corridor meets the existing Mines Pebbledale 230-kV transmission line. The width of the northern corridor along State Road 37 is one-half mile and the width in the northwestern segment is one mile. The total offsite length of the northern corridor is approximately 5.2 miles. Existing Land Uses The eastern corridor is located exclusively on land that previously has been mined for phosphate. The onsite portion of the northern corridor also crosses only land previously mined for phosphate. The northern corridor east of State Road 37 and north of County Road 630 encounters undeveloped land, a citrus grove, an abandoned gasoline service station, phosphate mining lands, a wetland, scattered residences, and unclaimed phosphate mining lands. Land uses within the northern corridor west of State Road 37 include inactive clay settling areas, mixed forested areas and scattered citrus groves, wetland areas, phosphate mining lands, scattered residences, and a clay settling pond. Existing land uses within the northwestern segment of the northern corridor include reclaimed agricultural lands, a reclaimed lake, and a clay settling area. Consistency With Applicable Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance The Polk Power Station site and associated electrical transmission line corridors are located exclusively in Polk County. Therefore, the land use plan and zoning ordinances applicable to the Polk Power Station and associated components and transmission lines are those adopted by Polk County. Conditional Use Permit On January 24, 1992, Applicant filed with Polk County a conditional use permit application for the Polk Power Station. Supplemental information for that application was submitted by Applicant on February 12, 1992. The project was reviewed at an impact review meeting on March 16, 1992. The Polk County Zoning Advisory Board recommended approval of a conditional use permit for the project on May 13, 1992. On June 2, 1992, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved Applicant's conditional use permit application and on June 18, 1992, Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 was issued. Polk County Land Use Plan The land use plan that governs the Polk Power Station site and associated transmission line corridors is the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners on April 19, 1991. The future land use element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan allows for the development of certified electric power generation facilities (i.e., generation facilities and ancillary facilities required to be certified pursuant to the PPSA) in the phosphate mining (PM) future land use category if the proposed facility is reviewed and approved by Polk County through a conditional use permit. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan also contains specific objectives and policies which are used in determining the appropriateness of a location for a certified electric power generating facility. These include locational, environmental, development approval, and adjacent development criteria contained in the future land use element. Also, general policies and objectives relating to design and operational features for developments within Polk County are contained in the future land use, conservation, economic, traffic circulation, and infrastructure elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Electric transmission lines are permitted as specialized uses in all future land use categories in Polk County, subject to County approval. Polk County has stipulated that the site of the proposed Polk Power Station and associated transmission line corridors, which are subject to the conditions contained in Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. The power plant site is in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. This determination is based on the fact that the Polk Power Station, a facility required to undergo certification review pursuant to the PPSA, is a certified electric power generating facility to be located within the PM future land use category. Electric power generating facilities such as the Polk Power Station are allowed in the PM future land use category if the County grants its approval in the form of a conditional use permit. Here, Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 has been issued by the County approving the Polk Power Station site. Furthermore, the proposed Polk Power Station site complies with the locational, environmental, development approval, and adjacent development criteria of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to certified electric power generating facilities as well as with the general policies for developments contained in the future land use, conservation, economic, infrastructure and traffic circulation elements of the Plan. With respect to the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors, the eastern transmission corridor and onsite portions of the northern corridor are located within the PM future land use category. The offsite portion of the northern corridor is located primarily within the PM future land use category with a small area in the southern portion of this corridor located in the agricultural/residential-rural category. Because transmission lines are permitted uses within all future land use categories, subject to Polk County approval, and County approval was issued for the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors in the form of Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors are in compliance with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. Polk County Zoning Ordinance Power stations are Class III Essential Services in Polk County, which are allowed conditional uses in the Rural Conservation (RC) zoning district. Electric transmission lines are Class I Essential Services under the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. Class I Essential Services are permitted uses in all zoning districts located within the transmission line corridors. Polk County has stipulated that the proposed site for the Polk Power Station and the associated transmission line corridors, which are subject to Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are consistent and in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Polk Power Station site is in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. This determination is based on the fact that Polk Power Station site is located exclusively within the RC zoning district, and Class III Essential Services, which include the Polk Power Station generating facility, are allowed conditional uses within the RC district subject to County approval in the form of a conditional use permit. Since Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 was issued to the Applicant for the Polk Power Station site, the site is consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. With respect to the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors, the entire eastern transmission line corridor and the onsite portion of the northern transmission line corridor lie within the RC zoning district. The offsite portion of the northern corridor is located predominately within the RC district with a small area within the Regional Commercial (C-3), Single Family Mixed residential (SF-1M), and Residence (R-1) zoning districts. Because transmission lines such as those associated with the proposed project are Class I Essential Services permitted in all Polk County zoning districts, it must be concluded that the Polk P ower Station transmission line corridors are consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation Based upon 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 finding that the proposed site of the Polk Power Station and associated facilities, including the site of the corridors for the directly associated transmission lines, are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4896EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicant and DER 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-27(1-27). COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Representing Applicant Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 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, FL 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Representing DNR Vernon Whittier Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0491 Representing DOT James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Representing SFWMD Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council R. Douglas Leonard, Executive Director Central Florida Regional Planning Council 490 East Davidson Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, FL 33830 Representing CFRPC John J. Dingfelder Attorney at Law Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, FL 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Representing EPCHC Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent’s (Department of Management Services’), intended award of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio Communications System to Intervenor, Motorola Solutions, Inc., was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with overseeing and managing Florida’s Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (“SLERS”). In its role, the Department is authorized to “acquire and administer a statewide radio communications system to serve law enforcement units of state agencies, and to serve local law enforcement agencies through mutual aid channels.” See § 282.709, Fla. Stat. Section 282.709(3) directs that, “[u]pon appropriation, moneys in the [State Agency Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund] may be used by the department to acquire by competitive procurement the equipment, software, and engineering, administrative, and maintenance services it needs to construct, operate, and maintain the statewide radio system.” In September 2000, the Department contracted with Harris (through its predecessor) to construct, maintain, and operate the existing SLERS system. Harris identifies itself as a leader in technologies for first responders with more than 80 years of experience in public safety communications. Harris’ contract runs through June 2021. The current SLERS system provides radio coverage to law enforcement personnel throughout Florida. SLERS allows radio communication between more than 4,000 state law enforcement personnel from 22 state agencies utilizing approximately 20,000 radios in aircraft, boats, motorcycles, and patrol cars, as well as portable handheld radios. SLERS communications are provided through a network of tower sites arrayed across the state which enables radio users in one part of Florida to talk to users in other parts of the state. State agencies currently using SLERS include the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Corrections, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In addition, more than 40 local government jurisdictions have elected to participate as SLERS partners. The current SLERS is built on Harris’ proprietary technology known as Enhanced Digital Access Communication System with Extended Addressing (“EDACS-EA”). Since 2000, however, radio communication technology has evolved. The new industry standard for land mobile radio systems (such as SLERS) is known as Project 25 (“P25”).4/ Unlike Harris’ EDACS-EA system, P25 is based on non-proprietary technology. This “agnostic” or “open” standard enables law enforcement personnel from different organizations to communicate with other “subscribers” or users, regardless of the manufacturer or type of radio being used.5/ State agencies may use whatever brand of radios they want. A P25 system allows interoperable, multi-agency communications between federal, state, and local governments’ systems and radios during emergency situations. The Department initiated this procurement for the express purpose of implementing a radio system based on the new P25 technology. Although Harris’ contract runs through 2021, the Department desires for the next-generation, P25 SLERS to be constructed and operational before Harris’ contract expires to ensure a seamless transition. Background The Department’s decision to issue an Invitation to Negotiate for the new SLERS system was the culmination of a process that spanned more than two years. In 2014, the Department contracted with a private consulting firm to develop a “Business Case”6/ to review whether a private sector vendor could more effectively and efficiently provide the SLERS service based on P25 technology.7/ In January 2015, the consulting firm issued the SLERS Business Case. The Business Case recommended the state contract for services to establish a P25 SLERS. The Business Case further expressed that the new SLERS must be highly available and highly reliable. The expectation was for SLERS to provide 98 percent statewide coverage for mobile radios (i.e., in-vehicle or dashboard radios) and 95 percent statewide coverage for portable radios (i.e., handheld radios). The Business Case estimated that the overall cost to the state by outsourcing the P25 SLERS service would be $941.4 million over a 19-year contract term. The Business Case also noted that additional funding would be necessary as funds required to fulfill a SLERS contract would exceed the current annual appropriation from the Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund. Thereafter, the Florida legislature, in its 2016 budget, included proviso language in Specific Appropriation 2838 designating certain appropriated funds to the Department to conduct the competitive procurement for a new SLERS contract. The proviso language stated: From the funds in Specific Appropriation 2838, $933,800 of nonrecurring funds from the Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund is provided for the Department of Management Services to acquire and maintain the necessary staff augmentation support and subject matter experts to assist the department in the competitive solicitation and providing other services as determined necessary by the department for procuring a land mobile radio support system based upon a Project 25 Phase II delivery methodology. The system will provide communication services for state and local public safety agencies. The procurement shall accomplish, but not be limited to: improved coverage, audio clarity, interoperability, and enhanced system features including GPS location service, text messaging, and central device management. The scope of the services provided by the staff augmentation support and subject matter experts should include, but not be limited to, assisting the department in completing the following tasks identified in the study referenced in Specific Appropriation 2904A of Chapter 2014- 51, Laws of Florida: (1) project planning and management; (2)consultation and providing technical expertise to the department; (3) assist department as requested in the evaluation of responses; and (4) negotiation with procurement respondents as requested by the department. * * * When scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent's ability to leverage existing resources to the public's best interest. The department must release a competitive procurement and, thereafter, award a procurement for the replacement of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System. Ch. 2016-66, Laws of Florida. The Invitation to Negotiate The Invitation to Negotiate at issue in this matter is DMS-15/16-018 (the “ITN”). The Department issued the ITN for the P25 SLERS service on October 31, 2016. The ITN seeks “to establish a contract for a new generation of Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS), a Land Mobile Radio (LMR) telecommunications service to provide voice and data communications to public safety agencies.” See ITN, Section 1.10. The ITN’s overall coverage objective is a communication system that provides 98 percent coverage, 98 percent of the time for mobile radios, and 95 percent coverage, 95 percent of the time for portable outdoor radios. See ITN, Section 3.3.1. On February 7, 2017, the Department received timely Replies to the ITN from three vendors, including Harris and Motorola.8/ After receiving the Replies, the Department appointed four evaluators to evaluate the Replies to determine which vendors the Department could negotiate with. The evaluators independently reviewed and scored the technical aspects of each vendor’s Reply. See ITN, Sections 2.1, 4.1, and 4.2, and Attachment J – Evaluator Scoring Workbook. Each vendor’s proposed price was scored separately based on the vendor’s response to Attachment E – Pricing Workbook. These scores established a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to an award of the SLERS contract. On March 21, 2017, the evaluators revealed their technical scores at a public meeting. During this meeting, the evaluators announced that Harris’ Reply received a technical score of 62.47 points. Motorola’s Reply received a technical score of 58.25 points. Regarding price, Harris’s Reply received a score of 13.05. (Harris’s Reply received a combined score of 75.52.) Motorola’s Reply received a pricing score of 25 points. (Motorola’s Reply was awarded a total score of 83.25.)9/ Following the evaluators’ review and scoring, the Department proceeded to determine the responsiveness of each Reply. The Department found that both Harris’s and Motorola’s Replies met the Responsiveness Requirements set forth in ITN, Section 3.5. Thereafter, the Department invited both Harris and Motorola to negotiate for the new SLERS contract. See ITN, Sections 2.1, 4.2.3, and 4.3. The Negotiation and Scoring of Replies The Department appointed a Negotiation Team of five individuals to conduct negotiations with Harris and Motorola. The Negotiation Team included from the Department, Ailneal “Neal” Morris (Bureau Chief of Private Prison Monitoring), Matthew Matney (Bureau Chief of Public Safety), and Jonathan Rakestraw (Operations and Management Consultant II – Division of Telecommunications). Joining them was Becky Bezemek (Planning and Policy Administrator – Information Technology, Florida Department of Law Enforcement) and Phil Royce (Communications Branch Director, Department of Emergency Management). The Department also retained two outside contractors, John Hogan and Phillip Shoemaker, as Subject Matter Experts throughout the procurement process. At least one of these experts was present at every Negotiation Team meeting. In addition, two of the evaluators, Keith Gaston and Bill Skukowski, also participated in at least one Negotiation Team meeting as a Subject Matter Expert. The Department’s negotiations with Harris and Motorola began on April 4, 2017. The Negotiation Team conducted separate negotiation sessions with each vendor. The Negotiation Team also met for their own “debriefing” and strategy sessions without either vendor present. During the negotiation sessions, the negotiators reviewed the terms and conditions of each vendor’s Reply and confirmed their understanding of the vendors’ offers. The strategy sessions included discussions of the vendors’ proposed service designs, technical solutions, and costs savings. In August 2017, the Department requested that Harris and Motorola submit more detailed design information, as well as an updated Pricing Workbook addressing cost elements related to their design submission. The Negotiation Team last met with Harris on October 17, 2017. The Negotiation Team last met with Motorola on October 18, 2017. On November 30, 2017, the Department issued a Request for Revised Reply to both Harris and Motorola. See ITN, Section 4.3. The Request for Revised Reply included changes to the initial Statement of Work, which were derived from the Negotiation Team’s discussions with the vendors. In addition, the Pricing Workbook in the Request for Revised Reply amended the initial contract term by increasing it to 15 years, with up to ten renewal years. On December 21, 2017, both Harris and Motorola submitted Revised Replies. The system design both Harris and Motorola presented differed from what they had included with their initial Replies in February 2017. However, the Negotiation Team did not meet with either Harris or Motorola to review their modified designs at any point after October 2017. The Negotiation Team conducted internal strategy sessions through January 24, 2018, to review the Revised Replies. One issue that arose during these meetings was a letter Harris sent to the Department’s Procurement Officer, Jesse Covell, on January 9, 2018. In its letter, Harris asked the Department to reconsider the “termination for convenience” language in the proposed SLERS contract. Harris indicated that this provision might affect its ability to respond to a Request for Best and Final Offer. Upon reviewing Harris’ concern, on January 24, 2018, the Department replied, “As to the termination for convenience section of the Terms and Conditions, the risk of such possibility remains with the vendor.” On January 29, 2018, the Department issued to Harris and Motorola a Request for Best and Final Offer. The Request for Best and Final Offer included: a revised Attachment A – Final Statement of Work and a revised Attachment B - Final Contract (in both clean and redlined formats). The Request for Best and Final Offer also included Attachment E, Final Pricing Workbook, and a revised Attachment F - Final Special Conditions (in both clean and redlined versions). The Request for Best and Final Offer required each vendor’s Best and Final Offer to include: (a) a response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work showing redline changes to the vendor’s original Reply (additions via underline and deletions via strikethrough); and (b) a response to Attachment E, Final Pricing Workbook. As part of their Best and Final Offers, the Final Statement of Work directed the vendors to submit “representative documentation” of the “proposed” Service design. The vendors were further instructed to provide a diagram of the “proposed connectivity” as part their description of their System Overview Topology. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A - Final Statement of Work, Section 16.1. In addition, the Final Statement of Work changed the word “should” to “shall” in many places. The Final Special Conditions provided that: Any Contract that results from ITN No. DMS- 15/16-018 will be subject to the following Special Conditions. * * * 22 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE[10/] The Department, by no less than 180 calendar days’ prior written notice to the Contractor, may terminate the Contract in whole or in part when the Department determines in its sole discretion that it is in the State’s interest to do so. The Contractor shall not furnish any product or service after it receives the notice of termination, except as necessary to complete the continued portion of the Contract, if any. The Contractor shall not be entitled to recover any cancellation charges or lost profits. See Attachment F, Section 45, Annual Appropriations. Pursuant to subsection 287.058(6), F.S., the Contract does not prohibit the Contractor from lobbying the executive or legislative branch concerning the scope of services, performance, term, or compensation. On February 8, 2018, the Department issued a revised Attachment B – Final Contract to be included with its Request for Best and Final Offer. This Final Contract addressed a topic of discussion between the Negotiation Team and the vendors concerning any capital investment costs the vendors might incur to buildout and deploy their P25 SLERS system prior to the start of the SLERS contract. The negotiators recognized that both vendors would expend significant up-front costs. However, they decided not to change the payment terms in the Final Contract. Instead (and in response to a Harris e-mail inquiring about the payment structure), the revised Final Contract, in Section 2.1, included language that: The initial term of the Contract will begin with [the vendor] having up to four years of non-paid transition followed by fifteen paid years. The fifteen year payment period will not begin earlier than July 1, 2021. (emphasis added). The Final Contract also extended the number of renewable contract years from seven to ten years (which was consistent with the Request for Revised Reply issued on November 30, 2017).11/ Under the Final Contract, the Department would not begin paying the vendor until after the transition period and upon the start of the “paid years.” The vendor would then be paid the “Maximum Annual Service Price” the vendor listed in the Final Pricing Workbook, apportioned on a monthly basis. On or about February 14, 2018, both Harris and Motorola timely submitted Best and Final Offers to the Department. As with the Revised Replies submitted in December 2017, the design information Harris and Motorola included in their Best and Final Offers differed from that previously submitted to the Department. However, the Negotiation Team did not meet with either Harris or Motorola following submission of their Best and Final Offers. The Best and Final Offers were distributed to the negotiators for scoring. Under Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook, each vendor’s response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work was evaluated based on ten selection criteria, including: (1) Experience & Ability; (2) Approach; (3) Capabilities & Technology; (4) Coverage & Capacity; (5) Security; (6) Testing; (7) Support, Maintenance & Training; (8) Service Level Agreement; (9) Technology Evolution; and (10) Transition Plan. The Coverage & Capacity component included the proposed system design, as well as coverage prediction maps, frequency plan, and capacity plan. The Negotiation Team members scored each vendor’s response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work. Each Negotiation Team member used a Scoring Sheet and scored each Best and Final Offer using the ten categories identified in Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook. Each member could award a score of zero to four points in each category. Attachment L also gave greater or lesser weight to some categories so that a total of 50 points was available to be awarded for the Best and Final Offer.12/ The Negotiation Team members did not score the vendor’s price recorded in response to the SLERS Design Pricing Workbook Pricing Summary.13/ Instead, points were awarded for pricing based on the formula: Points Awarded = Maximum Available Points x (Lowest Offered Price/Offeror’s Price). The total price Harris submitted to perform the SLERS contract was $979,983,031.14/ Motorola’s total price equaled $687,797,127.15/ Attachment M – Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook provided the best value scoring methodology. Pursuant to the Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook, the Negotiation Team members’ scores for each Best and Final Offer were averaged (up to 50 maximum points). Concurrently, the price of each Best and Final Offer was scored up to 50 maximum points. (One hundred total points was available for each vendors’ Best and Final Offer.) Post-Negotiation and Selection of the Winning Vendor At that point, as described in ITN, Section 2.1: Once negotiations have concluded and best and final offers (BAFO) have been received and reviewed, the Department will hold a Negotiation Team public meeting to recommend award to the Vendor(s) who offer(s) the best value to the state based on the selection criteria.[16/] ITN, Section 4.4, further provided that: If a contract(s) is awarded, the Contract(s) will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendor(s) whose [Best and Final Offer] is assessed as providing the best value to the State in accordance with Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook and Attachment M – Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook. The Department will consider the total cost of each year of the Contract, as submitted by the offeror. On March 1, 2018, the Negotiation Team held a public meeting during which each negotiator presented their Negotiator Scoring Workbook. The vendors were awarded the following scores: Harris received 43.86 points for technical, experience, and ability (the Final Statement of Work); and 35.09 points for price (the Final Pricing Workbook). Harris’ total score equaled 78.95. Motorola received 45.36 points for technical, experience, and ability (the Final Statement of Work); and 50 points for price (the Final Pricing Workbook). Motorola’s total score equaled 95.36. According to the Negotiation Team’s overall scores, Motorola “offers the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.” On March 9, 2018, the Department’s Director of Telecommunications, Heath Beach, prepared a Recommendation of Award Memorandum recommending the new SLERS contract be awarded to Motorola “as the responsible and responsive vendor, which will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria of this ITN.” The Department’s Chief of Staff, David Zeckman, signed the Recommendation of Award Memorandum accepting the recommendation. On March 13, 2018, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to Award to the Vendor Bid System stating that the Department intends to award the contract arising out of the ITN to Motorola. HARRIS’ PROTEST Harris protests the Department’s selection of Motorola for the SLERS contract instead of its own reply. Harris contends that Motorola's Best and Final Offer consists of a service design that Motorola cannot deliver. Harris, on the other hand, believes that it is the only company that can achieve the ITN’s goal of a complete, comprehensive, and reliable statewide communications network. Harris’ protest presents three primary arguments. The Negotiation Team was Not Qualified to Score the Best and Final Offers: Harris charges that the Department’s Negotiation Team was not qualified to negotiate and score the ITN. To conduct a procurement via an invitation to negotiate, section 287.057(16)(a)(2) directed the Department to assign: At least three persons . . . who collectively have experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. Harris asserts that the Department failed to select negotiators with the requisite experience and knowledge in the subject matter of the ITN. Harris contends that the technical details involved in negotiating for a P25 SLERS service, which include subject areas such as coverage, capacity, reliability, and frequency planning, are highly technical in nature and require some proficiency in radio system engineering. Harris (via Danielle Marcella) alleges that the Negotiation Team members did not display the breath or depth of knowledge Harris would have expected for a procurement of this significance and size. Harris points out that not a single member of the Negotiation Team is an engineer. Furthermore, at the final hearing, Harris produced evidence that neither Becky Bezemek nor Jonathan Rakestraw had any technical knowledge or background in law enforcement radio systems before serving on the Negotiation Team. Similarly, Neal Morris’ only prior experience was his use of portable radios while serving in the military, and he had no technical knowledge of radio communication systems. Matthew Matney’s knowledge and experience was limited to purchasing and using radios as a law enforcement officer. Furthermore, Mr. Matney had never served as a negotiator for an ITN. Neither did he know how to read a radio coverage map. Phil Royce does have a background in emergency management and public administration where he was responsible for the maintenance and programming of radios. However, he has no experience in designing communication systems. Harris acknowledges that the Negotiation Team was supported by several Subject Matter Experts. Harris recognizes that one or more of these experts attended every strategy session of the Negotiation Team. Harris contends, however, that the Subject Matter Experts did not conduct any technical evaluation of Motorola’s network design to determine whether Motorola could actually deliver the system it proposed in its Best and Final Offer. Instead, they only responded to the Negotiation Teams’ questions. The Subject Matter Experts did not comment or opine on the viability of the vendors’ competing systems. Consequently, the Department could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound technical evaluation of the service design Motorola (or Harris) proposed in its Best and Final Offer. Therefore, the Negotiation Team did not select a vendor (Motorola) who will legitimately provide “the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.” See ITN, Section 2.1 and § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. In other words, to state it simply, the Department could not have fairly or competently decided that Motorola was the “best value to the state” because the Department did not know what service it would actually buy from Motorola. As a result, the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola must be overturned. Inadequate Coverage, Capacity, Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris alleges that Motorola cannot deliver the service design that it presented in its Best and Final Offer. Harris further charges that Motorola’s reply fails to comply with mandatory and material requirements of the Department’s ITN regarding coverage, capacity, and reliability. Consequently, because Motorola’s design is rife with unknown factors, or simply not capable of providing the required P25 SLERS service, the Department’s selection of Motorola for the SLERS contract was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Motorola’s Use of Conveyed Towers: Initially, Harris asserts that Motorola cannot deliver the P25 SLERS communications system because Motorola cannot use a number of the Radio Frequency (“RF”) tower sites listed in its Best and Final Offer. The Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer required each vendor to submit site specific, service design information. The vendors were to identify the individual tower sites they would use to establish their statewide networks in a site list. The vendors were also to include the latitude and longitude of each tower site, coverage prediction maps, a capacity plan, and a frequency plan. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 16. Motorola’s service design listed 144 separate RF tower sites located across the state. Harris contends that Motorola cannot use some of these 144 towers because they are “Conveyed Towers.” At this time, Harris owns the Conveyed Towers.17/ The State of Florida conveyed the Conveyed Towers to Harris as part of the original SLERS contract. Harris uses these Conveyed Towers in its current (and active) EDACS-EA system. At least 21 of the 144 towers Motorola included in its network are Conveyed Towers. As of the final hearing, Harris had no intention of allowing Motorola to use any of the Conveyed Towers. Harris further asserts that the State of Florida does not have the authority to allow Motorola to use the Conveyed Towers.18/ Harris argues that Motorola’s reply will not meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives if the 21 (unauthorized) Conveyed Towers are removed from its tower network. To support its position, Harris presented expert testimony (Dominic Tusa of Tusa Consulting Services) that, when the 21 Conveyed Towers are removed from Motorola’s 144 tower sites, Motorola’s network design will contain large holes of non-coverage. In addition, the audio quality of the radio communications will drop. Therefore, because Motorola is proposing a network of tower sites it cannot use, Motorola cannot provide the radio communication service the state requires. Mr. Tusa further explained that identifying and obtaining replacement RF towers or tower sites is a lengthy and difficult process. Based on a number of factors, such as cost, permitting, and space issues, this process could take up to 18 months. Harris also asserts that even if Motorola could legally use Harris’ Conveyed Towers, Motorola still cannot effectively incorporate the Conveyed Towers into its tower network because of tower-loading, signal interference, and construction issues. Regarding tower-loading, Harris argues that, due to the existing telecommunications equipment and antennae already mounted on the Conveyed Towers, Motorola simply will not have enough space to install its own antennas for a P25 service. Further still, Motorola may not be able to affix its antennae on the tower at a height that will adequately support its coverage plan. Regarding construction issues, the ITN requires the winning vendor to instantaneously switch SLERS radio communications from Harris’ EDACS-EA system to the new P25 system. While the ITN would provide Motorola a four-year transition period to fashion a functioning “constellation” of towers, Motorola will not be permitted to interfere with Harris’ current SLERS service. Consequently, Harris proclaims that Motorola will not have sufficient time to physically install, test, then activate, the necessary antennae, microwave dishes, or other telecommunications equipment on the Conveyed Towers before its system must “go live.” Moreover, Motorola did not identify any alternate tower sites in its Best and Final Offer that it would use if the Conveyed Towers were not available. Although Motorola represented that it would deploy temporary sites to ensure the SLERS remains operational, Harris asserts that these temporary sites will not provide the required level of coverage. Mr. Tusa stressed that the loss of any tower site creates a hole in coverage. Therefore, a replacement location must be found. Harris asserts that Motorola’s own coverage prediction maps show that Motorola would not meet the ITN’s coverage requirements unless the Conveyed Towers are substituted with alternatives. Coverage of Motorola’s Service Design: As a direct result of Motorola’s (alleged) tower site deficiency, Harris argues that Motorola’s network design will not meet the ITN’s mandatory coverage requirements. At the final hearing, Harris (through Michael Hancock, a Bids and Proposals Manager for Harris) emphasized that one of the most important aspects of a law enforcement radio system is its coverage. “Coverage” refers to the area in which a radio user can communicate with other users at a certain level of quality. The ITN required the vendors’ system to provide mobile coverage at 98 percent of the area - 98 percent of the time, and portable (handheld) outdoor coverage at 95 percent of the area - 95 percent of the time. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.3.1. SLERS radio communications will entail two types of structures, RF tower sites and Microwave Relay sites. Factors that affect the efficacy of coverage include a tower’s height, as well as the location of the radio or microwave antennae on the tower. If there are coverage gaps in the geographic area where law enforcement officers are attempting to use their radios (such as, holes left after removing the Conveyed Towers), then the SLERS will not function as desired. Harris claims that Motorola is attempting to save costs by designing a network with fewer tower sites. By way of comparison, Harris’ EDACS-EA system includes 219 towers, consisting of 197 RF sites and 23 Microwave Relay sites. In addition, while Motorola represents that it can achieve the P25 SLERS performance objectives with 144 RF towers site, Harris’ own reply includes 190 RF tower sites. Mr. Hancock also observed that Motorola represented in its Best and Final Offer that it might incorporate a number of local government RF tower sites into its network. Mr. Hancock expressed skepticism that Motorola could actually use local government towers in its network indicating that many government systems may not accommodate P25 equipment. Capacity of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris argues that Motorola’s proposed service design will not meet the ITN’s mandatory capacity objective. “Capacity” refers to the communication system’s ability to accommodate multiple radio users, i.e., the number of users who can talk on the SLERS at any one time. The ITN required the vendors’ service to “provide capacity with a goal of achieving a Grade of Service of one percent ([n]o more than 1 out of 100 calls queued) during the busy hour for each Terrestrial and Maritime Service RAN [Radio Access Network] site.” (If there was no room for a user to talk, the system queued their call until a line/channel opened.) See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.4.2. As with the coverage issue, Harris charges that Motorola’s system design cannot meet the ITN’s mandatory capacity requirements due to the low number of RF tower sites and working radio channels. Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris argues that Motorola’s system design will not meet the ITN’s reliability objectives. The ITN requires the vendor’s to provide a service “based upon a high availability/high reliability system providing resilience and tolerance to component and connectivity failures.” See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.1.5. Harris asserts that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer fails to comply with this requirement. Harris argues that Motorola’s proposed system design is unreliable because of Motorola’s extensive use of, often lengthy, microwave paths. Harris' expert, Mr. Tusa, explained that microwave signals are used for point-to-point (i.e., tower-to- tower) transmission. Motorola intends to use mostly 11- gigahertz (“GHz”) microwave links, as opposed to 6-GHz microwave links. Mr. Tusa explained that 11-GHz microwave channels are more susceptible to outages and “rain fade”19/ under adverse weather conditions. Furthermore, the likelihood of rain fade affecting 11-GHz microwave links increases with the length of the connectivity path between two tower sites.20/ Because of the amount of rain activity in Florida, these deficiencies make for a highly unreliable system. (In contrast, Harris’ proposed network uses hardened network connectivity at all equipment locations. These locations are also connected together with a redundant microwave network to ensure reliable connectivity.) Mr. Tusa declared that Motorola's service design fails to provide a “highly reliable” antenna configuration because the number of long, 11-GHz microwave paths between tower sites will expose the SLERS network to possible signal distortion and loss of radio signals during rain storms. Furthermore, Motorola’s backup plan, the use of Ethernet and carrier-provided circuits, is also typically unreliable. Consequently, the network design Motorola’s proposes in its Best and Final Offer creates an unacceptable risk and places the reliability of the SLERS service in jeopardy. Motorola’s Inadequate Frequency Plan: Finally, Harris attacks the “detailed frequency plan” Motorola provided in its Best and Final Offer. The ITN required the vendors to list the proposed radio frequencies per tower site and indicate whether each frequency passed the respective analysis for each frequency type. The ITN specifically directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how a detailed frequency plan will be developed and any special considerations for use of 700 MHz and 800 MHz channels.”21/ See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Sections 3.5 and 16.4. Harris criticizes Motorola’s decision to transmit approximately 50–70 percent of its frequencies using 700 band channels, as opposed to the 800 band. (Harris intends to only use 800 band channels.) Harris (through Mr. Tusa and Mr. Hancock) asserts that this proposed frequency plan is defective. Specifically, the Motorola frequency plan includes radio frequencies that are not currently available for use in the SLERS network. Other frequencies are not licensable in the state of Florida as they are currently used by the state of Georgia. Consequently, because many of the 800 MHz channels Motorola listed in its frequency plan are unavailable, the Department could not reasonably determine whether Motorola’s service design will meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. Therefore, the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola based on the information included in its Best and Final Offer is faulty and must be rejected. To conclude, based on all the above technical deficiencies, Harris argues that the Department could not discern the actual design of Motorola’s SLERS service when it ranked the vendors’ Best and Final Offers. The intent behind the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer was to solidify the essential details of each vendor’s proposed P25 service. Harris asserts that, based on the amount of ambiguous or misrepresented elements in Motorola’s reply, the Department’s Negotiation Team/scorers could not have reasonably determined Motorola’s plan. Consequently, when the Department scored Motorola’s Best and Final Offer, it could not have known, or verified, exactly how Motorola intends to deliver the SLERS service. As a result, the Department’s determination that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer constitutes the “best value” to the state is fundamentally flawed. The Price of Motorola’s Proposed System Design is Unknown: Finally, Harris complains about the contract price Motorola offered in its Best and Final Offer. Harris asserts that Motorola has presented an incomplete price which, based on Motorola’s flawed service design, will actually cost the state substantially more than the amount Motorola seeks. Harris alleges that Motorola’s response to Final Pricing Workbook does not contain Motorola’s complete price to construct, operate, and maintain its proposed network. Harris points to the ITN’s requirement that the vendors shall submit detailed component pricing including the cost of each specific tower site listed in the vendor’s Best and Final Offer. See ITN, Section 3.9.6, and the SLERS Design Pricing Workbook. Because Motorola cannot use some or all of 144 RF tower sites it identified, the Department cannot accurately evaluate the price of the network solution Motorola proposes to deliver. Consequently, because the Department has no way of knowing the true price of the SLERS system it will be buying from Motorola, the Department’s award of the SLERS contract to Motorola is erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. Harris further asserts that Motorola’s reply omits certain costs. Harris objects to Motorola’s statement in its Best and Final Offer that certain “tower costs will be a subject for negotiations.” Motorola also indicated that other costs, such as security fences, “have not been included in our pricing sheets.” Harris also points out that a cost is typically associated with the use, access to, and maintenance of systems owned and operated by third parties, which was not included in Motorola’s pricing summary. Harris suggests that this pricing obfuscation explains why Motorola’s proposed contract price is significantly lower than Harris’ price (by approximately $300,000,000). Motorola either does not accurately portray anticipated costs, or simply omits costs from its Final Pricing Workbook in hopes of negotiating a price increase after the contract is awarded. This tactic not only enabled Motorola to obtain an unfair pricing advantage over its competitor, but impaired the Negotiation Team’s ability to reasonably ascertain whether Motorola will actually deliver the SLERS service the Department seeks. Consequently, because the true price and functionality of Motorola’s proposed service design cannot be calculated or evaluated, the Department does not know what it is paying for if it awards the SLERS contract to Motorola. As a result, the Department cannot fairly conclude that Motorola will provide the “best value” to the state. (Harris, on the other hand, asserts that it can build and deliver the system design the ITN solicited with no further calculations, hidden costs, or modifications.) Therefore, the Department’s contract award to Motorola must be rejected. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO HARRIS’ PROTEST In response to Motorola’s challenge, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the ITN specifications, to award the SLERS contract to Motorola. Initially, the Department (through Robert Downie II, its Deputy Director for the Division of Telecommunications) emphasized that, in this procurement, the Department is searching for a vendor to provide a “service.” The Department is not purchasing the new P25 SLERS system. Therefore, when determining the “best value,” the Department focused on each vendor’s ability to construct, and then implement, a radio communications “solution” that would meet the SLERS objectives. The Department believes it found the “best value” in Motorola’s proposed service design. Harris Lacks Standing to Protest the Department’s Notice of Intent to Award: As a preliminary issue, the Department asserts that Harris lacks standing to challenge the Department’s Notice of Intent to Award the SLERS contract to Motorola. In support of its position, the Department argues that its Request for Best and Final Offers advised that: By submitting a Best and Final Offer, the vendor confirms acceptance of the attached final Contract and Special Conditions, as is; do not make any changes, revisions, exceptions, or deviations. (emphasis added). See Request for Best and Final Offer, page 2. Despite this directive, Harris wrote in the cover letter of its Best and Final Offer, as well as its Pricing Summary (both dated February 14, 2018): Harris’ value proposition comes with basic assumptions regarding funding and financial risk. . . . [T]he ITN terms and conditions present risks to the Contractor and its lenders making it difficult to finance the Contractor’s capital investment program. With no additional funding identified to promptly pay the Contractor as capital investment costs are incurred, Harris is unable to assume such risk. (emphasis added). Harris added: Until additional adequate funding is provided by the Legislature and until the Department agrees to pay costs as incurred, or another mutually agreeable resolution is arrived at (including assurances of capital cost recover upon early contract termination), project implementation will be delayed. Harris looks forward to working with the Department to address this challenge. Until this and the final remaining open items have been mutually agreed upon, Harris agrees that a notice of intent to award does not form a contract between the Department and Harris and that no contract is formed until such time as Harris and the Department formally sign a contract. (emphasis added). Harris appears to condition its acceptance of the SLERS contract on the Department’s ability to obtain “additional adequate funding.” Despite Harris’ choice of words, the Department accepted, evaluated, found responsive, and scored Harris’ Best and Final Offer. At the final hearing, however, the Department (and Motorola) argued that Harris’ cover letter creates a “conditional” offer. The Department (and Motorola) further maintained that Harris is attempting to create an “exception or deviation” from the terms of the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, by refusing to execute the Final Contract until the Department agrees to pay its capital investment costs. To counter the Department’s standing argument, Harris presented Danielle Marcella, the author of Harris’ cover letter, to clarify its intent. Ms. Marcella, who led Harris’ effort to win the SLERS contract, acknowledged that, after reviewing the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, Harris had several reservations about agreeing to the SLERS contract. Ms. Marcella first explained that Harris objected to executing a contract that was not adequately and fully funded. Ms. Marcella correctly observed that the price both Harris and Motorola offered to provide the SLERS service exceeds the existing legislative appropriation. See also Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment B – Final Contract, Section 3.7, which states that, “The State of Florida’s performance and obligation to pay under this contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature.” Ms. Marcella testified that Harris did not desire to sign a contract “until the Department agree[d] to pay costs as incurred or another mutually agreeable resolution is arrived at.” Harris also had serious concerns about the Termination For Convenience provision in the SLERS contract, as well as the Department’s position that it would not reimburse the vendors’ start-up costs during the transition period. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment F – Final Special Conditions, Section 22, and Attachment B – Final Contract, Sections 2.1 and 3.7. Harris feared that building a new P25 SLERS would not be commercially viable unless it received some payment during the transition period. Harris hoped that the Department would change its mind about this provision prior to executing the contract. At the final hearing, Ms. Marcella softened Harris’ arguably uncompromising position in its cover letter. Ms. Marcella claimed that Harris was “simply stating in the [cover] letter that we want the ability to ask the Legislature . . . if the Legislature appropriated money.” Ms. Marcella represented that Harris would have agreed to the SLERS contract even if the Legislature did not appropriate additional money. Ms. Marcella further declared that, “to the extent that the contract could be executed, [Harris] would execute it.” Ms. Marcella stressed that Harris would not have submitted a Best and Final Offer unless it was prepared to sign the Final Contract the Department presented. (As discussed in paragraphs 131 through 139 below, the undersigned concludes that Harris has standing to bring this bid protest matter.) The Negotiation Team Was Qualified: The Department rejected Harris’ allegation that the Negotiation Team members lacked the requisite, collective experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements in order to negotiate, then score the vendors’ Best And Final Offers. At the final hearing, each of the Negotiation Team members testified about their background and experience in state procurements and radio communication systems as follows: Neal Morris is currently the Bureau Chief of Prison Monitoring for the Department. In his job, Mr. Morris coordinates the development and negotiation of contracts with private contractors for the acquisition, construction, and operation of private correctional facilities. Mr. Morris has participated as a negotiator in approximately ten prior invitations to negotiate. Mr. Morris earned a degree in Management Information Systems. He is also a Florida Certified Contract Manager, as well as a Florida Certified Contract Negotiator. Mr. Morris used law enforcement radios while serving in the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Morris testified that, before he ranked the replies, he reviewed and understood the ITN. He also received technical information from the Subject Matter Experts, as well as reviewed the vendors’ responses to questions during the Negotiation Team meetings. Mr. Morris also represented that the Negotiation Team members treated the vendors fairly and gave their replies equal consideration. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Morris ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Experience & Ability category. Becky Bezemek is the Planning and Policy Administrator for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”). In her job, Ms. Bezemek manages all information technology contracts and issues relating to procurements for FDLE. She has a degree in Management Information Systems. Ms. Bezemek is also a Florida Certified Contract Manager and has had more than ten years of information technology experience, including experience as an Information Security Manager. Ms. Bezemek testified that, during the Negotiation Team meetings, she relied upon the Subject Matter Experts to educate her on the technical aspects of each vendor’s reply. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Ms. Bezemek ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach, Testing, and Technology Evolution categories. Phil Royce serves as the Communications Branch Director for Florida Division of Emergency Management. He is also the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. Mr. Royce received a degree in Emergency Management and Public Administration. Mr. Royce has over 33 years of experience in communications, electronics, and electrical development, and management experience in 911 centers, communications sites, satellite networks, and first responder subscriber units. He has also worked with state, national, and international committees on communications governance, systems development, and policy. Mr. Royce also sits on the SLERS technical committee for Florida’s Joint Task Force. Mr. Royce testified that he understands how land mobile radio communications systems work, and that he provides consulting and coordination around the state and nation to improve interoperability between radio systems. In addition, Mr. Royce has received instruction on radio operating systems, encryption, radio system infrastructure and maintenance, as well as P25 radio implementation at both Motorola University and Harris University. He formerly served as the lead communications technician for the Alachua County Sherriff’s Office where he played a significant role in procuring and implementing its law enforcement radio system. Mr. Royce also assisted the sheriff’s office with loss of signal and coverage issues, and helped develop and build a radio frequency tower. Mr. Royce added that he had no concerns about the Negotiation Team members’ ability to score the ITN. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Royce ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach and Capabilities & Technology categories. He scored Harris higher in Transition Plan. Matthew Matney currently serves as the Bureau Chief of Public Safety for the Division of Telecommunications at the Department. In his role, Mr. Matney supervises Department employees who manage and repair of Florida’s current SLERS system. As part of his responsibilities, Mr. Matney works to ensure that the SLERS remains operational. He also supervises engineers who work on SLERS. In addition, he provides administrative support to the Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications, the state governing body that manages improvements and changes to SLERS. Mr. Matney also oversees the Florida Interoperability Network and Mutual Aid programs. He is a Florida Certified Contract Manager. Since 1977, Mr. Matney has attended numerous specialized radio and network communications training classes and courses. As a former law enforcement officer, Mr. Matney gained hands-on experience using law enforcement radios. Mr. Matney testified that, during the Negotiation Team meetings, he was able to ask the Subject Matter Experts any questions he had about coverage maps and modelling. Mr. Matney had no concerns whether Motorola could provide a network design that met the ITN’s coverage objectives. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Matney ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach, Capabilities & Technology, and Service Level Agreements categories. He scored Harris higher in Coverage & Capacity. Jonathan Rakestraw is an Operations and Management Consultant II in the Division of Telecommunications for the Department. He has served as a Contract/Project Manager for over a decade. Mr. Rakestraw is a certified Project Management Professional, a Florida Certified Contract Manager, and a Florida Certified Contract Negotiator. Mr. Rakestraw testified that he believed Motorola’s system design will meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. On the other hand, Mr. Rakestraw was the lone negotiator who scored Harris’ Best and Final Offer higher than Motorola’s. He awarded Harris more points in the Transition Plan category. Assisting the Negotiation Team were several Subject Matter Experts, including John Hogan, Philip Shoemaker, Robert Downie II, Keith Gaston, and Bill Skukowski. John Hogan is vice president of Omnicom Consulting Group, which performs needs assessments, develops procurements, and assists in the implementation and management of public safety radio systems. Mr. Hogan has been a licensed professional electrical engineer since 1997, and has performed an extensive amount of coverage analysis, system design propagation, and design modeling for land mobile radio systems. Mr. Hogan participated in all negotiation session, but one, and every strategy session, except one. Throughout the negotiation process, Mr. Hogan answered questions and provided guidance to the Negotiation Team members. He also suggested questions the negotiators might ask the vendors, as well as provided information to facilitate the negotiators’ understanding of any highly technical matters. Mr. Hogan relayed that he ensured that the negotiators sufficiently understood the vendors’ presentations so that they were able to knowledgably score the replies. Philip Shoemaker is currently the chief executive officer of Inspired Technologies. Mr. Shoemaker helped write the SLERS Business Case for the Department. He also assisted in drafting the ITN. Mr. Shoemaker has over 28 years of experience in the information technology field and vast experience in telecommunication procurements. Mr. Shoemaker participated in all aspects of the Department’s negotiation process involving the Negotiation Team, except for actually scoring the vendors’ Best and Final Offers. Robert Downie II serves as the Deputy Director of the Department’s Division of Telecommunications. Mr. Downie assisted the Negotiation Team by advising on the program area during the negotiations. Keith Gaston is a Major with the Florida Highway Patrol. Major Gaston is the security manager for the current SLERS system, as well as a Joint Task Force Technical Committee member. Major Gaston participated in at least one strategy session. Bill Skukowski is a Fish and Wildlife Commission employee and a member of the Joint Task Force Technical Committee. Bill Skukowski participated in at least one strategy session. Based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the Department was quite comfortable that the negotiators were fully capable and competent to review and score all aspects of Harris’ and Motorola’s Best and Final Offers. The negotiators were adequately knowledgeable of, and well-prepared for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ network designs, coverage, capacity, and reliability (including use of microwave paths) capabilities, frequency plans, and responses to other objectives in the ITN’s Final Statement of Work. The Department asserts that the Negotiation Team reached the right conclusion for the right reasons. Based on the testimony received at the final hearing, the Department demonstrated that the members of the Negotiation Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to conduct and score the ITN. Each negotiator convincingly testified regarding their ability to ably and proficiently participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the negotiators, individually, had prior experience developing a statewide telecommunications network or administering a P25 system, as a team, they possessed the acumen and competence to conduct this SLERS procurement. Therefore, Harris did not establish that the Department’s appointment of a Negotiation Team consisting of Neal Morris, Becky Bezemek, Phil Royce, Matthew Matney, and Jonathan Rakestraw was contrary to its governing statutes (section 287.057(16)(a)2.). Coverage, Capacity, Reliability Of Motorola’s Service Design: Motorola’s Use of Conveyed Towers: Regarding Harris’ contention that Motorola should not have incorporated Conveyed Towers into its tower network (and, therefore, the Department’s scoring of Motorola’s Best and Final Offer was flawed), the Department (through each negotiator, as well as Mr. Hogan) explained that it was well aware that Motorola’s system design of 144 RF Towers included 21 Conveyed Towers. The Negotiation Team specifically examined the issue of Motorola’s (or any winning vendor) reliance on Conveyed Towers if it is awarded the SLERS contract. The negotiators concluded that the state has the right to authorize Motorola to use the Conveyed Towers. The Department relayed that, to help reduce costs, the ITN encouraged vendor’s to take advantage of state resources. As stated in the 2016 budget proviso language, the Legislature instructed the Department, “[w]hen scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent’s ability to leverage existing resources to the public’s best interest.” (The ITN specifically referenced this quote in its Request for Best and Final Offer, Section 9.) Furthermore, even assuming that Harris’ expert (Mr. Tusa) accurately testified that Motorola cannot meet the ITN’s coverage requirements without the Conveyed Towers, the Negotiation Team was satisfied with Motorola’s representation that, for each Conveyed Tower in its proposed network, Motorola could acquire or construct an alternate tower that would enable Motorola to meet and maintain all coverage and capacity requirements. The Department, through Mr. Hogan and Mr. Shoemaker, testified that the ITN allowed the vendors flexibility in constructing their service design. The Department also understood that either vendor might alter their tower networks before the SLERS contract officially starts in July 2021. Mr. Hogan relayed that Motorola satisfactorily demonstrated the ability to build and adapt a tower network that would meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. The Department stressed that the ITN did not mandate a specific number of radio towers a vendor must use to reach the coverage and capacity objectives. Neither did the ITN dictate where a vendor was to actually locate its constellation of tower sites. Furthermore, Mr. Hogan attested that neither the ITN nor the Negotiation Team required the vendors to identify alternative tower sites. Mr. Hogan acknowledged that a vendor will confront a number of factors in selecting a new tower site, including access, construction, cost, environment, and permitting issues. However, he believed that six months was a reasonable amount of time Motorola would need to find an alternate tower site. In addition, to protect the Department’s interests, the Final Statement of Work provides that, before the SLERS contract begins, the vendor’s system will undergo significant final acceptance testing. If the vendor is unable to meet the 98 percent/95 percent coverage requirements and pass the final acceptance test, the vendor will be obligated to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that its service meets the coverage requirements at no additional charge to the State. The state will bear no costs beyond the “Total Price for Scoring” the vendor listed on its SLERS Design Pricing Workbook Pricing Summary, even if the vendor must construct additional towers.22/ The Department fully expected the vendors to rely upon their own experience to develop innovative solutions to meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. In line with this approach, the Department pointed to an e-mail sent on November 6, 2017, when it made clear to both vendors that: All price submissions represent maximum amounts owed to the vendor. The Department will not be responsible for payment in excess of the prices submitted, regardless of the eventuality. For example, if the awarded vendor proposes to use a resource controlled by the state or a governmental entity and is unable to secure the use of that resource, then the vendor must utilize an alternate resource and charge no higher cost than set forth in the vendor’s Best and Final Offer. In other words, if Motorola could not use the Conveyed Towers in its network, then Motorola assumed all risk to buildout and complete its tower constellation. The state will not bear any additional costs or expenses necessary to replace or substitute towers. Motorola’s Service Design: The Department is fully satisfied that Motorola is capable of designing and implementing a system that will meet the ITN’s requirements. Mr. Downie and Mr. Shoemaker expressed that the Department sought to place the onus on the vendors, not the state, to build the P25 SLERS system. Therefore, the ITN allowed the vendors to be creative and flexible in crafting a proposed “solution” to build, then operate, the new P25 SLERS. Mr. Hogan represented that, based on the methodology and coverage prediction maps Motorola presented in its Best and Final Offer, the Department believes that Motorola will build a system that meets the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. Regarding Harris’ charge that the frequency plan Motorola listed in its Best and Final Offer was inadequate to meet the ITN’s capacity objective, Mr. Hogan pointed out that the ITN did not require vendors to present a “valid final” frequency plan. Instead, the Request for Best and Final Offer asked vendors to describe how they would develop their frequency plan. Furthermore, Mr. Hogan explained that radio frequencies available on one date, (e.g., February 14, 2018) might not be available at a later date (e.g., July 1, 2021) when the vendor would apply to the Federal Communications Commission for the frequency licenses. Further, Mr. Hogan testified that the Department recognizes that conducting a frequency interference analysis or intermodulation analysis is an enormous and costly undertaking. Therefore, the Department did not request the vendors complete this task prior to an award of the SLERS contract. He commented that this type of analysis for a statewide network of this scale is normally accomplished during system implementation, along with an extensive site-by-site review. Mr. Hogan further articulated that if a proposed tower site is determined to be unusable during the construction and implementation of the network, the vendor, not the state, is obligated to identify and secure a viable, alternate tower site. The Department also found that Motorola’s proposed service design satisfies the reliability requirements of the Request for Best and Final Offer. During negotiations (and at the final hearing), Motorola presented credible testimony explaining that any risk of rain fade in its 11-GHz microwave paths would not unacceptably disrupt SLERS radio communications. Mr. Hogan explained that microwave is commonly used in public safety communication systems. Microwave is the mechanism that allows wide area communication over long distances. Therefore, the Department anticipated the vendors’ use of microwave paths between towers to enable their systems to meet the required reliability expectations. The ITN did not prohibit vendors from using 11-GHz microwave paths. Mr. Hogan was aware that rain may cause the microwave signal levels to decrease. Mr. Hogan was also cognizant that 11-GHz microwave paths are more susceptible than 6-GHz microwave paths to rain fade. Therefore, thunderstorm activity combined with the lengthy distance between towers in Motorola’s network might affect the connectivity of Motorola’s system design. However, Mr. Hogan was satisfied that Motorola’s design includes a mechanism to reduce loss due to rain fade, thereby maintaining the desired reliability of its system. Motorola intends to equip its RF towers with a back-up Ethernet system, as well as multiple alternate paths. This system design will operate to prevent RF towers from losing connection to the network during a rain storm. MOTOROLA RESPONSE TO HARRIS’ PROTEST In arguing that Harris’ protest has no merit, Motorola asserts that not only does its Best and Final Offer comply with all ITN requirements, but its proposed service design will provide the state with a new P25 radio system that takes advantage of the latest advancements in technology and network designs. Motorola’s solution will meet the performance objectives set forth in the ITN. And, it will do so for approximately $300 million less than Harris. Coverage, Capacity, Reliability of Service Design: Regarding Harris’ allegations that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer does not meet the ITN’s technical requirements, Motorola responds as follows: Use of Conveyed Towers: Motorola testified that the Department fully supported Motorola’s (or any vendor’s) use of Conveyed Towers to develop their tower network. Motorola points to the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 9, which refers directly to Specific Appropriation 2838, chapter 2016-66, Laws of Florida, and states, “When scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent's ability to leverage existing resources to the public's best interest.” Motorola understood that the state will have access to the Conveyed Towers, rent free, beginning in 2021 after the Harris SLERS contract expires. Based on the legislative directive to “leverage existing resources,” Motorola readily incorporated the Conveyed Towers into the overall architecture of its system. Motorola also points out that the ITN did not require vendors to provide a list of fixed and immutable tower sites or identify alternate tower sites in their Best and Final Offers. Instead, the winning vendor was free (if not expected) to finalize their tower networks during the transition period prior to the start of the SLERS contract.23/ Several provisions of the ITN demonstrate that the Department sought the vendors’ preliminary plans for future development of a coverage configuration that would meet the SLERS service requirements. For example, ITN, Section 3.3.1, directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how the proposed Terrestrial and Maritime Service design will be developed.” (emphasis added). ITN, Section 9, advised that the Department required “a detailed Transition Plan that defines the proposed activities that will be completed during the SLERS implementation. Should the [vendor] propose utilization of existing resources[,] the Transition Plan shall explain how these resources will be leveraged in the transition of the implementation.” (emphasis added). At the final hearing, Motorola, through Andrew Miller, a system engineer, credibly testified that Motorola had already identified potential alternative sites to replace any of the 144 towers listed in its Best and Final Offer should they not be available or feasible for use in its final tower network. In reaching its proposed list of 144 tower sites, Motorola personnel visited more than 290 potential sites to evaluate suitable candidates. Motorola personnel also assessed approximately 300 additional sites in case any of the 144 tower sites were unavailable for the new P25 system. In addition, to verify its coverage assumptions, Motorola ran coverage-prediction scenarios through computer programs which enabled Motorola to further refine its service design. Mr. Miller was confident that Motorola would find alternative tower sites before July 2021 if Harris’ Conveyed Towers were not available. Furthermore, Motorola’s Best and Final Offer represented to the Department that if access to any of the Conveyed Towers was delayed, Motorola is prepared to deploy temporary sites and Project 25 Inter RF Subsystem Interfaces (“ISSI”) to ensure that its SLERS system meets the required level of operational capacity. Finally, Motorola also points out that the Department made it clear during negotiations that if Motorola won the contract, but was not able to use any of Harris’ Conveyed Towers (or any other “existing resource”) in its system design, Motorola was responsible for finding an alternative at no additional cost to the Department. Motorola also referenced Ms. Covell’s e-mail, dated November 6, 2017, wherein she explained that, “All price submissions represent maximum amounts owed to the vendor. The Department will not be responsible for payment in excess of the prices submitted, regardless of the eventuality.”24/ Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Motorola declares that its service design fully complies with the ITN’s requirement that vendors must build redundancies and backup options into the P25 system to account for possible connectivity, component, or hardware failures. See ITN, Section 3.1.5. Regarding Harris’ charge that Motorola’s use of 11-GHz microwave paths is less reliable than 6-GHz microwave in bad weather, Motorola responds that it designed its system with several layers of redundancy. At the final hearing, Motorola presented Said Jilani, a network solutions architect with Aviat Networks, who described how Motorola’s microwave transport system was designed to account for, and circumvent, possible rain fade. Mr. Jilani explained that Motorola’s network includes: 1) industry traditional microwave radio (operating mostly on 11-GHz channels, as well as some 6-GHz channels)25/; 2) carrier circuits supplied by AT&T (referred to as Ethernet); and 3) 4G LTE wireless (similar to cell phone service). Furthermore, in designing its system’s microwave paths, Motorola assessed microwave path reliability, and identified backup paths or other options in the event of outages or microwave fading due to rain, equipment failure, or other adverse conditions. Mr. Jilani further testified that Motorola’s proposed system design includes Internet Protocol/Multiple Protocol Layer Switching (“IP/MPLS”) routing equipment at every tower site. This IP/MPLS equipment serves to identify the optimal microwave path to transmit radio signals. The optimal path might be a microwave path or an AT&T-owned carrier path. Mr. Jilani stated that IP/MPLS technology provides full detection, quick recovery, and scaling of the network through virtualization. The use of IP/MPLS technology is a common practice in the public-safety industry. In developing its system, Motorola also used a software program to analyze the parameters and availability of each microwave path. Factored into the program’s analysis was historical rain data for the applicable region of the state. Should rain fading occur, Motorola’s system will be programed to detect the issue and switch transmission to the second-shortest microwave path (or AT&T carrier path). With its multi-layered design, Motorola asserts that its system will remain fully operational during extreme weather events. Motorola’s preliminary design is expected to provide 99.999966 percent composite path availability. (Mr. Miller explained that this standard equates to approximately 15 seconds of lost radio signal per year if every communications system at a tower site failed at once-–thus, a highly reliable number.) Therefore, while Motorola’s decision to use mostly 11-GHz microwave paths (instead of 6-GHz channels) increases the potential for rain fade, Mr. Jalani and Mr. Miller credibly testified that Motorola’s backup paths enable its SLERS system to continue operations and remain viable even during heavy rainstorms. 3) Motorola’s Frequency Plan: Motorola asserts that the frequency plan it provided in its Best and Final Offer fully complies with the terms of the ITN. Motorola argues that Harris’ contention that Motorola cannot implement a viable frequency plan is incorrect. In addition, the ITN sought a preliminary, not final, frequency plan.26/ (The ITN directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how a detailed frequency plan will be developed and any special considerations for use of 700 MHz and 800 MHz channels.” See Final Statement of Work, Section 3.5. (emphasis added).) The Department did not require the vendors to pre-license their frequencies at the time they submitted their Best and Final Offers. Motorola’s expert witness, Dominic Villecco of V-Comm, LLC, credibly testified that, if awarded the SLERS contract, Motorola will be able to effectuate a fully capable and compliant frequency plan to meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. Motorola intends to find the majority of the frequencies it will use for radio transmissions in 700 band frequencies. Mr. Villecco explained that 800 band frequencies are congested because they have been allocated and licensed for public-safety purposes since the 1980s. In contrast, 700 band frequencies, which were not licensed for public-safety purposes until the 2000s, contain more unused channels. Mr. Villecco relayed that Motorola’s system will need between 6-10 channels at each tower site. In its Best and Final Offer, Motorola identified potential frequencies it might use to generate its frequency plan. Mr. Villecco opined that, prior to implementing the SLERS contract in July 2021, Motorola should not have any difficulty acquiring available frequencies in the 700 band over which to conduct radio communications. In addition, using the “cleaner” 700 band will allow Motorola more flexibility to position RF tower sites where necessary to provide maximum coverage and reliability. Motorola further contends that Harris’ allegations ignore how radio frequencies are allocated and licensed in practice. Testimony at the final hearing explained that licenses for radio frequencies are normally issued after a communications tower or network has been constructed or installed. Consequently, the competitors for this SLERS contract will not be able to definitively identify which radio frequencies their communication networks will use (or which frequencies will actually be available for use) until a license is applied for. Furthermore, because the final tower design will be pieced together over the transition period, a frequency that was identified at the time the vendors submitted their Best and Final Offers might not be available when the system “goes live.” Mr. Villecco testified that, consequently, securing the precise statewide frequency plan prior to award of the SLERS contract is impractical, if not impossible. Instead, the standard industry practice in procurements is for a vendor to ascertain the general availability of frequencies. Then, after award of the contract, the winning vendor identifies the specific, available frequencies to incorporate into its network. At that point, a license to use those frequencies is obtained from the Federal Communications Commission in the name of the applicable government entity. Thereafter, the vendor fully develops the final frequency plan (as contemplated by ITN, Section 3.5.) The Price is the Price: Regarding Harris’ complaint that Motorola submitted an (unrealistic) price to provide the SLERS service, Motorola pithily responded that “the price is the price.” In other words, should Motorola be awarded the SLERS contract, the total price that the Department will be obligated to pay for the service is capped by the figure Motorola quoted on the Final Pricing Workbook ($687,797,127). See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment B – Final Contract, Section 3.1, which states, “The [Vendor] shall adhere to the prices as stated in Pricing Workbook, Attachment E.” Furthermore, the Department will not pay the winning vendor during the transition period when the vendor is constructing and implementing its system’s final design. Therefore, despite Harris’ claims that Motorola’s much lower price will lead to future financial liabilities on the part of the state, Motorola repeatedly and credibly testified that it has no expectation or intention of seeking additional monies from the state to operate the SLERS service. Furthermore, in response to Harris’ allegation that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer did not include firm component prices, Motorola, through Jay Malpass, its Strategic Project Manager, presented credible testimony reiterating the Department’s description of finality of the price Motorola quoted as its “Total Price for Scoring,” as well as Motorola’s obligation to bear any additional costs after the Department awards the contract (e.g., the cost of locating or constructing alternate tower sites or erecting security fencing). Mr. Malpass explained that Motorola will bear all costs incurred during the four-year transition period to make its system operational. Mr. Malpass further testified that the price recorded in its Final Pricing Workbook ($687,797,127.00) “is locked in.” That figure represents Motorola’s “full total price, all inclusive, not to exceed, complete, compliant design.” Mr. Malpass asserted that Motorola fully intends to be bound by that price and does not expect the state to pay it anything more for the delivery of a successful P25 SLERS service. To summarize the findings in this matter, the competent, substantial evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrates that Motorola submitted a service design in its Best and Final Offer that fully complied with the ITN requirements. Motorola (and the Department) credibly explained the methodology Motorola will use to construct, operate, and maintain a new P25 SLERS service. Motorola presented persuasive evidence that the radio communications system it will build will meet the ITN’s coverage, capacity, and reliability objectives (with or without the Conveyed Towers). Motorola’s witnesses credibly testified that Motorola will be able to acquire any necessary assets or equipment to build its network during the transition period prior to the start of the SLERS contract (e.g., alternate tower sites or radio frequencies). Furthermore, based on its explanation of the “routing diversity” incorporated into its system design, Motorola presented credible and persuasive evidence that its use of 11-GHz microwave paths will be sufficiently structured to meet the ITN’s coverage and reliability expectations in the event of microwave path outages, rain fading, or other severe environmental incidents. Finally, Motorola satisfactorily addressed any concerns about the price it will charge the state. The price it quoted as its “Final Price for Scoring” ($687,797,127.00) is the maximum price the state will pay Motorola upon award of the SLERS contract. Regarding Harris’ complaint that the Department did not assign a qualified Negotiation Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assembled to score the vendors’ responses “collectively” possessed the “experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)2. The Negotiation Team’s ranking of the Best and Final Offers was logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the information sought in the ITN. Finally, Harris did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. There is no evidence Motorola obtained any competitive advantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the ITN.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protest by Harris. It is further recommended that the Department of Management Services award the contract under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-15/16- 018 to Motorola. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should certify the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project (“Project”) of Tampa Electric Company ("TEC"), including its associated electrical transmission lines, subject to the proposed Conditions of Certification.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated there are no disputed issues of fact. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission. It is headquartered in Tampa and has supplied electricity to customers in the Tampa Bay area since 1899. TEC's electric service territory covers approximately 2,000 square miles and includes all of Hillsborough County and portions of Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC has five generating stations, Big Bend, HL Culbreath Bayside, JH Phillips, Polk Power Station, and Partnership Station. The Project is proposed for the Polk Power Station. Existing Facilities The Polk Power Station was certified pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act in January 1994. It is located in southwest Polk County, 17 miles south of the City of Lakeland and 28 miles southeast of the City of Tampa. The original site consists of 4,348 acres bordered by the Hillsborough County line on the west; County Road 663 (Fort Green Road) on the east; County Road 630, Bethlehem Road, and Albritton Road on the north; and State Road 674 and several former phosphate clay settling ponds on the south. The Polk Power Station has five electric generating units and associated facilities. Polk Unit 1 is 260 megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle facility fired with synthesis gas or “syngas” produced by gasifying coal and other solid fuels. Polk Units 2 through 5 are 165 megawatt simple cycle combustion turbine generators fueled primarily with natural gas. Support facilities at the Polk Power Station include a 755-acre cooling reservoir, oxygen blown gasifier, air separation unit, sulfuric acid plant, slag byproduct storage area, and switchyard. The station is served by four 230 kilovolt (“kV”) transmission circuits, a railroad line, and a natural gas pipeline. Water is supplied from four onsite groundwater wells for the cooling water reservoir and other plant processes. Other existing facilities include an administration building, control room, warehouse, and construction management building. The Proposed Project Need On January 8, 2013, the Florida Public Service Commission issued its Final Order Granting Certification of Need for Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion. The Commission determined that the most cost effective and reliable alternative to meet future power needs is the construction of the Project at the Polk Power Station. The Commission's Final Order is TEC/Department Joint Exhibit 2. Among other findings, the Commission determined that the Project would improve fuel diversity and supply reliability, incorporate renewable energy and conservation factors, and is needed to maintain electric system reliability and integrity. Power Generation The Project involves the conversion of the four existing simple cycle combustion turbine generator units to combined cycle operation. The Project would be a four-on-one combined cycle unit consisting of the four existing combustion turbine generators, each combined with a new heat recovery steam generator, and a new steam turbine generator. The Project would achieve improved efficiency in electrical power generation. When operated in a simple cycle mode, a combustion turbine generator releases hot gases to the atmosphere. In the proposed combined cycle configuration, this exhaust heat would be routed to the heat recovery steam generators and the steam produced by the heat recovery generators would be routed to the new steam turbine generator to produce additional electricity. The Project is designed to allow the combustion turbine generators to be operated in simple cycle mode when the steam turbine generator is not in service. The combustion turbine generators may also be operated in simple cycle mode to meet peak power demands. The conversion would increase the nominal net generating capacity of the four existing generators from 660 megawatts to 1,160 megawatts. Total capacity for the Polk Power Station would be increased from 1,150 megawatts to 1,420 megawatts. The proposed generating facilities would be state-of- the-art, incorporating improvements in technology that have occurred over the past 20 years. They are designed by Black & Veatch, an internationally-recognized engineering firm with significant experience in designing similar facilities. Fuels The four combustion turbine generators would be fired with natural gas as the primary fuel. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be the backup fuel. The four heat recovery steam generators would have natural-gas-fired duct burners for peaking operations. The existing onsite natural gas pipeline would provide the natural gas for the Project and the backup ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be stored in existing onsite fuel storage facilities. Water Use Groundwater withdrawals from four wells are authorized by the current Conditions of Certification for 4.3 million gallons per day (“mgd”) on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly average. The Project will require additional water for cooling and plant process water uses. To minimize use of groundwater, TEC would treat and reuse 5.7 mgd of treated reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland. The treated reclaimed water would primarily be used to supply the makeup water for the proposed new cooling tower and the existing 755-acre cooling reservoir, as well as some process water needs. The cooling reservoir would be used for condenser cooling purposes. The new six-cell mechanical draft cooling tower would provide cooling for the Project’s auxiliary systems, which would be modified to use the new cooling tower instead of the reservoir. The reclaimed water would be initially provided by the City of Lakeland through a 15-mile pipeline. Later, reclaimed water would be provided by the City of Mulberry and Polk County. The Project systems are designed to maximize water reuse and recycling to reduce groundwater consumption. However, TEC requests that the maximum groundwater withdrawals currently authorized -- 4.3 mgd on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly basis –- be maintained in this certification to ensure that TEC can reliably and safely operate the facilities and manage water quality and levels in the cooling reservoir during extended periods of low rainfall conditions and in the event there is an interruption in the delivery of reclaimed water. The Project’s proposed water uses comply with all applicable agency requirements. Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges Stormwater and wastewater treatment systems are already in use at the Polk Power Station. These systems would be used for the Project facilities. The proposed facilities will not significantly affect the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff at the Polk Power Station. The current wastewater streams include runoff from industrial areas and process wastewaters. Wastewaters would continue to be collected and treated by the onsite industrial wastewater systems, including the equalization basin, neutralization basin, filtration system, and oil/water separator, and then discharged to the cooling water reservoir. With the addition of the Project, cooling water blowdown from the new cooling tower and treated reclaimed water will be introduced to the cooling reservoir. TEC has a permit for underground injection control wells which it plans to test for disposal of nonhazardous wastewater such as reverse osmosis reject water from the reclaimed water treatment process. The Project’s stormwater and wastewater discharges would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Air Quality Impacts Construction of the Project facilities at the Polk Power Station would generate fugitive dust emissions. These would be controlled by dust suppression control measures such as watering. The vehicles used by construction workers would release nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and other fuel combustion- related air pollutants. These kinds of emissions from construction equipment would be minimized through the use of ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel in various diesel engines. Even under worst-case conditions, the air quality impacts caused by construction activities would be minimal, temporary, and limited to the construction site. The Project qualifies as a major modification to an existing major source. Air quality impacts from plant operations would be primarily nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from the four combined cycle units, particulate emissions from the cooling tower, and various combustion emissions from operation of the emergency diesel generator. Air quality analyses were performed for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The dispersion modeling analyses demonstrate that the Project’s air quality impacts would not exceed the applicable regulatory limits and would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increment or National Ambient Air Quality Standard. For certain air emissions, Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") is required. BACT controls for nitrogen oxide would include the use of dry, low-nitrogen-oxide burners when firing natural gas and water injection when firing ultra- low-sulfur diesel fuel, and the installation of selective catalytic reduction technologies for the combined cycle combustion turbines. For sulfur dioxide emissions and emissions of sulfuric acid mist, BACT controls would include the use of low-sulfur natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, BACT calls for good combustion design and operation. BACT for combustion particulates would be the use of low-ash natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For the emergency diesel engine, proposed BACT for all pollutants would be compliance with the applicable Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, which are federal standards that have been adopted by the Department. Proposed BACT for particulate emissions from the cooling tower is the use of high efficiency drift eliminators. The proposed air quality control technology for the Project and the expected emissions from the Project’s construction and operation would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Transmission Lines and Corridors The Project includes two new transmission line corridors. The proposed “Polk-Pebbledale Corridor” is a 5.5-mile, single-circuit 250 kV transmission line from the Polk Power Station north to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County. The proposed “Polk-Fishhawk Corridor” would be a single-circuit 250 kV transmission line running west from the Polk Power Station to the Mines substation near the intersection of State Road 674 and County Road 39 in Hillsborough County; from there, north and then west again to connect to a new Aspen switching station to be located near the intersection of County Road 672 and Balm-Boyette Road; and from the Aspen station, two separate 230kV transmission lines would run northeast to the existing Fishhawk substation near the intersection of Fishhawk Boulevard and Boyette Road; a total length of 27 miles. TEC exercised its option under section 403.5064(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to allow parties to file alternate transmission line corridors. No alternate corridors were filed or reviewed in this proceeding. TEC used a multidisciplinary team to evaluate alternative corridors for the new transmission lines. The team conducted initial data collection, prepared regional screening maps, identified alternate route segments, developed evaluation criteria, evaluated the routes, and selected the preferred routes. Public participation was a part of this effort. A regional screening map was created to identify existing infrastructure, roads, railroads, rivers and other water bodies, and siting constraints within the study area. TEC has existing transmission line rights-of-way in much of the study area, which together with public road rights-of-way provided co- location opportunities. The Polk-Pebbledale Corridor runs across former phosphate mining lands and follows roads and existing transmission line corridors to a point south of the town of Bradley Junction where it turns to the northeast and follows a transmission line through reclaimed phosphate lands to the intersection with another existing transmission line. In this certification proceeding, no party or non-party expressed opposition to the Polk-Pebbledale transmission line corridor. The Polk-Fishhawk Corridor runs across former and active phosphate mining lands, along road rights-of-way, and agricultural lands. As it approaches the Fishhawk substation, however, it passes through a residential development, referred to as the Fishhawk Community. The portion of the corridor that runs through the Fishhawk Community follows an existing TEC-owned transmission line right-of-way. No developer, agricultural operator, commercial entity, agency, or local government expressed opposition to the Polk to Fishhawk transmission line corridor, but residents of the Fishhawk Community testified in opposition to the corridor at the public hearing held in the Fishhawk community center. Their testimony at the public hearing is discussed later in this Recommended Order. The proposed transmission lines would be installed on steel poles embedded in the ground. Guy wires are generally not needed except where a transmission line makes a large angle turn or guy wires are otherwise necessary for safety and sound engineering. Pole heights would vary from 80 to 135 feet. The typical span length between poles would be 500 to 700 feet, but it can range up to 1,000 feet, when necessary to avoid natural or manmade obstacles or other siting constraints. The corridors are wider than the rights-of-way that will ultimately be determined in order to allow for flexibility in the final selection of the rights-of-way. The proposed rights-of-way would be reviewed by the agencies to insure compliance with the Conditions of Certification. Each transmission line would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with good engineering practices and all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including the National Electric Safety Code, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, requirements of the Florida Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide, applicable local and state government requirements, and TEC's internal design standards. TEC designs all of its 230 kV transmission lines to withstand a 130-mile-per-hour wind band, which exceeds the criteria in the National Electric Safety Code. Electric and Magnetic Fields The electric field produced by a transmission line is relatively constant over time. The magnetic field fluctuates over time depending on the load on the line. Electric and magnetic fields have been calculated for each of the configurations that may be used for the Project, based on the maximum requested voltage and current. The maximum expected levels for the electric and magnetic fields are within the limits in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Considerable scientific research has been conducted in the past 30 years to understand the potential health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields. There is general agreement among scientists in national and international health agencies that the available evidence does not show adverse health effects can occur from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. The Department’s limits for electric and magnetic fields at the edge of a transmission line right-of-way are lower than the limits recommended by the World Health Organization. Noise Impacts The noise limits applicable to the Project are those contained in the Polk Land Development Code and the in the rules of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. The Polk County noise limits are 75 decibels, A-weighted measurement (“dBA”) from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for non- residential areas and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for residential areas. The noise requirements applicable to transmission lines in Hillsborough County are 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise levels measured at four locations in the vicinity of the Project site varied between 41.9 and 51.1 dBA. Offsite noise levels during construction of Project facilities at the power station would be minimal because of the distance from the construction area to the site boundaries. Noise levels at the power station during operation are not expected to differ significantly from existing levels. Audible noise associated with transmission lines is usually associated with “corona,” which is a phenomenon that occurs when there is an irregularity on the surface of the conductors, such as water droplets or other significant particles. If the noise occurs during a rainstorm it is usually masked by the noise of the rain. At other times, corona noise will often be masked by other outdoor noises. Noise calculations were conducted for the proposed transmission lines and ranged from 32.0 to 45.2 dBA. These levels do not exceed the applicable limits. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology The areas proposed for the Project’s generating and associated facilities have been altered by the construction and operation of the Polk Power Station. These areas are also surrounded by lands altered by phosphate mining and reclamation. Wildlife habitats have already been destroyed, altered, or diminished by these activities and no longer have high functional values. Construction activities at the power plant site would not disturb any native or reclaimed wetland or upland habitats. Wildlife species expected to be found onsite would be common species for the region. Only two listed species of special concern were documented at the power station, the American Alligator and Tricolored Heron. They are both found in the reclaimed wetland west of the construction area and would not be affected. Impacts to other wildlife caused by construction at the Polk Power Station would be temporary and insignificant. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species at the Polk Power Station. No reclaimed or natural upland or wetland habitats are proposed to be affected. Wildlife habitats along the proposed transmission line corridors includes pine flat woods, mixed forested uplands, and various wetlands, including cypress forests, mixed hardwood swamps, and marshes. Surrounding land covers are dominated by current or former phosphate mining, farmsteads, or landscaped residential properties. The Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve, Little Manatee River, Hurrah Creek, Fishhawk Creek, and Little Fishhawk Creek provide the best wildlife habitats along the transmission line corridors, but the corridors would cross these areas where there are already existing transmission line rights-of-way or roads. Wildlife found along the corridors are species commonly found in the region. No listed species are known to occur. Construction and maintenance of the transmission lines within the corridors would not significantly impact the habitats of fish and wildlife found in these areas. Impacts to vegetation along the transmission line corridors would be minimized by siting the rights-of-way within the most disturbed areas or on existing road and transmission line rights-of-way. TEC would span all open waters such as streams and tributaries. For smaller water crossings and wetlands, the facilities would be co-located with existing linear facilities to minimize impacts. Restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands would be utilized, removing vegetation selectively. Impacts from filling would be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through a careful alignment of the transmission line rights-of-way and through the choice of span distances between structures. Where wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the impacts would be minimized and mitigation would be provided. Prior to the final selection of rights-of-way and the beginning of construction, surveys would be conducted to determine the presence of protected plant and animal species and the results would be shared with the FWC to determine if mitigation may be required in accordance with Conditions of Certification. Archeological and Historic Sites When the Polk Power Station was first certified and subsequently, archeological surveys were conducted to determine the presence of cultural and historical resources of significance. No such resources were identified. Cultural and historical resources in the study area for the transmission line corridors were evaluated during the corridor selection process. All National Register of Historic Places sites and districts as well as other known cultural resources were mapped and candidate corridors were laid out to avoid those resources. Corridors were laid out to co-locate with other transmission lines and linear facilities that have already disturbed the land to reduce the potential for new disturbances to cultural resources. After the rights-of-way within the corridors have been determined, cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify the location of any archeological or historical resources and determine potential impacts whether they can be avoided. The surveys would be submitted to the Division of Natural Resources for its review and consideration. Transportation Impacts No additional transportation impacts are expected from the operation of the Project because there would be no addition to the current Polk Power Station staff of 78 employees to operate all facilities. The construction phase would generate 357 daily trips by construction workers and 50 additional delivery trips. The trip distribution per day is expected to be 228 northbound trips on State Road 37, 82 southbound trips on State Road 37, 75 northbound trips on Fort Green Road, and 22 southbound trips on Fort Green Road. Even at the peak of construction activities, the surrounding roadway network is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Land Use Compatibility The Project facilities would be located within the existing power station site, which is the logical and efficient location for the Project. There are no conflicting land uses in the vicinity of the Project site. Most of the land uses along the corridors are former and active phosphate mining lands, undeveloped lands, agriculture, and rural residences. The key exception is the segment of the Polk-Fishhawk Corridor that runs through the developed Fishhawk Community, which is a suburban residential area. Transmission lines of the types proposed are frequently located in proximity to all of these affected land uses, including the suburban residential areas. It is officially recognized that many people, if given a choice, would prefer not to have high voltage transmission lines near their homes, primarily based on aesthetic considerations. However, it is also officially recognized that many people are willing to live near transmission lines. Until there is a practical alternative to above-ground transmission lines, they will have to be located in developed areas in order to supply electricity to residences. The proposed transmission lines are not incompatible with residential uses. Polk County and Hillsborough County do not oppose the Project on any basis, including land use compatibility. The Project is consistent with the comprehensive plans and the land development regulations of these counties. Socioeconomic Impacts The Project would provide additional clean and reliable energy, additional jobs during construction, an increased property tax base, and increased economic activity in the form of purchases of goods and services. Local revenues from property taxes levied on the new plant facilities would primarily benefit Polk County. The estimated additional property tax revenue is between $6 million and $6.5 million annually. Significant revenues are also expected from sales taxes on goods purchased directly for the plant or indirectly from purchases of goods and services by the construction workers. Sales taxes are estimated to be $105,000 per year. Construction of the Project would employ an average of 250 workers, with a peak projected in 2015 of about 500 workers. Most of the construction workers would be drawn from an area within a commuting distance from the Project site. The construction payroll for the overall Project is expected to be $88 million and much of this would likely be spent in Polk County and the region. Site Boundaries TEC requests that the boundaries of the Polk Power Station site be reduced from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres to reflect that the original certification required a donation of 1,511 acres to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund as a wildlife management area and recreation area. The donation was completed in 2012. Construction Schedule Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in January 2014 and be completed in time to allow commercial operation in January 2017. Public Notice and Participation TEC engaged in extensive public outreach for the Project, using direct mail, a survey, public meetings, newspaper advertisements, a project webpage, a toll-free telephone number for information, and communications with agencies and public officials. TEC used two direct mailings, totaling over 10,000 letters in both English and Spanish. The letters were mailed to landowners and residents within one-quarter mile of the proposed transmission line corridors, all homeowners' associations within one mile, and all landowners and residents within three miles of the plant site boundaries. Three public meetings were held regarding the Project. The first meeting was held on April 10, 2012, at the Little Union Baptist Church. The second was on April 12, 2012, at the Fishhawk Fellowship Church. The third was on April 19, 2012, at the Wimauma Senior Center. TEC held meetings with county commissioners, mayors, state senators, and state representatives to inform them of the Project and the certification process. TEC representatives also met with developers in Hillsborough County who could be affected by the corridors to provide information and answer questions. Copies of the Application were available for inspection at the Polk County Library in Bartow and the John Germany Public Library in Tampa. A copy was also available for public review at TEC’s offices in Tampa. On October 24, 2012, public notice of the filing of the Application was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger. On April 18, 2013, notice of the Certification Hearing was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger and on April 19, 2013, in the Tampa Bay Times. When the certification hearing was rescheduled, TEC published notice of the rescheduling in The Tampa Tribune, The Ledger, and the Tampa Bay Times on June 16, 2013. The Department published notices of the Application, the certification hearing, the public testimony hearing, and rescheduling the certification hearing in the Florida Administrative Register. Hillsborough County published notice of the public testimony portion of the proceeding in The Tampa Tribune on June 19, 2013. Public Testimony A hearing was held in Lithia, Florida, on June 25, 2013, in the Fishhawk Community to provide members of the public who are not parties to the certification proceeding an opportunity to present sworn testimony concerning the transmission line portion of the Project. Twelve members of the public testified. Eight comment letters were received into the record as Public Testimony Composite Exhibit 1. A number of the residents expressed anger about what they perceived as the failure of the developer who sold them their homes, and TEC, to disclose to them that a transmission line might be constructed near their homes. As previously stated, the corridor is on property owned or controlled by TEC for the installation of transmission lines. The record evidence does not indicate any duty to disclose, any misrepresentation, or any obfuscation by TEC in this regard. If there was a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation by the developer, those are matters between the homeowners and the developer and beyond the scope of this proceeding. Several residents expressed concern about possible adverse health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission lines. However, no speaker referred to personal knowledge or to any study results to support their comments on this subject. It is likely, therefore, that their concerns are based on rumors or speculation. As discussed above, independent scientists have not been able to substantiate the occurrence of adverse health effects from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. There is a tennis court and there are nature trails underneath existing transmission lines located in another part of the Fishhawk Community, indicating that the fear of electrical and magnetic fields is not universal. Some residents urged that TEC be required to install the portion of the transmission line in the Fishhawk Community underground. There are substantial engineering difficulties associated with underground installation of high voltage transmission lines. TEC has never installed this type of transmission line underground. The cost for underground installation could be as much as 15 times greater than for overhead installation. Agency Reports Agency reports with proposed conditions of certification were submitted to the Department by SWFWMD, FWC, Florida Department of Transportation, Hillsborough County, and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Agency Reports without recommended conditions of certification were submitted by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Polk County. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources did not file an agency report, but recommended conditions in its Completeness Review. On January 28, 2013, The Department issued its Project Analysis Report for the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing Conditions of Certification. On April 26, 2013, the Department issued its Project Analysis Report on the power plant and proposed Conditions of Certification. The Report was modified on May 21, 2013. No agency opposes certification of the Project. Conditions of Certification The Department recommends certification of the Project subject to the revised Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8, which supersedes all prior statements of conditions. The Conditions of Certification address numerous subjects and are designed to ensure that the construction and operation of the Project is protective of the public and the environment. The Conditions of Certification provide for post- certification reviews and investigations to confirm, for example, that sensitive areas will be avoided and that transmission lines structures will avoid or have minimal adverse impacts. TEC has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the Project in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Certification Considerations In determining whether TEC's application for the Project should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, the Siting Board must determine whether, and the extent to which, the location, construction, and operation of the Project would: Provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to s. 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state resulting from the construction and operation of the facility. Minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse affects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and protect the broad interests of the public. § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would be consistent with applicable local comprehensive plans and land development regulations. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would meet the electric energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to section 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would serve and protect the broad interests of the public.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a final order: approving TEC's application for certification to construct, operate, and maintain the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project, including its associated transmission lines, subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8; approving the increase in ultimate site capacity for the Polk Power Station site from the previously approved 1150 megawatts to 1420 megawatts; and modifying the Polk Power Station site boundaries from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres, as depicted in TEC Exhibit 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland and Knight LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Anthony Justin Pinzino, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Adam Teitzman, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Michael S. Craig, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office 330 West Church Street, Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney`s Office 27th Floor 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 3629 Queen Palm Drive Tampa, Florida 33619 Patricia Anderson Department of Health Environmental Engineering 4042 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1742 Laura Kammerer Bureau of Historic Preservation R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Manny L. Pumariega Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Suite 100 4000 Gateway Center Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Patricia M. Steed Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830-3931 Forrest Watson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Did the Respondents commit the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the enforcement of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (Sections 559.901-559.9221, Florida Statutes). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondents were engaged in the business of motor vehicle repair. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Allen J. Hobbs (Hobbs), was employed by the Department as a Law Enforcement Investigator. Hobbs became familiar with Respondents, Brian Waterman, John Waterman, and Transmission Mart, Inc., through complaints sent to the Department's office in Polk County, Florida, from the Department's office in Tallahassee, Florida Hobbs opened an investigation concerning Respondents on January 22, 1999. The investigation involved "preparing a vehicle" by taking the transmission apart to make sure the transmission was working properly and marking all parts of a transmission with an identifying number. The purpose of marking the parts was to determine if a part had in fact been replaced when such was indicated on Respondents' repair bills. On February 11, 1999, while working undercover, Joanne M. Taylor (Taylor), Law Enforcement Officer with the Department, presented a 1992 Buick Skylark, which had previously been prepared by having the transmission checked and the transmission parts marked with the number 04, to Transmission Mart at 3550 Recker Highway, Winter Haven, Florida. Taylor had a coupon for a transmission service. A man, with a name patch of "John" on his shirt, advised Taylor that he could service the transmission. Upon being advised that the transmission service had been completed, Taylor paid the bill and received an invoice for the service, which indicated that a new filter had been installed. Taylor left Transmission Mart and returned the 1992 Buick Skylark to Hobbs. On February 15, 1999, John Denny (Denny), the Department's mechanic who had originally marked the transmission parts, inspected the transmission along with Hobbs and found that the filter marked with the number 04 was still in place and had not been replaced by Transmission Mart as indicated on the invoice. Other than the time during which the vehicle was being serviced at Transmission Mart, the vehicle was under the control of the Department's employees. On February 25, 1999, while working undercover, M. E. (Cookie) Sikes (Sikes), Law Enforcement Officer with the Department, presented a white 1990 Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight, which had previously been prepared by having the transmission checked and the transmission parts marked with the letter T and the number 5 (T5), to Transmission Mart at 3550 Recker Highway, Winter Haven, Florida. Sikes had a discount coupon for a transmission service. The Service Manager named Brian, advised Sikes that it would take approximately one and one- half hours to service. Sikes had someone pick her up and later returned to pickup the vehicle. Sikes was given an invoice that indicated that she was being charged $15.00 for a new filter, with a total amount owed of $35.99. However, due to the unavailability of change, Sikes' bill was reduced to $30.00. Sikes returned the car to the Division of Plant Industry Office where it was secured. On March 1, 1999, the vehicle in question was transported to the Division of Forestry Vehicle Repair Shop in Brooksville, Florida. On March 16, 1999, Denny, with Hobbs observing, removed the transmission from the vehicle and inspected the filter to determine if Transmission Mart had in fact replaced the filter that was in the vehicle when presented to Transmission Mart on February 25, 1999. Upon examination, both Denny and Hobbs observed that the filter containing the identifying mark T5 was still in the transmission. Although Sikes paid for a new filter, Transmission Mart did not install a new filter in the vehicle presented by Sikes. Other than the time the Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight was being serviced by Transmission Mart, the vehicle was under the control of the Department's employees. On August 16, 1999, Hobbs drove a black 1991 Ford Taurus automobile to the Division of Forestry Motor Vehicle Repair Shop in Brooksville, Florida, for the purpose of having the transmission checked by John Denny, Forestry Mechanic, to assure that the vehicle's transmission was functioning properly. After determining that the vehicle's transmission was functioning properly, Denny, with Hobbs observing, removed the transmission fluid pan and the transmission filter. Denny installed a new fluid pan gasket and fluid filter. The fluid filter was marked with the letter O and the number 3 (O3), which was the code used by Denny to previously identify the other parts of the transmission. On August 19, 1999, Paula R. Wheeler (Wheeler), Law Enforcement Officer with the Department, while working undercover, presented the black 1991 Ford Taurus for servicing. Wheeler spoke with Brian Waterman. After a few minutes, Wheeler was advised by Brian Waterman that they were unable to service the transmission due some problem with the transmission. After some discussion, Wheeler authorized the expenditure of $225.00 for the repair of the transmission. On August 20, 1999, when Wheeler called to inquire about the transmission, she was informed that there were additional problems and that the estimate for repair was now $1,849.60. Wheeler agreed to this new estimate for repair. Although Wheeler was advised by Waterman that the vehicle would be ready on Monday, August 23, 1999, the vehicle was not ready until Wednesday, August 25, 1999. On Wednesday, August 25, 1999, Wheeler paid Transmission Mart $1,972.29 for the repair of the transmission and received an invoice for the repair. The invoice indicated that Wheeler was charged for the installation of a Transmission Mart remanufactured transmission with an exchange recondition torque converter using the following parts: (a) 1-OH Kit with steels; (b) 1- Bushing Kit; (c) 1- Reconditioned Valve Body; (d) 1- Reconditioned front Pump; (e) 1-Torque Converter; (f) 1- Set of Snap Rings; and (g) a filter. After picking the Ford Taurus up from Transmission Mart on August 25, 1999, Wheeler proceeded to the Department's office in Winter Haven, Florida, where the vehicle was loaded on a trailer and turned over to Hobbs. On August 31, 1999, Steve Merrick, Investigator for the Department, transported the vehicle by trailer to the Division of Forestry Repair Shop in Brooksville, Florida, so that Denny could disassemble the transmission for the purpose of determining if Transmission Mart had performed the work and replaced the parts indicated on the invoice presented to Wheeler. Hobbs videotaped the disassembling of the transmission on August 31, 1999, and September 1, 1999. Upon disassembling the transmission, it was determined that the front pump and both parts of the valve body had not been replaced in that they still had the code O3 on them, which had been placed there earlier by Denny. The forward, intermediate, and rear clutch was inspected, and it was determined that 11 steels and 7 friction plates had not been replaced by Transmission Mart as indicated on the invoice in that these parts still bore the code O3 which had been previously put there by Denny. The rear clutch was removed and upon inspection it was determined that four steels had not been replaced as indicated on the invoice in that they still bore the code O3, which had been placed there earlier by Denny. At all times pertinent herein, the Ford Taurus was in the possession of, or under the control of, Department employees. There is no evidence that Respondents, on May 10, 1999, knowingly and falsely charged Bob Bloomquist for the removal, rebuilding, and reinstallation of a transmission as alleged in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint. Likewise, there is no evidence that Bob Bloomquist had any contact with Respondents until sometime in late April or early May 2000. The Administrative Complaint contains no allegation charging Respondents with having falsely stated that they were members of the Automatic Transmission Rebuilders Association and thereby an authorized warranty dealer. On November 10, 1999, Judi Sylvia (Sylvia) presented her 1995 Ford Windstar Van (Van) to Transmission Mart for a service check of her transmission. The purpose of the service check was preventive maintenance because the transmission had a slight hesitation in reverse. Brian Waterman initially inspected the Van and concluded that there was a problem. Brian Waterman advised Sylvia that he would need to remove and dismantle the transmission in order to make an internal inspection. The cost for this internal inspection would be $225.00. However, if major repairs were needed, the $225.00 would apply toward that bill. Sylvia gave her approval for the cost of the internal inspection. After the internal inspection, Brian Waterman advised Sylvia that it would cost $500.00 to repair but changed that estimate to $750.00, which Sylvia agreed to pay because she was not knowledgeable about transmission repair and did not understand what she was being told by Brian Waterman. Subsequently, the estimate went to $750.00 and then to $1,749.00. Not having any choice, Sylvia agreed to the repairs. The invoice given to Sylvia by Transmission Mart indicated that a Transmission Mart Reconditioned Transmission with a full Life Time Warranty had been installed in the Van. The invoice indicated that warranty did not cover towing. However, the newspaper ad, which included the coupon, indicated that there was free towing with internal repairs. Sylvia was charged for internal repairs. Transmission Mart falsely charged Sylvia for towing. The Van stayed in the shop at Transmission Mart for a large part of the time between November 10, 1999, and December 22, 1999. Sylvia continued to experience problems with the transmission during this period. Eventually, Sylvia paid Transmission Mart a total of $1,981.50, which included towing charges. During the time the Van was being allegedly repaired at Transmission Mart, Brian Waterman told Sylvia that the Van was at Rowan Lincoln Mercury being repaired. However, the van was never at Rowan Lincoln Mercury being repaired during the time it was at Transmission Mart. On December 22, 1999, Sylvia retrieved her van from Transmission Mart and transported the Van to Aamco for repairs. Sylvia paid $1,757.48 for the repairs made by Aamco to the Van's transmission. Transmission Mart falsely charged Judi Sylvia for the removal, rebuilding, and installation of a Transmission Mart Reconditioned Transmission. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Transmission Mart falsely charged Raymond D. Skipper for the removal, rebuilding, and reinstallation of a transmission in Skipper's 1994 Dodge Caravan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of: (a) violating Section 559.920(3), Florida Statutes, on four separate occasions as alleged in paragraphs 6, 7, 9, and 12 of the Administrative Complaint; (b) violating Section 559.920(4), Florida Statutes, on one occasion as alleged in Paragraph 8 of the Administrative Complaint; (c) violating Section 559.920(8), Florida Statutes, on one occasion as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Administrative Complaint; and (d) violating Section 559.920(9), Florida Statutes, on one occasion a alleged in paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for each violation be imposed for a total administrative fine of $7,000.00. It is further recommended that the allegations contained in paragraphs 10, 11, and 15 through 18 be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Trischler, General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture 541 East Tennessee Street, India Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Suzanne V. Estrella, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street 515 Mayo Building, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James R. Franklin, Esquire Post Office Box 2883 Lakeland, Florida 33806-2883
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue Environmental Resource Permit No. 50- 0269698-002.
Findings Of Fact Parties Mr. Tsolkas is a resident of Lake Worth, which is in southeastern Palm Beach County. He is the co-chair of the PBCEC, and he uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for various recreational and “peace of mind” activities. He is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact his enjoyment of the WMAs.6 PBCEC is an organization comprised of environmental groups and individuals that are concerned about the environment and quality of life in Palm Beach County. PBCEC has undertaken public outreach, protests, and other advocacy efforts targeting the West Coast Energy Center (WCEC) that will be served by the proposed pipeline. No evidence was presented regarding PBCEC’s membership numbers. Mr. Shulz is a resident of Hope Sound, which is on the eastern coast of Martin County. He is a member of the PBCEC, and he uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs for various recreational activities. He is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact his enjoyment of the WMAs. He also has concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline. Ms. Larson in a resident of the Loxahatchee area in western Palm Beach County. She uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs for various recreational activities, and she is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact her enjoyment of the WMAs. She also has concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline. Bonnie Brooks and Danny Brooks were not present at the final hearing, and the record contains no evidence about these Petitioners. Gulfstream is a joint venture owned by Spectra Energy Corporation and the Williams Companies and is in the business of transporting natural gas through pipelines. Gulfstream is a Delaware limited liability company with its principle office in Tampa. The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in surface waters and wetlands under the ERP program in conjunction with the water management districts. The Department is responsible for taking final agency action on the proposed permit at issue in this case. The Proposed Pipeline (1) Generally The proposed pipeline is a 34.26-mile, 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline. The proposed pipeline starts in western Martin County, slightly northwest of Indiantown, and ends in western Palm Beach County at the site of the WCEC being constructed by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), just north of Twenty Mile Bend. The proposed pipeline is the third phase a pipeline that runs from natural gas supply areas on the coasts of Alabama and Mississippi across the Gulf of Mexico into central and southern Florida. The entire pipeline is 691 miles long, with approximately 240 miles in Florida. The first phase of the pipeline began operating in May 2002, and the second phase began operating in February 2005. The pipeline currently transports approximately 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into Florida. The proposed pipeline begins at the existing Gulfstream Station 712, which is referred to as milepost (MP) 0.00. It runs in a southerly direction along the east side of the L-65 Canal, crossing the St. Lucie Canal (at MP 6.34) and continuing to the Martin/Palm Beach county line (at MP 8.50); then runs east to a point west of the Dupuis WMA (at MP 10.20) and runs south along the western boundary of the Dupuis WMA adjacent to an existing power line right-of-way; then turns southeast (at MP 12.14) and runs on the east side of the L-8 Canal; and then turns due south (at MP 30.08) and runs in an existing FPL transmission line right-of-way to its terminus on the WCEC site (at MP 34.26). Gulfstream acquired a non-exclusive pipeline easement from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which authorizes it to install the proposed pipeline within the L-8 and L-65 canal rights-of-way. The agreement limits the width of the permanent easement to 20 feet, but it provides for 95-foot wide temporary construction easements along the pipeline route. The agreement requires the proposed pipeline to be installed at least three feet below the surface. The proposed pipeline crosses 121 artificial water bodies. It does not cross any natural water bodies. Only three of the crossed water bodies –- the L-8 Canal, the L-65 Canal, and the St. Lucie Canal -- are navigable. The pipeline crosses the L-65 Canal once (at MP 0.11); the St. Lucie Canal once (at MP 6.34); and the L-8 Canal three times (at MP 12.31, MP 13.28 and MP 29.72). The other crossed water bodies are agricultural ditches. The active land uses along the pipeline route are primarily agricultural in nature, consisting of sugar cane fields and sod farms. The passive land uses include the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs, which are state-owned conservation areas. There is an existing mining operation adjacent to the pipeline route in the vicinity of MP 32.80. The mining company, Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA), uses blasting to produce limestone aggregate and sand. The PBA property line is approximately 290 feet from the proposed pipeline at its closest point, but the actual blasting is as much as “500 feet to thousands of feet away” from the proposed pipeline. The route of the proposed pipeline was revised in August 2007 at the request of the SFWMD and FPL. The initial pipeline route was along the west sides of the L-65 and L-8 Canals. SFWMD requested that the route be shifted to the east side of the canals in order to accommodate potential future canal expansion. The initial pipeline route was along the eastern edge of the FPL transmission line right-of-way. FPL requested that the route be shifted to the center of the right-of-way in order to accommodate future expansion of the transmission line facilities. The revised pipeline route has fewer impacts than the initial route. For example, the initial route had 224 water body crossings, and two wetland crossings, whereas the revised route has only 121 water body crossings, and no wetland crossings. Gulfstream submitted extensive documentation in support of the revised pipeline route. After reviewing that documentation, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the proposed permit for the revised pipeline route. Notice of the Department’s decision was published in newspapers of general circulation -- the Stuart News in Martin County and in the Palm Beach Post in Palm Beach County -- on or about October 17, 2007. (2) Design and Construction Methods Federal law prescribes minimum pipeline design criteria, including standards for pipe wall thickness and the testing of pipeline welds. Gulfstream took a “compliance plus” approach in the design of the proposed pipeline by going “above and beyond” the minimum requirements in federal law in several respects. First, the pipe used in the proposed pipeline will meet or exceed the wall thickness requirements in federal law. Thicker-walled pipe will used in areas where there is a potential for external forces to affect the pipe, such as under road crossings and in the areas adjacent to PBA’s blasting operations. Second, Gulfstream will x-ray 100 percent of the welded joints on the proposed pipeline, which far exceeds the requirement in federal law that 10 percent of the welds be inspected. Third, Gulfstream will hydrostatically test the proposed pipeline for leaks after construction is complete and before the pipeline is put into operation. Hydrostatic testing involves filling the pipeline with water under pressure higher than the pressure under which the pipeline will operate. A drop in pressure during the test is an indication of a leak in the pipeline, which will be fixed before the pipeline is put into operation. Fourth, Gulfstream will coat the entire proposed pipeline with an anti-corrosive substance -– fusion bond epoxy - – and the pipeline will also be induced with a small DC current in a process known as cathodic protection. These measures will significantly reduce, if not eliminate potential corrosion on the proposed pipeline. Gulfstream will use four construction methods to cross the water bodies within the pipeline route: the isolation plate open cut method; the sheet pile wet open cut method; the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method; and the conventional bore method. The isolation plate open cut method will be used at each minor and intermediate water body crossing, except for those associated with the HDD method. The isolation plate open cut method involves the installation of steel plates upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing. The area between the plates is pumped out so that it is essentially dry. A trench is dug in the dry area and the pipeline is placed in the trench. The trench is then backfilled and stabilized with at least five feet of cover, and then the plates are removed and the water flows back into the area. The sheet pile wet open cut method is similar to the isolation plate open cut method, except that it allows water to continue to flow in the center of the water body during installation of the pipe. This method will be used for the crossing of the L-65 Canal, the second and third crossings of the L-8 Canal, and the crossings of the forebays along the L-8 Canal. Turbidity curtains or sediment barrier baffle systems will be installed upstream and downstream of the areas where the isolation plate open cut and the sheet pile wet open cut methods are used in order to control turbidity. The HDD method will be used to cross the St. Lucie Canal and the Couse Midden archaeological site, as well as at the first crossing of the L-8 Canal. The HDD method involves the boring of a horizontal tunnel along a pre-determined path under the surface feature to be avoided and then pulling a pre-fabricated section of pipe through the tunnel. The pipe installed using this method will be 35 to 40 feet below the surface feature to be avoided. The conventional bore method will be used to cross the railroad track and adjacent agricultural ditch at MP 8.46, as well as the wetland at MP 16.65. The conventional bore method involves the excavation of bore pits on both sides of the feature to be crossed. A tunnel is bored under the feature and then a section of pipe is pulled through the tunnel. The pipe installed using this method will be 10 feet under the railroad track, which is greater than the depth required by federal law, and will be at least five feet under the wetland. Environmental Issues (1) Wetlands and Vegetation The proposed pipeline will not adversely impact the current condition or relative functions of any wetlands. All of the wetlands within the proposed pipeline route have been avoided. The proposed pipeline will be installed under one jurisdictional wetland (at MP 16.65) using the conventional bore method described above. That wetland is a disturbed, low- quality wetland within the actively managed L-8 Canal right-of- way. It is routinely mowed and provides no significant water quality function or habitat value. Gulfstream will install erosion control devices in areas where the pipeline construction corridor abuts wetlands. The erosion control devices will be in place and functional prior to commencement of earth disturbance. Gulfstream will utilize reinforced sediment barriers in lieu of standard sediment barriers, and increased buffers are proposed in areas where construction abuts wetlands on the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs. The proposed pipeline will not adversely impact listed plant species. No listed plant species were observed or are likely to occur within the proposed pipeline route, which consists of disturbed rights-of-way and agricultural areas. Vegetated areas that are disturbed during the installation of the proposed pipeline will be re-vegetated immediately after construction is complete. Impacts to these areas will be minor and temporary. The disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with herbaceous cover such as bahia grass, common bermuda grass, or annual ryegrass. The areas will be monitored for two growing seasons to determine the success of the revegetation. The proposed pipeline route includes exotic and nuisance plant species, including Brazilian pepper, cogon grass, water hyacinth, and water lettuce. The installation of the proposed pipeline has the potential to spread exotic and nuisance species if appropriate precautions are not taken during construction. Gulfstream has developed, and will implement an Exotic, Nuisance, and Invasive Plant Management Plan to minimize the potential for spreading exotic and nuisance species. The plan requires, among other things, environmental training of construction personnel and “routine monitoring during all phases of construction, clean up, and restoration.” The plan also includes procedures for onsite disposal of exotic and nuisance species disturbed during construction and the cleaning of vehicles and equipment to ensure that exotic and nuisance species are not inadvertently transported to uncolonized areas. The proposed permit includes a specific condition that requires Gulfstream to monitor and maintain the proposed pipeline route –- a total of 214.85 acres -– free of exotic and nuisance species for a period of five years after construction of the pipeline is complete. The easement agreement between Gulfstream and SFWMD requires Gulfstream to relocate approximately 158 native cabbage palm trees within the construction corridor to “suitable locations within the west right of way of L-8 within the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management wildlife corridor.” (2) Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs The proposed pipeline route runs along the western boundary of the Dupuis WMA for approximately seven miles (between MP 13.30 and MP 20.18), and it runs along the western boundary of the J.W. Corbett WMA for approximately 9.5 miles (between MP 20.18 and MP 29.70). The revised pipeline route puts the pipeline closer to the boundaries of the WMAs than did the initial pipeline route because the route was moved from the west side of the canals to the east side of the canals. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) manages the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs. The WMAs, which include extensive wetlands and virtually no development, are used for a variety of public recreation purposes. The proposed pipeline crosses approximately 3.67 acres of the J.W. Corbett WMA. This land, although technically within the boundaries of WMA, is subject to an easement for the L-8 Canal and has been actively managed by SFWMD for canal purposes for at least the past 55 years. Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring approximately 3.75 acres of privately-held land within the boundaries of the J.W. Corbett WMA that it will donate to the State in accordance with the “linear facility policy”7 as mitigation for the crossing of the J.W. Corbett WMA. The parcel that Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring contains oak trees, pine trees, and cypress trees. It also contains the last Indian mound within the J.W. Corbett WMA that is not already in public ownership. Gulfstream will install reinforced sediment barriers and increase buffers adjacent to the wetlands on the WMAs in order to prevent impacts to those areas during construction. The proposed pipeline will not have any direct or indirect impact on the Dupuis WMA. The proposed pipeline’s only impact on the J.W. Corbett WMA is the direct impact to the 3.67 acres of the WMA that the pipeline will cross. This impact is negligible in light of the size of the J.W. Corbett WMA -– approximately 60,000 acres –- and in light of the fact that the portion of the J.W. Corbett WMA that is being crossed is disturbed land that has been actively used for canal purposes for over 55 years. Moreover, this impact will be mitigated in accordance with the “linear facility policy.” Any adverse impacts to the aesthetic qualities of the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs will be temporary in nature during construction. Once construction is complete, the pipeline will not be visible from the surface. (3) Wildlife The proposed pipeline route consists of disturbed agricultural areas and canal and utility rights-of-way, which are low quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. The proposed permit is not likey to have any adverse impact on wildlife, including listed species, or their habitat. Gulfstream conducted extensive wildlife surveys during the ERP application process. The survey corridor “extended beyond 150 feet to either side of the pipeline centerline for a minimum survey width of 300 feet,” and also included the temporary work space areas, contractor yards, and aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline. The listed species whose potential habitat includes the pipeline corridor are the wood stork, the Southeastern American kestrel, the crested caracara, the bald eagle, and the gopher tortoise and its commensal species. The wood stork uses areas within and along the proposed pipeline corridor for resting, but not nesting or foraging. Southeastern American kestrel and crested caracara habitat exists adjacent to the first four miles of the proposed pipeline corridor. There is no habitat within the pipeline corridor itself, and no kestrels or caracaras were observed in the adjacent habitat. The nearest bald eagle nest is approximately 2,550 feet from the proposed pipeline route, which is well beyond the 660-foot regulatory protection zone. The nest is within a heavily wooded area of the Dupuis WMA and is not visible from the pipeline route. A total of 18 gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the proposed pipeline route. The burrows are located along the berm of the L-65 Canal between MP 0.04 and MP 1.44. Relocation is FWCC’s preferred method for avoiding impacts to gopher tortoises that inhabit a construction area. The gopher tortoises are moved to another area during construction, but they are free to return to the area from which they were relocated after construction is completed. In December 2007, FWCC issued a permit (No. WR07530a) that allows Gulfstream to capture and relocate up to 18 gopher tortoises. The permit also allows Gulfstream to capture and relocate commensal species, such as the indigo snake, Florida mouse, and gopher frog. The FWCC permit addresses the listed species’ concerns raised by James Schuette, the FWCC employee who provided comments to the Department on the ERP application and who testified at the final hearing in Petitioner’s case-in-chief.8 Gulfstream successfully used gopher tortoise relocation during construction of the first two phases of the pipeline project. Gulfstream will conduct pre-construction surveys to ensure that no listed species have moved into the proposed pipeline route. Qualified environmental inspectors will be on- site on a daily basis during construction to look for listed species and to monitor compliance with the FWCC permit. (4) Water Quality The proposed pipeline will have no permanent adverse impacts on water quality. The construction of the pipeline may have minor temporary impacts on water quality through increased turbidity in the water bodies crossed by the proposed pipeline. Gulfstream will use turbidity curtains and other barriers to control turbidity and minimize impacts to water quality, and it is required to closely monitor water quality during construction. The proposed permit establishes a turbidity standard - - 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background –- that must be maintained outside of the 150 meter “mixing zone” established by the permit.9 The turbidity levels within the “mixing zone” may exceed the 29 NTU standard during construction. The construction methods and turbidity controls used by Gulfstream during construction will ensure that the turbidity standards in the proposed permit are met. These methods were successful in controlling turbidity during the construction of the first two phases of the pipeline. Gulfstream will also undertake other measures to minimize potential water quality impacts. For example, silt fences and hay bales will be used between spoil piles and water bodies, and disturbed areas will be immediately vegetated to limit the potential for sedimentation from erosion. (5) Archeological and Historic Sites Gulfstream conducted extensive cultural resource assessment surveys as part of the ERP application process. The surveys were conducted in a 300-to-400-foot-wide corridor around the centerline of the entire pipeline route. The purpose of the surveys was to identify “historical resources” and “archaeological resources” in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. Historical resources include structures and buildings at or on the ground surface. Archaeological resources are partial or totaled buried cultural resources. Two historical resources were identified in the surveys: the St. Lucie Canal and the Bryant Sugar Mill. The proposed pipeline will cross the St. Lucie Canal, and the land in the vicinity of the Bryant Sugar Mill will be used for parking and temporary storage of pipes. The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on these historical sites. The proposed pipeline will be installed under the St. Lucie Canal using the HDD method; and there will be no parking or material storage within 25 feet of the Bryant Sugar Mill buildings, which themselves will not be used. Two archaeological resources were identified in the surveys: the Couse Midden and a site known as JR-1 that is associated with the Belle Glade archaeological period. The sites were described as “basically, trash, refuse areas, possible habitation sites.” The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on these archaeological sites. The proposed pipeline will be installed approximately 40 feet under the Couse Midden site using the HDD method, and the JR-1 site will be entirely avoided. The Division of Historical Resources -- the state agency responsible for evaluating the potential impacts of construction projects on cultural resources -– concurred with the assessment of Gulfstream’s consultant that the proposed pipeline “will have no adverse affect on any cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the [National Register of Historic Places].” Gulfstream has developed, and will implement an Unanticipated Finds Plan that includes detailed procedures to be followed in the event that previously unreported and unanticipated historic properties or human remains are found during construction. Among other things, the plan requires construction work in the area of the find to be stopped immediately and not restarted until clearance is granted by the environmental manager and archaeological consultant. Additionally, as noted above, Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring a 3.75-acre parcel within the J.W. Corbett WMA that contains an Indian mound and that will be donated to the State. (6) Other Issues The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on fishing or other recreational activities in the water bodies within the pipeline route. The agricultural ditches are Class IV waters that are not suitable for fishing or recreational activities. The proposed pipeline will be installed under the St. Lucie Canal, the L-8 Canal, and the L-65 Canal, which are the only water bodies that could support fishing or recreational activities. Any impacts on fishing or recreational activities in the canals will be minor and temporary impacts during construction. The proposed pipeline will not have any impact on marine productivity because the water bodies within the proposed pipeline route are freshwater, not marine or estuary. The proposed pipeline will have no permanent adverse impact on navigation. The only navigable waters crossed by the proposed pipeline are the St. Lucie Canal, the L-8 Canal, and the L-65 Canal, and the proposed pipeline will be installed under the canal bottoms. There will be minor temporary impacts on the navigability of the L-8 and L-65 Canals because those canals will effectively be blocked while the pipeline is installed under those canals using the sheet pile wet open cut method. The impacts will last no more than 48 hours, which is the maximum amount of time that it will take to complete the crossings. The proposed pipeline will not cause harmful erosion. The vegetation on the banks of the water bodies will not be removed until the time of pipe installation, and the area will be immediately re-vegetated after construction. Other erosion control measures will also be implemented, as reflected in the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan included as part of the ERP application. The proposed pipeline will not cause harmful shoaling. The agriculture ditches are not flowing water bodies so they are not subject to shoaling, and the construction in the L-8 and L- 65 Canals will occur during the drier months when there is low flow in the canals. After construction is complete, the proposed pipeline will not impede the flow of water so as to cause shoaling because it will be buried under the bottom of the canal. Gulfstream has developed, and will implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan in order to reduce the chance for accidental spills during construction. The plan also includes procedures to be followed in the event of a spill. The easement agreement between Gulfstream and SFWMD requires Gulfstream to pay any additional cost that SFWMD incurs in the installation, repair, or replacement of culverts within the proposed pipeline route as a result of the pipeline being located above an existing or future culvert. The agreement also requires Gulfstream, at its expense, to promptly repair and restore any damage to berms, levees, or other SFWMD improvements that is caused by the construction or operation of the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline will not have any material secondary impacts on wetlands or water resources. To the extent that the WCEC project can be considered to be a secondary impact of the proposed pipeline, its impacts on wetlands and water resources were considered as part of the certification proceeding for that project under the Power Plant Siting Act.10 The Department did not specifically evaluate whether the proposed pipeline will impact the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP). Its failure to do so is not unreasonable or inappropriate because the proposed pipeline is not located within the Everglades National Park or Loxahatchee National Refuge areas, and no concerns related to CERP were brought to the Department’s attention by the agencies that provided comments on the ERP application. Moreover, the commenting agencies included SWFMD, which is actively involved in CERP and upon whose property the proposed pipeline will be located. Petitioners expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposed pipeline on the Everglades and CERP. However, they did not present any persuasive evidence in support of these concerns. The proposed permit includes a specific condition that prohibits Gulfstream from installing the proposed pipeline on property that it does not own without prior written approval of the property owner. This condition may prohibit the installation of the pipeline across the J.W. Corbett WMA unless Gulfstream obtains the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund under the “linear facility policy.” Safety Concerns Petitioners expressed concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline and the potential adverse impacts to the environment and the public if the pipeline were to explode. There is a potential for significant damage if the proposed pipeline were to explode. It is impossible to eliminate all risk of the pipeline exploding. The risk of an explosion has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable through the measures described above that reduce the risk of leaks in the proposed pipeline through corrosion or damage from external forces. The pipe wall thickness was increased in areas adjacent to PBA’s blasting operations even though the conservative blast mitigation analysis prepared by Gulfstream's expert shows that the normal pipe wall thickness is more than adequate to withstand the vibrations caused by PBA’s current permitted and reasonably foreseeable blasting operations. The location of the pipeline -- underground and in existing canal and utility rights-of-way -- also serves to minimize the risk of accidental damage to the pipeline from construction and development activities and hurricanes or other natural disasters. Pressure, temperature, and flow in the proposed pipeline will be continuously monitored at a 24-hour control center, and the pipeline right-of-way will be visually inspected at least once every two weeks. The proposed pipeline includes “test leads” approximately every mile that are used to assess the cathodic protection on the pipeline. The proposed pipeline includes two valves (at MP 0.00 and MP 14.87) that can be used to shut off the flow in the pipeline if necessary. The “valve setting” at MP 14.87 is the only above-ground component of the proposed pipeline other than the valve settings at the start and end of the pipeline. The area around the valve setting will be enclosed by an eight-foot- high fence and covered with gravel. The location of the proposed pipeline will be marked at line-of-sight-intervals and at other key points. The markers will clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide contact information in case of emergency or in the event of excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. Gulfstream has procedures in place to respond to any emergency that may arise in the operation of the pipeline, as required by federal law. Gulfstream meets face-to-face with local emergency responders on at least an annual basis to discuss emergency response procedures. It also engages in public education and outreach efforts to address potential concerns regarding the safety of the pipeline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving ERP No. 50-0269698-002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 8th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses adduced at the hearing and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following: The Beker-Manatee transmission line was planned and given budget approval by Petitioner in 1974. This action was taken by Petitioner as a result of a documented request by Beker Phosphate Corporation to provide high-voltage service to the proposed Beker Phosphate Corporation mine in Manatee County, Florida. Right-of-way acquisition was begun in June, 1975, and more than one- half of the right-of-way has now been acquired by Petitioner. The original projected in-service date for the transmission line was July 1, 1976, however, completion was delayed due to, inter alia, alleged environmental problems encountered by Beker Phosphate Corporation in bringing its phosphate mine into production. Presently, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Beker-Manatee transmission line energized by the Spring of 1980. Additionally, Petitioner plans to construct an electrical transmission line between the proposed Keentown substation in Manatee County, and a proposed substation in DeSoto County near Arcadia, Florida, which is called the Whidden Substation. (Herein, sometimes called the Keentown-Whidden transmission line). The Keentown-Whidden transmission line was planned and budgeted by Petitioner during late 1975 as the most appropriate means of satisfying Petitioner's needs including providing reliable and adequate service to the Arcadia area; to provide service for specific customers (future) near the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and utilization of its existing facilities including existing transmission lines; to provide bulk power transfer capacity from Manatee into other parts of Petitioner's service area and to improve all transfer capacity between Tampa Bay and the lower west coast of Florida for mutual load supporting generation for emergency and economic reasons. According to its present plans, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Keentown-Whidden transmission energized by the summer of 1981, that is more than one year after the Beker-Manatee line is built and energized. On October 14, 1977, Respondent issued a binding letter of interpretation concluding that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a development of regional impact within the guides of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and pertinent regulations since it formed a part of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line. However, in support of this position, Respondent introduced testimony and statements during the hearing indicating that its decision that the subject line is a development of regional inpact is based on five factors as follows: The Beker-Manatee transmission line is a 240 KV line, That the Beker-Manatee Line connects to the Keentown-Whidden transmission line, One of the functions of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line is to transfer bulk power, That the subject line is "the" source of power to energize the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and The Beker-Manatee and Keentown-Whidden lines are inseparable because without the Beker-Manatee transmission line the Keentown-Whidden transmission come not be energized. An examination of these factors revealed that the first three factors are applicable to all 240 KV lines of Petitioner as well as all other power companies. Specifically, testimony was introduced without rebuttal that all other 240 KV transmission lines connect with the subject line as well as the Keentown-Whidden line and form a statewide transmission system in what is commonly referred to as the "Grid". And of course, a primary function of all 240 KV transmission lines is to transmit bulk power. The remaining two factors, when examined, indicate that the Respondent relied on erroneous factors and/or conclusions in reaching its determination that the subject line is a development of regional impact. In this regard, testimony was introduced to the effect that the Beker-Manatee transmission line could be energized through any transmission line within the electrical grid provided the right switching devices were activated. It was also noted that the Keentown-Whidden transmission line could be energized without the Beker-Manatee transmission line provided again that the appropriate switching devices were activated. Throughout the engineering profession, transmission lines are customarily defined by the electric utility industry and by federal and state governmental agencies involved in the regulation of transmission lines, as a line extending from an electric generating power plant to the nearest substation or from a substation to the nearest substation. For example, the Federal Power Commission and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' Standard Dictionary of Electrical Terms (1971) define transmission lines in this manner. With this in mind, it was noted that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a line which extends from a substation to the nearest substation and it does not cross a county line. Respondent failed to demonstrate why the subject transmission line should not be reviewed as similar lines have been throughout the electric utility industry. Consideration was given to Respondent's argument that the subject line must be viewed as an integral electrical transmission line which when completed will connect and cross portions of DeSoto, Hardee and Manatee counties. However, evidence was introduced that when the subject line is completed, it like all other 240 KV lines form a contiguous segment of the entire electrical grid throughout the United States, and in that respect, such a consideration is not a distinguishing factor for this or any other 240 KV transmission line.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Division of State Planning issue a binding letter of interpretation to Florida Power and Light Company holding that the proposed Beker-Manatee line does not meet the criteria of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and Section 22F-2.03, Florida Administrative Code and therefore is not a development of regional impact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of February, 1978. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are: whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the application of Progress Energy Florida (PEF) to certify and license the construction and operation of a 2200 megawatt (MW) (nominal) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines; and, if so, what conditions of certification should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), provides electricity and related services to approximately 1.7 million customers in the state of Florida. PEF's retail service area spans 35 counties over about 20,000 square miles in central and west Florida. In Florida, PEF operates and maintains more than 43,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines that serve a population of more than 5 million people. PEF owns and operates a diverse mix of electrical generating units in Florida, including approximately 47 combustion turbines, 5 combined cycle units, 12 fossil units, and one nuclear unit at PEF's Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). The CREC is located in northwest Citrus County approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 19 on the Gulf of Mexico. There are five generating facilities within the CREC; four units are coal-fired and one is a nuclear unit. PEF considered locating new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC, but determined that would concentrate too much electrical generation at one site. PEF proposes to build and operate a two-unit nuclear- powered electrical generating facility in Levy County (LNP). Directly associated facilities include a heavy haul road used for construction (Levy County), two site access roads (Levy County), and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines (Levy and Citrus Counties). PEF also seeks certification of nine transmission corridors associated with eleven electrical transmission lines: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed LNP to proposed Citrus Substation, two 500-kV Transmission Lines (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LPC" Lines; Crystal River Transmission Line — proposed LND to existing CREC Switchyard, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LCR" Line; Sumter Transmission Line — proposed LNP to proposed Central Florida South Substation, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter and Lake Counties and Municipalities of Wildwood and Leesburg), also referred to as the "LCFS" Line; Levy North Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-High Springs Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County), also referred to as the "IS" Line; Levy South Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-Ocala Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County and Town of Inglis), also referred to as the "IO" Line; Brookridge Transmission Line — existing CREC Switchyard to existing Brookridge Substation, one 230 kV Transmission Line (Citrus and Hernando Counties), also referred to as the "CB" Line; Brooksville West Transmission Line — existing Brookridge Substation to existing Brooksville West Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Hernando County), also referred to as the "BBW" Line; Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed Citrus Substation to existing Crystal River East Substation, two 230-kV Transmission Lines (Citrus County), also referred to as the "CCRE" Lines; and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line — existing Kathleen Substation to existing Lake Tarpon Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and municipalities of Tampa, Plant City and Oldsmar), also referred to as the "Kathleen" Line. Need for the Project The PSC issued its Final Order determining the need for the Project on August 12, 2008. The PSC found: "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for fuel diversity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for base-load generating capacity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost"; "[t]here are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to PEF which might mitigate the need for Levy Units 1 and 2"; and "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide the most cost-effective source of power." The PSC also found a need for the associated transmission lines. New transmission lines are required to interconnect and integrate the proposed plant into PEF's existing transmission grid and to reliably deliver bulk power to PEF's load centers. Load flow studies were conducted by PEF system planners to identify the appropriate transmission end- points and voltages. The proposed transmission lines in PEF's proposed corridors satisfy the need for transmission lines as determined by the PSC. Public Notice and Outreach PEF has engaged in extensive public outreach for the selection of the LNP site and for the transmission line corridors. With regard to the plant portion of the Project, PEF's outreach efforts have included communications with local community leaders, press releases, communications with state and federal legislators, dissemination of information to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the plant via mailings and open houses, and participation in community and advisory groups. With regard to the electrical transmission line portion of the Project, public involvement has been key to the corridor selection process. PEF developed a Community Partnership for Energy Planning (CPEP) process to gain feedback from members of the community in a manner that would most effectively involve the community in the transmission line corridor selection process. Through the CPEP process, PEF established leadership teams in three geographic regions: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties; Citrus, Hernando, and Levy Counties; and Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The leadership teams identified and selected more than 100 community representatives to participate in regional Utility Search Conferences. The Utility Search Conferences involved intensive two-day discussions of local issues and the future of electricity supply in the region. The purpose of the conferences was to inform the participants about the Project, to gain public input, and to allow participants to nominate community members to become part of the Community Working Groups for the remainder of the Project. PEF formed the Community Working Groups to further study and refine the recommendations of the conferences as well as to provide ongoing input to PEF throughout the Project. PEF also held open houses in February and March 2008 to involve the public in the transmission line corridor selection process. PEF used newspaper advertisements, press releases, and direct mail letters to facilitate public awareness of the open houses. Over 2,900 people attended the open houses, and PEF received completed written questionnaires from 2,071 attendees. The goal of PEF's public outreach program (with regard to both the plant and transmission lines) was to provide information in a transparent manner to the public and to provide ample opportunity and many avenues for the public to provide input during all phases of the Project. In total, PEF has conducted over 40 public presentations and sent communications to more than 125,000 property owners and stakeholders regarding the Project. Many of PEF's outreach efforts have been beyond the efforts required by law. Pursuant to Section 403.5115(6), Florida Statutes, PEF provided direct notice by mail of the filing of the SCA to all landowners whose property and residences are located within: three miles of the proposed main site boundaries of the LNP; one-quarter mile of a transmission line corridor that only includes a transmission line as defined by Section 403.522(22), Florida Statutes; and (3) one-quarter mile for all other linear associated facilities extending away from the main site boundary. PEF timely submitted a list of the landowners and residences notified to DEP's Siting Coordination Office (SCO), as required by Section 403.5115(6)(b), Florida Statutes. PEF made copies of the SCA available at two of its offices and ten public libraries. In addition, PEF provided copies to all local governments and agencies within whose jurisdiction portions of the Project will be located. DEP made an electronic version of the document available on its website. On June 19, 2008, PEF published notice of the filing of the SCA in the Ocala Star-Banner, the Hernando Today, the Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Villages Daily Sun, the Levy County Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, the Citrus County Chronicle, the Sumter County Times, the Hernando Times, and the North Pinellas Times, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(3). On December 18, 2008, PEF published notice of the certification hearing in the same newspapers, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(7). PEF published amended notices of the site certification hearing in the same newspapers on February 17, 2009. DEP also published notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All notices required by law were timely published and/or provided in accordance with Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes. Agency Reports and Stipulations Agency reports and proposed conditions of certification on the plant-related facilities of the Project were submitted to DEP by: (1) the PSC; (2) DCA; (3) SWFWMD; (4) Levy County; (5) FWC; (6) the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council; and (7) DOT. All of these agencies either recommended approval of the Project or otherwise did not object to certification. Although Citrus County did not file an agency report, it recommended approval of the LNP in the prehearing stipulation of the parties. Affected state, regional, and local agencies reviewed the SCA and submitted to DEP reports concerning the impact of the transmission lines on matters within their respective jurisdictions and proposed conditions of certification, as required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes. None of the agencies involved in the review process have recommended that the proposed electrical transmission line corridors be denied or modified. On September 25, 2008, DEP issued its written analysis on the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of conditions of certification. The conditions of certification were subsequently revised to reflect agreed-upon language. DEP recommended that the PEF proposed transmission line corridors be certified subject to the conditions of certification. On January 12, 2009, DEP prepared a Staff Analysis Report (SAR) compiling all of the agency reports on the power plant, proposing conditions of certification, and making an overall recommendation. DEP recommended certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification. The conditions of certification attached to the SAR have been superseded by the Fourth Amended Conditions of Certification filed by DEP as DEP Exhibit 1 on March 23, 2009. PEF is committed to constructing the LNP in accord with these conditions. Plant and Associated Facilities2 Project Overview PEF's proposed nuclear-powered electric generating facility (the LNP) will be located in Levy County. The LNP site is east of U.S. Highway 19 and approximately four miles north of the Town of Inglis and the Levy-Citrus County border. The LNP site contains approximately 3,105 acres, with the two reactors and ancillary power production support facilities located near the center of the site. The majority of the LNP site is currently active silviculture and is unimproved. The proposed heavy haul road and pipelines will be located in corridors south of the LNP site. Two site access roads will tie into U.S. Highway 19 west of the site and proceed east to the main plant area. PEF also owns a second 2,000-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the LNP site, which provides access to a water supply in the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as well as containing the heavy haul road and electrical transmission line corridors that exit the LNP site. Project Description The LNP will include two 1,100 megawatt (MW) (nominal) generating units (LNP 1 and LNP 2) designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The reactor design has received an official design certification from the NRC and is referred to as the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (AP1000). The AP1000 is a standardized, advanced passive pressurized-water nuclear reactor. PEF proposes to place LNP 1 in commercial service by 2016 and LNP 2 in commercial service by 2017. In the AP1000, the reactor core heats water which flows through the reactor cooling system in the primary loop. The reactor coolant pump circulates water through the reactor core. A pressurizer is used to maintain a constant pressure in the primary loop. The heated water flows to the steam generator and through a combination of U-shaped tubes, transferring heat to a separate, independent closed-loop water system, or the secondary loop. Inside the steam generator, the water in the secondary loop boils and is separated in dryers which produce high quality steam. The reactor, the four coolant pumps, and the two steam generators are contained in the containment shield building for each unit. Within the shield building, a steel containment structure surrounds the reactor and steam generators. A passive cooling water tank, which will provide emergency cooling, sits in the top of the containment shield building. The steam in the secondary loop is routed to the adjacent turbine building where it goes into a high-pressure turbine and then three low pressure turbines. The steam produces the force to turn the turbines, which then turn the electrical generator. Electricity is then sent to the on-site switchyard for transmission. The steam exhausting from the turbines moves into the condenser where it comes into contact with the cold surfaces of the tubes in the condenser, which contain water circulating from the cooling tower. The steam condenses back to water. The condensed water is collected in the bottom of the condenser and pumped back into the steam generator. The cycle then repeats. Other components of the AP1000 design include an annex building which contains the main control room; a fuel handling area where new fuel is received and spent fuel is stored; and a diesel generator building. Two cooling towers, three stormwater runoff ponds, and one electrical transmission 500 kV switchyard serving both units are also to be located near the generating units. Each LNP unit will be equipped with a recirculating cooling water system, including a cooling tower, that supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers. The cooling tower makeup water system supplies water to the cooling tower to replace water consumed as a result of evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The LNP's cooling water intake will be located on the CFBC. Cooling water will be conveyed to the LNP site via pipelines. The proposed corridor for the cooling water intake and wastewater discharge pipelines is approximately 13 miles long and 0.25 miles wide. The intake pipeline corridor extends south from the LNP site to the CFBC. The wastewater discharge corridor then turns westerly along the CFBC for six miles before turning south along the western side of an existing PEF transmission line and enters the CREC. As part of its pending application for an NPDES permit, PEF has proposed that LNP wastewater be released into the existing CREC discharge canal. Materials needed to construct the LNP will be delivered via: (1) U.S. Highway 19; and (2) a barge slip on the CFBC in conjunction with the heavy haul road for large components. The heavy haul road, to be used primarily during construction, will be co-located with the makeup and blowdown pipeline corridor south of the LNP site. Federally-Required Approvals The LNP is also subject to the construction and operation approval of the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, PEF has submitted a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) to the NRC. PEF submitted the COLA for the LNP on July 30, 2008. The NRC's review is in progress, and a decision on the application is expected in late 2011. PEF has also requested a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) from the NRC. The LWA request covers the installation of a perimeter diaphragm wall and preliminary foundation work for the two units, and related buildings that are not nuclear safety-related items. An NRC-certified design for the AP1000 allows an applicant for NRC COL approval to avoid readdressing matters that the NRC has already considered when reviewing an individual COLA that uses that standard design. This approach is expected to provide more predictability and reduce the NRC's licensing review process. For PEF, the advantages of a standard design include the ability to apply lessons learned from other projects being constructed ahead of the LNP, as well as improved performance in cost and scheduling. PEF is seeking certification under the PPSA prior to completion of the NRC approval because state site certification will allow PEF to begin early site preparation (such as access roads) and will allow PEF to proceed to acquire property rights within the electrical transmission corridors. The NRC regulates radiological effluents and monitoring at nuclear power plants. The state of Florida does not have regulations specifically applicable to regulation of spent nuclear fuel. Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plants are required to have radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMPs). Part of the REMP is an offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Bureau of Radiation Monitoring, performs much of the monitoring in the ODCM at nuclear power plants under an agreement with the NRC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b); Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-5. The FDOH also monitors groundwater wells in the vicinity of a nuclear plant for numerous parameters, including radiological releases. In addition to the separate NRC approvals, PEF has filed applications with DEP for [a federally-required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit under the federal Clean Air Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] permit under the federal Clean Water Act, and (in accordance with 403.506(3), Florida Statutes) a state-required environmental resource permit (ERP) from DEP for construction of a new barge slip on the CFBC. DEP issued the final PSD air construction permit on February 20, 2009. DEP has not taken final agency action on the pending NPDES permit application. Federally-required permits issued by the DEP under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not subject to the PPSA. The PPSA provides that federal permits are reviewed and issued separately by the DEP, but in parallel with the PPSA process to the extent possible. Upon issuance, these federal permits will be incorporated into the conditions of certification. The separate DEP-issued ERP will also be incorporated by reference into the final site certification. Water Use The LNP has two primary needs for water: (1) saltwater to cool the steam condensers (circulating water); and (2) freshwater for power generation and component cooling (service water). Freshwater will be drawn from the upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater will be supplied from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC. A circulating water system can be designed to use either freshwater or saltwater. Common design practice is to use the most abundant source; so saltwater was selected for the LNP. The service water system components for the LNP are established by Westinghouse for the AP1000 standard design and require freshwater. The service water system for the AP1000 reactor has been designed to provide an efficient means of cooling plant components with a relatively small demand for freshwater. Most of the water to be used at the LNP site will be needed for steam condenser cooling which will take place in two cooling towers; one for each unit. The source for cooling tower makeup water will be surface saline water withdrawn from the CFBC. Approximately 122 million gallons per day (mgd) will be withdrawn from the CFBC for cooling water needs. A new intake structure would be constructed on the canal bank at a site south of the LNP site and west of the Inglis Lock on the CFBC, approximately 6.5 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Saltwater will be pumped from the CFBC and directed into the cooling tower basin. The circulating water system is a closed-cycle cooling system and is the primary heat sink for the plant during normal operation. Circulating water pumps direct water to the steam condenser to cool the steam after it passes through the main turbines. The heated saltwater is then returned to the cooling towers where it is cooled by air flow and returned to the cooling tower basin. The LNP recirculating cooling water will be cooled by induced draft, counter-flow, mechanical cooling towers. For each unit's cooling tower, there are 44 cooling tower cells, grouped into two banks of 22 cells each. Each of the cooling tower cells will be approximately 75-feet tall. The total length of each 22-cell cooling tower is approximately 1,200 feet. The LNP will have a continuous need to utilize cooling water. Most of the water loss in the cooling towers is a result of evaporation of the water being cooled in the cooling towers. A small amount of circulating water is lost from the cooling towers as liquid droplets entrained in the exhaust air steam. This is known as "drift." When water evaporates from the cooling tower, minerals and solids are left behind. As more water evaporates, the concentration of these materials increases. This concentration is controlled by continuously releasing and replenishing some water from the tower. Accordingly, both saltwater and freshwater are continuously discharged from the plant to help maintain proper water chemistry. This continuous release of water is called "blowdown" and, as proposed in PEF's pending NPDES application, it will be discharged to the discharge canal for the CREC and then into the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III marine water. The LNP will require up to 1.58 mgd, annual average, of freshwater. This freshwater will be used for plant operations, fire suppression, potable water needs, and demineralized water needs. Groundwater will be withdrawn from four supply wells at the south end of the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. The AP1000 service water system requires freshwater for use in component cooling. The service water system provides cooling water for the nonsafety-related component cooling water heat exchangers. Demineralized water is processed to remove ionic impurities and dissolved oxygen and is used for plant operations that require pure water, primarily the feed water and condensate systems used in power production. When operational, the LNP site must be capable of supplying potable water to approximately 800 employees and visitors daily. Potable water will also be needed for onsite construction. The fire protection system will be capable of providing water to points throughout the plant where wet system fire suppression could be required. The fire suppression system is designed to supply water at a flow rate and pressure sufficient to satisfy the demand of automatic sprinkler systems and fire hoses for a minimum of 2 hours. Cooling Water Intake Structure The LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) will be located on the berm that forms the north side of the CFBC approximately 3 miles south of the LNP, downstream of the Inglis Lock. The CWIS will withdraw surface water into four intake pipelines (two for each nuclear unit) that will convey water to the cooling tower basins for use in the cooling towers. These 54-inch diameter pipelines will generally be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipelines will cross over the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel located north of the CFBC on an approximately 33-foot-wide utility bridge. For each of the LNP units, the CWIS will contain three 50 percent capacity makeup pumps, each with a design flow rate of 23,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Two pumps will provide normal cooling tower makeup flow requirements for each unit. The third spare pump will be in standby mode and automatically start if one of the operating pumps shuts down for any reason. A dual-flow traveling screen upstream of each makeup pump will screen floating and suspended materials in the CFBC water. The screen opening will be 3/8-inch. The screens will be sized to ensure that the through-screen water velocity is no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that could enter the pump bay. The velocity of the water in the intake bay upstream of the traveling screens (the approach velocity) will be about 0.25 fps. Upstream of the traveling screens will be trash racks (also referred to as bar racks). These are a series of steel bars (4 inches apart) to prevent large objects from entering the CWIS. Potential Impacts of Surface Water Intake Cooling water will be withdrawn via the CWIS from a section of the CFBC that extends approximately 7 miles from the Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. Operation of the Inglis Lock was discontinued in 1999; the lock separates Lake Rousseau (to the east) from this section of the CFBC. This section of the CFBC has a continuous opening to the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC bisects the Withlacoochee River, severing the original hydraulic connection between Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River. To maintain flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River which is north of the CFBC, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel and associated Inglis Lock Spillway were built adjacent to the Inglis Lock (north of the CFBC). Flows in the CFBC are primarily a result of tides coming in and out from the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, rainfall. Periodically, freshwater is released from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC via the Inglis Dam. Also, there is some groundwater seepage into the CFBC as well as minor leakage from the Inglis Lock. Residence time for water in the CFBC near the proposed CWIS is currently over 200 days; there is very little outflow. Waters in the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock vary in salinity seasonally, with tidal influences, and depending on freshwater releases from the Inglis Dam. On average, the salinity in the area of the CFBC where the intake structure is proposed to be located is approximately 10 parts per thousand (ppt). As the CFBC approaches the Gulf of Mexico, salinity increases, averaging over 20 ppt and as high as 30 ppt. The CFBC ranges from approximately 200-to-260 feet wide. There is vegetation along the banks, as well as riprap, the latter consisting of huge rocks to limit erosion. The upper end of this section of the CFBC has algal blooms during the summer and muddy, silty bottom conditions that limit biological activity. The CFBC does not have seagrass beds that serve as aquatic habitat, except downstream where it joins with the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC does not serve as significant habitat for endangered fish species, such as the Gulf Sturgeon or Smalltooth Sawfish. Although freshwater and saltwater species may use the CFBC occasionally, it does not serve as significant spawning habitat for any migratory, sport, or commercial fish species. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of certification, pre- operational monitoring and sampling in the CFBC will be used to identify any changes in the use of that canal by such fish species. With regard to the remnant section of the Withlacoochee River between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC (Old Withlacoochee River, or OWR), the biota in the middle and lower reaches of that waterbody currently show the effects of variable salinity levels; these areas are characterized by organisms typically found in marine conditions. The upper reach of the OWR has species normally found in freshwater systems. Aquatic species in the OWR are affected by periodic releases from the Inglis Dam. The LNP CWIS hydraulic zone of influence on the CFBC extends about 5 miles to the west down the approximately 7-mile long CFBC. The hydraulic zone of influence defines the point at which the flow of the CFBC would be affected by the CWIS, under static conditions. In its biological analysis, PEF assumed that potential intake impacts would extend beyond this hydraulic zone of influence. After installation and operation of the LNP CWIS, the dominant forces affecting flow conditions in the CFBC will continue to be primarily tidal activity and releases from Lake Rousseau. The CFBC will become more saline. However, installation and operation of the LNP CWIS will improve flow conditions in the CFBC by adding consistent and very slow upstream movement of about 122 mgd. The LNP CWIS will cause the saline-freshwater transition zone to move up the remnant channel of the OWR, south of the CFBC. The increased salinity is not expected to affect the small enclave of freshwater organisms living in that upper segment of the OWR. Potential adverse impacts from a CWIS include entrainment (when organisms smaller than the screen openings enter the cooling water) and impingement (when organisms larger than the screen openings become trapped on the screen). Potential impacts of entrainment and impingement will be minimized because the LNP CWIS will utilize a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system which will reduce the amount of cooling water required by approximately 90 percent; the through-screen velocity will be 0.5 fps or less; and the LNP will not disrupt thermal stratification in the CFBC. Under federal law, DEP will make the final determination of compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requirements in the NPDES permit. The LNP CWIS is not expected to pose a threat to threatened or endangered species or migratory, sport, or other fish species. Monitoring for fish species in the CFBC will be undertaken under the FWC's proposed conditions of certification to identify any actual impacts to such species and the need for any mitigation for such impacts. Locating the CWIS near the Inglis Lock on the CFBC will result in less entrainment and impingement impacts compared to potential locations closer to the mouth of the CFBC or in nearby off-shore waters. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a post-certification survey and monitoring plan for the CFBC and Withlacoochee River to assess actual impacts of the withdrawals for the LNP on these water bodies. If, after review of the annual reports required by these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a CFBC and/or Withlacoochee River mitigation plan to mitigate those impacts. As part of its pending NPDES permit application, PEF submitted a "316(b) Demonstration Study" to address compliance with intake standards applicable to the LNP CWIS. Final agency action on the NPDES permit application, including a determination of compliance with Section 316(b) regulations, has not been taken by DEP. Under 40 C.F.R., Subpart I, Sections 125.80-125.89, if pre- and post-operational monitoring demonstrates unacceptable adverse impacts associated with the CWIS, operational and technological improvements to the CWIS may be required. Under the proposed conditions of certification, the final NPDES permit for the LNP will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Operation of the CWIS is expected to have a negligible impact on saltwater intrusion in the area bounded to the south by the CFBC and to the north by the Lower Withlacoochee River. The waters of the CFBC are marine waters. There currently is stratification in the CFBC, with higher salinity along the bottom of the water column. The change in density of water in the CFBC as a result of the increased salinity due to the LNP's proposed water use in the CFBC is not expected to affect freshwater resources. The tide in the CFBC currently fluctuates 2-3 feet twice per day. The construction of the CFBC and the bisection of the Withlacoochee River have resulted in reduced freshwater flows in the lower portion of the Withlacoochee River north of the CFBC. There is no direct connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River (north of the CFBC). The flow in the By- pass Channel provides less freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River than historically flowed into the lower portion of the River. This has caused saltwater to move up the Lower Withlacoochee River, particularly during periods of low flow. SWFWMD has evaluated restoration of the River to its original condition, but has not advocated reconnection. Reconnection of the Withlacoochee River or downstream impoundment of the CFBC probably would not prevent the impacts of increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River during periods of low freshwater flow. Although no agency is currently pursuing a project of this type, DEP has proposed a condition of certification to address future public projects for the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of surface waters requiring modifications to the CFBC. Potential Impacts to Manatees Manatees use the Withlacoochee River and the CFBC year round, but primarily during the warmer months. The CFBC, including the area of the LNP intake, is not listed as critical habitat for manatees under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction activities in the CFBC can take place in a manner reasonably likely to avoid adverse impacts to manatees. The FWC has proposed conditions of certification designed to protect manatees from adverse impacts of in-water construction through monitoring and mitigative measures. Compliance with these conditions will minimize impacts to manatees. The operation of the LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is not likely to adversely impact manatees. The potential impacts of the LNP CWIS on manatees will be minimized by the system design and location. Additionally, DEP and FWC have proposed conditions of certification requiring PEF to submit a final CWIS plan for review by FWC prior to construction of the CWIS with regard to manatee safety issues. Potential impacts to manatees from barge traffic on the CFBC related to delivery of Project components and materials for the construction of the LNP is not expected to adversely impact manatees. FWC has proposed conditions of certification to protect manatees during in-water construction. Compliance with the proposed conditions of certification will minimize potential impacts to manatees. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals The LNP's proposed groundwater use meets all of the SWFWMD's water use criteria. To demonstrate that the proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with LNP operations will comply with the SWFWMD water use criteria, including not causing unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, PEF performed a groundwater modeling analysis using the SWFWMD's District-Wide Regulation Model 2 (DWRM2) groundwater flow model. The DWRM2 is an acceptable groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of groundwater withdrawals. The DWRM2 modeling demonstrated that the proposed groundwater withdrawals would not lower surficial aquifer levels to the point of causing unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, or interfere with existing legal users. Groundwater pumping for the LNP is not expected to adversely impact Lake Rousseau, the Withlacoochee River, or other streams or springs in the Project area. Groundwater withdrawals for the LNP are likewise not expected to induce saline water intrusion, cause the spread of pollutants in the aquifer, adversely impact any offsite land uses, cause adverse impacts to wetland systems, or adversely impact any other nearby uses of the aquifer system. To confirm the values used in the groundwater flow model supporting the application, proposed certification conditions require that an aquifer performance testing plan be submitted by PEF, approved by the SWFWMD, and implemented. If leakance and transmissivity values derived from actual onsite well tests differ more than 20 percent from values determined through earlier modeling, PEF is required to revise its groundwater model to incorporate the aquifer test results and undertake further modeling. Updated groundwater modeling results will be used to determine whether alternative water supplies or additional mitigation will need to be implemented. To help ensure that the proposed groundwater use does not cause unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, SWFWMD and DEP recommended that conditions be included in the site certification requiring an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the condition of surface waters and wetlands in areas that could potentially be affected by groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after groundwater withdrawals reach a quantity of 1.25 mgd on an annual average basis. Annual monitoring summaries will be submitted. If, after five years, this monitoring demonstrates that no adverse impacts of groundwater withdrawals are occurring or predicted, PEF may request that monitoring be discontinued. Groundwater withdrawals will be metered and reported to DEP and SWFWMD on a monthly basis. Proposed conditions of certification require periodic water quality sampling be performed on the withdrawn groundwater to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality. Proposed conditions also address ongoing monitoring and compliance by requiring a full compliance report every five years throughout the life of the LNP, to demonstrate continued reasonable assurance that the groundwater use is meeting all of the applicable substantive water use requirements set forth in SWFWMD rules. The SWFWMD has not established water reservations or minimum flows or levels for any waterbody in the vicinity of the LNP. Therefore, the use of water from the CFBC and from the ground will not violate any currently established water reservation or minimum flow or level. Fracture sets (also called solution channels) are small openings through which groundwater moves. Fracture sets are only an issue in groundwater flow if preferential flow paths develop near one of the solution channels. Preferential flow paths tend to develop near existing springs. There are no springs on the LNP site, and subsurface investigations did not reveal any evidence of solution channels under the site. PEF also proposes to withdraw groundwater as part of the dewatering needed for plant construction. PEF proposes to install an impervious diaphragm wall around and below the foundation excavations for each nuclear unit to minimize water flow into the construction site. It is anticipated that dewatering at each unit could last as much as two years. Additional construction dewatering will also be necessary in some locations for installation of the pipelines and other linear facilities. Naturally-occurring groundwater collected during dewatering and excavation activities will be directed into stormwater runoff ponds and allowed to filter back into the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Dewatering is expected to cause only a modest amount of drawdown of the surficial aquifer. Construction-related dewatering activities will be approved by DEP and SWFWMD on a post-certification basis after final construction designs are submitted. Potential Surface Water Discharge Impacts The LNP will have a combined wastewater discharge comprised of several wastewater streams. Blowdown from the cooling towers will comprise about 98 percent of the LNP wastewater. The blowdown will be combined with significantly smaller quantities of plant wastewaters, treated plant sanitary wastewater, and occasionally stormwater. LNP wastewaters consist of effluents from process equipment, floor drains, laboratory sample sinks, demineralized water treatment system effluent, and treated steam generator blowdown. Wastewaters will be processed before discharge. The treatment systems include oil separators (to separate oily wastes from the rest of the waste stream) and a wastewater retention basin (to settle out suspended particles). The combined LNP wastewater, as proposed by PEF in its pending NPDES permit application, will be piped to the CREC and released into the existing CREC discharge canal which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The cooling tower blowdown discharges from the LNP will include saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system and freshwater blowdown from the service water cooling system; the vast majority of this will be saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system. The normal 2-unit recirculating water blowdown rate is expected to be 57,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 81.4 mgd, and the maximum blowdown rate is expected to be about 59,000 gpm or 84.9 mgd. The 2-unit service water blowdown rate is expected to vary from about 130 gpm during normal operation, to a maximum of about 400 gpm. The CREC currently has two NPDES permits authorizing discharges to surface waters of the State. CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 are cooled with once-through cooling water from the CREC intake canal that is then discharged into the Gulf of Mexico via the existing CREC discharge canal. Once-through cooling water is cooling water that is released after condensing the steam, without being recycled in a cooling tower system. CREC Units 4 and 5 have cooling towers that receive make-up water from the CREC discharge canal and release blowdown into the discharge canal. The discharges for all five CREC units are released to the Gulf of Mexico through a single discharge canal at the CREC site. PEF has proposed to utilize the CREC discharge canal for the LNP discharge; however, the final location will be subject to approval as part of DEP's final agency action on PEF's pending application for an NPDES permit. The wastewater flow at the CREC is limited under the existing CREC NPDES permits to 1,898 mgd during the summer and 1,613 mgd during the winter. The expected day-to-day total wastewater flow from the LNP will be 83.4 mgd, with a conservative maximum total flow rate of 87.9 mgd. The proposed LNP discharge would be equivalent to 4-5 percent of the permitted discharge from the CREC. The design temperature of the LNP wastewater discharge is 89.1ºF, which is expected to be met more than 99.5 percent of the time. This LNP design temperature is cooler than the existing permitted temperature of the existing combined CREC discharge (96.5ºF). Even the expected worst case temperature of the LNP discharge (96.4ºF), will be cooler than the existing temperature limit applicable to CREC. With the addition of the LNP discharge, the CREC is expected to continue to meet its existing thermal permit limit. The addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to significantly change the existing area of thermal impact associated with existing CREC discharges. Evaluation of the Project wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to flora and fauna, including seagrasses and shellfish beds, will be minimized. PEF has committed to a condition of certification requiring the post-certification submittal of a surface water monitoring plan to DEP to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to seagrasses. The finding related to shellfish beds is supported by a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the DEP stating that "[r]eclassification of the shellfish harvesting areas will not be necessary if the Project is built as proposed." The LNP wastewater is projected to meet the limits defined under 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater discharge in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to surface water quality will be minimized. Adding the LNP discharge to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to have an adverse impact on manatees. The LNP discharge structure at the CREC is likewise not expected to cause adverse impacts to manatees that may be present in the CREC discharge canal. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other organisms in the Gulf of Mexico will be minimized. The discharge is not expected to have adverse impacts on endangered fish species. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a discharge monitoring plan to ensure that the addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge does not cause adverse impacts. If, after review of the annual reports required under these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a mitigation plan to address those impacts. DEP's final agency action on PEF's application for an NPDES permit for the LNP, if issued, will include final action on compliance with water quality standards and will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Surface Water Management System The LNP surface water management system consists of pipes and ditches that collect and convey stormwater from the plant area into onsite wet treatment ponds before discharge. Stormwater along the heavy haul road will be collected in roadside swales. The plant area will be raised approximately eight feet. Stormwater will drain from this area into three stormwater ponds. Any cross-flows from the plant site toward the raised areas will pass around the site through culverts or ditches. The stormwater ponds and swales are sized to treat stormwater releases to meet SWFWMD rules. In addition, all construction-related surface water management facilities will comply with SWFWMD's surface water management criteria. The design and proper construction and operation of the surface water management system will satisfy SWFWMD's water quantity and water quality criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D- 4.302. PEF has committed to a post-certification submittal of detailed stormwater design information to address floodplain impacts as required by section 4.7 ("Historic basin storage") of the SWFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (adopted in Rule 40D-4.091, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 62-330.200(3)(e)). Solid Waste Disposal There will be no onsite disposal of hazardous waste during construction of the LNP. All hazardous waste will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Contractors will be responsible for having detailed procedures in place to handle hazardous waste. During operation, hazardous waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. PEF has procedures in place for management and control of hazardous materials; such materials will be disposed of offsite through permitted facilities. All solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at a permitted offsite landfill. There will be no onsite disposal of solid waste. Non-nuclear solid waste generated during operation of the LNP will be disposed of offsite at a permitted landfill. A proposed condition of certification precludes processing or disposal of solid waste onsite. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts The LNP is a nuclear-fueled power generating facility that will use uranium dioxide pellets in fuel rods. The LNP will also use a relatively small amount of diesel fuel in its emergency diesel generators, ancillary generators, and fire pump engines. Therefore, the LNP will not emit the typical types and quantities of air pollutants from fossil-fueled power generation such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of air emissions at the LNP will include the two banks of mechanical draft cooling towers and diesel- fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines. Air pollutants that will be emitted during normal facility operation will be limited to particulate matter (PM), both more than and less than 10 microns in diameter, which will be emitted from the low profile cooling towers. There will be a small amount of air emissions from the diesel-fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines; however, these emissions are only expected to occur during the few hours per month when the engines are run for maintenance and testing purposes. There will be no other significant sources of air emissions from operation of the LNP. PM emissions from the draft cooling towers will occur as a result of the entrainment of a small amount of water, as small-diameter droplets, in the exhaust stream from the towers. Particulate matter, consisting of the naturally occurring dissolved solids that will be present in the cooling water, will be contained in these entrained droplets. The droplets and the associated suspended solid particulate matter are known as cooling tower "drift." The amount of cooling tower "drift" is controlled through the use of very high efficiency mist eliminators that will be in the cooling tower. The use of high efficiency mist eliminators on the LNP cooling towers is consistent with state and federal regulations that require the use of Best Available Control Technology to limit such air emissions. The LNP will be located in Levy County which is currently attaining all ambient air quality standards for all pollutants. The LNP will not have an adverse or discernible impact on ambient air quality at the LNP site, or at any location, for any regulated air pollutant. The LNP will not generate power by combusting any fuel. Therefore, there will be no measurable greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, during normal plant operation. The estimated CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating the same amount of electricity as the LNP is approximately 6.4 million tons per year. For comparison, the estimated CO2 emissions from the LNP, which result from periodic testing of the facility's diesel-powered emergency equipment, is only 618 tons/year. Visible plumes from the cooling towers will remain very close to the cooling towers (within approximately 300 feet) under most meteorological conditions. The occurrence of visible vapor plumes at offsite locations is expected to be infrequent. The operation of the cooling towers is expected to have no significant or adverse impacts due to ground level fogging on any roadway or at offsite locations during plant operation. The maximum predicted offsite solids deposition rate from operation of the LNP cooling towers is six pounds per acre per month immediately adjacent to the nearest LNP property boundary. This is below the de minimis adverse impact threshold of nine pounds per acre per month published by the NRC. The rate of deposition is predicted to decrease rapidly and significantly with increasing distance from the plant. Operation of the LNP cooling towers is not expected to cause discernible impacts on any natural resources, including surface waters or wetlands. Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation The noise limits applicable to the LNP site are set by the Levy County Code of Ordinances. The noise limits defined by the County ordinance for the area surrounding the LNP site are 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There are no other local, state, or federal noise regulations that apply to the plant. PEF conducted noise impact evaluations for construction and operation of the LNP. Ambient noise levels were measured at six locations around the LNP site. Noise levels were conservatively estimated by adding the composite average noise levels that would be generated by construction equipment during the loudest phases of construction. Equipment sound propagation factors were obtained from industry references. The noise model known as CADNA/A was used to predict noise levels at onsite and offsite locations, including the nearest residences for both construction and operation. The noise levels during construction activities and during normal maximum operation of the LNP plant site are projected to be below the Levy County noise limits for all hours at all offsite locations, including the locations of the nearest residences. Due to the large buffer surrounding the developed area of the site, and the relatively low noise levels associated with the LNP, there are not expected to be any significant or adverse noise impacts during construction or operation of the LNP. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology (Plant and Transmission Line Corridors) The proposed LNP site has been used for many decades for the production of pine. The clearing of native vegetation, furrowing, bedding, planting, and harvesting (primarily for pine) has altered the site from a natural Florida landscape into a monotypical landscape in both upland and wetland areas with reduced functional attributes. There are no open water bodies or streams on the LNP site. There are some flow-way connections between some of the wetlands, but they are not of the kind that will support long- term fish habitat or aquatic insect communities. Due to the silvicultural nature of the site and recent clearing, the ideal complement of biodiversity on the LNP site is no longer present. The predominant wildlife species are those that tolerate a mono-specific pine tree habitat, such as deer, turkey, and wild hogs. While pre-application surveys indicate that protected species occur at and in the vicinity of the LNP site, several of Florida's listed species are not likely to extensively use the LNP site. Impacts to State-listed and important wildlife species that have been documented or may occur on the LNP site and adjacent uplands will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results and needed measures to avoid and mitigate such impacts. Historically, the 3,105-acre LNP site was dominated by forested cypress wetland systems. However, over the last century or more, those have been harvested and allowed to re- grow, so that many of the wetlands are no longer dominated by cypress trees. Today, most of the forested wetland systems in the footprint of development have been cleared of trees. The anticipated maximum wetland impacts for the entire Project, including the impacts from associated facilities and electrical transmission lines, are estimated to be 765 acres. These impacts are estimated to be: 13.3 acres of open water; 638.4 acres of forested wetlands; and 113.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands. Approximately one-half of the wetland impacts are expected to occur on the LNP site and one-half are expected to occur offsite. The Project's 765-acre wetland impact is a conservative estimate, including long-term and short-term impacts that are the result of direct dredging and filling as well as temporary disturbance. It is likely that the actual impact will decrease as the routing of facilities is refined within the electrical transmission and other corridors and on the LNP site. Based on these anticipated wetland impacts and the functions being provided by these wetlands, PEF calculated the proposed maximum wetland functional loss for the LNP to be 410.9 functional units, as determined under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) contained in Rule Chapter 62-345. The UMAM scoring indicates that, on average, the wetlands being impacted have approximately one-half of the functional ecological value of an ideal wetland system. To comply with the applicable SWFWMD ERP rules under the PPSA process, PEF must offset the wetland impacts caused by the construction and operation of the LNP, associated transmission lines, roads, and pipelines. PEF submitted to DEP a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines (WMP). A primary value of the WMP is an overall increase in ecological function provided across several thousand acres in a regionally-significant location. This regional landscape-level ecosystem benefit substantially augments the value of local-scale mitigation activities. The proposed mitigation for the LNP will potentially achieve greater offset of wetland impacts from a regional perspective and is expected to provide significant long-term ecosystem benefit. The WMP identifies a series of possible scenarios from which the appropriate and ultimate mitigation can be derived. Because impacts are still being refined as corridors are narrowed into actual routes, the information in the WMP is designed to demonstrate that there is available and desirable mitigation to affect the final degree of wetlands impacts, once calculated. The comprehensive mitigation plan, as described in the WMP, is an acceptable alternative to traditional "in-basin" mitigation. DEP conceptually approved this WMP with the understanding that more detailed information will be submitted when final routes are established and actual wetland impacts are known. The amount of mitigation PEF will undertake will be based on the amount of wetlands actually impacted. A condition of certification has been included to require submittal of refinements to the mitigation plan for DEP's approval following final certification. PEF looked at ways to reduce and eliminate wetland impacts at several levels, including site selection, routing of roadways, and commitments through discussions with agencies to further reduce impacts as transmission line routes are selected within the transmission corridors. The Project is designed to comply with SWFWMD ERP criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 4.302. There are not expected to be unacceptable secondary wetlands impacts due to the construction of the Project. Under SWFWMD rules, as long as a disturbance is at least 25 feet from a wetland, secondary impacts are deemed avoided. For the LNP site, unimpacted wetlands are dozens to thousands of feet away from Project development. Further, the rural and remote location of the facility, along with the high level of security associated with a nuclear facility (i.e., fencing, buffering, and reduced public access) makes causally-connected offsite development unlikely (with regard to the LNP site). The LNP will comply with the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The conceptual WMP is designed to be regionally significant and provides ecological benefits beyond the calculated UMAM functional value increase. For example, the WMP has the potential to connect the Goethe State Forest to the historic floodplain of the Withlacoochee River, which will maintain and enhance a large natural wildlife corridor. The LNP is not anticipated to adversely affect the value or functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species, including any aquatic and wetland species, or other related-water resources. There are no documented listed aquatic or wetland-dependent species that might be adversely affected by construction at the plant site. Impacts to wetland dependent species will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results. PEF has addressed all of the wildlife issues subject to the site certification process. The FWC has recommended certification, subject to conditions related to surveying of development areas and appropriate buffers for species prior to clearing, construction, and development to ensure appropriate relocation or mitigation opportunities and implementation of management activities to ensure the long-term well-being of the species. Project wetlands impacts are not expected to adversely affect the quality of receiving waters with respect to the applicable water quality criteria for those receiving waters, or adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. Through implementation of the WMP, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by wetlands. Transportation The primary roadways in the vicinity of the LNP are U.S. Highway 19 (U.S. 19) and County Road 40 (C.R. 40). U.S. Highway 19 is a Florida DOT-maintained, four-lane arterial roadway west of the Project site. C.R. 40 is a Levy County- maintained, two-lane roadway approximately five miles to the south of the plant site. The Levy County Comprehensive Plan has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roadways within Levy County. While LOS standards do not apply to temporary construction traffic, PEF evaluated the impacts of both LNP construction and operation traffic on adjacent roadways. This evaluation shows that future traffic levels with the addition of the Project construction and operation traffic are projected to be less than one-half the adopted LOS standards for U.S. 19 and C.R. 40. Roadway links during construction and operation of the LNP are projected to operate within adopted LOS standards. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits There is an approximate population of 4,700 persons within a five-mile radius of the LNP site. This equates to a population density of approximately 60 people per square mile. The closest towns to the LNP site are Inglis and Yankeetown, which are located approximately 4.1 miles and 8.0 miles southwest of the LNP site, respectively. The total cost of the LNP, including the proposed electrical transmission lines, is approximately $17 billion. The LNP construction workforce is expected to peak at approximately 3,300 workers in 2014. The operation workforce will consist of approximately 800 employees, with an additional 800 workers needed every 18 months for between 20 and 30 days to refuel the facility. PEF sees retention rate benefits when hiring locally and would like to employ the local workforce for construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has programs in place to train local residents to become part of the future workforce for the LNP. These programs focus on both construction and operation personnel and include programs or potential programs at Bronson High School, Chiefland High School, Dixie County High School, the Withlacoochee Technical Institute, and Santa Fe Community College. PEF is also working in partnership with Dunnellon High School (which draws students from Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties) on a Power Academy to prepare students for the construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has a successful nuclear engineering program partnership with the University of Florida to train both nuclear engineers and plant operators, including the use of a first-of-its-kind digital training simulator. PEF has provided grants to modernize the nuclear facilities at the University of Florida. In 2005, there were approximately 395,000 workers in the region (defined as a 50-mile radius around the LNP, including Levy, Citrus, Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Sumter Counties). Specific to construction of a nuclear power plant, there were 4,900 heavy construction workers in the region in 2006. It is probable that more of these 4,900 workers will be available due to rising unemployment rates across the region. Unemployment rates for the three counties immediately surrounding the LNP site have risen from around four percent in 2005 to eight percent in late 2008. There is sufficient housing available in the region to accommodate both LNP construction and operation employees. Construction of the LNP is not expected to significantly increase the number of pupils in the surrounding school systems. The school systems in the region of the LNP will be able to accommodate the increased number of pupils as a result of LNP operations workers and their families. Public services and facilities in the region of the LNP are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. Construction of the LNP will have little, if any, impact on recreational facilities and uses in the area around the LNP site in Levy and Citrus Counties. During LNP operation, recreational facilities and uses will not be impacted. There are no officially-designated landmarks within five miles of the LNP site. The peak construction workforce in 2014 will result in approximately $152 million in annual earnings. Construction earnings in other years will also be substantial. In addition to jobs and earnings, the construction of the LNP will contribute an estimated $263 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. The direct social and economic impacts of the LNP operation are expected to include approximately 800 direct jobs; 1,100 indirect or induced jobs; and associated increases in sales, property tax, and output revenues. These operations workers are expected to generate over $53 million in annual payroll. The LNP overall is expected to contribute nearly $521 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. Local property tax collections will begin when Unit 1 is brought on-line, resulting in approximately $63 million in tax revenue to Levy County in the first year of operation. Annual property tax collections in Levy County of approximately $18 million are projected to increase by $104 million once both LNP units are operational. Archaeological and Historic Sites Construction and operation of the LNP will not adversely impact archaeologically significant sites or historic standing structures. The Project complies with all federal and state standards for identification and protection of archaeological sites. Field surveys of the plant site, the corridor extending south to the CFBC, and the pipeline corridor to the CREC did not reveal any archaeological sites or historic standing structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with PEF's survey methodology and the determination that no sites are NRHP- eligible. PEF has guidelines designed to protect historic sites, landmarks, artifacts, and archaeological sites in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The Florida SHPO has concurred with PEF's approach to protect inadvertent discoveries during land-disturbing activities. Land Use PEF filed applications with Levy County for a comprehensive plan amendment and special exception zoning approval for the LNP. Those applications were approved and are now final. The majority of the existing land use on the LNP site is silviculture, and the property is unimproved. The primary existing land use of the property to the south of the LNP, where the heavy haul road, water pipelines, and other facilities will be located, is likewise silviculture and otherwise unimproved. The properties along the blowdown pipeline corridor to the CREC are primarily vacant and largely unimproved. The nearest residence to the LNP is approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the power block generating facilities, measured from the edge of the nearest power block to the residence. The electrical generating facilities are designed with a minimum 1,000-foot setback from the property line of any property not under the control of PEF. A natural 100-foot vegetative buffer is required to be maintained around the LNP's perimeter where the adjacent property is not under PEF's control. Given the setbacks, the perimeter vegetation, and the 250-foot maximum height limitation under Levy County's special exception for the LNP, the physical structures at the LNP site will not be visible from surrounding properties at ground level. The location of the LNP is consistent with the existing and future land uses surrounding the site. The cooling water blowdown pipelines are located to have the least impact on the existing land uses in the area. The LNP will have little impact on land uses in the vicinity. The LNP is consistent with the Levy County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations (LDRs), the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, and the State Comprehensive Plan contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Electrical Transmission Lines Project Description Generally, the purpose of electrical transmission lines is to transmit large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. Transmission lines operate at voltages above 69 kilovolts (kV). Bulk power, generally operating at 230-kV or 500-kV, is transferred from the generating plant to the substation. At the substation, the voltage of the electricity is changed through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or distribution directly to customers. PEF is seeking certification of nine proposed corridors for transmission lines associated with the LNP. A proposed corridor is associated with each of the proposed transmission lines identified in Findings of Fact 182-189. All of the proposed transmission lines will directly support the construction and operation of the LNP. Corridor Selection Methodology PEF established a multi-disciplinary team to identify a corridor for each of the proposed transmission lines. The role of this team was to select a proposed corridor for certification for each line based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multi-disciplinary team was composed of experts in transmission line design, land use planning, system planning, real estate acquisition, corporate communications, and environmental disciplines as they relate to transmission lines. The multi-disciplinary team engaged in four major steps in this process. The first was to establish and define a project study area for each transmission line. The second step was to conduct regional screening and mapping. The third step was to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The fourth step was to select the proposed corridors and identify the boundaries of those corridors. Data collection was performed in connection with this effort from the databases of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and organizations, as well as from the public in a series of conferences and open houses described in Findings of Fact 8-11. A number of field studies, internal meetings, and individual and small group meetings were held with members of the public as a part of the process. In defining the project study area for each transmission line, the multi-disciplinary team considered the starting and ending points for the lines and other linear facilities in these areas. Within each study area, the multi-disciplinary team gathered regional screening 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 areas, such as various environmental and land use features, existing infrastructure, archeological and historical sites, roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and similar features. The multi-disciplinary team evaluated each corridor using quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria. Relative weights for each quantitative criterion were developed and validated with input from agency representatives and the public during the public outreach portion of the corridor selection process. The weights were applied to the quantitative values for the criteria for each candidate corridor segment and the scores were tabulated for all candidate corridors. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on quantitative weighted scores. The high-ranking candidate corridors were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as the types of wetlands and vegetation present, safety, constructability considerations, and other similar considerations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the high-ranking candidate corridors, the multi-disciplinary team ultimately chose the nine proposed corridors. Once the proposed corridors were selected, the multi-disciplinary team refined the boundaries of each of the PEF proposed corridors. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths by narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints where practicable or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Transmission Line Design A transmission line generally consists of a steel or concrete structure, the conductor, which is attached to the structure by an insulator, and overhead groundwires used for lightning protection and communications for the protection and control systems located in the substation. Access roads and structure pads are also associated with transmission lines. The Project’s 230-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be constructed using single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with braced line post or V-string insulators. The braced line post arrangement is a compressed construction design which minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed. The V-string insulator design allows longer span lengths due to the increased strength of this assembly. Typical heights will range from 80 to 145 feet for the 230-kV structures and 60 to 90 feet for the 69-kV structures. The 500-kV transmission lines will be constructed using tubular steel H-frame or monopole structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with V-string insulators which provide the necessary strength and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed. Structure heights will range from 110 to 195 feet. The span length between structures and the pole height will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, waterbodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. The typical spans between structures supporting 230- kV transmission lines will range from approximately 500 to 700 feet for the braced line post structures and 700 to 1,400 feet for the V-string structures. The typical spans between structures supporting 69-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 250 to 600 feet. The typical spans between structures supporting 500-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary. When new roads are required, they will typically be 18 feet wide and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. Generally, the existing ground will be leveled, a geotextile fabric will be installed, and compacted sand and gravel will be added to arrive at the desired road elevation. Culverts will be installed as required to maintain preconstruction waterflows. Structure pads will typically be 70 feet wide and 100 feet long and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. The size of the structure pads will vary depending upon the heights of the structures supported and other site-specific factors. The designs for these access roads and structure pads have been used by PEF in the past and have been previously approved in Florida. Design Standards The transmission lines will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards. These include the National Electrical Safety Code, the standards of the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, DEP's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, applicable local government requirements such as noise ordinances, and the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual. PEF's own internal design standards incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Transmission Line Construction PEF will work with the regulatory agencies and landowners to determine where the rights-of-way, transmission structures, access roads, and structure pads should be located. As rights-of-way are being selected, they will be surveyed to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests. After the right-of-way is established within the certified corridor, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the right-of-way. Where the proposed right-of-way is in uplands, the right-of-way clearing for the project will consist of vegetation and tree removal as necessary. Where the proposed right-of-way is in wetlands, vegetation will be cleared utilizing restrictive clearing techniques as necessary for specific sites. Restrictive wetlands clearing will be done by hand, with chainsaws or low ground-pressure shear or rotary machines, to reduce soil compaction and damage to vegetation. The cut material will be removed from the right-of-way utilizing either low ground-pressure equipment or temporary construction mats. Care will be taken to minimize rutting and disturbance of root mat. After the right-of-way is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Existing access roads and structure pads will be used whenever practicable. Where a transmission line will be constructed adjacent to an existing transmission right-of-way, improvements to the associated access roads and paths may be made. Where adequate access roads or structure pads do not exist, new roads and pads will be constructed. The next phase of construction will involve the erection of the structures. All structures will be supported with engineered foundations. Tangent structure foundations will normally consist of either direct buried structures with concrete backfill or reinforced-concrete drilled piers. Structures may also utilize guys and anchors at angle and deadend structures to help support the load. Transmission structures are generally delivered to the site using semi-trucks with open trailers and are assembled onsite as close as possible to the foundation. Typically, the structures are framed with the structure arms and insulator assemblies while lying on the ground. During the assembly process, poles are maneuvered into place using cranes and other lifting equipment to facilitate connections. Once assembled, a crane is used to lift the structures for final placement on the foundation. After the structures are erected, conductor installation will commence. The process of installing conductors involves stringing a pilot line into each structure stringing block to form a continuous connection between stringing end points. This pilot line is then used to pull the conductor into position. The conductor is then tensioned to design specifications, transferred to the support clamp, and clipped into position. The operation is performed on all overhead ground wires and conductors. Typical equipment used in the conductor installation operation includes bucket trucks, wire pulling equipment, guard structures, wire reels, trailers, tensioners, and support vehicles. The final stage of construction will be right-of-way restoration which includes removal of all construction equipment and supplies, grading the right-of-way if needed, and planting or seeding of the disturbed area if needed. During all stages of construction, PEF will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with DOT regulations. Sedimentation management techniques, including turbidity screens, temporary culverts, silt fences or staked hay bales, and the seeding or mulching of side slopes, will be utilized to minimize potential impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Corridor Descriptions The LNP will add approximately 185 miles of new 69- kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV transmission lines to be placed within nine proposed corridors. The proposed corridors provide significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provides the opportunity to reduce costs, the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridors varies along the routes to provide flexibility within the corridors to avoid impacts to existing developments, large wetland areas, and other features. After certification, and following the selection of rights-of- way, the boundaries of the corridors will be reduced to those of rights-of-way. The first proposed corridor is associated with the Citrus 1 and 2 lines. The Citrus lines are also referred to as the "LPC" transmission lines and the proposed corridor is referred to as the LPC corridor. The Citrus lines are two 500- kV transmission lines that will connect the LNP to the proposed Citrus Substation, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Citrus 1 and 2 lines will be located in Levy and Citrus Counties. This proposed corridor is approximately seven miles long and one mile wide. The LPC Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LPC Corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Crystal River 500-kV lines, the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the LPC Corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Crystal River lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line at some locations. The LPC corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island (which is wedged between the LWR and the CFBC), and will terminate at the proposed Citrus Substation located just north of PEF's existing Crystal River Central Florida transmission line in Citrus County. The second proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River line, which is also referred to as the "LCR" transmission line and the corridor is referred to as the LCR Corridor. The Crystal River line is a 500-kV transmission line that connects the LNP to the existing CREC switchyard in Citrus County. The Crystal River line will be located within Levy and Citrus Counties. The LCR Corridor is approximately 14 miles long and one mile wide. It begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LCR corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 500-kV lines, and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line in some locations. The LCR Corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and will enter the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At this point, the LCR Corridor turns west and follows the general alignment of the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida Transmission right-of-way into the CREC where it terminates at the CREC 500-kV switchyard. The third proposed corridor is associated with the Sumter line, which is also referred to as the "LCFS" transmission line. This corridor is referred to as the LCFS Corridor. The Sumter line is a 500-kV transmission line that will connect the LNP to the proposed Central Florida South Substation in Lake and Sumter Counties, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Sumter line will be located in Levy, Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The LCFS Corridor is approximately 59 miles long and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile wide. For most of its length, the 500-kV LCFS Corridor is collocated with the existing PEF transmission lines, except in the vicinity of the Central Florida South Substation, where it is collocated with the Florida Turnpike. The LCFS Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. It will be collocated with the proposed Citrus 1 & 2 and Crystal River 500-kV lines and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line. The LCFS Corridor crosses C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and continues south until reaching the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At that point, the LCFS Corridor turns east and follows the existing transmission line right-of-way through Citrus and Marion Counties for approximately 45 miles. The corridor turns southeast crossing into Sumter County and crosses S.R. 44 and I-75. The remaining five miles of the LCFS Corridor follows the general alignment of the Florida Turnpike to the southeast and terminates in the area of the proposed Central Florida Substation near Wildwood. The fourth proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River East 1 & 2 lines, which are also called the "CCRE" transmission lines. This is the CCRE Corridor. The Crystal River East lines are two 230-kV transmission lines that will connect the proposed Citrus Substation to the existing Crystal River East Substation in Citrus County. The lines will be located entirely within Citrus County. The CCRE Corridor is approximately 2.7 miles in length and one mile wide. The west end of the north boundary of the corridor is approximately one- half mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east approximately one-half mile north of West Dunnellon Road (CR-488). The west end of the south boundary of the corridor starts approximately 1 mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east along the northern boundary of the existing PEF transmission right-of-way. At a point approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. 19, the corridor shifts south approximately one-half mile and continues east for another mile. The corridor also includes five existing 115-kV, 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines and the Crystal River East Substation. The fifth and sixth proposed corridors are associated with the Levy North and South lines, which are also referred to as the "IS" and "IO" transmission lines. The Levy North and South lines are 69-kV transmission lines required to supply power for the construction and administration of the LNP. These lines will be located entirely within Levy County, and are mostly located on property owned by PEF in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP. The IS Corridor is approximately 373 feet in length and 400 feet wide. The IO Corridor is approximately 4.5 miles in length and one mile wide. The IO Corridor will begin at the south boundary of the LNP site and extend south to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line located south of C.R. 40 in Levy County. The IS Corridor will begin at the west boundary of the LNP site and extend west to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line that is located parallel to and east of U.S. 19 in Levy County. The seventh proposed corridor is associated with the Brookridge line, which is also referred to as the "CB" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the CB Corridor. The Brookridge line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing CREC to the existing Brookridge Substation in Hernando County. The Brookridge line will be located in Citrus and Hernando Counties. The overall length of the CB corridor is approximately 38 miles and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile. The corridor begins at the CREC switchyard and proceeds east towards the existing Crystal River East Substation then southeast to S.R. 44. The corridor collocates with existing transmission line rights-of- way. At S.R. 44, the corridor turns south, following the existing PEF 115-kV transmission right-of-way. Approximately one mile south of Centralia Road, the corridor turns east and ends at the existing Brookridge Substation. The eighth proposed corridor is associated with the Brooksville West line, which is also called the "BBW" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the BBW Corridor. The Brooksville west line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Brookridge Substation to the existing Brooksville West Substation in Hernando County. This line will be located entirely within Hernando County. The overall length of the BBW Corridor is approximately three miles and one-half mile wide. The BBW Corridor exits the Brookridge Substation, collocated with PEF's existing 500/230/115-kV transmission line right-of-way, and travels along Sunshine Grove Road to the south. It terminates at the Brooksville West Substation. The ninth and final proposed corridor is associated with the Kathleen line, which is also called the "PHP" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the PHP Corridor. The Kathleen line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Kathleen Substation in Polk County to the existing Lake Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. The Kathleen line will be located in Polk, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The overall length of the PHP Corridor is approximately 50 miles, and it ranges in width from approximately 300 feet to 1000 feet. The corridor begins at the Kathleen Substation and travels west. It crosses U.S. 98 and turns south along the existing transmission line right-of-way to the Griffin Substation. At the Griffin Substation, the corridor turns west paralleling C.R. 582. The corridor crosses U.S. 301 and turns north and then west and crosses I-75, continuing northwest and following the existing transmission right-of-way, and then crosses I-275 and the Veteran's Expressway to the Lake Tarpon Substation. No alternate corridors were proposed for any of the nine proposed transmission line corridors. For each PEF- proposed transmission line corridor, the proposed corridor is the only corridor for the respective line that is proper for certification in this proceeding. For each of the proposed corridors, engineering features of interest, natural resource features, and land use features have been identified and depicted on maps, aerial images, and photographs, which have been utilized in the analysis of the corridors. Operational Safeguards The operational safeguards for each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Each transmission line will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including: the National Electric Safety Code; the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; the American National Standards Institute; applicable local government requirements; the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide; and PEF's internal design standards, which incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the applicable standards which regulate the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements has been calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements contained in DEP's Rule 62- 814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are within the values set forth in the rule. The calculations were performed in accordance with the rule requirements, using the maximum voltage and current for each configuration. Operation of any of these transmission lines at maximum voltage and current is not a likely condition. At normal operating levels of voltage and current, the electric fields produced by the transmission lines will be less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions, and the magnetic fields produced will be about 50 percent less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions. The levels of electric and magnetic fields at the edge of the rights-of-way associated with the transmission lines are similar to levels that are experienced by exposure to common household appliances. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. This is known as corona. During periods of fair weather, particulate matter can collect on the conductor causing low levels of audible noise. During rain events, the particles are washed off and replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that can result in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary and masked by the sound of rain falling on vegetation and other surfaces, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise have been calculated using an industry standard software program known as the Bonneville Power Administration Corona Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for each of the transmission lines demonstrate that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way will be less than the noise levels from most rainfall events or conversational speech at a distance of five feet. The calculated noise levels are expected to comply with all applicable noise ordinances. The operation of the proposed transmission lines is expected to cause minimal interference with radio and television reception in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Radio and television interference can be produced by corona on transmission line conductors or as a result of faulty equipment. Based upon the studies that have been performed, it is not expected that significant interference will occur. Beginning on July 12, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has directed all television station operators to convert their transmissions to digital format. Digital signals are unaffected by electric fields or weather disturbances. In the event any homeowner or business experiences abnormal interference as a result of the transmission lines, PEF will investigate the complaints and mitigate impacts appropriately. Part of the BBW Corridor has an existing natural gas pipeline and a proposed additional natural gas pipeline that will be operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. Safety concerns will be addressed in a licensing agreement allowing the pipeline company to utilize the right-of-way. Such collocation is common throughout Florida. The licensing agreement will require that the pipeline company comply with all applicable safety requirements for pipeline operation and will require that the pipeline design be reviewed by an independent engineering company to ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated given the constraints of the design and the proximity of transmission lines. This will ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated near the transmission lines and the electric current. Compliance with Nonprocedural Standards of Agencies The construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed corridors is expected to comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The parties have agreed that the conditions of certification found in DEP Exhibit 1 are the applicable nonprocedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission lines. PEF has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission lines in the proposed corridors in compliance with the conditions of certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of these transmission lines. Consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations There are a number of different land uses within the nine proposed corridors ranging from open lands, recreational lands, mining and agricultural lands, public and conservation lands, commercial uses, and residential. The construction of the transmission lines in the respective proposed corridors is not expected to impact the existing land uses or change those land uses. The location of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors is appropriate from a land use perspective. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the respective corridors are compatible with all types of existing land uses occurring in the vicinity of those corridors. Each of the proposed transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridors consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. After certification of the LNP, each proposed transmission line will be located and constructed established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after certification of the respective corridors. Construction of transmission lines on such established rights-of-way is excepted from the definition of "development" contained in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. To the extent that comprehensive plans or land development regulations of the local governments crossed by the transmission lines include provisions that are applicable to non-development activities, the transmission lines in each of the designated corridors will be consistent and in compliance with those requirements. Meet Electrical Energy Needs of the State In an Orderly, Timely and Reliable Fashion Each proposed transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The anticipated schedule for the transmission line portion of the Project calls for the permitting, licensing and engineering activities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to be carried out such that the transmission lines are constructed and operating in 2015 in advance of certain construction and start-up activities for LNP Unit 1. The proposed corridors maximize collocation opportunities for the transmission lines, enabling the collocated transmission lines to be constructed in a more timely and efficient manner. PEF will make all practicable efforts to minimize the impacts to traffic from the proposed transmission lines. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to facilitate the orderly construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors. Reasonable Balance Between the Need and the Impacts Each of the transmission lines is essential to meet the need identified by the PSC. PEF has a long history of reliably constructing, operating, and maintaining similar transmission lines throughout Florida. Each of the transmission lines is designed to comply with stringent reliability standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will meet the need identified by the PSC. The PSC determined that there is a reliability need for additional base-load capacity by 2016. Levy Units 1 and 2 will add 2200 MW of capacity, and new transmission lines are necessary to accommodate this capacity on the electrical power system. The required transmission facilities include those necessary to connect the LNP to PEF's existing grid and to reliably integrate the additional capacity into the existing transmission system. PEF cannot meet the need identified by the PSC without these proposed transmission lines. PEF's proposed corridors were chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts on the environment. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the designated corridor with minimal adverse environmental impacts. The corridor selection process involved regional screening to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints. Each corridor maximizes utilization of previously disturbed areas, where possible. The corridor width has been selected for each corridor to provide flexibility for selection of the final right-of-way to provide the ability to avoid ecological resources within the corridor to the extent practicable. No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the transmission lines. Each of the transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal, if any, adverse impact to water quality. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to fish and wildlife, including protected animal species. The presence of protected animal species was an important consideration during the corridor selection process, and each corridor avoids areas with known concentrations of protected species occurrences to the extent practicable. The agreed-upon conditions of certification require that preconstruction surveys be conducted, and the results will be submitted to the FWC for analysis. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be required. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to water resources, including wetlands. Water resources, including wetlands, were an important consideration during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Structures will not be constructed in major water bodies. The spans between structures will be varied to avoid wetland areas and other sensitive areas, where practicable. Herbaceous wetland communities, including marsh and wet prairie wetlands, can continue to grow underneath the proposed transmission lines. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to ensure that impacts to water bodies and other water resources are minimized. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impacts to other natural resources, including protected plant species and wildlife habitat. The presence of protected plant species and wildlife habitat were important considerations during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of each of the corridors with collocation opportunities has been altered from its natural state for construction and maintenance of the linear facility already there. This will minimize potential impacts. Minimize Adverse Effects Using Reasonable and Available Methods PEF will use reasonable and available methods during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors to minimize adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the designated corridors will comply with the limits for electric and magnetic fields established by DEP in Rule Chapter 62-814 and by the National Electric Safety Code and related standards. In the corridor selection process, collocation opportunities were considered to be a significant criterion, and the corridors were chosen in a way that maximizes collocation with existing linear facilities. This is advantageous because existing linear facilities often provide existing access, and collocation can minimize the need for new access roads and structure pads and the need for new clearing, generally minimizing impacts. PEF will avoid wetlands and water bodies to the extent practicable by varying the length of the spans between structures. PEF will use restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands, removing vegetation selectively. In cases in which fill is required, PEF will install culverts to maintain water movement. PEF will allow certain vegetation to re-grow, or re- vegetate, in the rights-of-way of the transmission lines following construction, which will maintain suitable habitat for certain listed species. Wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will be appropriately mitigated. Prior to final rights-of-way determination and the beginning clearing in the rights-of-way for the transmission lines, surveys for protected plant and animal species will be conducted to verify their presence or absence in the proposed transmission line right-of-way for each of the lines. In the event that protected plants or animals cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to relocate the individuals in consultation with the FWC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or to provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with the conditions of certification. PEF has agreed to comply with the conditions of certification in the construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines. The conditions require measures to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including impacts to the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and Protect the Broad Interest of the Public The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will serve and protect the broad interests of the public. The public's interest is served through the provision of safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service. The transmission lines are essential for providing that service. The public outreach program carried out by PEF provided the public with an avenue to voice their concerns. Concerns expressed were considered in the selection process. The corridor selection process maximized collocation opportunities for the selection of each of the corridors, where practicable. By following existing linear features where possible, the corridors and the ultimate rights-of-way can conform to existing development patterns and minimize intrusions into surrounding areas. Collocation reduces costs and impacts. The existing land uses found within the corridors are compatible with each of the proposed transmission lines in part because the corridors are collocated with linear facilities to the extent feasible. The transmission lines that are proposed can coexist with the types of development that are found along each of the corridors. As a result of the process utilized by the multidisciplinary team, the corridors minimize the number of homes that may be affected and avoid public and conservation lands to the maximum degree practicable. The transmission lines will minimize the impacts on cultural and historical resources by avoiding those areas where practicable and by performing a preconstruction survey in consultation with DEP and the Division of Historical Resources to determine the appropriate action should such resources be found. Disruption to traffic during the construction of each of the transmission lines is expected to be minor. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to ensure minimization of traffic impacts. Radio and television interference as a result of the operation of the transmission lines will be minimal, and any impacts will be addressed by PEF. The expected noise levels from the transmission lines will be similar to the noise levels resulting from rainfall events and conversation at five feet. The calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable noise ordinances and requirements. The electric and magnetic fields produced by the transmission lines will comply with the applicable standards established by the DEP. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Following the withdrawal of the other intervenors in this proceeding, SACE was the only remaining party opposing certification of the Project. In the prehearing stipulation of the parties, SACE appears to raise five basic issues: (a) there must be express conditions in the agency reports to address impacts to wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and necessary mitigation should the Project not be completed; (b) adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources; (c) business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment"; (d) risks to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation; and (e) agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. SACE did not offer the testimony of any witnesses or present any evidence in this proceeding on these or any other issues. With regard to SACE's first issue, SACE has failed to identify which of the reviewing agencies neglected to propose appropriate conditions or what additional conditions are necessary. In any event, the record shows that DEP, FWC, and SWFWMD all proposed extensive conditions in their agency reports related to protection of wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and/or mitigation of Project-related impacts. With regard to wetlands mitigation, if the Project is not completed, PEF will perform mitigation necessary to compensate for wetlands actually impacted. See Finding of Fact 126. SACE's second contention is that the Project will cause adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources. As detailed in Findings of Fact 73, 115-131, 133-134, PEF has presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands or to water resources that are not fully offset by mitigation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Further, as indicated in Findings of Fact 124-126, 130, and 134, PEF has proposed a comprehensive wetlands mitigation plan that will offset any adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the construction of the LNP. SACE did not present any evidence that this mitigation plan, which has been conceptually approved by the DEP, is inadequate to protect wetlands or meet regulatory requirements. SACE's third contention is related to business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment." These matters are not relevant under the PPSA criteria, Section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes, but are instead addressed by the PSC. A petition for a determination of need for a new nuclear plant must include a cost estimate, base revenue requirements, and information related to joint ownership discussions. See § 403.519(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The PSC has already determined that the Project is needed, specifically finding that "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost." Under Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes, the PSC is the "sole forum" for a determination of need. Reconsideration of factors already considered by the PSC in this proceeding is improper. Further, the record does not support SACE's contention regarding alleged business risks. PEF presented uncontroverted evidence that LNP Units 1 and 2 are on schedule to be in service in the 2016/2017 timeframe and that procurement activities have begun. See Finding of Fact 21. SACE's fourth issue relates to adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. As detailed in Findings of Fact 51, 56, 61, 62, 69–72, 88–92, and 131-133, PEF presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, or vegetation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Finally, SACE contends that the agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. Again, SACE has failed to identify which agency reports failed to address these alleged risks. SACE likewise has not identified any specific regulatory requirement for such evaluations of environmental risks beyond the evaluations provided by the agencies. The record shows that DEP, FWC, SWFWMD, and Levy County all addressed risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and/or vegetation in their agency reports and proposed conditions of certification related thereto. Public Comment and Public Testimony Sworn oral public testimony was received from approximately 69 individuals and unsworn public comment was received from approximately 16 individuals during the portion of the final hearing devoted to that purpose. Many of the individuals who provided public testimony also submitted written comments. Three written comments were received from members of the public who did not attend one of the public comment sessions. Thirty hours were devoted to allowing members of the public to comment on the Project over six separate sessions. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. Several members of the public commented on the benefits of nuclear power in general and the economic benefits of the LNP specifically. Many others spoke in favor of the extensive public outreach conducted by PEF on the Project. Numerous members of the public spoke of PEF's history of being a good corporate neighbor. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Many of these concerns and questions are addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. However, several were outside the scope of the matters considered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed, is too costly, and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. But the PSC already considered those issues in certifying a need for the Project. The PSC's determinations are binding, and those issues were not reconsidered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety, storage of nuclear waste, and radioactive effluent contamination of groundwater via "fracture sets." Radiological issues raised by SACE were stricken because they were preempted by federal regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, radiological safety issues were not considered in the certification hearing. The LNP must be approved by the NRC which regulates radiological safety of nuclear power plants. However, there was evidence that the Florida Department of Health monitors groundwater and other media in the vicinity of nuclear plants, and PEF's subsurface investigation did not reveal any evidence of fracture sets below the LNP site. See Finding of Fact 79. Some members of the public expressed concerns regarding potential infrastructure and lifestyle changes to the Town of Inglis. Specifically, members of the public raised concerns related to strain on local public services; traffic impacts; limits on development due to the LNP; and concerns that financial benefits will go only to Levy County and, more specifically, not the Town of Inglis. First, it should be noted that, along with other affected local governments, the Town of Inglis was provided a copy of PEF's nine-volume SCA on June 2, 2008. The Town of Inglis did not file a notice of intent to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and thus waived its right to be a party. In addition, the Town had the opportunity to submit an agency report or to propose conditions of certification pursuant to Section 403.507, Florida Statutes, but did not. As acknowledged in public testimony by one of the Town Council members, the Town of Inglis's Council is unanimously in favor of the LNP. Nonetheless, as detailed in Findings of Fact 143-146, PEF presented competent substantial evidence that public services and facilities in the region of the LNP (which includes the Town of Inglis) are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. PEF also presented evidence that roadways in the vicinity will continue to operate at or above their adopted level of service capacities. See Findings of Fact 135-137. Further, there is no evidence that development will be restricted as a result of the LNP. Current limitations around the CREC related to increases in density are the result of Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, not the CREC or state regulatory requirements. Finally, while significant tax revenues will go to Levy County, PEF presented evidence that the LNP's operation will contribute $521 million annually to the regional economy, which includes the Town of Inglis. See Finding of Fact 148. By way of comparison, although PEF's CREC is in Citrus County (and outside the Crystal River city limits), the Crystal River City Manager testified that PEF has been good for the Citrus County school system, has provided jobs for residents, and has been very helpful to efforts in the community. Other members of the public expressed concerns that the new jobs created by the LNP will not go to local residents. As indicated in Finding of Fact 141, PEF has and will continue to make efforts to train and employ local residents at the LNP. Other members of the public expressed concern that increased salinity in the CFBC would cause saltwater intrusion in the Lower Withlacoochee River. There is no connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River. While the LNP's withdrawals from the CFBC will increase salinity in the CFBC somewhat, it will not cause increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River. See Findings of Fact 66-67. A member of the public expressed concern that PEF's proposed location for the CWIS would prevent future reconnection of the Withlacoochee River in an effort to provide more freshwater to the Lower Withlacoochee River.3 As detailed in Finding of Fact 68, options for reconnection of the Withlacoochee River have been evaluated by SWFWMD, but would not provide adequate increased freshwater flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River. Another issue raised during the public testimony sessions was the impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation surrounding the LNP. As indicated in Findings of Fact 103-104 and 110-111, PEF presented uncontroverted expert testimony that cooling tower drift will not adversely impact natural resources, including wetlands and surface waters. Several residents of Hernando County expressed concern that a portion of the BBW transmission line as proposed along Sunshine Grove Road is incompatible from a public safety standpoint with existing and proposed natural gas pipelines in this same area. PEF presented evidence, however, that this type of collocation of transmission lines and gas pipelines is commonplace throughout Florida. Further, it was not demonstrated that such collocation is prohibited under or contrary to applicable law or agency regulation. Some of these residents focused their concern on whether locating the BBW transmission line in proximity to a natural gas pipeline would be inconsistent with PEF's internal collocation guidelines, which these residents believe prohibit such collocation because an unsafe operating condition will result. As noted by Hernando County’s attorney and DEP's Siting Administrator, there is no basis in statute, ordinance, or rule to require PEF to comply with its internal guidelines. In any event, PEF presented evidence that the purpose of its internal collocation guidelines is to ensure the safety of persons involved in the construction and installation of a pipeline in proximity to an existing transmission line. Further, PEF is bound by the conditions of certification to comply with requirements of the National Electric Safety Code as they relate to induced currents that might affect a gas pipeline. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 76, Condition XLII(H). Other residents were concerned that construction of the BBW transmission line would be unsafe due to the presence of an existing natural gas pipeline. The conditions of certification require, however, that PEF comply with applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards during construction of each of the transmission lines. The conditions of certification also require PEF to contact the Sunshine State One Call service to locate underground utilities prior to construction activities. Finally, after PEF selects its ultimate location for the BBW transmission line, Hernando County and other agencies will have the opportunity to review the proposed location and notify the DEP Siting Coordination Office if it believes that the construction of the transmission line within the selected right-of-way cannot be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of certification. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 65-66, Condition XXXV(A).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Gigi Rollini, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 For the Department of Environmental Protection: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Levy County: Anne Bast Brown, Esquire Levy County Attorney 380 South Court Street Bronson, Florida 32621-6517 For Hillsborough County: Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 27th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 For City of Tampa: Janice McLean, Esquire Office of the City Attorney Old City Hall, 5th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 For the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: E. Leon Jacobs, Esquire Williams & Jacobs 1720 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5506
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain a two-unit nuclear powered electrical generating facility in Levy County, Florida, including a heavy haul road, site access roads, and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines, subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended; and Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain each of the following electrical transmission line corridors as associated facilities, as described above and subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, Crystal River Transmission Line, Sumter Transmission Line, Levy North Transmission Line, Levy South Transmission Line, Brookridge Transmission Line, Brooksville West Transmission Line, Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
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.
